Frank Lampard

[MikeO]

More words of wisdom from Garth Crooks...

"Everton are still some way from becoming a top-six side but anything less will see Lampard fighting to retain his job."
 

What is he on?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/63112025

[Romey 1878]

9 minutes ago, MikeO said:

More words of wisdom from Garth Crooks...

"Everton are still some way from becoming a top-six side but anything less will see Lampard fighting to retain his job."
 

What is he on?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/63112025

Far too many eucalpyt leaves. Stoned out of his fucking mind that fella. 

[Gwlad]

12 hours ago, MikeO said:

More words of wisdom from Garth Crooks...

"Everton are still some way from becoming a top-six side but anything less will see Lampard fighting to retain his job."
 

What is he on?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/63112025

Maybe he should have his own thread. 

[Matt]

3 minutes ago, Gwlad all over said:

Maybe he should have his own thread. 

In the jokes forum maybe 

[Gwlad]

Great dry comments from Frank when it was said at the press conference that people were surprised Richarlison is doing so well at Tottenham. "Maybe it is glamorous because he came from Everton but that shouldn't be a surprise".

[Btay]

Think he got his tactics wrong against spurs. I like 3 at the back as formation but the personal are critical for it. We simply do no have the right kind on wingbacks available for it. 

[Hafnia]

I said when it happened, Coleman can not replace Patterson. He “does a job” but we are reliant on legs at full back. Our shape is poor because Coleman can’t play the role like he once did. 

[StevO]

10 hours ago, Btay said:

Think he got his tactics wrong against spurs. I like 3 at the back as formation but the personal are critical for it. We simply do no have the right kind on wingbacks available for it. 

Did we play three at the back? 

[Bailey]

19 minutes ago, StevO said:

Did we play three at the back? 

We defended in a 531 shape which moved into a 433 on the handful of times we attacked.

9 hours ago, Hafnia said:

I said when it happened, Coleman can not replace Patterson. He “does a job” but we are reliant on legs at full back. Our shape is poor because Coleman can’t play the role like he once did. 

I don't think Coleman's role had anything to do with how we played last night. 

[Bailey]

10 hours ago, Btay said:

Think he got his tactics wrong against spurs. I like 3 at the back as formation but the personal are critical for it. We simply do no have the right kind on wingbacks available for it. 

It was a tough one. 

Last season he completely exposed Holgate and Keane so this season he was always going to go the other way. 

Maybe he thought we would have more of the ball in attacking positions but its borderline stupid to play an attacking player in a wing back role when the team spend most of the time on the back foot. 

I also think the subs and the change of shape that followed to be a little strange. 

I think the thought process was probably the right one (sit back and counter) but the implementation of it was horrible.

[Hafnia]

1 hour ago, Bailey said:

We defended in a 531 shape which moved into a 433 on the handful of times we attacked.

I don't think Coleman's role had anything to do with how we played last night. 

I do. I think having a leggy right back means we literally had to play 5 to stop him getting targeted.  Last year he was taken apart, it’s not his fault, he literally should not even be a backup now. 
 

Having Coleman as right back instead of Patterson is akin to having Davies instead of Onana. Literally night and day difference in mobility. 

[London Blue]

Lampard got his tactics and selection spot on against Spurs, an individual error cost us the first goal and pushing for an equalizer cost us the second.

We have less of a goal threat with DCL, and Gordon out, yet we created two good chances in the first half.  We were a 5 at the back when defending and 4 - 3 - 3 when we had the ball, and it worked.

We played ok, we are improving as a team, the defense is much meaner and in midfield we can control the ball and pass, we just need DCL and Godon back. 

[Bailey]

39 minutes ago, Hafnia said:

I do. I think having a leggy right back means we literally had to play 5 to stop him getting targeted.  Last year he was taken apart, it’s not his fault, he literally should not even be a backup now. 
 

Having Coleman as right back instead of Patterson is akin to having Davies instead of Onana. Literally night and day difference in mobility. 

