At the moment I think you can split it into two sections. The 'new manager bounce' phase where we won 3 of the first 4 games, and now a run where we've only won 1 of the next 9 but continued to pick up points. He's done a good job since he came in and hopefully he can make significant strides next year if we can actually give him the backing he needs to improve the squad to a point where we can expect them to win and compete more often than not.
Hate this whole new manager bounce narrative. People were waiting for him to lose to say it was just a bounce yet he literally lost his first game in charge. There was no bounce. There was just better management.
I saw a pretty awful cross on the map. Apt.
O'Brien included is a master stroke. Singularly the most important improvement.
Talking about a new manager bounce isn't a criticism or a way of doing the manager down though, it's just a widely accepted term for the effect a new manager can have. James Garner referenced it in an interview somebody posted on here a couple of weeks ago, stating that he thought it was definitely a thing as far as players are concerned, and that he thought Moyes had had that effect. Moyes is a better manager than Dyche, I don't think i've seen anyone say differently to be honest. That doesn't mean he didn't have a bit of a bounce to begin with or that we should expect long unbeaten runs to become the norm with this group of players though.
Well it's not a guaranteed thing, obviously. Of course it's variable, it's not a defined thing, it's just a term, like 'purple patch' or even 'form'. They don't have set parameters, it's just a way of describing something. The theory is that a couple of minor changes can lead to short term improvement, but that eventually you will regress back to the mean. It's used widely in football but the principle applies to pretty much anything really. There's plenty of anecdotal evidence to support the idea, but obviously you can never prove or disprove or something that is so vague a concept.
You can't prove it because it is BS. Good coaches will get better results, all things being even. It's not like Moyes is an unproven coach in the Premier League and he has introduced some novel tactics that will get cracked. He is just a good training ground coach and tactician.
Yup. With a decent striker we'd have accumulated even more points. Beto has missed some real big chances, despite his brief good run of form.
Well that’s just a totally different argument, and seemingly a complete misunderstanding of what a new manager bounce is.
The whole new manager bounce thing is a nonsense. At best, you get a brief respite when there is major trouble between the squad and a manager, but these situations are rarer than people think. Usually the reason the form is bad is the players are bad.
I’m really not quite sure what argument you’re making here?
"In fact, new managers cannot work magic. The short honeymoon after the new man takes over is easy to explain. Typically, the average club earns 1.3 points a match. Typically, Bridgewater found, a club sacks its manager when it averages only 1 point a match—that is, at a low point in the cycle.
www.fourfourtwo.com
Welcome
Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.
