Roberto Martinez discussion

[4737carlin]

Why will he not start Joel in net it baffles me

Its too late now, i think he just wont admit that he was wrong with his choice of keepers, to change now shows he should of done it long ago. Mans in denial, sign that someone doesn't know what they are doing.
A real pro can see when they have made a mistake, understand it, deal with it and move forward, but the likes of Martinez IE a man out of his depth just go on doing that same thing that doesn't work.

 

[JAYTALITY]

No point arguing he is here for a while. It takes time to downgrade out expectations.

 

[Elong]

Can't wait till we sign nobody today and it's all Martinez's fault.

 

[Bob Latchford]

Why not say what wee Michael actually said without putting your own selective spin on it?

Because that ain't what I heard him say on my TV.

He said he loves watching us attack this season....that we are the best footballing side around.

He then mentioned the names of our first choice defenders.

He said Coleman and Baines are about the best pair of full backs in the country and that Jags was a seasoned international player, first name on the teamsheet.

He said that John Stones, in his opinion, is the best defender in the country.

He then opined that with a back four like that you would think a few tweaks is all it would take to get us going.

That is a view which had been expressed many times by many posters on this very forum and it is self evident.

And he said that in his opinion we should stick with Martinez.

Never once did I hear him mention the word "crazy" in relation to sacking Bobby.

It was actually a very pro Everton little speech.

Although to be fair he never mentioned the goalkeeping problem

I didn't put a selective spin on it. I didn't use quotation marks either.

Just because you don't recall wee Michael saying that he thought it would be a mistake to sack martinez doesn't give you a monopoly on being right.

Yes he mentioned the quality of the back line, but I was paraphrasing what he said after that.

In a nutshell he said that our defence only needed minor tweaking, he mentioned the quality we had at the back he then went on to say that because of the way we play football and the squad we have it would be a mistake to sack Martinez.

Whether anyone wants to back either of us up on our recall of little mikeys commentary is neither here nor there. My opinion is that Martinez has made our defence worse and while we play some great stuff I don't think he can get the balance right.

I don't think he mentioned the keeper.

I've no time for Owen either, just because he said something positive doesn't make him any less the shitehouse that he is.

 

[Khalekan]

Yes he mentioned the quality of the back line, but I was paraphrasing what he said after that.

In a nutshell he said that our defence only needed minor tweaking, he mentioned the quality we had at the back he then went on to say that because of the way we play football and the squad we have it would be a mistake to sack Martinez

So you were merely paraphrasing by saying he used the word "crazy" in regard to firing Bobby instead of the acurate and altogether more reasoned phrase "it would be a mistake".

Glad you admitted that

 

[mankers88]

We've also scored 127 in that same time frame mate.

I think RM's communication skills are, for a smart man, dreadful at times.

I believe he also is a staunch believer in bigging up his squad and not criticising players in public. It goes a long way to explaining some of his comments.

I agree on the '3 goals in the right way' thing, it's ridiculous. Though if he had said, 'if the opposition score a very good goal, then sometimes you have to accept that as good football', or something along those lines, I think it would have been taken better.

so take Lukaku's goals away from that 127 and we find ourselves in a very dangerous position.

worrying considering the manager doesn't think we rely on him.

 

[TheBlueGibbon]

so take Lukaku's goals away from that 127 and we find ourselves in a very dangerous position.

worrying considering the manager doesn't think we rely on him.

This is the same manager that said he wouldn't move Stones to right back, then played him at right back. What Martinez says and what he actually feels are two very different things (with the exception of when he talks about Howard).

 

[Stanley Parker]

I think he's half right - about the small changes - to the way we approach defending starting with the coaching, instructions especially when seeing a game out and certain selection choices (wingers to cover against fast teams, stones dropped when making mistakes, Howard?) . I don't think it'd take huge changes nor really damage our attacking

But he's wrong about keeping Martinez (in my opinion obviously) because he isn't willing to make these changes, and evidence tells us he never will. He showed the worst trait possible in a manager and took Wigan down with his philosophy without showing flexibility to change it

People seem to think that once you have taken a lead, you should see the game out. But seeing a game out isn't straightforward.

