Who was that guy that replaced Hibbert at half-time?
Didn't really catch his name as he was anonymous in the second half except getting Nolan booked.
Eric Myles, Posted 18/09/2010 at 16:56:37
Note: the following content is not moderated or vetted by the site owners at the time of submission. Comments are the responsibility of the poster. Disclaimer
1 Posted 18/09/2010 at 17:54:07
He replace Hibbert but then played exactly like Hibbert... and nothing like Coleman. No runs to the byeline, no jinking into the area creating mayhem, no incisive crosses. Yet he's back defending brilliantly to stop an almost certain goal? ... WHY?
It's as if he's been taken aside and told: "Lad, this is how you play as a right-back: Defence is Job One ? no more forward forays like your Messi on crack... keep your bloody SHAPE, lad ? or you'll be back in Sligo singing 'Paddy McGinty's Goat' for your supper."
2 Posted 18/09/2010 at 17:57:42
3 Posted 18/09/2010 at 17:59:17
Still, you can't pollish a turd, so what was he supposed to do today? Unfair to single him out.
4 Posted 18/09/2010 at 18:07:14
5 Posted 18/09/2010 at 18:05:54
Seamus showed every sign today that Moyes has beaten the attacking spirit out of him and finally got him to play the Moyes Way. It makes me wanna weep. Another fine prospect's footballing prowess emasculated by the Ginger One.
6 Posted 18/09/2010 at 18:13:59
7 Posted 18/09/2010 at 18:08:51
Gallows humour as only Evertonians know
8 Posted 18/09/2010 at 18:21:28
Only DM dream of doing that !! Why not put Coleman in instead of the absolutely dreadful Osman .
9 Posted 18/09/2010 at 18:25:52
Absolutely amazing comment!! Staggering point of view, it really is!
10 Posted 18/09/2010 at 18:30:03
11 Posted 18/09/2010 at 18:40:52
12 Posted 18/09/2010 at 18:38:10
That's what's astounding.
That Evertonians will witness the utter shite that masqueraded as football from the Ginger Moyesiah today, and yet will still come out and defend him and all his increasingly abysmal failings.
We've got the best manager we could possibly have, who's assembled the best team he possibly could under the circumstances. So we can't reasonably expect anything better, can we?
13 Posted 18/09/2010 at 18:35:07
We have some good ball players in the team yet for 80% of the time we simply delivered balls in poorly from the wings and not once did we try and attack through the middle.
Newcastle were better than us in all departments because they wanted the ball more at every point.
Distin I thought had a good game at the back but far too many 'attacks' were launched by himself and Jags directly into the Newcastle defence only for the ball to come straight back attached to the foot of Ben Arfa or Nolan.
Moyes in my book is the main culprit when it comes to disecting this malaise....We have no idea when going forward and to play one up front at home as the only ever option is ridiculous to say the least.
I'm worried about the Brentford game now and thats one hell of a fall from grace compared to the confidence I had 4 weeks ago.
14 Posted 18/09/2010 at 18:47:38
15 Posted 18/09/2010 at 18:49:34
So just go ahead and continue to make your snide remarks that have nothing to do with the topic.
16 Posted 18/09/2010 at 19:06:31
Why he didnt do it I simply dont understand.
17 Posted 18/09/2010 at 19:19:19
18 Posted 18/09/2010 at 19:20:31
19 Posted 18/09/2010 at 19:19:19
20 Posted 18/09/2010 at 19:27:56
21 Posted 18/09/2010 at 19:22:49
Thought the substitutions were fine today (though might have taken off Heitinga rather than Beckford at half-time), just couldn't work out the starting line-up at all.
22 Posted 18/09/2010 at 19:23:12
It's not that anyone hates Moyes but we're all beside ourselves wondering why (for example) he played Rodwell on the right wing against Villa?
Then today he brings on Coleman at right back when even Jimmy bloody Tarbuck would have taken Osman off and replaced him with Coleman.
We can't all be wrong. Fundemental mistakes are costing us valuable points and it's starting to get serious.
23 Posted 18/09/2010 at 19:56:44
24 Posted 18/09/2010 at 20:00:00
Which they are!
What about the rest of the midfield today? All played out of position. Moyes is doing his very best to rekindle Walter Smith selections.
25 Posted 18/09/2010 at 20:10:58
26 Posted 18/09/2010 at 21:01:36
And disagreeing with you doesn't equal being happy with losing, how did you get to that one? It's almost as if you used our defeat to try to 'score points' in an argument. Again, somewhat astounding I'd say.
27 Posted 18/09/2010 at 21:37:17
Mr Dodd, you have the same grasp on reality as the PR department of the Chinese government.
