2025/26 David Moyes

[wandyr79]

Not when you're failing to achieve anything in a season. If we were winning cups or getting into the CL then the derby defeats would take on the context you imply.

But we're not and the derbies are there to measure any Everton manager.

16 defeats for this feller. It's an outrageous failure to turn up in that many.

No, he wont be sacked for it because we have owners simply looking to protect an asset and they're not bothered about such matter as local pride.

Yes, but if we sacked just based on Derby performances, there is a chance that we would have a new manager every season. Do we sack if we draw both games, or do we sack if we win away but lose at home. What criteria should we sack a manager for?

It should only ever be for overall performance. Imagine if all clubs went with this method, Man City won 1 and lost 1 against Man Utd this season, but could still win the league. It would be laughable if the board met to debate whether 1 win against Utd is not good enough. I know that I am talking about City winning things, but this season was all about finishing as high up the table as possible. If we do that then Moyes has done a good job, we can debate individual performances, being poor at home for a large part of the season, but the end result will be a positive, if we finish higher than we are now, or even if we finish where we are, to a certain extent.

Local pride is nice, but it is not the be all and all. I suppose if you work and live around their fans (as I used to) then it can grate a little bit more, but I have always been able to laugh their attitude off. Make a joke, not make it a big deal and they shut up very quickly.

 

[Toffe3m4n]

Interesting how this attitude never changed anywhere else.

Exactly.

The blue-tinted glasses over Moyes at Everton is insane. Only crumb of success he's had in his entire career was the Conference win at Wham and even they still chased him out...

 

[mikew1878]

If we have any chance of getting Glasner we should absolutely take it.

 

[davek]

Yes, but if we sacked just based on Derby performances, there is a chance that we would have a new manager every season. Do we sack if we draw both games, or do we sack if we win away but lose at home. What criteria should we sack a manager for?

It should only ever be for overall performance. Imagine if all clubs went with this method, Man City won 1 and lost 1 against Man Utd this season, but could still win the league. It would be laughable if the board met to debate whether 1 win against Utd is not good enough. I know that I am talking about City winning things, but this season was all about finishing as high up the table as possible. If we do that then Moyes has done a good job, we can debate individual performances, being poor at home for a large part of the season, but the end result will be a positive, if we finish higher than we are now, or even if we finish where we are, to a certain extent.

Local pride is nice, but it is not the be all and all. I suppose if you work and live around their fans (as I used to) then it can grate a little bit more, but I have always been able to laugh their attitude off. Make a joke, not make it a big deal and they shut up very quickly.

They're spurious examples. City obviously dont have that recent record against United and the example falls on that simple matter. And City are winning stuff (my point was that we're not achieving and therefore there's no mitigating circumstances for the derby losses).

And Ilm not talking - as you well know - one or two derby reversals requiring a sacking; this is a 16 derby losing manager - it's an exceptional case and stands alone as a measure of suitability for a manager at a club like this.

Im afraid there's no route through to a finessing of the argument where Moyes' catastrophic derby record becomes understandable.

This is the immovable object you and others come crashing into.

 

[John from Bootle]

and then slope off back over to RAWK, to lend a " helping hand " when we win.

Oh wow. What's the story behind this? Links would be appreciated, though if you can't be arsed, fair enough

 

[degsy]

Apart from a few years in the 60s and 80s, we've been a pretty average footy club for a century.



Ducks for cover*

I was once laided up in bed sick for a few days, by day 3 I was better but not 100% - but I was bored so with nothing to do I averaged our league positions for what amounted to 85/90 odd years

I've seen 4 league championship wins, 3 FACups, ECWC,

It came out around 8th-ish

Just sayin like.

 

[John from Bootle]

They're spurious examples. City obviously dont have that recent record against United and the example falls on that simple matter. And City are winning stuff (my point was that we're not achieving and therefore there's no mitigating circumstances for the derby losses).

And Ilm not talking - as you well know - one or two derby reversals requiring a sacking; this is a 16 derby losing manager - it's an exceptional case and stands alone as a measure of suitability for a manager at a club like this.

