Ronald Koeman discussion

[CahillsCornerFlag]

Our summer shopping list, based on need, Rom going and Barkley staying should've been;

1x goalkeeper
4x defenders (lb, cb, cb, rb)
2x wingers
1x attacking mid
3x strikers

Now that sounds like a lot of players until you realise that we almost went and signed that many. However we signed;

1x goalkeeper
2x defenders (and Martina is gash)
1x winger (a 19 year old on deadline day at that)
3x attacking mids
1x striker
And Onyekuru who doesn't count this year.

Doesn't take a genius to see that we'll be an unbalanced team with those signings, that we'll lack a focal point and yet still be shaky at the back. The buck stops with Walsh on transfers so I'd be more inclined to blame him for this mess. A DOF is supposed to have a clear vision of how the team will play, and sign the players to fit that vision accordingly. He's done no such thing this summer, he's just gone out and signed a bunch of good players regardless of their positions, whilst missing out on key targets which would've made us more rounded.

 

[BlueToff]

We actually didn't have that many signings under Moyes (for much of his reign) but played with mostly the same players which allowed for better chemistry, understanding and awareness. When I watched the game on the weekend as well as the other three games this season, there was simply no chemistry or understanding between any of the players.

Koeman would have been far better off playing all his old guard like Mirallas, Davies, Jags, Besic, McCarthy (is he fit?) and then slowly introducing some of his newer players. I know that sounds dumb sitting all your new buys on the bench, but throwing guys like Rooney, Klaasen, Sandro, Sigurdsson out there where they were so bad they couldn't create anything and you get days like Chelsea and Tottenham games. If you include the European games, the new side hasn't played well in 8 games.

As well as that, this team has zero identity right now. I'd say thats what all the top teams excel at.

I mean, bar Kev and McCarthy, all three of those have featured relatively prominently.

It has more to do with the tactics used.

He's playing a system which is in the main based around having a presence up top in the last few games against the three best teams in the league, which is fine, but the thing is he's playing Sandro there. DCL has proven he's the best player we have for that role at the moment in the league. Add to that he tried to shoehorn Rooney, Klaassen and Gylfi into a 4-2-3-1 formation and it was always going to be a recipe for disaster on Saturday.

In Europe, we'll play differently.

 

[DualityNSNO]

I mean, bar Kev and McCarthy, all three of those have featured relatively prominently.

It has more to do with the tactics used.

He's playing a system which is in the main based around having a presence up top in the last few games against the three best teams in the league, which is fine, but the thing is he's playing Sandro there. DCL has proven he's the best player we have for that role at the moment in the league. Add to that he tried to shoehorn Rooney, Klaassen and Gylfi into a 4-2-3-1 formation and it was always going to be a recipe for disaster on Saturday.

In Europe, we'll play differently.

This really.

I get that he wants to go more through the middle, but we had 0 players out who were even remotely widemen, other than Baines and Cuck Martinez.

 

[BlueToff]

Can we just set this straight.

It isn't Koeman's fault we didn't get a striker in. It's whoever deals with the transfers. Koeman said all summer long he was wanting an extra defender as CB/LB cover, and a striker. For months.

That's on the board and whoever deals with getting the deals done - deals that earlier in the summer went very well.

It's on Koeman to use the best of what he's got. The performances vs Chelsea and Spurs haven't been there because he's played a system that hasn't allowed the very good players we have to play their natural games, which against the top sides is a must if we are to get results.

Three attacking mids all in the same side offering no width or pace in a 4-2-3-1 - with an inexperienced (in the PL) relatively small striker up top to boot - was madness against Spurs, who played with three excellent ball-playing CBs, flying full-backs and one of the best front threes going.

Add to that keeping Martina on the whole game and the whole show from Koeman on Saturday was really, really bad.

The thing is now is for Koeman to learn from the mistakes and correct them.

Hopefully, the board do the same come January and get those extra players in we evidently require.

 

[ijjysmith]

Mad that people want Koeman out.

He's the best defender we have at the club.

 

[BlueToff]

This really.

I get that he wants to go more through the middle, but we had 0 players out who were even remotely widemen, other than Baines and Cuck Martinez.

And because of Spurs' pace from their full-backs, Baines and Cuco (as bad as he is defensively, going forward he does offer some pace and power and puts in a decent cross) were just pressed right back.

Because we had no outlet - either a winger in the three behind the striker or a striker who could hold the ball up and run in behind - our three no.10s were pretty much redundant and we just sat deeper and deeper, with Schneiderlin and Gueye both on top of our defence pretty much.

None of the players played well, but the tactics were woeful. He changed it, but ridiculously didn't change the shape.

Davies was a wasted sub unless he was going to come on at rb. He literally came on and did just what Klaassen had and hadn't done. DCL was just as isolated as Sandro.

I hate playing manager because clearly it's not that simple, but on the face of it, Koeman could have easily made two tweaks that - based on evidence of previous games - would have at least seen us put up a better fist of it.

