2018/19 Marco Silva - New Poll Added

[GwladysPhil]

Of all players, dropping Iceland after getting a brace, was criminal.

 

[fandjango]

My God the state of this thread
Pull yourselves together

 

[Osamabindiesel]

You gotta have depth. One of our star players is going to get injured in one of these Mickey Mouse Cups and you will be at Silva’s throat once again (joking about the Mickey Mouse Cup but you get the drift).

Europe or not, you have to spread minutes around to keep players fit. We put out a fairly strong squad by Cup standards and still lost. It tells you that we need to fix our depth situation ASAP.

 

[Efcjake]

Bit unfair that. I don't 'fill my posts' with strawman arguments and i'm not 'so eager' to point them out, I just thought you were suggesting something which you apparently weren't. You wanted to know whether i'd prefer us to play a weakened side in midweek or the weekend and i'm saying neither. I wasn't sure why you were asking as if I we had to choose one because I don't think we do.

The point I was making is that the players have to play to keep their fitness and match sharpness up. Do you agree with that?

If you do agree, then when and how do you get them that play time?

It has to come either in the cups or the league. Games with the U23 lads won't be at a competitive enough level though it would help their fitness.

So given that the lads have to play at some point, when would you do it?

I just disagree with the whole premise of what you're saying really, because it's blatantly obvious to me that we were just resting players. Baines had played in 4 of our 8 games before this one, Schneiderlin in 6. They weren't brought in because they needed match fitness or because Silva wanted to see what they could do, they were brought in so that Digne and Gana could be rested. I understand that, and it may have been the right decision because I don't have access to their fitness stats or whatever, but I just think trying to dress it up as us using the squad is quite clearly wrong.

Ok, fair enough those two players were not brought in for fitness reasons.

Regardless of the reason for your question though, my answer actually still addresses your point. The fact that all the players I mentioned managed to play in the region of 50 games last season means there's no reason for us to assume that our players can't do the same. I don't know why we need to assume that we'll have to use all of our squad players

I don't think it did address my point. The fact that players are capable of playing 50 games a season has nothing to do with the problem of finding opportunities to give squad players match time to maintain fitness and match sharpness. I wasn't saying that the changes were needed because the starting 11 needed a rest but because the players who aren't getting a look in need some time on the pitch.

I think Dowell is way down the pecking order and it would take a monumental injury list for him to get league starts for us. I would say he's behind Walcott, Sigurdsson, Richarlison, Bernard, Lookman and DCL for one of those roles behind the striker. Do I envisage us getting to a point any time soon where 4 of those are unavailable and we need him to start? No. If we get to that point after Christmas do I think the fact he played 45 minutes at the start of October will make him more prepared to play? Again no. On that basis, do I think your assertion that we needed to play him to give him a chance and keep him fit is a valid argument? It's another no from me. Obviously the same applies to Stekelenburg, giving him this run out will maybe make him less rusty if we need him in the next month or so. After that, it will have absolutely no bearing whatsoever on his readiness for games. So I don't see any need to affect our chances of winning a trophy on the off chance that Pickford gets injured or suspended in his next 2/3 games.

I don't see Richarlison, Walcott, and Lookman as being ahead of Dowell for that position. Siggy and Bernard are but the other lads are wingers first and foremost.

You acknowledge that playing Stek could make him more match sharp in the event we do need him in an emergency down the line. Instead you'd rather keep him on the bench and in the U23s all season and only call on him when he's needed and hope that he's ready and prepared for that moment without actually giving him any time in a competitive match all season?

There's risks with both of those strategies but I can understand why he made the changes.

 

[Efcjake]

I would rather he had played our strongest team in both games. If our strongest team cannot play 2 football matches 4 days apart followed by 2 weeks off, then there is something seriously wrong indeed. Our strongest team need as many games as possible to get tighter and more consistent. It is only the first week in October. He said himself just a day or two before that there wouldn't be many changes so as to maintain and improve consistency and if he had just made a couple of changes, then fair enough. Changing 7 including the goal keeper completely unbalanced the team and took away all the momentum and feel good factor from the previous game. He like our previous managers didn't take the league cup serious enough hence the absolutely abysmal record we have in it.

It was his biggest mistake to date made worse by him trying to defend it when there is no defence. You either take the league cup serious and try and win it or you dont. We are not Man City and dont have anywhere near enough quality or consistency in our squad to be making that many changes against another premier league team in a cup competition and expect to get anything out of it.

Once again, that wasn't the question asked.

When would you give opportunities to squad players if not in the cup?

 

[Lob]

Once again, that wasn't the question asked.

When would you give opportunities to squad players if not in the cup?

What do you mean it wasn't the question asked. Of course it was. Your question in the post is quoted and was highlighted in bold and the reply is very clearly about that question that you asked. You may not agree with the answer and that is fine but it was most definitely answered. Quoted again below for clarity.

Would you lot have rather he played the stronger team in the cup and a weaker one this weekend?

I would rather he had played our strongest team in both games. If our strongest team cannot play 2 football matches 4 days apart followed by 2 weeks off, then there is something seriously wrong indeed. Our strongest team need as many games as possible to get tighter and more consistent. It is only the first week in October. He said himself just a day or two before that there wouldn't be many changes so as to maintain and improve consistency and if he had just made a couple of changes, then fair enough. Changing 7 including the goal keeper completely unbalanced the team and took away all the momentum and feel good factor from the previous game. He like our previous managers didn't take the league cup serious enough hence the absolutely abysmal record we have in it.

