December 16, 2018, 12:42:24 AM

Author Topic: I'm going to be controversial  (Read 2163 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

December 29, 2010, 11:00:01 PM
Reply #15


nope Montana.....  no chanche in hell of getting Yobo back... on a years loan  and I'm sure the turks are as happy for him as you and me...   near the end

Thanks for the info...though it's a bit grim. I'm frightened to think what Heitinga might do if he gets back on the pitch in an Everton shirt. He may score a hatrick of own goals or lay a horror tackle on Pienaar. I figured we'd miss Yobo. But at this point, I think we even miss Senderos.
Everton forever.

December 29, 2010, 11:05:37 PM
Reply #16


NSNO Subscriber
Hibbert was poor mate, he looked under pressure constantly and needed Distin to bail him out several times.  Moyes had very limited options but Duffy would have been  a better choice.  I kind of agree with you and I understood what Moyes was trying to do but it just seemed like ridiculous timing.  What if it had been a roaring sucess? Cahill is buggering off for a month now so we would be back to square one!  We didn't play badly, we were painfully average, that was the issue and against a crap West Ham side it wasn't good enough.

December 29, 2010, 11:35:06 PM
Reply #17


Definately controversial, and appreciate the logical explanation but the fact is we had 3 strikers on the bench.

Unless you have serious injuries you have GOT TO field 1 striker minimum! Its basic football 101.
At the very least one should be fielded hoping they will recover as its only a dip in form (Saha excluded, he looked gone)

@Sprooly- We looked just as rubbish when Yak came on because the team was deflated and just running about. Tactics hadnt been administered for the change which let to no confidence being restored.

Thank you.

But haven't most people been bemoaning the fact Saha being out of form and shouldn't be picked? Yak is too slow and old to lead and Beckford isn't ready for that yet so what more could Moyes have done?

December 29, 2010, 11:41:23 PM
Reply #18


NSNO Subscriber
Having not been on the site I can't see what's controversial about Rimbo's post.

I'm therefore assuming that the result yesterday has been met with some considerable criticism?!

On the main points of the post:

Hibbo, I thought, did ok. Obviously the og looks bad but it's very hard to tell whether anyone else would have done better or worse. Maybe Distin did have to bail him out, but is there ever a game when a CB partner does not have to help the other?

I've only seen Duffy a couple of times and he's looked ok, however in the Bate game he made a mistake for their goal and for the next 10 mins he completely lost it and could have cost another 1 or 2 goals. It is tough to judge on that, but also most people have no idea what he really looks like and will be basing their opinion on the fact that he wasn't there to make mistakes or not.

The forward issue isn't really an issue either for me.

Apart from 4 or so games the Yak has looked well off the pace. Saha hasn't even managed that and Beckford has only really looked good when thrown on as a sub. In th games he did start he looked short in terms of hold up play which is vital at PL level.

These are points which most people have made during the season. There certainly isn't 1 forward who has made a creditable claim for the starting role so we have to look for alternatives.

Pushing Cahill up and putting Rodwell in (a player who most want to see on the pitch more) isn't the most bizarre decision ever made. Personally I would have made more of a distinction of positioning between Rodwell and Arteta by ensuring that Rodwell was right behind Cahill, but that's a minor quibble.

There's always scope for arguments about subs; hindsight is very easily applied to them as people only really see the potential positive side of the change that they would have made.

Once the Yak had come on there was little scope for many other changes. Maybe Coleman could have come off but for me it looked like he had a good chance of beating Spector when he had the ball. Then apart from that who else do you haul off?

Arteta and Pienaar are the play makers, you're not going to sub the Yak, subbing Cahill is illogical and you can't take Felli off.

Replacing any of them would have been a massive gamble and on recent showings from the available options, none of them would have made a compelling case ( realistically).

It was a point away from home against a committed side who have found a small amount of form recently, as Rimbs said, in isolation nowhere near a terrible result.

Besides which, we're not in good enough form to expect to play anyone, home or away, and simply roll them over.

December 29, 2010, 11:46:50 PM
Reply #19

American Evertonian

I still say it was foolish for Cahill to be played as a lone striker. Cahill plays his best football when there is a striker playing above him distracting the other defenders.
A ship is safe in the harbor, but that's not what ships are for.

December 30, 2010, 12:03:30 AM
Reply #20

Mayor Farnum

Apart from a goal against the run of play I don't remember them threatening to score They certainly never had any sustained possession, let alone pressure. Defensively it was a very good performance so why Hibbert has to be singled out I don't know.

December 30, 2010, 12:08:59 AM
Reply #21


NSNO Subscriber
Apart from a goal against the run of play I don't remember them threatening to score They certainly never had any sustained possession, let alone pressure. Defensively it was a very good performance so why Hibbert has to be singled out I don't know.

They didn't but that is more  a testament to how shit they are.  Hibbert is singled out because he was dominated in the air and looked nervous whenever the midfield and attack came at him.  He and Neville took turns at flapping at the ball but Hibbert had the reasonable excuse of being played out of position.  We didn't look solid defensively but more worrying was that despite the possession we kept giving the ball away.  A better team would have buried us yesterday.

December 30, 2010, 12:19:50 AM
Reply #22


Apart from a goal against the run of play I don't remember them threatening to score They certainly never had any sustained possession, let alone pressure. Defensively it was a very good performance so why Hibbert has to be singled out I don't know.

The only time they got a shot on target was in the buildup to the corner from which they scored. Either than that, I only remember one incident where Cole should have at least hit the net.

We weren't really troubled a whole lot defensively, but the poor passing from both teams meant that the game became very sloppy in midfield.

At the end of the half we were starting to play some really nice stuff, our goal was well worked and the buildup to Coleman's other chance (on his left foot), was also very pleasing to watch. Everyone was linking well and pulling the West Ham defenders out of position because of some fantastic movement. Unfortunately half time came a bit too early and we came out and didn't do the basics, such as keep possession and pass the ball.

I think Beckford would have been a better option than the Yak off the bench, and maybe Bily for Coleman (although GLewis has a good point), but what we really needed was Arteta to be at the races, along with Pienaar, who only really played well when he started drifting more centrally.

December 30, 2010, 12:27:20 AM
Reply #23


I don't think Hibbert had too bad a game yesterday. I think if Coleman had stayed on the line instead of drifting off it, he probably could have dealt with the deflection. Also, playing Cahill up top totally negates his style of play. Even that clueless wonder Alan smith got onto it in the first half. The subs were frustrating. I know everyone wants more game time for Rodwell to develop, but so to do the strikers need pitch time to find their form. Especially Beckford. I just don't understand when were going to be without Cahill after the next game why we start against a team like West Ham with no strikers on the pitch. It should have been 4-4-2 all day yesterday.