David Moyes/Everton Big Game Mentality

[njligernj]

Football fans can't agree on what constitutes a big club or a big game apparently. If nothing else this thread was worth reading just to see someone call Artetafan a Moyes apologist.

If Sunderland was a big game then so was Man City, Arsenal, QPR, Spurs e.t.c. To pick an arbitrary starting point after a series of good results and say "NOW these are big games" doesn't really make much sense. If those games I mentioned weren't big games does that mean if we'd beaten Sunderland then the next game would be a big game and Sunderland would somehow become no longer big in retrospect?

It really doesn't matter if you agree on Sunderland being "big" or not ... just that you are consistent in applying those rules. If Sunderland was big then so were those other games. There is no avoiding that.

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

I don't think we bottled it as such we were just awful and not up for it with plenty out of form or having a bad game. Nobody should escape blame when we're so poor. Just like no one is exempt from praise when we do well!

I agree, we were ****e & everyone involved should share the blame, as they were all culpable, that was my point really. I find the bottler tag being wheeled out & thrown solely at Moyes every time we lose (all 8 times in how many league games?.....) really tiresome tbh.

I'll wager we'll have many more occasions were we 'bottle it' post his departure.....

 

[steken1]

But the original post argues that the sunderland game was the single most important league game of the season and used that to make a point about how this team falls apart in big games.

And all I'm saying is that, that's only because we lost it. We had to basically, at worst, win 9 and draw 2 of our last 11 games, to get europe. Those 11 were all pretty important, with 4 being more improtant because they were against our rivals. If we go onto win our next 4 games, we'd have fallen short of our goal due to that loss at sunderland but would that mean we'd played badly in our only big game of the 11, or that we'd played well in ten of the eleven big games left and not the 11th.

If we won the sunderland game but lost one of the others, qpr, stoke, fulham, city etc we'd still be in the same position. Those other wins were just as needed as the one we didn't get was.

You only know that with the benefit of hindsight though. At the time of them they were more important than the previous one. If Spurs and Chelsea lose their next two and we win ours the remainders will suddenly be the most important. If we go into our last match with a win guaranteeing CL qualification that'd be the most important of the season, regardless of whats gone before.

 

[steken1]

I agree, we were ****e & everyone involved should share the blame, as they were all culpable, that was my point really. I find the bottler tag being wheeled out & thrown solely at Moyes every time we lose (all 8 times in how many league games?.....) really tiresome tbh.

I'll wager we'll have many more occasions were we 'bottle it' post his departure.....

I'll wager we may get less occasions to 'bottle' it.I doubt we'd be so consistently poor when it matters. Ultimately we looked poor in a game that mattered. Something that's been a mainstay of the Moyes era. Not many heroic failures to be pointed at (Fiorentina) opposed to damp squibs (Bucharest).

 

[Allezfan]

You only know that with the benefit of hindsight though. At the time of them they were more important than the previous one. If Spurs and Chelsea lose their next two and we win ours the remainders will suddenly be the most important. If we go into our last match with a win guaranteeing CL qualification that'd be the most important of the season, regardless of whats gone before.

Right exactly.

But the point is going into sunderland we were 6th, would be 6th even if we won and needed a win to keep up with the teams ahead, going into qpr we were 6th and needed a win to keep up with the teams ahead, going into stoke, arsenal, spurs etc etc.

I don't see how it's valid to pick out the sunderland game and look at our players perform as if it was somehow a different situation to the previous games. The idea that sunderland was a big game that we bottled, while qpr wasn't a big game just seems entirely unsupportable. If you're going to inspect how we as a team cope under pressure, surely you have to look either at both games or neither.