We played 4 with him in the previous games. I don't believe that is why we played 5 at the back. Sure having Pattersons legs would be better, and Coleman was exploited a lot early on, but I don't see that game playing out any different with a more mobile right back. 

We had Mykolenko on the left and he was still given the runaround and didn't get forward. 

Furthermore, if that was a problem that Lampard was worried about, he could have played Coleman as the 3rd CB and started Iwobi wide. We also didn't do any better when he went off and conceded the second with him off the pitch. 

 

[Btay]

27 minutes ago, Bailey said:

We played 4 with him in the previous games. I don't believe that is why we played 5 at the back. Sure having Pattersons legs would be better, and Coleman was exploited a lot early on, but I don't see that game playing out any different with a more mobile right back. 

We had Mykolenko on the left and he was still given the runaround and didn't get forward. 

Furthermore, if that was a problem that Lampard was worried about, he could have played Coleman as the 3rd CB and started Iwobi wide. We also didn't do any better when he went off and conceded the second with him off the pitch. 

 

Mykolenko was the third CB so I don’t know why you were expecting him to get forward?

[Btay]

3 hours ago, StevO said:

Did we play three at the back? 

Well the commentators kept saying it and it was getting on my nerves because I thought we were a 4 but as the game went on it was clear that Mcneil was a wingback. Thing is I don’t know what we were playing to be honest, it just didn’t really work.

[Btay]

3 hours ago, Bailey said:

It was a tough one. 

Last season he completely exposed Holgate and Keane so this season he was always going to go the other way. 

Maybe he thought we would have more of the ball in attacking positions but its borderline stupid to play an attacking player in a wing back role when the team spend most of the time on the back foot. 

I also think the subs and the change of shape that followed to be a little strange. 

I think the thought process was probably the right one (sit back and counter) but the implementation of it was horrible.

I agree with your point about Holgate & Keane - although I think they both expose themselves at times. Our midfield is so much stronger, plus Coady & Tarks are much more reliable.

I don’t think Coleman can play the RWB role though, I would have much preferred him at RCB of the three, Iwobi RWB with Garner or Doucoure in midfield. 

[StevO]

From where I watched it we didn’t play with a back five at all, we just didn’t get forward very much as they pegged us back. 
NcNeil just doubled up with Mykolenko, as a winger should. 

[Romey 1878]

1 hour ago, StevO said:

From where I watched it we didn’t play with a back five at all, we just didn’t get forward very much as they pegged us back. 
NcNeil just doubled up with Mykolenko, as a winger should. 

I feel the same. At no point was I thinking "fucks sake, its that formation again" and we all know I notice that formation .

[Btay]

1 hour ago, StevO said:

From where I watched it we didn’t play with a back five at all, we just didn’t get forward very much as they pegged us back. 
NcNeil just doubled up with Mykolenko, as a winger should. 

To me it looked like Gray & Maupay were playing together centrally up front, 3 man midfield and 5 at the back.

[Hafnia]

10 hours ago, Bailey said:

We played 4 with him in the previous games. I don't believe that is why we played 5 at the back. Sure having Pattersons legs would be better, and Coleman was exploited a lot early on, but I don't see that game playing out any different with a more mobile right back. 

We had Mykolenko on the left and he was still given the runaround and didn't get forward. 

Furthermore, if that was a problem that Lampard was worried about, he could have played Coleman as the 3rd CB and started Iwobi wide. We also didn't do any better when he went off and conceded the second with him off the pitch. 

 

If you don’t have a wingback that offers a threat on the counter then it allows the other side to commit on that side- it’s as simple as that and just that one difference has a huge impact on shape. 
 

they pushed men forward on Coleman’s side full well in the knowledge that they had more than enough recovery pace. 

[Romey 1878]

We badly need to find some cohesion in our attack. It's so unstructured because there are no partnerships anywhere.

