FairWooney

There are coaching issues with a lot of the goals but actually if we look deeper it's clear that those individual errors leading to specific goals are always likely to happen.
We concede more shot per game than any other team as well as the second most shots and crosses blocked clearly showing that we are constantly battling to avoid conceeding.  In fact despite being a respectable 9th on the goals conceded column our xGA (expected goals against) (31.3) is the 19th worst with only a Fulham below us, who have also conceded less than their xGA (34.5).
With this kind of goal expectancy against we always going to be in trouble.
Add to that our lack of attacking threat and were in even bigger trouble.  Fulham are poor in defence but they have Mitrovic on 11 goals and actually have the 6th best xG.
We have the 16th worst xG at just 19.9 (we've actually only scored 15 and our top scorers are 2 wingers with 3 each.
--
For those reasons I think dissecting individual goals and mistakes is futile.  We need to be doing better at stopping the opposition getting those shooting chances in the first place.
--
Attack wise, we need to be quick on the counter attack and attack in numbers and at pace.  We scored some good goals under Lampard, Benitez and Ancelotti doing this.  Sure Richarlison's pace, desire and ability running at people helped but Gray and Gordon are capable enough, Iwobi is fast enough to get forward and involved as is DCL.  Too often I saw us start a counter attack against Southampton only to run out of pace and options and end up having to turn around to look for a pass.  This is very much something that can be trained

I think that is very much the reason we are primarily looking at loans with an option to buy.
We'd be stupid (so this wouldn't actually surprise me!) to buy a player on potentially high wages, find they don't meet expectations and then we're stuck with them if we go down (or if we don't for that matter).
I'd say loans to the end of the season are the best way forward for anyone we'd like to buy to avoid getting lumbered with more flops.

I think that is very much the reason we are primarily looking at loans with an option to buy.
We'd be stupid (so this wouldn't actually surprise me!) to buy a player on potentially high wages, find they don't meet expectations and then we're stuck with them if we go down (or if we don't for that matter).
I'd say loans to the end of the season are the best way forward for anyone we'd like to buy to avoid getting lumbered with more flops.

There are coaching issues with a lot of the goals but actually if we look deeper it's clear that those individual errors leading to specific goals are always likely to happen.
We concede more shot per game than any other team as well as the second most shots and crosses blocked clearly showing that we are constantly battling to avoid conceeding.  In fact despite being a respectable 9th on the goals conceded column our xGA (expected goals against) (31.3) is the 19th worst with only a Fulham below us, who have also conceded less than their xGA (34.5).
With this kind of goal expectancy against we always going to be in trouble.
Add to that our lack of attacking threat and were in even bigger trouble.  Fulham are poor in defence but they have Mitrovic on 11 goals and actually have the 6th best xG.
We have the 16th worst xG at just 19.9 (we've actually only scored 15 and our top scorers are 2 wingers with 3 each.
--
For those reasons I think dissecting individual goals and mistakes is futile.  We need to be doing better at stopping the opposition getting those shooting chances in the first place.
--
Attack wise, we need to be quick on the counter attack and attack in numbers and at pace.  We scored some good goals under Lampard, Benitez and Ancelotti doing this.  Sure Richarlison's pace, desire and ability running at people helped but Gray and Gordon are capable enough, Iwobi is fast enough to get forward and involved as is DCL.  Too often I saw us start a counter attack against Southampton only to run out of pace and options and end up having to turn around to look for a pass.  This is very much something that can be trained

There are coaching issues with a lot of the goals but actually if we look deeper it's clear that those individual errors leading to specific goals are always likely to happen.
We concede more shot per game than any other team as well as the second most shots and crosses blocked clearly showing that we are constantly battling to avoid conceeding.  In fact despite being a respectable 9th on the goals conceded column our xGA (expected goals against) (31.3) is the 19th worst with only a Fulham below us, who have also conceded less than their xGA (34.5).
With this kind of goal expectancy against we always going to be in trouble.
Add to that our lack of attacking threat and were in even bigger trouble.  Fulham are poor in defence but they have Mitrovic on 11 goals and actually have the 6th best xG.
We have the 16th worst xG at just 19.9 (we've actually only scored 15 and our top scorers are 2 wingers with 3 each.
--
For those reasons I think dissecting individual goals and mistakes is futile.  We need to be doing better at stopping the opposition getting those shooting chances in the first place.
--
Attack wise, we need to be quick on the counter attack and attack in numbers and at pace.  We scored some good goals under Lampard, Benitez and Ancelotti doing this.  Sure Richarlison's pace, desire and ability running at people helped but Gray and Gordon are capable enough, Iwobi is fast enough to get forward and involved as is DCL.  Too often I saw us start a counter attack against Southampton only to run out of pace and options and end up having to turn around to look for a pass.  This is very much something that can be trained