 

[Ihaters]

Reading - we win
City - we win
Stoke- we win
Spurs - we draw
Qpr - we win
Arsenal - we draw
Sunderland we lose - bottled it in the biggest league game of the season

Reading - we win
City - we win
Stoke- we lose - bottled it in the biggest league game of the season

Reading - we win
City - we win
stoke - we win
Spurs - we lose
qpr - we lose - bottled it in the biggest league game of the season

Reading - we win
City - we win
Stoke- we win
Spurs - we draw
Qpr - we win
Arsenal - we draw
Sunderland we win
Fulham we win
Liverpool we lose - bottled it in the biggest league game of the season

Thank fk for that Spurs game or I would suspect an agenda.

I'll help out here:
Its quite simple. AF..
Sunderland is massive as was Wigan because of the massive pressure.. not associated with the recent City, Arsenal or Soke games which is lucky or we would of lost them because of Moyes lack of ability.
Nnope the pressure only started last weekend, may well ease next week but return the week after, not sure, it comes and goes.

Man U in a semi and the RS, our local rivals, in the quarters is of course not a big/important game because there is no pressure associated...
However the pressure truly kicks in when we play against the RS (only at theirs though) when we are both mid table and not in a cup game with Wembley coming up next game... That's the pressure pot right there.
Its obvious.. don't see why you don't get it.

 

[Philw]

But the original post argues that the sunderland game was the single most important league game of the season and used that to make a point about how this team falls apart in big games.

And all I'm saying is that, that's only because we lost it. We had to basically, at worst, win 9 and draw 2 of our last 11 games, to get europe. Those 11 were all pretty important, with 4 being more improtant because they were against our rivals. If we go onto win our next 4 games, we'd have fallen short of our goal due to that loss at sunderland but would that mean we'd played badly in our only big game of the 11, or that we'd played well in ten of the eleven big games left and not the 11th.

If we won the sunderland game but lost one of the others, qpr, stoke, fulham, city etc we'd still be in the same position. Those other wins were just as needed as the one we didn't get was.

Well i would say it was important either way. And yeah, all those last 11 games in your eg were/are important, but the 'importancy' increases with each passing game. So I would say that we played well in x of our big games so far, but we played poorly in the most important one so far. And I would put that down to the pressure. It was a big game that we were supposed to win. Ergo more pressure. Against Spurs/Arsenal they were big games, in fact I would actually admit that they were more important than S'Land (certainly Arsenal anyway) due to the ability to take points off rivals. However in those big games we weren't supposed to win. Therefore less pressure. And that's what I/we are trying to say; the big games when the pressure is on, the team seems to repeatedly come up short.

 

[Allezfan]

Thank fk for that Spurs game or I would suspect an agenda.

I'll help out here:
Its quite simple. AF..
Sunderland is massive as was Wigan because of the massive pressure.. not associated with the recent City, Arsenal or Soke games which is lucky or we would of lost them because of Moyes lack of ability.
Nnope the pressure only started last weekend, may well ease next week but return the week after, not sure, it comes and goes.

Man U in a semi and the RS, our local rivals, in the quarters is of course not a big/important game because there is no pressure associated...
However the pressure truly kicks in when we play against the RS (only at theirs though) when we are both mid table and not in a cup game with Wembley coming up next game... That's the pressure pot right there.
Its obvious.. don't see why you don't get it.

It's because I'm such a big moyes apologist, mate

 

[Ihaters]

It's because I'm such a big moyes apologist, mate

He's s**t mate.. you'll see it one day

 

[steken1]

Right exactly.

But the point is going into sunderland we were 6th, would be 6th even if we won and needed a win to keep up with the teams ahead, going into qpr we were 6th and needed a win to keep up with the teams ahead, going into stoke, arsenal, spurs etc etc.

I don't see how it's valid to pick out the sunderland game and look at our players perform as if it was somehow a different situation to the previous games. The idea that sunderland was a big game that we bottled, while qpr wasn't a big game just seems entirely unsupportable. If you're going to inspect how we as a team cope under pressure, surely you have to look either at both games or neither.

I agree with you on that.

I disagree on what constitutes a 'big' game. When you have ten five or three games to achieve a goal they're all important. 10 cup finals etc.

