Ronald Koeman discussion

[ianefc]

Really don't get why these are seen as opposites. The best Everton teams I've seen have played great football and been winners. There's no contradiction in demanding both.

They're not. Nor do we play the football that is being made out, take our goal V Palace, it was measured, we took our time working it around the edge of the box (if you believed the tripe wrote on here we'd of just launched it into the box) the ball made its way to Holgate whose low driven cross wasn't too far from Lukaku, Then Davies picked the ball up and drove forward before finding our right back in the box who scored the goal.

Which English team plays beautiful football and wins stuff? I'm not saying their isn't one, just interested on the general consensus, for me it'd probably be Arsenal that are the benchmark, they haven't won the league playing that way for over a decade.

 

[jceverton]

They're not. Nor do we play the football that is being made out, take our goal V Palace, it was measured, we took our time working it around the edge of the box (if you believed the tripe wrote on here we'd of just launched it into the box) the ball made its way to Holgate whose low driven cross wasn't too far from Lukaku, Then Davies picked the ball up and drove forward before finding our right back in the box who scored the goal.

Which English team plays beautiful football and wins stuff? I'm not saying their isn't one, just interested on the general consensus, for me it'd probably be Arsenal that are the benchmark, they haven't won the league playing that way for over a decade.

Man Utd under Ferguson generally played good attacking football. Good football is also about good defending. In my opinion it's a balance between the two. Barcelona under Pep generally had a great balance, Arsenal just don't defend particularly well. If they did they'd have won the league. This was my big problem with Martinez paid absolutely no attention to good defending.

 

[ToffeeTim]

I don't think it works anywhere anymore. Even Barca have jibbed it a bit. It had it's time for sure but seems, thankfully, it was a bit of a fad that was quickly worked out by opponents.

Basically if you don't have Xavi or Iniesta it doesn't work.

Yep pretty much this. People seem to have forgotten or underestimated how sensational xavi was, and especially with a peak iniesta beside him. I'm maybe over egging it a little but he was the best centre mid I've seen. Technically he was immaculate. Perfect passes, move and repeat. Utterly ground teams into the dirt. But without him, barca have changed. They've been forced too. Another xavi won't appear too often.

We haven't a xavi nor the barca collective so to be effective we need to mix it up with going direct at times. I think we went long a bit too often during our bad run but we've got a far better balance now. It shpuldnt be hoof or tika. It should be balanced and using your players strengths. We need to be able to change it up. We were depressingly predictable in the last 2 seasons. Teams suss it out and the game changes. You need to have flexibility.

 

[Tony Hibbert's 3rd leg]

There's an art to defending as there is attacking. I love to watch great team performances.

I am continually impressed with Koeman. Take a look at some of our highlights and our organisation has been outstanding of late. From defence through to attack. I wouldn't call the 5 at the back negative but suitable. I've seen Holgate get forward loads, as well as Funes Mori (With way less success).

Certain styles require more of certain areas. Liverpool and City - They have to score lots of goals to win games. Tottenham and United are more compact - Often low scoring but tight. Best utilisation and balance I've seen is from Chelsea.

You can have great attacking performances or great defensive performances to pick up points. But I doubt managers are happy unless both are in harmony. Koeman strikes me as a man that isn't happy unless the whole team performs and I like that.

 

[ianefc]

Man Utd under Ferguson generally played good attacking football. Good football is also about good defending. In my opinion it's a balance between the two. Barcelona under Pep generally had a great balance, Arsenal just don't defend particularly well. If they did they'd have won the league. This was my big problem with Martinez paid absolutely no attention to good defending.

That's why he's a failure of a manager. I also think that Koeman stripped us back to basics when he got here, the slow period of results was inevitable, that came with nonsense allegations of him not playing youth and having poor player moral, I'm glad it's slowly starting to come together, he's getting Barkley and Lukaku to their very best, even Mirallas is reemerging, Coleman is back to his best and now we have a proper coaching staff (including GK coach) even Robles is shaping up, although I doubt he'll be long term number 1. Only really Mori looks a weak link at the moment, although his overall game is good he has a major mistake in him every game, like at Palace when he was completely wrong side of Remy so he thought dragging him back was the answer, which could've been a penalty.