DCL on for one of the no.10's, not Sandro, meaning we had two forwards (one of them could drop wide) but most importantly more pace in the forward areas, allowing Rooney and Gylfi more space, and a competent defender at right-back in Holgate. Instantly, with that tweak, you've given the team energy and presence where required.

He should have been able to see that we didn't need another midfielder to come on.

 

[toffeeblue9]

And because of Spurs' pace from their full-backs, Baines and Cuco (as bad as he is defensively, going forward he does offer some pace and power and puts in a decent cross) were just pressed right back.

Because we had no outlet - either a winger in the three behind the striker or a striker who could hold the ball up and run in behind - our three no.10s were pretty much redundant and we just sat deeper and deeper, with Schneiderlin and Gueye both on top of our defence pretty much.

None of the players played well, but the tactics were woeful. He changed it, but ridiculously didn't change the shape.

Davies was a wasted sub unless he was going to come on at rb. He literally came on and did just what Klaassen had and hadn't done. DCL was just as isolated as Sandro.

I hate playing manager because clearly it's not that simple, but on the face of it, Koeman could have easily made two tweaks that - based on evidence of previous games - would have at least seen us put up a better fist of it.

DCL on for one of the no.10's, not Sandro, meaning we had two forwards (one of them could drop wide) but most importantly more pace in the forward areas, allowing Rooney and Gylfi more space, and a competent defender at right-back in Holgate. Instantly, with that tweak, you've given the team energy and presence where required.

He should have been able to see that we didn't need another midfielder to come on.

Agree with this. For all of the failings of the players on the pitch, I thought we were tactically poor on Saturday. Even the change at half time exacerbated the issue of Spurs' width overwhelming us

Think the "lack of pace" thing is overdone a little bit - Spurs are a great example. They don't have anyone with any real pace. I guess Sissoko might qualify, but he plays in a position where that pace should do less damage. They do have three very good centre backs, full backs who can give them natural width and intelligent movement and quality in midfield from Alli and Eriksen, plus one of the best strikers in the league.

To me, the Spurs model may well be what Koeman is trying to implement, largely. Problem being that other than the possible exception of a fit Coleman, I'm not sure we have a single player who gets into the Spurs first XI

 

[gonetomorrow]

Pace down the wings and creativity in midfield. These things we singularly lack and teams like Spurs have.
Maybe with fully fit Coleman and Bolasie plus a re-engaged Ross?
Too many ifs and buts I'm afraid.

 

[BernieWright13]

Agree with this. For all of the failings of the players on the pitch, I thought we were tactically poor on Saturday. Even the change at half time exacerbated the issue of Spurs' width overwhelming us

Think the "lack of pace" thing is overdone a little bit - Spurs are a great example. They don't have anyone with any real pace. I guess Sissoko might qualify, but he plays in a position where that pace should do less damage. They do have three very good centre backs, full backs who can give them natural width and intelligent movement and quality in midfield from Alli and Eriksen, plus one of the best strikers in the league.

To me, the Spurs model may well be what Koeman is trying to implement, largely. Problem being that other than the possible exception of a fit Coleman, I'm not sure we have a single player who gets into the Spurs first XI

I wonder if anyone (including the poster boy for Greggs himself) actually has a clue?

 

[toffeeblue9]

Pace down the wings and creativity in midfield. These things we singularly lack and teams like Spurs have.
Maybe with fully fit Coleman and Bolasie plus a re-engaged Ross?
Too many ifs and buts I'm afraid.

I don't see much of that in the Spurs squad if I'm honest

 

[BlueToff]

Agree with this. For all of the failings of the players on the pitch, I thought we were tactically poor on Saturday. Even the change at half time exacerbated the issue of Spurs' width overwhelming us

Think the "lack of pace" thing is overdone a little bit - Spurs are a great example. They don't have anyone with any real pace. I guess Sissoko might qualify, but he plays in a position where that pace should do less damage. They do have three very good centre backs, full backs who can give them natural width and intelligent movement and quality in midfield from Alli and Eriksen, plus one of the best strikers in the league.

To me, the Spurs model may well be what Koeman is trying to implement, largely. Problem being that other than the possible exception of a fit Coleman, I'm not sure we have a single player who gets into the Spurs first XI

He definitely is and has cited Spurs as a team we should aim to replicate in their pressing etc.

However, he got it badly wrong on Saturday and needs to learn from that.

 

[R934]

Can we just set this straight.

It isn't Koeman's fault we didn't get a striker in. It's whoever deals with the transfers. Koeman said all summer long he was wanting an extra defender as CB/LB cover, and a striker. For months.

That's on the board and whoever deals with getting the deals done.

So we're just going to brush aside the fact Koeman is part of the process - signing, selling, and identifying players.

Officially he may not be the figurehead of this new DOF system, but he's quite clearly got influence in what happens.
With that in mind, why did he okay the sale of Lukaku without a replacement coming in first? Yes it's easy to be Mr Hindsight, but that failing lies with the manager - unless were going down the route the board have sold over the managers head?

