Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Register Log in

[Albion] Everton vs Brighton & Hove Albion *** Official Match Thread ***



Eric the meek

Eric the meek

Fiveways Wilf
NSC Patron
Aug 24, 2020
5,352
SeagullsoverLondon said:
Re point 2: In fairness in to GP, as other posters have pointed out on NSC, we had started to score freely and from multiple positions at the end of last season and beginning of this one (Man U 4, Wolves 3, Leicester 5 etc).
It's also worth noting that goals from corners have almost completely dried up.
That is something that I think we should work on.

Re point 3: Solly missed a sitter against Charlton. I am sure the worldie he scored against Southampton allowed him to stay calm and slot the ball in last night.
Click to expand...
You're right. The goals were beginning to come before Potter left.

Regarding corners, I don't have any stats on them, other than the number of corners we get on the BBC match stats. That said, my perception is that we don't tend to score from corners or set pieces. But then, both the occurrence and frequency of them, are outside our control. Perhaps there is more return from working on scoring goals from open play, which we can control.
 




dazzer6666

dazzer6666

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Mar 27, 2013
52,590
Burgess Hill


Dick Head

Dick Head

⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
Jan 3, 2010
13,642
Quaxxann
Stato said:
I thought last night an interesting contest in terms of what the opposition tried to do. Lampard has always struck me as a fairly decent organising coach and motivator, but yesterday suggested that either he's not a tactician, or he let hope get the better of him. He knew, as most would, that the only way to get something out of City was to defend and keep space tight. The draw suggested that he has the players that can do this. He then changed to a 4-3-3 against us, a team built in the image of Guardiola, and hoped that his players could take us on in a more expansive game.

In hindsight, its an obviously disastrous decision. A tiny bit of research would have shown that, if you try to press De Zerbi's Brighton, they will thank you for doing half of their job for them. Three against Southampton, two (should have been three) away at Arsenal, four against Chelsea: Our team will score in an open game. The likes of Arsenal, Liverpool and City have the players to take us on in this type of game, most other teams in the division don't.

It seems that, if you don't have the talents of the the top sides, you get something against us by sitting deep, keeping spaces tight and breaking quickly. Villa and Spurs did it and won, Charlton, Newcastle, Forest all did it and got a draw. This is obvious to unqualified fans, so its hard to believe that nobody in Everton's coaching team was aware of this. Therefore, you have to wonder why Lampard changed from five at the back and tried to be more expansive.

Perhaps he underestimated us, thinking that his players could rattle us with an early blitz like Arsenal did. However, his decision could also be a result of the pressure of managing a 'name' team at home. Was he thinking that the Goodison crowd would turn on his players if they watched them play a catenaccio type system against a 'team like Brighton'? Was he thinking that you don't get out of relegation trouble with draws against mid table sides? Did he think that his players were better, or our players were not as good as the result proved to be the case? Whatever the reason, it cost him the game and may cost him his job.

The psychology is, to me, really interesting. Potter used to mention often that the opposition will also have their plan. I wonder whether Lampard's playing history of mostly rolling over the opposition's plan has left him slightly ill equipped to give it proper consideration. If you have always been used to imposing your will on a contest, is it easy to adapt when you are without the tools that allowed you to do it? Does years of success create a confirmation bias that promotes unrealistic overconfidence? Could this be a contributing factor as to why relatively few of the great / most decorated players end up being great managers? I'm definitely reading too much into this, but it just got me thinking down a route that I found interesting.
Click to expand...
I like the way XenForo has a 'Click to expand...' button for long posts.
 




R

raymondo

Well-known member
Apr 26, 2017
5,701
Wiltshire
Stato said:
I thought last night an interesting contest in terms of what the opposition tried to do. Lampard has always struck me as a fairly decent organising coach and motivator, but yesterday suggested that either he's not a tactician, or he let hope get the better of him. He knew, as most would, that the only way to get something out of City was to defend and keep space tight. The draw suggested that he has the players that can do this. He then changed to a 4-3-3 against us, a team built in the image of Guardiola, and hoped that his players could take us on in a more expansive game.

In hindsight, its an obviously disastrous decision. A tiny bit of research would have shown that, if you try to press De Zerbi's Brighton, they will thank you for doing half of their job for them. Three against Southampton, two (should have been three) away at Arsenal, four against Chelsea: Our team will score in an open game. The likes of Arsenal, Liverpool and City have the players to take us on in this type of game, most other teams in the division don't.

It seems that, if you don't have the talents of the the top sides, you get something against us by sitting deep, keeping spaces tight and breaking quickly. Villa and Spurs did it and won, Charlton, Newcastle, Forest all did it and got a draw. This is obvious to unqualified fans, so its hard to believe that nobody in Everton's coaching team was aware of this. Therefore, you have to wonder why Lampard changed from five at the back and tried to be more expansive.