All in all Koeman has done really well, he stayed calm when results weren't going our way and he's stayed relaxed when results have/are going our way.

Will we get 70+ points this season? Probably not, but the league is stronger than it was 3 years ago. Will we get sub 50 next season? Not a chance in hell.

Long story short we're on the right track scoring some really nice goals, whilst not conceding.

 

[ianefc]

Man Utd under Ferguson generally played good attacking football. Good football is also about good defending. In my opinion it's a balance between the two. Barcelona under Pep generally had a great balance, Arsenal just don't defend particularly well. If they did they'd have won the league. This was my big problem with Martinez paid absolutely no attention to good defending.

Also, whilst I agree on Ferguson and the standard of UTD's football, he had 6 years to get things going at UTD, I realise no one would get that in the modern game, but the criticism of Koeman after 6 months of undeniable progress is embarrassing. Really embarrassing.

 

[ianefc]

There's an art to defending as there is attacking. I love to watch great team performances.

I am continually impressed with Koeman. Take a look at some of our highlights and our organisation has been outstanding of late. From defence through to attack. I wouldn't call the 5 at the back negative but suitable. I've seen Holgate get forward loads, as well as Funes Mori (With way less success).

Certain styles require more of certain areas. Liverpool and City - They have to score lots of goals to win games. Tottenham and United are more compact - Often low scoring but tight. Best utilisation and balance I've seen is from Chelsea.

You can have great attacking performances or great defensive performances to pick up points. But I doubt managers are happy unless both are in harmony. Koeman strikes me as a man that isn't happy unless the whole team performs and I like that.

And if you need proof, the only time I've heard him completely satisfied about any match or even any stage of a match was his appraisal of the 2nd half V City. All other victories have still resulted in constructive criticism (nothing but the best is what he's clearly after) and he's never called a defeat phenomenal.

 

[Tony Hibbert's 3rd leg]

And if you need proof, the only time I've heard him complete satisfied about any match or even any stage of a match was his appraisal of the 2nd half V City. All other victories have still resulted in constructive criticism (nothing but the best is what he's clearly after) and he's never called a defeat phenomenal.

Exactly. I noticed he only gives credit or scorn to those who deserve it which is absolutely how it should be regardless of the final result.

I knew the wider issues in our slump were largely down to some of the players more than it was Koeman. In our bad run every single post match interview he moaned about the lack of intensity at the start. He mentioned it all the time. He's a man who won't mention something like that if he isn't working on it. So when we continually didn't start games well I could tell some players just couldn't follow his instructions.

He's found a first 11 that are listening to him, and it's nice to have some competition for places for once. He's probably the most uncharismatic manager in the top 7. I dont mind the strictness if it's getting results. It's working on Barkley. It's working on Davies. The players are eager to impress because he'll ruthlessly leave you behind if you don't.

 

[jceverton]

Also, whilst I agree on Ferguson and the standard of UTD's football, he had 6 years to get things going at UTD, I realise no one would get that in the modern game, but the criticism of Koeman after 6 months of undeniable progress is embarrassing. Really embarrassing.

Think footballs been really poor to be honest, and it's been a valid criticism. It's picked up the last few games and if it continues in that vein then I for one won't be complaining.

 

[when i score we riot]

Here's a thing though - i believe tactics are a relatively small part of the job. To simplify it, most intelligent people can read up on the theory of what beats what, similar to rock paper scissors, and although there are big shifts and paradigms (like the barca fad mentioned earlier, or why everyone and their dog are playing 3 at the back because of Antonio Conte) the tactics only demand to know theory, which anyone can do, and also demand the awareness to read play and figure out what the oppo is all about.

Now, given how Koeman seems to have a good brain behind his face and tons of experience at top level to have his awareness, i'd argue his very biggest strength is his authority. He is strict, a sort of looming figure, and his experience and phenomenal know-how are his greatest asset. Seriously, out of all the half-clownish managers, or the extreme erosion of authority managers face (just look at Moyes, or even Wenger), he must be one of the most imposing bosses.