 

[Ihaters]

I agree with you on that.

I disagree on what constitutes a 'big' game. When you have ten five or three games to achieve a goal they're all important. 10 cup finals etc.

What about 38?

 

[steken1]

What about 38?

Every game carries importance, of course. But as the greatest of managers have said nothing is won in November. Your destiny is still largely in your hands. As you get further into a competition the room for manouvre decreases and games take on more significance.

I can't believe that point is being debated TBH. If that's not the case somebody should tell the FA so we can have all the third round games at Wembley. Surely we'd take 40,000 up if they're all as important as each other.

 

[Allezfan]

Every game carries importance, of course. But as the greatest of managers have said nothing is won in November. Your destiny is still largely in your hands. As you get further into a competition the room for manouvre decreases and games take on more significance.

I can't believe that point is being debated TBH. If that's not the case somebody should tell the FA so we can have all the third round games at Wembley. Surely we'd take 40,000 up if they're all as important as each other.

No, I agree about increasing importance.

I'd argue that the semi vs bayern was the more improtant game than the final vs vienna, mind. And same with liverpool and boro in our cup final run a few years back. But yeah on the whole, of course you're right.

It's just for me that importance hasn't built into a proper real big game until at least the semi if not the final.

 

[Allezfan]

Anyway we've won 3/4 quarter finals under moyes. If that is a big game then his record in big games is a lot less pathetic than I would have it.

 

[Philw]

Football fans can't agree on what constitutes a big club or a big game apparently. If nothing else this thread was worth reading just to see someone call Artetafan a Moyes apologist.

If Sunderland was a big game then so was Man City, Arsenal, QPR, Spurs e.t.c. To pick an arbitrary starting point after a series of good results and say "NOW these are big games" doesn't really make much sense. If those games I mentioned weren't big games does that mean if we'd beaten Sunderland then the next game would be a big game and Sunderland would somehow become no longer big in retrospect?

It really doesn't matter if you agree on Sunderland being "big" or not ... just that you are consistent in applying those rules. If Sunderland was big then so were those other games. There is no avoiding that.

1. Haha, no worries, I just threw that in there for a reaction!
2. Correct. But as I said earlier, it's not a black/white situation. All games have significance, it just ramps up as you get to the end of the season.
3. 'the next game would be our biggest game and Sunderland would become (relatively) less big' (but not actually any less big in itself, just the next game would be bigger).
4. See 2.

Right exactly.

But the point is going into sunderland we were 6th, would be 6th even if we won and needed a win to keep up with the teams ahead, going into qpr we were 6th and needed a win to keep up with the teams ahead, going into stoke, arsenal, spurs etc etc.

I don't see how it's valid to pick out the sunderland game and look at our players perform as if it was somehow a different situation to the previous games. The idea that sunderland was a big game that we bottled, while qpr wasn't a big game just seems entirely unsupportable. If you're going to inspect how we as a team cope under pressure, surely you have to look either at both games or neither.

Yes you are right. But you also have to look at the fact that there is more pressure on the Sunderland game.

Reading - we win
City - we win
Stoke- we win
Spurs - we draw
Qpr - we win
Arsenal - we draw
Sunderland we lose - bottled it in the biggest league game of the season

Reading - we win
City - we win
Stoke- we lose - bottled it in the biggest league game of the season

Reading - we win
City - we win
stoke - we win
Spurs - we lose
qpr - we lose - bottled it in the biggest league game of the season

Reading - we win
City - we win
Stoke- we win
Spurs - we draw
Qpr - we win
Arsenal - we draw
Sunderland we win
Fulham we win
Liverpool we lose - bottled it in the biggest league game of the season

Didn't see this before, and altho it's obviously, shall we say, tongue in cheek I would agree with it totally, with the exception of adding 'so far' to the end of each one...

It's because I'm such a big moyes apologist, mate