Record against Liverpool compared to the rest of the top 6

[balggy]

Watching Souness talking after the match about our record prompted me to do a bit of research. The reason we are so poor against Liverpool, according to Souness, is because Liverpool are better, simple as that.

Whilst its fair to accept that bar a couple of seasons, they have been better on the pitch, that doesn't really account for why we are so poor against them. We finished above them in 2012/12 and 2012/13, yet couldn't beat them in the derby.

Ironically, two of the best performances in the past 10 years, have come against arguably two of the best Liverpool teams. In 2008/9 they were genuine title contenders but we went to their place, nicked a point with a Cahill header and dumped them out of the cup in the replay at Goodison.

Again in 2013/4, they were a slip away (and Crystanbul) from winning the league. Whilst they thumped us four nil at their place, the 3-3 at Goodison was one of the best derby performances I have seen by an Everton side.

So I don't think our derby recorded can be fully explained by them being "better" than us.

Since the 2005/06 season to the present day, our record against the current top 6 in the Premier League has been as follows:

Tottenham
Won 6
Lost 9
Draw 9

Arsenal
Won 4
Lost 12
Draw 7

City
Won 11
Lost 8
Draw 5

Man Utd
Won 5
Lost 13
Draw 5

Chelsea
Won 5
Lost 10
Draw 8

Liverpool
Won 2
Lost 13
Draw 9


As the table shows, our record against the other top 6 teams, is notably better than it is against Liverpool (granted City weren't really a force until 2008).

But Chelsea, Utd and City have won Premier League titles in the past 10 years and we have over double the amount of wins against them, than we do against Liverpool.

So whilst our record against the top 6 in general isn't great (no team's is outside the top 6), our record against Liverpool is particularly shocking.

This a Liverpool, who have finished in the top four once since 2008/9 season and in two season behind us. You would expect our record against them to be second best, behind Spurs but instead it is by far the worse.

So it has to be psychological. A set of players who over the years have crumbled under the pressure of a derby match.

I can't think of one Liverpool player who let them down yesterday, not one. I can't think of one Everton player who didn't let themselves down yesterday. It has been like that for years.

So whilst they may have better players, have a higher wage bill, spent more money, the real reason why they have such a better record against us in the derby must be something else.

To say is psychological is easy, what is it psychologically that they have over us?

 

[kenada_blue]

10 years of David Moyes inferiority complex is hard to shake off

 

[degsy]

Watching Souness talking after the match about our record prompted me to do a bit of research. The reason we are so poor against Liverpool, according to Souness, is because Liverpool are better, simple as that.

Whilst its fair to accept that bar a couple of seasons, they have been better on the pitch, that doesn't really account for why we are so poor against them. We finished above them in 2012/12 and 2012/13, yet couldn't beat them in the derby.

Ironically, two of the best performances in the past 10 years, have come against arguably two of the best Liverpool teams. In 2008/9 they were genuine title contenders but we went to their place, nicked a point with a Cahill header and dumped them out of the cup in the replay at Goodison.

Again in 2013/4, they were a slip away (and Crystanbul) from winning the league. Whilst they thumped us four nil at their place, the 3-3 at Goodison was one of the best derby performances I have seen by an Everton side.

So I don't think our derby recorded can be fully explained by them being "better" than us.

Since the 2005/06 season to the present day, our record against the current top 6 in the Premier League has been as follows:

Tottenham
Won 6
Lost 9
Draw 9

Arsenal
Won 4
Lost 12
Draw 7

City
Won 11
Lost 8
Draw 5

Man Utd
Won 5
Lost 13
Draw 5

Chelsea
Won 5
Lost 10
Draw 8

Liverpool
Won 2
Lost 13
Draw 9


As the table shows, our record against the other top 6 teams, is notably better than it is against Liverpool (granted City weren't really a force until 2008).

But Chelsea, Utd and City have won Premier League titles in the past 10 years and we have over double the amount of wins against them, than we do against Liverpool.

So whilst our record against the top 6 in general isn't great (no team's is outside the top 6), our record against Liverpool is particularly shocking.

This a Liverpool, who have finished in the top four once since 2008/9 season and in two season behind us. You would expect our record against them to be second best, behind Spurs but instead it is by far the worse.

So it has to be psychological. A set of players who over the years have crumbled under the pressure of a derby match.

I can't think of one Liverpool player who let them down yesterday, not one. I can't think of one Everton player who didn't let themselves down yesterday. It has been like that for years.

So whilst they may have better players, have a higher wage bill, spent more money, the real reason why they have such a better record against us in the derby must be something else.

To say is psychological is easy, what is it psychologically that they have over us?

With the odd exception, for the last 30yrs+ we've been talent challenged Bottlers ?

 

[tommye]

 

[Eggs]

....this is cheering me up no end.

 

[Gladystweet]

....this is cheering me up no end.

Indeed. I'm invigorated.

 

[big bobs beard]

But it goes further, I am 47 and we have only won at Anfield 4 times in my lifetime. Indeed add Goodison wins in the league which I think is ten since 1970, ( correct me if I am wrong ) and that is 14 wins in 47 years, or 14 out of 90+ derbies. Appalling, that is why we and probably the players continually suffer from the inferiority complex, it's ingrained in us. ( not to mention losing 3 finals and two semis in that time too)
How does it change?? God knows, but it saddens me my lad is 18 and he has seen us win only 4 derbies, even I had seen 5 by the time I was 16 against the Liverpool of the 70's and 80's.

 

[Tubey]

It's just mentality. We basically never turn up.