I think that is very much the reason we are primarily looking at loans with an option to buy.
We'd be stupid (so this wouldn't actually surprise me!) to buy a player on potentially high wages, find they don't meet expectations and then we're stuck with them if we go down (or if we don't for that matter).
I'd say loans to the end of the season are the best way forward for anyone we'd like to buy to avoid getting lumbered with more flops.

it'll be like a new signing!
We've been desperate for a goal scoring midfielder!

The talk of Martinez is suicidal to me.  He always refused to drop the passing game at all costs and in the position we are in we can't afford to start trying to get that right.
His style of play also requires the kind of quality creative players that we don't have.  He's enjoyed a few years of KDB in his side, he'd be going back to McNeil, Gordon, Gray and Iwobi!  (highest XGA for our players is 0.15 per game, KDB has 0.5 in premier league!).
--
Lampard has shown both last season and in games like the Man City one that he can get the team up for the fight and well organised enough to keep a side out.
If you are going to play counter attack you are a lot less reliant on real quality creative players, you need players well drilled in making a quick break and making sure they look up for quick passes to pick out other runners.  Richarlison was well suited to the counter as he had pace, could run at people and well having to play hold up was good at winning a foul.
DCL isn't quite so good but is decent on hold up.
Iwobi, Gordon and Gray should all be very capable in this and both did ok last season when needing to play that way.
 
As you've said @RuffRob this is a way we can play if we have to and if we don't have the resources to invest in improvements to the squad it is probably the best way forwards at the moment.  Obviously, in some games you can be more expansive than others, pressing further up the field but as we've consistently found that we can't open teams up when they have players behind the ball we need to look at going with this approach for the most part

The talk of Martinez is suicidal to me.  He always refused to drop the passing game at all costs and in the position we are in we can't afford to start trying to get that right.
His style of play also requires the kind of quality creative players that we don't have.  He's enjoyed a few years of KDB in his side, he'd be going back to McNeil, Gordon, Gray and Iwobi!  (highest XGA for our players is 0.15 per game, KDB has 0.5 in premier league!).
--
Lampard has shown both last season and in games like the Man City one that he can get the team up for the fight and well organised enough to keep a side out.
If you are going to play counter attack you are a lot less reliant on real quality creative players, you need players well drilled in making a quick break and making sure they look up for quick passes to pick out other runners.  Richarlison was well suited to the counter as he had pace, could run at people and well having to play hold up was good at winning a foul.
DCL isn't quite so good but is decent on hold up.
Iwobi, Gordon and Gray should all be very capable in this and both did ok last season when needing to play that way.
 
As you've said @RuffRob this is a way we can play if we have to and if we don't have the resources to invest in improvements to the squad it is probably the best way forwards at the moment.  Obviously, in some games you can be more expansive than others, pressing further up the field but as we've consistently found that we can't open teams up when they have players behind the ball we need to look at going with this approach for the most part

The talk of Martinez is suicidal to me.  He always refused to drop the passing game at all costs and in the position we are in we can't afford to start trying to get that right.
His style of play also requires the kind of quality creative players that we don't have.  He's enjoyed a few years of KDB in his side, he'd be going back to McNeil, Gordon, Gray and Iwobi!  (highest XGA for our players is 0.15 per game, KDB has 0.5 in premier league!).
--
Lampard has shown both last season and in games like the Man City one that he can get the team up for the fight and well organised enough to keep a side out.
If you are going to play counter attack you are a lot less reliant on real quality creative players, you need players well drilled in making a quick break and making sure they look up for quick passes to pick out other runners.  Richarlison was well suited to the counter as he had pace, could run at people and well having to play hold up was good at winning a foul.
DCL isn't quite so good but is decent on hold up.
Iwobi, Gordon and Gray should all be very capable in this and both did ok last season when needing to play that way.
 