In Gordon and Gray we have two extremely selfish wingers who do not look to pass the ball to anyone, and try do it all themselves. That invariably leads us nowhere and to lose the ball. Then you've got McNeil who probably would look to have a partnership with the full-back but he's doing his best to audition to be the next Susan Storm (the invisible woman for those that don't know) in the Marvel movies at the moment.

Then you've got a full-back in Mykolenko who can get the ball on the edge of the oppositions penalty area and be just as likely to pass the ball all the way back to Pickford as he is to actually put the ball into the box. Our other full-back, Coleman, if he finds the energy to get up the pitch will slow the play down, get in the way, or put a shit cross in.

If they worked as a unit, rather than the individuals they're playing as at the moment, then we'd do a lot better.

[StevO]

5 hours ago, Btay said:

To me it looked like Gray & Maupay were playing together centrally up front, 3 man midfield and 5 at the back.

That’s just because Gray doesn’t get back. 

[Vranny]

5 hours ago, StevO said:

That’s just because Gray doesn’t get back. 

That might be true, but in this game it was definitely tactical. The other positional change that hinted towards us playing a back three/five was Tarkowski moving to the right side of defence for the first time this season, so that Coady could sit between him and Mykolenko.

[StevO]

This reminds me of when Koeman was asked if we were playing 433, 451 or 4231, he replied that they are all just 433 anyway. 
 

Moyes used to say his 451 was 442 when he played Cahill too. 
 

Different players with different responsibilities, playing in the same system. If the opposition don’t play the same formation as you then someone has to break the lines or you leave a man free. Don’t think it makes it playing five at the back, not to me anyway. 

[Bailey]

On 16/10/2022 at 23:39, Btay said:

Mykolenko was the third CB so I don’t know why you were expecting him to get forward?

He was when we defended but he played as a normal left back when we had position as we slipped more into our usual 433 formation.

On 16/10/2022 at 23:46, Btay said:

I agree with your point about Holgate & Keane - although I think they both expose themselves at times. Our midfield is so much stronger, plus Coady & Tarks are much more reliable.

I don’t think Coleman can play the RWB role though, I would have much preferred him at RCB of the three, Iwobi RWB with Garner or Doucoure in midfield. 

I think they are more reliable as they arent as exposed. They have loads more protection. 

I agree about Coleman being better off playing as 3rd CB.

On 17/10/2022 at 08:14, StevO said:

From where I watched it we didn’t play with a back five at all, we just didn’t get forward very much as they pegged us back. 
NcNeil just doubled up with Mykolenko, as a winger should. 

When we got into our defensive shape it was definitely 532. There were times when you had clearly defined lines, right from kick off. 

A winger should very rarely be as deep the full back but McNeil was always there. 

A good example is the first goal. All 5 of them are in a line and he isn't marking anyone.

On 17/10/2022 at 10:01, Hafnia said:

If you don’t have a wingback that offers a threat on the counter then it allows the other side to commit on that side- it’s as simple as that and just that one difference has a huge impact on shape. 
 

they pushed men forward on Coleman’s side full well in the knowledge that they had more than enough recovery pace. 

They did that both sides, it isn't just limited to Coleman.

I don't disagree that it helps to have a better full back but that applied to both sides IMO. 

We lost out to Spurs in every position, it wasn't just limited to Coleman.

[Romey 1878]

https://www.football365.com/news/lampard-everton-fine-system-priority-change-this-season

[Zoo 2.0]

 

[Matt]

Don't know what he said to them but that performance is much better and the minimum amount of effort we need to be putting into games. 

[Romey 1878]

1 hour ago, Matt said:

Don't know what he said to them but that performance is much better and the minimum amount of effort we need to be putting into games. 

I worried when I saw he'd put the same team out but it was an unrecognisable performance in comparison to the Newcastle game.

[Palfy]

2 hours ago, Matt said:

Don't know what he said to them but that performance is much better and the minimum amount of effort we need to be putting into games. 

I honestly think he took the shackles off from the last 3 games and went all out for the win, where as the other games I felt we went defensive and were more focused on not conceding than scoring.