Perhaps he underestimated us, thinking that his players could rattle us with an early blitz like Arsenal did. However, his decision could also be a result of the pressure of managing a 'name' team at home. Was he thinking that the Goodison crowd would turn on his players if they watched them play a catenaccio type system against a 'team like Brighton'? Was he thinking that you don't get out of relegation trouble with draws against mid table sides? Did he think that his players were better, or our players were not as good as the result proved to be the case? Whatever the reason, it cost him the game and may cost him his job.

The psychology is, to me, really interesting. Potter used to mention often that the opposition will also have their plan. I wonder whether Lampard's playing history of mostly rolling over the opposition's plan has left him slightly ill equipped to give it proper consideration. If you have always been used to imposing your will on a contest, is it easy to adapt when you are without the tools that allowed you to do it? Does years of success create a confirmation bias that promotes unrealistic overconfidence? Could this be a contributing factor as to why relatively few of the great / most decorated players end up being great managers? I'm definitely reading too much into this, but it just got me thinking down a route that I found interesting.
Click to expand...
Really enjoyed your post, thanks 👍.
I was thinking it was mainly the fear of getting sucked into the bottom 3 that lead Lampard to that set up ("we can beat teams like Brighton if we can draw at City" mentality), but could just as equally be a mix of the other points you highlighted..
Everton's team looks good on paper, but they were all over the place for our goals. That's another reason De Zerbi didn't get hyper excited: we were very good, but Everton's defending judgement was crap for 3 of our goals.
dazzer6666 said:
talksport.com

Everton flop Alex Iwobi cost £9m more than Brighton side that humiliated them at home

Everton star Alex Iwobi cost a cool £9million more than the entire Brighton starting XI that humbled the Toffees at Goodison Park on Tuesday night. The Seagulls thrashed Frank Lampard’s side …
talksport.com talksport.com
Click to expand...
Thank you for the link. It's an astonishing stat 👍.
 




Thunder Bolt

Thunder Bolt

Silly old bat
Aug 18, 2009
65,554
Beside the seaside, beside the sea
raymondo said:
Really enjoyed your post, thanks 👍.
I was thinking it was mainly the fear of getting sucked into the bottom 3 that lead Lampard to that set up ("we can beat teams like Brighton if we can draw at City" mentality), but could just as equally be a mix of the other points you highlighted..
Everton's team looks good on paper, but they were all over the place for our goals. That's another reason De Zerbi didn't get hyper excited: we were very good, but Everton's defending judgement was crap for 3 of our goals.

Thank you for the link. It's an astonishing stat 👍.
Click to expand...
I posted this earlier today but it’s on page 2 now.

 




B

BN41Albion

Well-known member
Oct 1, 2017
6,432
Stato said:
I thought last night an interesting contest in terms of what the opposition tried to do. Lampard has always struck me as a fairly decent organising coach and motivator, but yesterday suggested that either he's not a tactician, or he let hope get the better of him. He knew, as most would, that the only way to get something out of City was to defend and keep space tight. The draw suggested that he has the players that can do this. He then changed to a 4-3-3 against us, a team built in the image of Guardiola, and hoped that his players could take us on in a more expansive game.

In hindsight, its an obviously disastrous decision. A tiny bit of research would have shown that, if you try to press De Zerbi's Brighton, they will thank you for doing half of their job for them. Three against Southampton, two (should have been three) away at Arsenal, four against Chelsea: Our team will score in an open game. The likes of Arsenal, Liverpool and City have the players to take us on in this type of game, most other teams in the division don't.

It seems that, if you don't have the talents of the the top sides, you get something against us by sitting deep, keeping spaces tight and breaking quickly. Villa and Spurs did it and won, Charlton, Newcastle, Forest all did it and got a draw. This is obvious to unqualified fans, so its hard to believe that nobody in Everton's coaching team was aware of this. Therefore, you have to wonder why Lampard changed from five at the back and tried to be more expansive.

Perhaps he underestimated us, thinking that his players could rattle us with an early blitz like Arsenal did. However, his decision could also be a result of the pressure of managing a 'name' team at home. Was he thinking that the Goodison crowd would turn on his players if they watched them play a catenaccio type system against a 'team like Brighton'? Was he thinking that you don't get out of relegation trouble with draws against mid table sides? Did he think that his players were better, or our players were not as good as the result proved to be the case? Whatever the reason, it cost him the game and may cost him his job.