If you attack and score two early goals, there is a good argument for continuing to attack, in moderation, to keep pressure on the opponents and, if possible, to increase the lead through scoring more goals.

The alternative view is to close the game down to preserve the two goal lead. But this does not guarantee a win. It can hand possession and the initiative to the opposition. And if they are allowed to attack, they are in a position to create chances and to score.

When teams take a lead, they often grow over-confident and careless, whether they are attacking or defending. And it doesn't do to go to extremes. Both all-out defending and attacking for long periods can give the opposition opportunities to score. And the nature of football is that goals can occur at any time.

It's certainly true that you can't score if you haven't got the ball. Perhaps denying the opposition possession towards the end of a game is a better way to see a game out.

 

[Ollie d]

People seem to think that once you have taken a lead, you should see the game out. But seeing a game out isn't straightforward.

If you attack and score two early goals, there is a good argument for continuing to attack, in moderation, to keep pressure on the opponents and, if possible, to increase the lead through scoring more goals.

The alternative view is to close the game down to preserve the two goal lead. But this does not guarantee a win. It can hand possession and the initiative to the opposition. And if they are allowed to attack, they are in a position to create chances and to score.

When teams take a lead, they often grow over-confident and careless, whether they are attacking or defending. And it doesn't do to go to extremes. Both all-out defending and attacking for long periods can give the opposition opportunities to score. And the nature of football is that goals can occur at any time.

It's certainly true that you can't score if you haven't got the ball. Perhaps denying the opposition possession towards the end of a game is a better way to see a game out.

Agree with this exactly,last season (league) we played a lot of football where we didn't break teams down just kept the ball for long periods. That is what we should do when we are in a dominant position.

 

[efcfanwirral]

People seem to think that once you have taken a lead, you should see the game out. But seeing a game out isn't straightforward.

If you attack and score two early goals, there is a good argument for continuing to attack, in moderation, to keep pressure on the opponents and, if possible, to increase the lead through scoring more goals.

The alternative view is to close the game down to preserve the two goal lead. But this does not guarantee a win. It can hand possession and the initiative to the opposition. And if they are allowed to attack, they are in a position to create chances and to score.

When teams take a lead, they often grow over-confident and careless, whether they are attacking or defending. And it doesn't do to go to extremes. Both all-out defending and attacking for long periods can give the opposition opportunities to score. And the nature of football is that goals can occur at any time.

It's certainly true that you can't score if you haven't got the ball. Perhaps denying the opposition possession towards the end of a game is a better way to see a game out.

that's what i was meaning really - instead of a gung-ho approach that sees both your full backs and holding midfielder in the opposition box when you're defending a one goal lead, maybe pass it around midfield a bit, sort of like we did yesterday really. Little things like whacking it into the corner for a throw in if you're on your own like Deulofeu against Chelsea to give the rest of the team a chance to push out after being pegged back, maybe giving away the odd cynical foul. Just a SLIGHTLY pragmatic approach at times would be nice. And there's always the counter attack when you're holding a lead anyway

I hated Moyes' 10 men behind the ball thing at 1-0 after 20 minutes but equally throwing away a lead every game because we play like its 0-0 isn't working either.

 

[4737carlin]

Could manage to go on a decent run now he's managed to avoid playing Liverpool on the 28th

Liverpool? Will do well to get 5 points from Newcastle, Stoke and WBA

 

[chicoazul]

Big weekend for the plotters as the mods dispatched both @Dithering Dougie and @Prevenger17, who'd both scored big against those wanting Martinez destroyed.

Dynamics of the forum could change here or maybe a new hero will stand up?

 

[Neiler]

I wonder what Moyes would have done with all the wonga that Martinez has spent?

 

[Azza]

I wonder what Moyes would have done with all the wonga that Martinez has spent?

Probably given Hibbo and Ossie pay rises.

 

[Kiwi]

Big weekend for the plotters as the mods dispatched both @Dithering Dougie and @Prevenger17, who'd both scored big against those wanting Martinez destroyed.

Dynamics of the forum could change here or maybe a new hero will stand up?

That shake the fence a bit did it?