You can also throw the fact Lukaku wanted out, he's wanted out for a good few years it doesn't stop him performing. Nor should we overlook it being a World Cup year, so if he was 'forced' to stay he'd have to perform regardless.

I also won't buy the excuse that Giroud was are main man and we were confident of signing him. Get the player through the door first, then okay the sale of your only centre forward.

He had 2 years on his contract, the ball was well an truely in our court.

 

[toffeeblue9]

So we're just going to brush aside the fact Koeman is part of the process - signing, selling, and identifying players.

Officially he may not be the figurehead of this new DOF system, but he's quite clearly got influence in what happens.
With that in mind, why did he okay the sale of Lukaku without a replacement coming in first? Yes it's easy to be Mr Hindsight, but that failing lies with the manager - unless were going down the route the board have sold over the managers head?

You can also throw the fact Lukaku wanted out, he's wanted out for a good few years it doesn't stop him performing. Nor should we overlook it being a World Cup year, so if he was 'forced' to stay he'd have to perform regardless.

I also won't buy the excuse that Giroud was are main man and we were confident of signing him. Get the player through the door first, then okay the sale of your only centre forward.

He had 2 years on his contract, the ball was well an truely in our court.

Think you're overstating the role that Koeman has in the whole process

We don't have a "manager" in the old-fashioned sense of the word. We might call him the manager, but to all intents and purposes, he is the head coach.

He can tell Walsh what sort of player he wants and, by his own admission, although he and Walsh should ideally agree on each signing, Walsh can go above his head and sign a player anyway if he wants to.

We clearly promised Lukaku last summer that he could leave if we didn't get into the CL and he wanted to go. Keeping him would have been breaking our word, which means a lot when you're wanting to sign players - if we go back on promises etc, it makes recruiting players who know about it more difficult.

I struggle to see why Lukaku leaving and us not signing a replacement is in any way Koeman's fault, given the division of responsibility at Everton nowadays - unless you blame Koeman for not getting a CL place last season (which I would suggest was unrealistic if so).

 

[R934]

Think you're overstating the role that Koeman has in the whole process

We don't have a "manager" in the old-fashioned sense of the word. We might call him the manager, but to all intents and purposes, he is the head coach.

He can tell Walsh what sort of player he wants and, by his own admission, although he and Walsh should ideally agree on each signing, Walsh can go above his head and sign a player anyway if he wants to.

We clearly promised Lukaku last summer that he could leave if we didn't get into the CL and he wanted to go. Keeping him would have been breaking our word, which means a lot when you're wanting to sign players - if we go back on promises etc, it makes recruiting players who know about it more difficult.

I struggle to see why Lukaku leaving and us not signing a replacement is in any way Koeman's fault, given the division of responsibility at Everton nowadays - unless you blame Koeman for not getting a CL place last season (which I would suggest was unrealistic if so).

We made a promise to Lukaku last summer - sorry I may mave missed that. The same Lukaku who was 99.999999% signing -thou some will say now that was a ploy by his agent- & who Koeman continually talked up as wanting to keep regardless of the contract standoff.

I think you are understating his role, ultimately if Koeman is the outspoken and honest manager he is portrayed to be, I'm sure he'd have said something contrary to what happened.

If players signed were not of his ilk, he's already shown he'll disregard them, similarly if a player was sold without his permission he'd say something.

One thing is for certain it is easy to throw blame around under this DOF system. That there lies the problem, the lack of justification for mistakes, is easy to shirk when so many fingers are in the same pie.

That said, clearly the problem is of our making, DOF systems work elsewhere but obviously a few cogs in our system don't.

And before you interpret that last sentence as calling Koeman a failing cog, far from it, but he shouldn't be absolved of blame.

 

[toffeeblue9]

We made a promise to Lukaku last summer - sorry I may mave missed that. The same Lukaku who was 99.999999% signing -thou some will say now that was a ploy by his agent- & who Koeman continually talked up as wanting to keep regardless of the contract standoff.

I think you are understating his role, ultimately if Koeman is the outspoken and honest manager he is portrayed to be, I'm sure he'd have said something contrary to what happened.

If players signed were not of his ilk, he's already shown he'll disregard them, similarly is a player was sold without his permission he'd say something.

One thing is for certain it is easy to throw blame around under this DOF system. That there lies the problem, the lack of justification for mistakes, is easy to shirk when so many fingers are in the same pie.

That said, clearly the problem is of our making, DOF systems work elsewhere but obviously a few cogs in our system don't.

And before you interpret that last sentence as calling Koeman a failing cog, far from it, but he shouldn't be absolved of blame.

I'm still not seeing how he gets the blame for transfers - he doesn't even have the final say over who we sell or sign.

As happened with Belfodil, he can make clear he doesn't want a particular player and that may influence whether we do end up signing someone or not

But as for him getting the blame about selling Lukaku or not signing a striker? Nah, not seeing it at all.

EDIT - Quick Google, but Raiola makes reference to the "promise" here...

http://www.express.co.uk/sport/foot...Mino-Raiola-latest-gossip-Chelsea-Real-Madrid