The psychology is, to me, really interesting. Potter used to mention often that the opposition will also have their plan. I wonder whether Lampard's playing history of mostly rolling over the opposition's plan has left him slightly ill equipped to give it proper consideration. If you have always been used to imposing your will on a contest, is it easy to adapt when you are without the tools that allowed you to do it? Does years of success create a confirmation bias that promotes unrealistic overconfidence? Could this be a contributing factor as to why relatively few of the great / most decorated players end up being great managers? I'm definitely reading too much into this, but it just got me thinking down a route that I found interesting.
Click to expand...
Great post - enjoyed that thanks
 




R

raymondo

Well-known member
Apr 26, 2017
5,701
Wiltshire
Stato said:
I thought last night an interesting contest in terms of what the opposition tried to do. Lampard has always struck me as a fairly decent organising coach and motivator, but yesterday suggested that either he's not a tactician, or he let hope get the better of him. He knew, as most would, that the only way to get something out of City was to defend and keep space tight. The draw suggested that he has the players that can do this. He then changed to a 4-3-3 against us, a team built in the image of Guardiola, and hoped that his players could take us on in a more expansive game.

In hindsight, its an obviously disastrous decision. A tiny bit of research would have shown that, if you try to press De Zerbi's Brighton, they will thank you for doing half of their job for them. Three against Southampton, two (should have been three) away at Arsenal, four against Chelsea: Our team will score in an open game. The likes of Arsenal, Liverpool and City have the players to take us on in this type of game, most other teams in the division don't.

It seems that, if you don't have the talents of the the top sides, you get something against us by sitting deep, keeping spaces tight and breaking quickly. Villa and Spurs did it and won, Charlton, Newcastle, Forest all did it and got a draw. This is obvious to unqualified fans, so its hard to believe that nobody in Everton's coaching team was aware of this. Therefore, you have to wonder why Lampard changed from five at the back and tried to be more expansive.

Perhaps he underestimated us, thinking that his players could rattle us with an early blitz like Arsenal did. However, his decision could also be a result of the pressure of managing a 'name' team at home. Was he thinking that the Goodison crowd would turn on his players if they watched them play a catenaccio type system against a 'team like Brighton'? Was he thinking that you don't get out of relegation trouble with draws against mid table sides? Did he think that his players were better, or our players were not as good as the result proved to be the case? Whatever the reason, it cost him the game and may cost him his job.

The psychology is, to me, really interesting. Potter used to mention often that the opposition will also have their plan. I wonder whether Lampard's playing history of mostly rolling over the opposition's plan has left him slightly ill equipped to give it proper consideration. If you have always been used to imposing your will on a contest, is it easy to adapt when you are without the tools that allowed you to do it? Does years of success create a confirmation bias that promotes unrealistic overconfidence? Could this be a contributing factor as to why relatively few of the great / most decorated players end up being great managers? I'm definitely reading too much into this, but it just got me thinking down a route that I found interesting.
Click to expand...
Really enjoyed your post, thanks 👍.
I was thinking it was mainly the fear of getting sucked into the bottom 3 that lead Lampard to that set up ("we can beat teams like Brighton if we can draw at City" mentality), but could just as equally be a mix of the other points you highlighted..
Everton's team looks good on paper, but they were all over the place for our goals. That's another reason De Zerbi didn't get hyper excited: we were very good, but Everton's defending judgement was crap for 3 of our goals.
 




H

HalfaSeatOn

Well-known member
Mar 17, 2014
1,907
North West Sussex
Eric the meek said:
You're right. The goals were beginning to come before Potter left.

Regarding corners, I don't have any stats on them, other than the number of corners we get on the BBC match stats. That said, my perception is that we don't tend to score from corners or set pieces. But then, both the occurrence and frequency of them, are outside our control. Perhaps there is more return from working on scoring goals from open play, which we can control.
Click to expand...
Corner kicks are an interesting part of the game. I dont know the stats but it feels like the returns on corners has been diminishing for a while generally . It does seem ripe for innovation, creatively getting it back in to open play rather than hoofing it in to a crowded box. It’ll be brave tactics that break with tradition but wouldn’t surprise me if someone like RDZ breaks the mould.
 








B-right-on

B-right-on

Living the dream
Apr 23, 2015
6,196
Shoreham Beaaaach




B-right-on

B-right-on

Living the dream
Apr 23, 2015
6,196
Shoreham Beaaaach
dazzer6666 said:
talksport.com

Everton flop Alex Iwobi cost £9m more than Brighton side that humiliated them at home

Everton star Alex Iwobi cost a cool £9million more than the entire Brighton starting XI that humbled the Toffees at Goodison Park on Tuesday night. The Seagulls thrashed Frank Lampard’s side …
talksport.com talksport.com
Click to expand...

Jesus. From this article:

He currently earns £70,000-a-week at Goodison Park, with his current deal running until 2024, but a new contract could see his wages increase to £100,000-a-week after an impressive start to the season which has since fizzled out.
Click to expand...

Shows what an utter basket case Everton are.
 










hart's shirt

hart's shirt

Well-known member
Jul 8, 2003
10,214
Kitbag in Dubai
Chappers: "Brighton are so much fun to watch, aren't they, under De Zerbi."

Wright after praising Evan Ferguson to the heavens and our infrastructure with recruitment:

"They are the team that Everton should be."
 




You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here