Im afraid there's no route through to a finessing of the argument where Moyes' catastrophic derby record becomes understandable.

This is the immovable object you and others come crashing into.

It's people like you who have them laughing at us and saying that playing them is our cup final. But then I suspect you know that.

It's an important game for local bragging rights, nothing more, nothing less. It hasn't been a truly big game since the 80's.

 

[Bedfordblue]

 

[John from Bootle]

Newly promoted Sunderland did the double over champions league Newcastle the richest club in the world.

Hahaha, somebody is trying too hard. Richest club in the world my arse. Theoretically they might be, here in the real world they're not even 'richer' than Spurs or Aston Villa.

 

[degsy]

There's going to be managerial musical chairs at the end of the season
Palace
Bournemouth
Spurs?
Chelsea?
Newcastle?
Arsenal if they blow it?
Plus no doubt, others

Maybe even at the rs - though we've probably saved Slots job

TFG will sit tight and activate Moyes's 1yr option

 

[davek]

It's people like you who have them laughing at us and saying that playing them is our cup final. But then I suspect you know that.

It's an important game for local bragging rights, nothing more, nothing less. It hasn't been a truly big game since the 80's.

That's a complete downplaying of the importance to this club of losing 16 derbies on this mangers watch.

16 derbies lost by Moyes. Incredible. That cant be ignored or passed off as me just obsessing.

 

[Frenk]

That's a complete downplaying of the importance to this club of losing 16 derbies on this mangers watch.

16 derbies lost by Moyes. Incredible. That cant be ignored or passed off as me just obsessing.

Yep, it’s bad, it’s very, very bad, nobody can deny it.

 

[MondayHater]

Exactly.

The blue-tinted glasses over Moyes at Everton is insane. Only crumb of success he's had in his entire career was the Conference win at Wham and even they still chased him out...

And look what happened to West Ham when they did that.

I don’t think the answer is Moyes long term, but we have done well this season, we are pushing for Europe and in no danger of relegation and we have some exciting players. He took over when we were 1 place above the relegation zone he even has Beto scoring.

We missed out on players because we were not in Europe in the summer but also players would have seen us scrapping in to stay up in at least the last three years. We may not get Europe this year but players we will see we aren’t fighting at the bottom of again. We needed a season where we stabilised and move forward again in the summer. One transfer window or two was not going to fix this and if Moyes goes in the summer or next season we will be in a much better place than when he came.

 

[wandyr79]

They're spurious examples. City obviously dont have that recent record against United and the example falls on that simple matter. And City are winning stuff (my point was that we're not achieving and therefore there's no mitigating circumstances for the derby losses).

And Ilm not talking - as you well know - one or two derby reversals requiring a sacking; this is a 16 derby losing manager - it's an exceptional case and stands alone as a measure of suitability for a manager at a club like this.

Im afraid there's no route through to a finessing of the argument where Moyes' catastrophic derby record becomes understandable.

This is the immovable object you and others come crashing into.

But even if we add more seasons to it, the percentage of matches against them compared to other teams becomes even smaller and even more insignificant, if we remove local pride.

I have seen a lot of 'We beat them more when we were crap'. Come May I was ecstatic with how the season went because we won those 2 matches, oh we may have not won many more and finished low in the table but we won those 2 games so the manager should only be judged on that.

I was ecstatic at the time of the win, cause of local pride. Beating them is a much better feeling than beating anybody else, unless it was beating somebody else to win something. But that feeling goes if we are poor for the rest of the season, just like if we lose but are good for the rest of the season.

To add so much weight to it, as a gauge to how a manager is performing as a whole, plays into their hands of it being our cup final, as somebody else put so succinctly.

 

[MondayHater]

Can we get past t

That's a complete downplaying of the importance to this club of losing 16 derbies on this mangers watch.

16 derbies lost by Moyes. Incredible. That cant be ignored or passed off as me just obsessing.

Can we get past the Derby thing? Yes it sucks but at the end of the day it’s 6 points out of the whole season.