28 Posted 18/09/2010 at 21:39:08
Yes, he is naive in defense but he has to get some game time back there. He has the potential to be the new, right sided Ashley Cole. No, he didnt single handedly win use anything today, but I thought he showed some talent and did the best he could in a team full of out of position and disheartened 1st team regulars. Let's not take out our frustration on one of the biggest potential talents we have for a shocking team selection and lack of tactics!
29 Posted 18/09/2010 at 21:48:57
How can you accuse us of lacking tactics when we do have one. Lump it forwards to Fellaini it is called.
If you do that often enough something will eventually drop for Osman who for the second consecutive week managed to gently sidefoot a good chance to the opposition goalkeeper.
30 Posted 18/09/2010 at 21:55:02
"It's as if he's been taken aside and told:"
"Knowing exactly what's happened behind the scenes and that Moyes is responsible for it."
Do those things sound the same to you?
The first is what I wrote; the second is... something else entirely. If you've got a critique to offer, at least try to make sure you actually understand what's written before coming at me with the usual guns blazing.
And ask yourself: did Coleman play his usual game today? Yes or No? If No, what did it look like might be the explanation? Especially as Moyes himself (or was it Round) had said they needed to work on him before he could be let loose. Based on today's evidence, it strongly suggests to me that something very disturbing has happened behind the scenes. It's as if he's been taken aside and told...
Second point is in reference to a thread from late last night where your pal Tony reiterated the usual Moyes apologist rhetoric, promoting the acceptance of mediocrity that I find utterly abominable as an Evertonian. And yea, there is, I have to admit, an element of point-scoring, which is a pity. But the kind of mediocrity Tony expects of Everton was exemplified in today's abominable display inspired as it was by our much heralded three-time Manager of the Year.
I wish it wasn't necessary... but when someone freely admits that they fully support our wonderful manager and at the same time have no expectation that he can ever win us a trophy, I kind lose the will to live. I make no apologies for that.
However, now I'll probably have to lower my expectations to match: this was to be the season when Moyes finally delivers... Oh Gawd, how wrong we all were to dare to think, to dream...
Well, not all of us. There were some "realists" who knew he could not do it. But even they must be shocked at the extent of our pathetic start to the season under our enigmatic Moyesiah.
31 Posted 18/09/2010 at 23:21:22
He MIGHT blossom into a good player, but I have seen no evidence of his immense talent yet i'm afraid.
32 Posted 18/09/2010 at 23:51:56
33 Posted 19/09/2010 at 00:08:18
Don't particularly like the implied putdown of Coleman though which was the purpose of the post. Yes, he is unproven but how else can he prove himself one way or the other when he isn't selected?. He wasn't a "saviour" today but I defy any individual to have changed Everton's fortunes on a day when, collectively, we were awful.
No doubt some will find a reason to blame the usual suspects, whereas the "popular" guys such as Jags, Heitiga, Fellaini and Arteta all had stinkers.
34 Posted 19/09/2010 at 00:16:58
35 Posted 19/09/2010 at 00:51:35
Therefore the right move was to take out little schooboy Osman with greying hair and have him replaced by Seamus Coleman.
My god there was one time in the 2nd half when Felliani was cornered by 2 Newcastle thugs near the right flank and all Osman did was to jog up slowly. He never even made the attempt to call for the ball, not to mention create space to receive the return pass. I think Osman is getting older and his stamina/fitness is getting worse.
36 Posted 19/09/2010 at 03:16:50
1. Moyes tactical nous is as bad as it ever was.
Osman played most of the second half in what many have said is his preferred central role and he was rubbish there too..
The difference between us and a bottom half side is Tim Cahill.
For the umpteenth time I say that on the coaching panel we desperately need someone with attacking experience.
It is becoming more and more obvious that our existing massed ranks of ex defenders cannot solve our problems in attack.
37 Posted 19/09/2010 at 07:11:26
You just happened to be the first one,
to get on to have a go at Coleman.
Right or wrong, the boy cannot be judged on that yesterday,
The manager has problems, all over the park, that he has to address,the question is, Is he up to it?
38 Posted 19/09/2010 at 08:26:40
We have Heitinga in midfield when he's a centre half, we have Fellaini up front when he's a defensive midfielder, we've had Rodwell on the right side, we've constantly got Osman out of position on the right side, we've had Cahill out on the right last season where he was made to look awful, for a long time we had Arteta on the left when his best position is central, the total lack of ability of the manager to find a right sided player is beyond believe. There was were a couple of players on view at Goodison yesterday who could quite easily fill the position.
Yes last season we had injuries so players had to be switched at times but there's no fucking excuse for the continued players playing players out of position this time around.
