Roberto Martinez discussion

[bluestevon]

Correction; I don't think that any sensible person can deny that the missed penalty was the turning point in the game.

How come then we bossed the game from that point on until the sub was made and really should have scored another when Lukaku was through 1 on 1 Dave, or to think that the sub was the turning point would mean criticising your beloved Bobby

 

[AJC5]

How is a missed penalty unavoidable but an ill-judged substitution or the failure to cut out a cross is not?

• There isn't a player with a 100 per cent penalty record. Missed penalties are therefore unavoidable. They are not a consequence of poor coaching or tactics or even player error. Conceding goals from crosses is clearly avoidable as demonstrated by every other team in the league.

 

[Whistlin' Dixie]

3-0 and we are home and dry.

We'll never know...And tbh I doubt I'd be comfortable with a martinez Everton side leading 3-0....Even with 5 minutes left!

As soon as the opposition score when we're ahead, our arses go.

Every. Single. Time.

It's frequently only a matter of minutes before the opp. score again.

Garbage.

 

[davek]

If you were Moshiri, would you "invest heavily" unless you were confident you had the right man at the helm?
Face it, the jury is still out on Martinez - and that's best case...

If I invested heavily in squad building and the money was wasted I'd look at that dimly. If, on the other hand, I'd acquired shares only, my interest would be just that the value of them wasn't taking a nosedive. That's not happening, because we are solidly ensconced in the PL and will remain so, and the exposure through games like SFs and the QF coming up - and hopefully Wembley appearance(s) to come - is a boost to the club profile.

As said above: it would be an incredible position to take if you were a new major share holder if you sacked someone who had a) not wasted any cash of yours, and b ) proven to be adept at stretching cash to acquire a lot of quality players. Utterly incredible scenario.

And by the way, the value of the current squad must have also been a major attraction to him becoming involved with EFC in the first place.

 

[bluestevon]

If I invested heavily in squad building and the money was wasted I'd look at that dimly. If, on the other hand, I'd acquired shares only, my interest would be just that the value of them wasn't taking a nosedive. That's not happening, because we are solidly ensconced in the PL and will remain so, and the exposure through games like SFs and the QF coming up - and hopefully Wembley appearance(s) to come - is a boost to the club profile.

As said above: it would be a an incredible position to take if you were a new major share holder if you sacked someone who had a) not wasted any cash of yours, and b ) proven to be adept at stretching cash to acquire a lot of quality players. Utterly incredible scenario.

And by the way, the value of the current squad must have also been a major attraction to him becoming involved with EFC.

If you took over a company and the manager of that company was doing [Poor language removed] at the main aim of his job then you'd replace him mate, give it time for Moshiri to evaluate him fully and wave bye bye to your Messiah

 

[oldblue]

Exactly why is a substitution that looks poor, but we have no concrete evidence influenced the final score, still being talked about more than a sending off, a missed pen and a clear pen denied?
People want Martinez out and that's fair enough but from what I've seen picking out certain incidents and ignoring others just cements personal bias and polarises opinion.
People who like Roberto and people on the fence are saying he probably got that wrong. He also got stuff right.
But if you went to any group of supporters without any opinion on Martinez and asked what the key incidents in this game were then that substitution would probably not get a look in. So this reads like closed minds to me. I'm sorry if that's wrong but it's just the impression I've ended up with. Especially when a handful of the people pushing the importance of this were the same people telling us it was ridiculous to have any other opinion than Mirallas starting every game.

Leicester have been incredibly resilient this season but against Arsenal folded in the dying minutes when down to ten men.

Apologies to everyone with really balanced opinions on Martinez and want him gone but some of this is now clearly a witch hunt.

 

[Stanley Parker]

Think he already knows.

Slaven Bilic said; If they scored a penalty, we could have lost three or four nil.

And so we go round in circles...

 

[Stanley Parker]

How come then we bossed the game from that point on until the sub was made and really should have scored another when Lukaku was through 1 on 1 Dave, or to think that the sub was the turning point would mean criticising your beloved Bobby

Slaven Bilic said; If they scored a penalty, we could have lost three or four nil.

 

[bluestevon]

Exactly why is a substitution that looks poor, but we have no concrete evidence influenced the final score, still being talked about more than a sending off, a missed pen and a clear pen denied?
People want Martinez out and that's fair enough but from what I've seen picking out certain incidents and ignoring others just cements personal bias and polarises opinion.
People who like Roberto and people on the fence are saying he probably got that wrong. He also got stuff right.
But if you went to any group of supporters without any opinion on Martinez what the key incidents in this game that substitution would probably not get a look in. So this reads like closed minds to me. I'm sorry if that's wrong but it's just the impression I've ended up with. Especially when a handful of the people pushing the importance of this were the same people telling us it was ridiculous to have any other opinion than Mirallas starting every game.

Leicester have been incredibly resilient this season but against Arsenal folded in the dying minutes when down to ten men.

Apologies to everyone with really balanced opinions on Martinez and want him gone but some of this is now clearly a witch hunt.