As you've said @RuffRob this is a way we can play if we have to and if we don't have the resources to invest in improvements to the squad it is probably the best way forwards at the moment.  Obviously, in some games you can be more expansive than others, pressing further up the field but as we've consistently found that we can't open teams up when they have players behind the ball we need to look at going with this approach for the most part

The talk of Martinez is suicidal to me.  He always refused to drop the passing game at all costs and in the position we are in we can't afford to start trying to get that right.
His style of play also requires the kind of quality creative players that we don't have.  He's enjoyed a few years of KDB in his side, he'd be going back to McNeil, Gordon, Gray and Iwobi!  (highest XGA for our players is 0.15 per game, KDB has 0.5 in premier league!).
--
Lampard has shown both last season and in games like the Man City one that he can get the team up for the fight and well organised enough to keep a side out.
If you are going to play counter attack you are a lot less reliant on real quality creative players, you need players well drilled in making a quick break and making sure they look up for quick passes to pick out other runners.  Richarlison was well suited to the counter as he had pace, could run at people and well having to play hold up was good at winning a foul.
DCL isn't quite so good but is decent on hold up.
Iwobi, Gordon and Gray should all be very capable in this and both did ok last season when needing to play that way.
 
As you've said @RuffRob this is a way we can play if we have to and if we don't have the resources to invest in improvements to the squad it is probably the best way forwards at the moment.  Obviously, in some games you can be more expansive than others, pressing further up the field but as we've consistently found that we can't open teams up when they have players behind the ball we need to look at going with this approach for the most part

The talk of Martinez is suicidal to me.  He always refused to drop the passing game at all costs and in the position we are in we can't afford to start trying to get that right.
His style of play also requires the kind of quality creative players that we don't have.  He's enjoyed a few years of KDB in his side, he'd be going back to McNeil, Gordon, Gray and Iwobi!  (highest XGA for our players is 0.15 per game, KDB has 0.5 in premier league!).
--
Lampard has shown both last season and in games like the Man City one that he can get the team up for the fight and well organised enough to keep a side out.
If you are going to play counter attack you are a lot less reliant on real quality creative players, you need players well drilled in making a quick break and making sure they look up for quick passes to pick out other runners.  Richarlison was well suited to the counter as he had pace, could run at people and well having to play hold up was good at winning a foul.
DCL isn't quite so good but is decent on hold up.
Iwobi, Gordon and Gray should all be very capable in this and both did ok last season when needing to play that way.
 
As you've said @RuffRob this is a way we can play if we have to and if we don't have the resources to invest in improvements to the squad it is probably the best way forwards at the moment.  Obviously, in some games you can be more expansive than others, pressing further up the field but as we've consistently found that we can't open teams up when they have players behind the ball we need to look at going with this approach for the most part

Why would he want to go to a team where he'll have nothing to spend, have a poor squad, are low in the table and have become accustomed to ditching a new manager every 18 months (I know this final one is also the same as Chelsea!).
 

We’re up 1-0 on aggregate when he’s played…. 

Gray.
Worked his arse off, did some good work in attack, at times doesn't look up to get the ball into the box, favouring looking to make himself a shot but did get some balls into the box also.  Was up and down the pitch putting challenges and kept at it all game while others capitulated.
 

I don't think there is any doubt that Lampard has difficulties with this squad but I think his thinking is conflicted. I think he bought players in the summer to fit a 532 mould and then quickly realised we were really poor going forward and since then he has ended up a bit stuck.
Our fullbacks aren't all round players. Neither offer much in the final third and they both have big weaknesses at the back when they aren't protected. Vinagre was signed too.
We brought in two centre halves who need to play deep and have lots of protection to be at their best. Both players achieved success at clubs where they played that way. Last year the likes of Mina, Keane, Godfrey and Holgate all showed that the further up the pitch they get, the worse they get. 
In midfield we brought in Gueye and Onana who aren't massively different. They are both players that cover the ground and mainly play from box-to-box. Neither of them has quality in the final third. We had another one of those in Doucoure already at the club. As for Garner, I don't know what he is. Technically solid but I couldn't tell you what type of player he was based on the little I saw, other than to know he wasn't defensively minded. Basically we have players that have the energy to go from one end of the pitch to the other, without necessarily knowing what to do when they get there. 
Out wide, we had two pacey but greedy and inconsistent wide players. McNeil was brought in but its unclear what the thinking was behind this given the player he replaced and how we were looking to play. 
Then you have the Maupay signing. Was he brought in to play as the second striker in a 532? Was he bought in to replace Dom when he was injured? He was never going to be a sole striker in a team that doesn't have the ball. 
I said this at the time, but it feels like a wheeling and dealing window, a bit like something Id expect from Harry Redknapp than a club that has had two high profile DoF's in the last 5 or so years. The reason why the likes of Brighton are so successful with their transfer policy is that they know what they want to be and they buy players that fit that mould. They don't bring in two slow centre halves to play deep and then a striker who needs to be in the box and have lots of chances. They don't bring in a player who is used to whipping in crosses to two target men, ask him to sit 40 yards from his own goal and whip crosses into a sub 6 foot striker. 
Those in charge of the playing side of this club don't know what they are and they don't know what they want to be and something has to change whilst there is still time in this window. Either the coaching staff need to find their identity or they need to go and we need to find ones that do.
 

