The NSNO Everton Forums

Think people were saying he wouldn't play for a championship side which is where the arguments came from

Has played in matchweeks 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26 since coming back from injury, 4 of those games being 90 minutes and has registered one goal and one assist this season.

He's also likely to be back in the premier league next season

Just another player who's development we fucked up, he was good enough and was needed to bulk out the squad so was never loaned out. He's in the Championship five years later than he should have been with a decent loan but it's rubbish to say he was never Premier League standard. I don't think anyone thinks that he was a world beater but he played nearly 200 games for us and was made captain by Silva, he dropped off badly mainly due to injuries but he could have and possibly still could be a solid PL midfielder.

Gash wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2025 10:48 am Just another player who's development we fucked up, he was good enough and was needed to bulk out the squad so was never loaned out. He's in the Championship five years later than he should have been with a decent loan but it's rubbish to say he was never Premier League standard. I don't think anyone thinks that he was a world beater but he played nearly 200 games for us and was made captain by Silva, he dropped off badly mainly due to injuries but he could have and possibly still could be a solid PL midfielder.

Without wishing to derail the thread, we did the opposite with Dowell, who I actually thought was much better than Davies, and he ended up where he did cause he wasnt good enough, thats whats happened with Davies, you find your level.

Its probably comparable to where Villa and Emery are with Philogene, just maybe we stuck with him too long believing in his potential, yet he never delivered and Villa are just happy to offload?

"He has a potential and he didn’t show his potential in the first six months being with us," Emery said of Philogene last week. "He played some important matches, against Bayern Munich and Manchester United. At that moment he was more or less given the opportunity to show his progress. He didn’t do it clearly and was playing less, but I believe in his potential.

Raptor wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2025 11:15 am Without wishing to derail the thread, we did the opposite with Dowell, who I actually thought was much better than Davies, and he ended up where he did cause he wasnt good enough, thats whats happened with Davies, you find your level.

Its probably comparable to where Villa and Emery are with Philogene, just maybe we stuck with him too long believing in his potential, yet he never delivered and Villa are just happy to offload?

"He has a potential and he didn’t show his potential in the first six months being with us," Emery said of Philogene last week. "He played some important matches, against Bayern Munich and Manchester United. At that moment he was more or less given the opportunity to show his progress. He didn’t do it clearly and was playing less, but I believe in his potential.

Just shows what know.

Kieran Dowell's never looked like a PL player and despite being at a peak age can't even get a game for a poor Rangers team, Davies is far a better player and even now is playing a better level than Dowell. We even offered him a new contract but he wanted to go elsewhere and fair play to him for leaving his comfort zone.

Don't mind a derail now and then, there's nothing happening with Dyche and it beats ten posts of 'is he gone yet'.

Gash wrote: ↑Wed Jan 08, 2025 11:58 am Just shows what know.

Kieran Dowell's never looked like a PL player and despite being at a peak age can't even get a game for a poor Rangers team, Davies is far a better player and even now is playing a better level than Dowell. We even offered him a new contract but he wanted to go elsewhere and fair play to him for leaving his comfort zone.

Don't mind a derail now and then, there's nothing happening with Dyche and it beats ten posts of 'is he gone yet'.

Fair enough, but I bet you if you offered any of our current grads the opportunity to have 5 years and 200 games to cement your place at your boyhood club every single one of them would bite your hand off, without question. And i bet they'd all say that if they haven't managed to evidence their capabilities in that time then its probably on them.

Davies was only effective in a proper midfield three with a defender and passer.

Was probably our most effective tactic circa Koeman and the managers who succeeded him but manager after manager kept trying to revert to a proper double pivot to accommodate our big signings and Davies was plainly not suited to that.

I see him as being mismanaged in the sense that it would’ve been mutually beneficial for the club and Davies to commit to a 4-3-3 with Davies, Gana holding, and a passer we rarely had in the squad but could’ve signed with any awareness of our deficiencies (Rooney worked when given the chance). But we had already spent a fuck ton on Schneiderlin and Sigurdsson and had to try everything to shoehorn them in however much they wrecked our general play.

Don’t think Davies was ever going to be a brilliant player but he should’ve been useful for what I think would’ve been a good direction for the club during that era. He covered a lot of ground, moved the ball quickly to keep us ticking, and used his body well to win fouls and take pressure off when needed. None of that is sexy or worth big money but still were useful when you’re stitching together a cohesive midfield three.

I think Davies was a terrible player. He played so many positions and couldn't make one of them his own. He was slow, careless in possession and never built on that amazing debut

I think all the discussion about Davies in this thread tells you everything you need to know about how much appetite we have left for discussing Dyche.

Yep we have fucked up with young players a lot, hope Patterson won't be the latest one.

Cantoffee wrote: ↑Tue Jan 07, 2025 10:40 pm Marco Silva's xg underperformance is rough, wish we'd stuck with him in retrospect.

He learned a lot from how terrible he was here

kramer wrote:
Don’t think Davies was ever going to be a brilliant player but he should’ve been useful for what I think would’ve been a good direction for the club during that era. He covered a lot of ground, moved the ball quickly to keep us ticking, and used his body well to win fouls and take pressure off when needed. None of that is sexy or worth big money but still were useful when you’re stitching together a cohesive midfield three.

If we’d handled Davies’ development better we wouldn’t have needed to spend twenty million on James Garner

They announced De Rossi as manager the day that Mourinho was sacked.
They announced Juric as manager the day that De Rossi was sacked.
They announced Ranieri as manager 4 days after Juric was sacked.

I imagine they won't be sacking Dyche until they have his replacement absolutely secured.