Watched that game and they didn't fold mate, even comparing that to the way we absolutely have collapsed multiple times this year is a bit silly

 

[Little Ralphy]

But you think that Barry, McCarthy and Barkley are limited players. And you say that we need more men in midfield to deny the opposition space.


And both Besic and Mirallas have their rash moments.


Exactly what system do you think Martinez needs to play to get this squad into the Champions League?

Maybe I didn’t put it across properly in my first post. I said to play the system he is trying to play, he needs a certain type of player in midfield and he doesn't have them. I don't think any team really does, his system is flawed. He needs to play a different one. I didn’t say we need more men in midfield to deny space, I said that’s the only time we look like we can defend, because we don’t have the ball to push out. So we end up in our own half and naturally it denies space. I don’t think Martinez sets Everton up to counter away from home, it appears to be just a by-product of being the away side and teams wanting to attack us in their own stadium. Same as when at home we play the likes of City and Spurs. They try to attack us and we get compacted in our own defensive third and are then able to counter with the players we have. But when we play sides who are happy to play for a point, we have to advance more and then gaps open up everywhere and the game becomes very open. Sunderland this season and Wolfsburg last were good examples of this, we won both but mainly because our forward play was better than theirs. Both sides had better chances in the games than we did.


Personally I don't think Barkley is limited at all, RM just doesn't give him enough defensive responsibility. Barkley has matured loads as a footballer and still will, it’s time he was asked to do some defensive work to add that side of his game and help the team.


It’s not up to me to come up with a system to play. Every game is different and every situation is different so it all depends on the fixture how you should set the side up. For example when we were 1-0 down vs a WBA side who had done the same thing the year before in parking the bus, we didn’t need 2 defensive midfielders but we did need proper width on both sides to stretch the game. But you wouldn’t start that system against Man City for example as it’s a different fixture. I think management has gone past the one size fits all approach. Look at Klopp at the rs, they destroyed City away when he went with a different system and sort of a ‘false 9’ with lots of movement off the forward line, then in the Cup Final he played with Sturridge as a striker and they looked awful. Back in the league and he goes back to the ‘false 9’ system and they hammer City again. You can argue he got the Cup Final wrong, but I’m using it here as an example that different systems can help produce different results.

 

[Stanley Parker]

We'll never know...And tbh I doubt I'd be comfortable with a martinez Everton side leading 3-0....Even with 5 minutes left!

As soon as the opposition score when we're ahead, our arses go. Every. Single. Time.

It's frequently only a matter of minutes before the opp. score again. Garbage.

Slaven Bilic said; If they scored a penalty, we could have lost three or four nil.

 

[chazzle_dazzle]

Slaven Bilic said; If they scored a penalty, we could have lost three or four nil.

Could being the operative word. we COULD have finished the game 3-3 after the same substitution was made after hitting the pen. You will never know.

Fact is we didn't, and we didn't win 4-0.

We got beat, 3-2.

 

[bluestevon]

Slaven Bilic said; If they scored a penalty, we could have lost three or four nil.

Slaven Bilic 'Everton can't deal with crosses into the box'

So if you accpet his word as gold doesn't that make martinez wrong stating that we have no problem defending crosses, or is Slaven only right some of the time when it suits what you want to hear?

 

[Little Ralphy]

Exactly why is a substitution that looks poor, but we have no concrete evidence influenced the final score, still being talked about more than a sending off, a missed pen and a clear pen denied?

I think for a lot of people they saw it in real time as the substitution took place. Everyone could see the job Lennon was doing and it was a massive surprise the way he was replaced and the effect it would have on the team. Prior to that decision Martinez had managed the game well, but that decision played a very large part in us ending up with nothing from what would otherwise have been a real positive moment. Add to that it's happened all too often this season and surely you can see why people may view that as a watershed moment.

 

[Lanolin]

You've avoided my point.

The example I gave was of a substitution - Alcaraz coming on for Besic - that the fans did not like but did not understand.

The fans do not have to like the manager's selections or subs, they don't have to understand them either. But if they work, people will be happy.

I didn't understand why we went 3 at the back on saturday, but i have no qualms about agreeing that it was relatively successful. I had no idea why we selected Kone out wide away at Southampton, but it turned out well. I thought he'd lost his mind when he brought Deulofeu on in the derby 2 years ago but it turned out to be one of the most refreshing, game changing subs i've ever seen. The thing is, while not necessarily immediately understanding the logic, the way the games panned out allowed me to see the merits in what we were doing.

There have been numerous instances where i've understood his logic at the time of a change, but the way the game has panned out has shown that it wasn't a good move. Kone coming on at City was one, Baines making his comeback against Palace before christmas was another. Then there are the ones that look like a terrible idea, and prove to be a terrible idea, like the one on saturday.

The sub you're talking about is a grey area as far as i'm concerned. I'm not entirely convinced that he brought Alcaraz on specifically with a view to freeing up the wing backs. I don't dispute that it could be said to have had that effect (although Coleman popping up in the opposition box is not exactly rare even when he's playing in a 4) but as @Saint Domingo has mentioned, the fact that he only did it with 5 minutes to go makes me wonder why he didn't do it earlier if it was a tactical masterstroke to aid the attack, so I think i'll reserve judgement on that one.