39 Posted 19/09/2010 at 10:25:37
Okay, let's try "its as if X is a paedophile nazi who puts babies on spikes"
That'd be fine if it was said about you would it? Its like the old Have I Got News For You running joke where you say whatever you like about whoever you like as long as you say 'allegedly' at the end. You allege something you cannot possibly know to be the case, to fit your pre-conceived narrative.
With plenty to criticise about Moyes at the moment in terms of unimaginative team selection and an abject failure to even come close to addressing our weaknesses during the transfer window leading to the Hibbert/Osman axis being re-established, it seems bizarre that a poor performance from Seamus Coleman leads you to the conclusion it has.
40 Posted 19/09/2010 at 11:15:06
41 Posted 19/09/2010 at 13:03:48
You couldn't make it up.
42 Posted 19/09/2010 at 12:58:41
Here here, Gerry & Liam
43 Posted 19/09/2010 at 13:09:54
44 Posted 19/09/2010 at 14:22:04
Distin wasn't bad on the day, but him aside every single other player was sub par. If you want to criticise one single player, Arteta should be the one or, if you want to be "obvious", Osman.
Furthermore, nobody has ever said Coleman is "our saviour". People have simply said he offers a lot more going forward than Hibbert or Neville, and that remains true.
45 Posted 19/09/2010 at 16:01:14
46 Posted 19/09/2010 at 15:50:05
47 Posted 19/09/2010 at 16:36:22
I'm not making "baseless allegations" and the analogy you cite by way of example is both disgusting and offensive.
I've watched they way Coleman plays and I've read the comments of our management. Putting the two together and drawing an inference is the nearest any of us can hope to get to an element of understanding as to what might really be going on. That's all I was doing and you know that perfectly well.
You don't have to believe it if you don't want to. But to accuse me of making "baseless allegations" and providing sick Nazi analogies as justification for your outburst is pathetic. Behave!
48 Posted 19/09/2010 at 17:42:37
49 Posted 20/09/2010 at 12:54:20
I'm not wailing, and I'm not being deliberately obtuse, I've made what I think is a decent point which you haven't really dealt with.
You can't allege something and simply cover yourself by putting "it's as if" on the front of it.
Let's use a less extreme example so as not to offend your delicate sensibilities.
Boss: "Let's see what you've done this week."
Worker: "I've done this, this and this"
Boss: "Oh right. Its as if you're a lazy, work-shy slacker"
Worker: "How dare you call me a lazy, work-shy slacker?"
Boss: "I didn't, I said 'it's as if...'"
Worker: "Oh right yeah, fair enough"
Your distinction between sticking those three words on the front and not sticking them on the front is, as I said, like the running joke about sticking 'allegedly' on the end (which offers no legal protection from libel/slander by the way).
You may even be exactly right about what's happened with Coleman, but you don't know it and write as if you do, and you only believe it because its what you're pre-disposed to believe.
50 Posted 20/09/2010 at 13:11:55
It's as if an unproven, inexperienced, possibly over-hyped right full came on at half time of his side's worst performance in a long time....and didn't set the world alight.
51 Posted 20/09/2010 at 14:06:12
By all means, call it an "unreasonable supposition" if you disagree with my conclusion. But please do not state on here that I have done something I have not.
I have not made an allegation, I have drawn a supposition that is, if you would just step back and think a moment, quite reasonable in the circumstances. It's as if the lad has been told to change his game.
I don't mind you disagreeing with that, but you have overstepped the line and are refusing to back down. I do not accept anyone making statements on here that I know to be untrue and that is what you are doing.
If I was making a baseless allegation, I would say: "Moyes has told him to change his game." But I didn't say that, which makes the all difference.
For you to finish with yet another lie shows you really aren't getting it: "you don't know it and write as if you do, and you only believe it because it's what you're pre-disposed to believe".
That is again not correct. As I said all along, I'm basing what I consider to be a reasonable inference on what I have seen and what I have read. I don't "believe" it because of preconception; I drew and inference based on the evidence. I did not write it as if I knew what had gone on, and you know that full well.
I am asking you nicely one last time to stop making false statements about what I have said on this website.
52 Posted 20/09/2010 at 16:39:07
This is the basis of our disagreement Michael. I don't really accept that there's a meaningful difference between:
"Moyes has told him to change his game"
"Its as if Moyes has told him to change his game"
in the context in which you wrote it. This is a subjective interpretation of mine which I have tried to back up and explain, perhaps without much success.
This is different to lying, or making false statements- that would be utterly pointless as everything is there for people to read in black and white. (So perhaps accusing me of that was a bit strong...?).
