2023/24 Sean Dyche

[degsy]

This is just so you can throw a wobbler if a result doesn't go our way which is a ridiculous standard to hold for a team that's nearly got relegated two seasons on the bounce

No, it's because you only play one game at a time.

You're not as good as your  Last game (that's history) - in reality, you're only as good as your  next game.

Hence - one Game at a time

 

[jazzy]

I don't want safe. Everton deserve better.



Lennon is a serial winner. Committed and passionate.

Mate I'm disappointed and unhappy that Everton have fallen so badly that right now Dyche is probably the right man in charge but we have to face facts.

Do I see him as a long term appointment who will bring great football back to Goodison or even BMD ? No absolutely not . However the thought that Neil Lennon could do a better job now or in the future is just bonkers.

 

[Neiler]

 

[ClausThomsen]

No, it's because you only play one game at a time.

You're not as good as your  Last game (that's history) - in reality, you're only as good as your  next game.

Hence - one Game at a time

So any criticism or praise doesn't hold water then?

You can't realistically assess or criticise what has yet to happen (that's the future which nobody can see) and the previous game (that's history) is no indicator of how good a team is.

 

[ArtetaMagic]

Neil Lennon lads? Anyone?? Lads????

 

[MikeH72]

Oh dear...

lol fair enough, we’ll play that game x

 

[degsy]

So any criticism or praise doesn't hold water then?

Even If it's justified, it's just yours or my opinion
mine is - he's doing OK for now

You can't realistically assess or criticise what has yet to happen (that's the future which nobody can see) and the previous game (that's history) is no indicator of how good a team is.

True, with 'One Game at a time' you can't by definition say what will happen in the future.
But you can look back and maybe identify a trend.
As a manager you are almost always not far from the sack.
Dyche isn't too close just right now - but that can soon change

 

[Egil Olsen]

Far too much is said about the perceived style of play a team adopts these days. Conversations about what a team is like to watch are a bit snobby and more how I’d imagine a neutral to view things.

It would be lovely to be playing silky football and winning games, but the importance of this has been elevated to unreasonable and unsustainable levels by fans.

The debate about style of play is nothing new. It's never going to go away.

I would also argue that football belongs to the entertainment industry, but what is entertaining to watch is subjective.

Many hold up Manchester City, Arsenal, etc, as the gold standard, but 80 percent of their games during the season just consist of passing the ball backwards and sideways, without taking any big risks at all. It kills the joy of football.

There are two types of offensive styles: (a) teams that mainly prioritize passing to the feet, and in this style, as a rule, the players have predetermined spaces that they will occupy. Which means greater distances between the players overall, but also less creative freedom. The tempo of the game here is also generally lower. (b) Teams that prioritize passing to space, and here one occupies space dynamically. This usually means shorter distances between the players, and greater creative freedom. The pace of the game here is generally higher.

Personally, I am more entertained by teams that prioritize (b) to a greater extent than (a). I would say that under Dyche we belong more to category (b) than (a). But we undoubtedly have a lot to improve here, and we will probably never be Brazil 1982.

Having said that, we have a style of play, and the problem for many is that this style is not category (a). This is the style that is dominant in today's football, and which is judged as the benchmark for good football or not.

 

[mikel_88]

Far too much is said about the perceived style of play a team adopts these days. Conversations about what a team is like to watch are a bit snobby and more how I’d imagine a neutral to view things.

It would be lovely to be playing silky football and winning games, but the importance of this has been elevated to unreasonable and unsustainable levels by fans.

I dont mind the style at the minute is more that when we do have the ball the players need to do better. Showed with the last goal they can do it was a great series of play,

 

[Walken]

The debate about style of play is nothing new. It's never going to go away.

I would also argue that football belongs to the entertainment industry, but what is entertaining to watch is subjective.

Many hold up Manchester City, Arsenal, etc, as the gold standard, but 80 percent of their games during the season just consist of passing the ball backwards and sideways, without taking any big risks at all. It kills the joy of football.

There are two types of offensive styles: (a) teams that mainly prioritize passing to the feet, and in this style, as a rule, the players have predetermined spaces that they will occupy. Which means greater distances between the players overall, but also less creative freedom. The tempo of the game here is also generally lower. (b) Teams that prioritize passing to space, and here one occupies space dynamically. This usually means shorter distances between the players, and greater creative freedom. The pace of the game here is generally higher.

Personally, I am more entertained by teams that prioritize (b) to a greater extent than (a). I would say that under Dyche we belong more to category (b) than (a). But we undoubtedly have a lot to improve here, and we will probably never be Brazil 1982.

Having said that, we have a style of play, and the problem for many is that this style is not category (a). This is the style that is dominant in today's football, and which is judged as the benchmark for good football or not.

Man City are the most boring team to watch for me, Pepball without Messi is turgid and attritional.

Like when Spain 1-nil'd their way to a world cup and all the pundits told us what purists they are when it was absolute eye aids every single game.

 

[Egil Olsen]

Man City are the most boring team to watch for me, Pepball without Messi is turgid and attritional.

Like when Spain 1-nil'd their way to a world cup and all the pundits told us what purists they are when it was absolute eye aids every single game.

I agree. 8 out of 10 games are incredibly boring to watch, but then they have 2 out of 10 games where they really fire on all cylinders. The problem for many who try to copy Guardiola is that it mostly just results in sterile possession of the ball.

 

[Baines' left foot]

Man City are the most boring team to watch for me, Pepball without Messi is turgid and attritional.

Like when Spain 1-nil'd their way to a world cup and all the pundits told us what purists they are when it was absolute eye aids every single game.

My favourite team to watch in the modern era was Bayern Munich under Jupp Hynckes in 2012/2013 before Pep went there. They had some players such as Toni Kroos, but they were fast, powerful and direct.

 

[Lawrence]

Showing bottle and fitness. Good stuff at present. League Cup Final a possibility.

 

[Walken]

My favourite team to watch in the modern era was Bayern Munich under Jupp Hynckes in 2012/2013 before Pep went there. They had some players such as Toni Kroos, but they were fast, powerful and direct.

Brilliant team, that Martinez/ Schweinsteiger combo in midfield with pace and power everywhere. Pep comes along and puts lahm in midfield, martinez to CB and proceeds to bore the league into submission.

 

[st.domingo]

Neil Lennon lads? Anyone?? Lads????

Has to be Chico’s latest project. Only possible explanation. Right?