I would play him.  He can stroll around by himself up front with not much to do for the most part so not too much running about all over.
He is better at hold the ball up when we can get it out to him than Maupay and he is also better for defending set pieces.
Added to that he's more likely to get in the right place and take a chance if we manage to get one.
Give him 60 minutes or so and see how he's getting on.
I'd rather that than throw him on towards the end of the game for a run out when the game is lost and he's then struggling to get up to speed with the action.

I would play him.  He can stroll around by himself up front with not much to do for the most part so not too much running about all over.
He is better at hold the ball up when we can get it out to him than Maupay and he is also better for defending set pieces.
Added to that he's more likely to get in the right place and take a chance if we manage to get one.
Give him 60 minutes or so and see how he's getting on.
I'd rather that than throw him on towards the end of the game for a run out when the game is lost and he's then struggling to get up to speed with the action.

I can’t be anymore confused by what I’m reading. 
 
Relegation is in no way a good thing for Everton. 
Relegation is the single worst thing that can happen to the club on the pitch. 
Relegation offers no benefits whatsoever. 
Relegation offers the possibility of the club being financially damaged beyond anything we’ve seen before, especially during a £500m stadium build. 
Relegation offers the threat of Everton not being a top tier club for decades, especially while other clubs with good investment and a good strategy solidify their places in the Premier League. 
 
If you sit in your seat at Goodison Park every week, spend thousands each year watching the team, pour all of your emotions into every goal we score, and you think we can benefit from going down, let’s talk about it. Convince me I’m wrong here. But I’ll start the conversation; I’m not wrong. 

I missed half of the first half but thought that half looked very open, we had a few squandered chances with Gordon and Maupay not making the most of good opportunities.  Both teams were full of errors, especially Wolves giving the ball away in dangerous areas with sloppy touches but we never capitalised.
Second half we seemed to have control for most of the half without really creating much.  We had 59% possession but they were generally well organised and we just lack ideas.
Actually though the levels of the 2 teams doesn't compare, the England v France game looked very similar at times.  The centre backs in that game spent too much time sideways passing as France held a good solid set up while the French looked dangerous on the counter.
It is very hard to break through a team that has 2 good lines set up but our lack of any movement or midfield showing for the ball really shows up when a team is well set up like this.  Onana and Gueye need to be finding space and looking to take the ball on, sometimes it will need to return again but that gets things moving around more than just going side to side.  The wingers need to be either looking to make a run or dropping back to show for the ball and the full backs need to offer more (admittedly Patterson at the end was absent because of a forward run but there was plenty behind him to cover).
I'm really disappointed that it's not working for Lampard and his team at the moment, it seemed like he had a good team of coaches around him who could all offer help in different areas but certainly, in attack we're not seeing any improvement.  The players might be not be the best but with good coaching they should definitely look like they have more idea than they have done.  Whenever you see training videos they always seem to be working on tight space quick movement passing yet when confronted by it in a game the players are all stood still.  That's a level of intensity they're missing when stood at Goodison in front of 40,000 that they seem to have when out on a pitch with the coaches around them.
 

just listened to the interview with Tarkowski.
Slight complaint from him at the fans calling for them to get the ball forward and saying we want to play the ball out from the back and that's how we're going to keep playing.
That'd be fine if the players in front of him actually gave him good movement.
Just rewatched the goal also and disappointed by Patterson's running back, perhaps he was blowing after his run into attack at the end of a game but given that he was alongide the goalscorer  25 yards out from their goal and was left for dead he'll be very disappointed in himself. 
Watched the replay a few times and appalled at the effort to get back from some of the players, Iwobi was in a fairly good position to get back and assist and is apparently our fasted player but put in a lazy jog on the way back getting overtaken by Mykolenko who started 10 metres behind him!  Likewise Onana  could have got himself back quicker.
It's a criticism of one important moment in the match and I can understand a little bit of tiredness in a first game back at the end but having played it round so slowly for large parts they should have been able to produce some desperate running when required at the end.
 