There are many ways of achieving authority. Klopp does it through charisma and agreeableness, for example. But that also has its caveats. Koeman's style is all about classic authority, and he does it well. That, too, has its drawbacks. But honestly i think very few managers can handle this style. And those who do, are mostly at the top clubs

 

[bitter-no-better]

The thing which impresses me most about Koeman is he adapts well. We have played different formations this season. We have played different tactics. Some performances have been scrappy and others we have seen great team performances. Just 7 months into his reign and it in that time he is Improving the squad as well as looking to move on those not deemed up for it. He cares not for reputation or potential in some of the players. No bull. No excuses.

 

[bicycleheader]

As we know, when people repeat a lie often enough, people engage with the lie, rather than call it out, which ends up giving validity to it.

Nice to have a reasonable conversation, but feel that very soon we should start insulting each other and disagreeing with every reasonable point, just for the sake of it.

Agree with that first sentence, it's the basis of many a long running argument in here...

...You incredulous dolt.

 

[Bazlar]

Man Utd under Ferguson generally played good attacking football. Good football is also about good defending. In my opinion it's a balance between the two. Barcelona under Pep generally had a great balance, Arsenal just don't defend particularly well. If they did they'd have won the league. This was my big problem with Martinez paid absolutely no attention to good defending.

Arsenal won things when Wenger still had the George Graham defence playing. Dixon, Adams, Bould and Winterburn. I know he added Keown to that but since that defence has gone they haven't won much

 

[rochdaleblue]

They're not. Nor do we play the football that is being made out, take our goal V Palace, it was measured, we took our time working it around the edge of the box (if you believed the tripe wrote on here we'd of just launched it into the box) the ball made its way to Holgate whose low driven cross wasn't too far from Lukaku, Then Davies picked the ball up and drove forward before finding our right back in the box who scored the goal.

Which English team plays beautiful football and wins stuff? I'm not saying their isn't one, just interested on the general consensus, for me it'd probably be Arsenal that are the benchmark, they haven't won the league playing that way for over a decade.

Look at Chelsea, they are the benchmark. They do have some exceptional players in their team, but are also adaptable on how they play. They can play short, intricate passing or go longer and more direct to Costa. In other words, they can grind out wins, 'winning ugly' as they say and have a solid foundation at the back. We too have a powerful forward, but nowhere near the creativity and pace in behind they have. This time next year I'm hopeful with the right signings 'we can mix up our style of football' but above all else have a consistent winning team.

 

[when i score we riot]

Look at Chelsea, they are the benchmark. They do have some exceptional players in their team, but are also adaptable on how they play. They can play short, intricate passing or go longer and more direct to Costa. In other words, they can grind out wins, 'winning ugly' as they say and have a solid foundation at the back. We too have a powerful forward, but nowhere near the creativity and pace in behind they have. This time next year I'm hopeful with the right signings 'we can mix up our style of football' but above all else have a consistent winning team.

Chelsea are a great case study. Here you have a team which in no way lack quality, or versatility or strength in depth. Their problems stemmed from team spirit, which was completely shot. Leicester were the total antithesis, a team winning entirely on team spirit.

Now, stability is back at chelsea, but they also have the joy of bringing about the big paradigm shift, the flavour of the month. Everyone saw what Conte was all about at the euros - of course, the passion and spirit are key, but he is IMO responsible for the tactical paradigm shift as well.

It's not only that he has brought tactical coherence and adaptablity to chelsea, he has done The Thing That Couldn't Be Done: He made them play like italians. In the Premier League! Blasphemy of the highest order! Not only did he do that, he made them play it so well that everyone else has started to emulate it - our Ronald included, to be frank.

As i wrote in my last post it's definetly not down to tactics alone, but this shift has brilliantly demonstrated what is important about the managers' job, and also what brilliant tactics one can create from the 3-4-3/3-5-2 as a starting point.