I actually think it's a bit unfair to blame Moyes too. Yes, we got notably worse under him because of his negativity, but Everton have had an inferiority complex against the RS well since the 70s.

It's not going to change overnight. Koeman would have learned more about the character of some of our players in that loss you would hope - it's time to shift the perennial "nice boys" out of the club and bring in winners.

 

[Seamus Colemole]

It's just mentality. We basically never turn up.

I actually think it's a bit unfair to blame Moyes too. Yes, we got notably worse under him because of his negativity, but Everton have had an inferiority complex against the RS well since the 70s.

It's not going to change overnight. Koeman would have learned more about the character of some of our players in that loss you would hope - it's time to shift the perennial "nice boys" out of the club and bring in winners.

How do you define a "winner"?

 

[Saint Domingo]

How do you define a "winner"?

Someone who raises their performance level in big games. That's why despite their trophies the likes of Barry and Neville we're not sinners whereas Cahill was.

 

[davek]

Watching Souness talking after the match about our record prompted me to do a bit of research. The reason we are so poor against Liverpool, according to Souness, is because Liverpool are better, simple as that.

Whilst its fair to accept that bar a couple of seasons, they have been better on the pitch, that doesn't really account for why we are so poor against them. We finished above them in 2012/12 and 2012/13, yet couldn't beat them in the derby.

Ironically, two of the best performances in the past 10 years, have come against arguably two of the best Liverpool teams. In 2008/9 they were genuine title contenders but we went to their place, nicked a point with a Cahill header and dumped them out of the cup in the replay at Goodison.

Again in 2013/4, they were a slip away (and Crystanbul) from winning the league. Whilst they thumped us four nil at their place, the 3-3 at Goodison was one of the best derby performances I have seen by an Everton side.

So I don't think our derby recorded can be fully explained by them being "better" than us.

Since the 2005/06 season to the present day, our record against the current top 6 in the Premier League has been as follows:

Tottenham
Won 6
Lost 9
Draw 9

Arsenal
Won 4
Lost 12
Draw 7

City
Won 11
Lost 8
Draw 5

Man Utd
Won 5
Lost 13
Draw 5

Chelsea
Won 5
Lost 10
Draw 8

Liverpool
Won 2
Lost 13
Draw 9


As the table shows, our record against the other top 6 teams, is notably better than it is against Liverpool (granted City weren't really a force until 2008).

But Chelsea, Utd and City have won Premier League titles in the past 10 years and we have over double the amount of wins against them, than we do against Liverpool.

So whilst our record against the top 6 in general isn't great (no team's is outside the top 6), our record against Liverpool is particularly shocking.

This a Liverpool, who have finished in the top four once since 2008/9 season and in two season behind us. You would expect our record against them to be second best, behind Spurs but instead it is by far the worse.

So it has to be psychological. A set of players who over the years have crumbled under the pressure of a derby match.

I can't think of one Liverpool player who let them down yesterday, not one. I can't think of one Everton player who didn't let themselves down yesterday. It has been like that for years.

So whilst they may have better players, have a higher wage bill, spent more money, the real reason why they have such a better record against us in the derby must be something else.

To say is psychological is easy, what is it psychologically that they have over us?

I think the point though mate is that besides that City record we have (and as you say, it includes a period pre-investment) our results are very poor.

If we want to be considered as a top club in that company and want others to feel that way too then we have to start beating them on a regular basis.

It matters not that other clubs outside the elite dont do that either. We just dont walk the walk and have no right to be viewed in that company.

I thought the whole point of the takeover was so we can bridge that gap. It is not working out that way though and we'll be waiting a long time for some facility led squad investment that hands us cash...and even then it wont be massive cash.

In short: we're miles off...simply miles off.

 

[Kev The Rat]

I think the point though mate is that besides that City record we have (and as you say, it includes a period pre-investment) our results are very poor.

If we want to be considered as a top club in that company and want others to feel that way too then we have to start beating them on a regular basis.

It matters not that other clubs outside the elite dont do that either. We just dont walk the walk and have no right to be viewed in that company.

I thought the whole point of the takeover was so we can bridge that gap. It is not working out that way though and we'll be waiting a long time for some facility led squad investment that hands us cash...and even then it wont be massive cash.

In short: we're miles off...simply miles off.

agreed we need to do a city style spending spree - and like you I thought that's what Moshiri was here to do - but obviously not.

 

[Chunky Frankfurter]

I think the point though mate is that besides that City record we have (and as you say, it includes a period pre-investment) our results are very poor.

If we want to be considered as a top club in that company and want others to feel that way too then we have to start beating them on a regular basis.

It matters not that other clubs outside the elite dont do that either. We just dont walk the walk and have no right to be viewed in that company.

I thought the whole point of the takeover was so we can bridge that gap. It is not working out that way though and we'll be waiting a long time for some facility led squad investment that hands us cash...and even then it wont be massive cash.

In short: we're miles off...simply miles off.

Exactly. We'll be relying on selling our best players to improve this team.

People expecting Moshiri to be City owners or Abramovich - in cuckoo world. Moshiri is more like FSG.

 

[blue61]

How do you define a "winner"?

Wayne Rooney
Puts on tin hat and runs for the hills

 

[davek]

agreed we need to do a city style spending spree - and like you I thought that's what Moshiri was here to do - but obviously not.

It looks to me he's here to set up a stadium scheme that costs him and his boss nothing and they stand in a number of ways to profit from it.

The squad? More stories about mega deals being *that* close to tying up - the ones Lukaku mentioned about.

As I see it, he has the summer months to hold off a backlash.