just listened to the interview with Tarkowski.
Slight complaint from him at the fans calling for them to get the ball forward and saying we want to play the ball out from the back and that's how we're going to keep playing.
That'd be fine if the players in front of him actually gave him good movement.
Just rewatched the goal also and disappointed by Patterson's running back, perhaps he was blowing after his run into attack at the end of a game but given that he was alongide the goalscorer  25 yards out from their goal and was left for dead he'll be very disappointed in himself. 
Watched the replay a few times and appalled at the effort to get back from some of the players, Iwobi was in a fairly good position to get back and assist and is apparently our fasted player but put in a lazy jog on the way back getting overtaken by Mykolenko who started 10 metres behind him!  Likewise Onana  could have got himself back quicker.
It's a criticism of one important moment in the match and I can understand a little bit of tiredness in a first game back at the end but having played it round so slowly for large parts they should have been able to produce some desperate running when required at the end.
 

I missed half of the first half but thought that half looked very open, we had a few squandered chances with Gordon and Maupay not making the most of good opportunities.  Both teams were full of errors, especially Wolves giving the ball away in dangerous areas with sloppy touches but we never capitalised.
Second half we seemed to have control for most of the half without really creating much.  We had 59% possession but they were generally well organised and we just lack ideas.
Actually though the levels of the 2 teams doesn't compare, the England v France game looked very similar at times.  The centre backs in that game spent too much time sideways passing as France held a good solid set up while the French looked dangerous on the counter.
It is very hard to break through a team that has 2 good lines set up but our lack of any movement or midfield showing for the ball really shows up when a team is well set up like this.  Onana and Gueye need to be finding space and looking to take the ball on, sometimes it will need to return again but that gets things moving around more than just going side to side.  The wingers need to be either looking to make a run or dropping back to show for the ball and the full backs need to offer more (admittedly Patterson at the end was absent because of a forward run but there was plenty behind him to cover).
I'm really disappointed that it's not working for Lampard and his team at the moment, it seemed like he had a good team of coaches around him who could all offer help in different areas but certainly, in attack we're not seeing any improvement.  The players might be not be the best but with good coaching they should definitely look like they have more idea than they have done.  Whenever you see training videos they always seem to be working on tight space quick movement passing yet when confronted by it in a game the players are all stood still.  That's a level of intensity they're missing when stood at Goodison in front of 40,000 that they seem to have when out on a pitch with the coaches around them.
 

I missed half of the first half but thought that half looked very open, we had a few squandered chances with Gordon and Maupay not making the most of good opportunities.  Both teams were full of errors, especially Wolves giving the ball away in dangerous areas with sloppy touches but we never capitalised.
Second half we seemed to have control for most of the half without really creating much.  We had 59% possession but they were generally well organised and we just lack ideas.
Actually though the levels of the 2 teams doesn't compare, the England v France game looked very similar at times.  The centre backs in that game spent too much time sideways passing as France held a good solid set up while the French looked dangerous on the counter.
It is very hard to break through a team that has 2 good lines set up but our lack of any movement or midfield showing for the ball really shows up when a team is well set up like this.  Onana and Gueye need to be finding space and looking to take the ball on, sometimes it will need to return again but that gets things moving around more than just going side to side.  The wingers need to be either looking to make a run or dropping back to show for the ball and the full backs need to offer more (admittedly Patterson at the end was absent because of a forward run but there was plenty behind him to cover).
I'm really disappointed that it's not working for Lampard and his team at the moment, it seemed like he had a good team of coaches around him who could all offer help in different areas but certainly, in attack we're not seeing any improvement.  The players might be not be the best but with good coaching they should definitely look like they have more idea than they have done.  Whenever you see training videos they always seem to be working on tight space quick movement passing yet when confronted by it in a game the players are all stood still.  That's a level of intensity they're missing when stood at Goodison in front of 40,000 that they seem to have when out on a pitch with the coaches around them.
 

disappointing that as he was showing that he could be a good option in midfield and could offer more than Gueye in the middle.
Could be a chance for Price after his good couple of games on the Aus tour.