It was his biggest mistake to date made worse by him trying to defend it when there is no defence. You either take the league cup serious and try and win it or you dont. We are not Man City and dont have anywhere near enough quality or consistency in our squad to be making that many changes against another premier league team in a cup competition and expect to get anything out of it.

 

[efcjames]

This is just like last year.. thank God there's no mention of Unsworth though.

 

[Nyhus]

I would rather he had played our strongest team in both games.

This is the only right answer.

 

[Lanolin]

The point I was making is that the players have to play to keep their fitness and match sharpness up. Do you agree with that?

If you do agree, then when and how do you get them that play time?

It has to come either in the cups or the league. Games with the U23 lads won't be at a competitive enough level though it would help their fitness.

So given that the lads have to play at some point, when would you do it?



Ok, fair enough those two players were not brought in for fitness reasons.



I don't think it did address my point. The fact that players are capable of playing 50 games a season has nothing to do with the problem of finding opportunities to give squad players match time to maintain fitness and match sharpness. I wasn't saying that the changes were needed because the starting 11 needed a rest but because the players who aren't getting a look in need some time on the pitch.



I don't see Richarlison, Walcott, and Lookman as being ahead of Dowell for that position. Siggy and Bernard are but the other lads are wingers first and foremost.

You acknowledge that playing Stek could make him more match sharp in the event we do need him in an emergency down the line. Instead you'd rather keep him on the bench and in the U23s all season and only call on him when he's needed and hope that he's ready and prepared for that moment without actually giving him any time in a competitive match all season?

There's risks with both of those strategies but I can understand why he made the changes.

As I've said though, I can understand it too, I just don't necessarily agree with it.

To me, your point kind of argues against itself. You're suggesting that we needed to give game time to these players in the cup because we can't give it to them in the league, and they need game time because we're going to be playing them...in the league. So if we're going to have to play them anyway, why did they need this run out? Either this is going to be the only the time they play this side of Christmas - in which case the run out will leave them no better off at all when they come to play next - or we're going to need them to play quite soon, in which case you've answered your own question - they'll get that playing time when we pick them in the league games.

On that basis, you've misunderstood my answer about giving squad players opportunities. It addresses the point because you're saying we will need these players. You've said again 'the lads have to play at some point', but i'm saying they might not. I mean, some of them will need to get on the pitch I suppose but why are we assuming they'll all need to start or play an important part? There's a pretty decent chance that we can get through the whole season - which is why the amount of games played is relevant - by just using 4/5 players in the 3 positions behind the striker. We don't have to play them all. I don't believe Dowell needs game time for us because I don't think he's in Silva's plans. I even think he's more likely to change the formation than play Dowell, and he just played him the other night for the same reason as he picked Baines and Schneiderlin - so that he could give someone else a rest. For me, once you accept that some of the changes were just for resting purposes, it's hardly a stretch to think that they all were.

My answer to your original question is that I would play the strongest side possible as often as possible, and see no reason to make mass changes at any point. If you want to rotate and give people chances then do it in small batches. If Dowell is Sigurdsson's back up then give him a run out with the actual first team to see how he does. If you want to see how Lookman does in place of Walcott then let him have a go with the same players round him to see if he matches up. I feel that throwing them all in together doesn't really teach us anything, and leads to poor performances. I also think Silva is fully aware of that, which is why I wasn't happy with the decision in the first place.

Obviously none of this is fact, it's just my opinion and I may be way off.

 

[toffeejack]

The obvious retort to that being that if we'd had better players on we would have taken those 'chances'...

Like arsenal away.

 

[Lanolin]

Like arsenal away.

Not relevant though is it? The point is, you can’t say ‘the team was definitely good enough to win, the only problem was we weren’t good enough to take our chances’ because then by definition the team wasn’t good enough to win. The team we picked away at arsenal also wasn’t good enough to win, but I believe it would have been good enough to beat Southampton at home.

 

[everton1953]

If we lose against Leicester imagine all the "I told you so" salvoes on here. I think we will get at least a draw anyway.

 

[Saint Domingo]

For me it’s a decent season if:

We qualify for Europe AND win away at a top 6 or win any derby game.

If we finish 8th or lower and lose all the top 6 games again and do nothing in the cup then tbh it’s been an extremely average showing.

Let’s see how he has done by the end. Hopefully we kick on into some consistency around the Christmas period so we have a chance of Europe come second half of the season.

 

[paulbefc]

The plotting has begun it seems.

Battle lines are being drawn.

All seems so familiar.

 

[Jamalio Danubio DiCanio]

If he finishes lower than 7th, he deserves the sack. That is the minimum any Everton manager should be allowed to get away with.

I think that is harsh. I don't think the squad is any much better than Leicester's. Leicester also have a manager who's been in place for a while beforehand and has embedded his style of play. Unlike Silva.

Then he likes of West Ham have a pretty talented squad, albeit one that is having similar teething problems adjusting to a new system.

Wolves, Watford, Palace, even Bournemouth are all going to be competitive this season.

The aim should be 7th, the minimum requirement should be an improvement in the style of play and improvements in result and performance as the season goes on. Sticking an arbitrary 7th position as the target and below is a sackable offence does no-one any good. And this isn't about accepting mediocrity either. It's about understanding our current position in the Premier League, the challenges Silva faces and not putting unrealistic demands or targets on him when he's got so much to fix.

There's too many fans who think we should be 7th just because of the name Everton. Or because we've spunked a lot of money over the last few years. The name Everton means little any more. It's years since we were a big club and could demand certain finishes. The transfer layout is a mute point because it's been across numerous different managers with numerous different styles, and hence different ideal player profiles. It's been p*ssed up the wall in the main and that's not Marco Silva's fault or something he should be made accountable for.