Your supposition is reasonable if you believe Moyes to be opposed to attacking play to the degree that he would deliberately coach it out of one of his players. I don't believe that he is that opposed to attacking play, so the supposition is no longer reasonable. I then ask, "why does Michael think he did this?" and my previous knowledge of your historical posts provides me with an answer, which is that you really don't like David Moyes and will always assume the worst of him. This is why I say you believe it because of preconception.
You have even gone as far in the past as using brilliant, flowing, attacking performances that result in famous victories to criticise Moyes. Surely you can see how that comes across (and I know you've garnered plenty of reaction) without needing to be upset with me.
I hope I've explained myself a little clearer and less irritatingly. If not, then I'll give up, because I want to keep disagreeing with you in the future (although where Moyes is concerned my patience isn't endless as evidenced by my reaction to your column a few weeks ago) without actually upsetting you, not just because ultimately you're in charge but also because I genuinely appreciate all the work that gets put into this website.
53 Posted 20/09/2010 at 17:00:34
"Your supposition is reasonable if you believe Moyes to be opposed to attacking play to the degree that he would deliberately coach it out of one of his players."
And that, my friend, is the nub.
He takes attackers and makes them defend. He changes the way attacking players play so that they are more tuned to the requirements of defence ? requirements that are obviously far more important to Moyes than speedy, incisive attacking play. The obvious result of this ethos, running right through the team, extends to almost every play we make, especially when in possession ? the time when we should be thinking "Attack!!!", yet they are playing far too often as if the overriding thought in their heads is "Defend!". That only comes from one place: Moyes.
Have I heard him say that to the players? No, of course I haven't. Are they "basess allegations"? Sadly the evidence is all to clear. It is so bleeding obvious, I can't believe I need to argue the point with anyone who watches the utterly abysmal football this man has served up at times during his 8½-year reign. The fact that he's doing it again at the beginning of what was to be our best season for a long time with our best squad for a long time just makes my blood boil!
54 Posted 20/09/2010 at 19:43:07
You have even gone as far in the past as using brilliant, flowing, attacking performances that result in famous victories to criticise Moyes. Surely you can see how that comes across (and I know you've garnered plenty of reaction) without needing to be upset with me.I'm not sure of the relevance to this discussion but, since you keep slipping it in, l am quite willing to talk about it.
As I recall, the critique focussed more on rebuffing those amongst the fanbase who had insisted we could not expect to beat teams like Chelsea, Man Utd, Man CIty (twice).. etc. We often hear them come out of the woodwork, exceedingly critical of other fans who have the temerity to question Moyes's management and tactics should we be so unfortunate as to lose a game on his watch (in spite of that wonderful defensive prowess). The point of my diatribe was less to critique Moyes in that circumstance, although it too reflected his negative ethos of excessive caution that has, I am fully convinced, seen us lose games we should at least have drawn, and drawn games we should really have won. A familiar refrain, I'm sure even you will agree.
Of course there are extenuating circumstances that can be cited as mitigation for any game where the result doesn't go our way... but when these excuses seem to be forthcoming for every match, it becomes a painful pattern that can only justifiably be labelled as the drone of so many apologists.
Yes, that word is so apt to describe the continual dumbing down of Everton expectations, the perennial satisfaction with mediocrity that is endemic among the tribe of Moyes acolytes, I'm afraid I have no compunction in reasserting its rightful use. It was obviously a moment of weakness when I bowed to requests for its suppression in the interest of harmony among the keyboards.
But the fact that you keep returning to that incident is that you perhaps think I should somehow cower in shame at having sullied a great victory with such iconoclastic thoughts, shared at a most inappropriate time with the delirious masses? I would maintain there was no better time to hammer home the point.
The game in question (our rare defeat of Manchester United last season) underlined by contrast everything some of Moyes's harshest critics had been saying regarding his inability to get a good squad of players performing effectively. The fact that he succeeded was proof that the impossible could indeed be accomplished, surely silencing the boring number amongst us who would cite excuses ad nauseam for his continual failures up to that point.
Sadly, it's the same old story again this season. A good squad (or so we were led to believe) but he can't get them to perform... let alone score goals. I wonder if that could have something to do with the instructions he perhaps gives the players... could it possibly be there is a preponderance of emphasis on Defence at the expense of Attack???
At which point I believe we have come full circle. So perhaps you were right in bringing it up. I apologise.
55 Posted 20/09/2010 at 20:50:00
I play both cricket and football on Saturday afternoons depending on season so haven't sat through all our performances this season, but I have been given the impression, from highlights, entended highlights, neutral reports and the one full match I did watch (Aston Villa away) that we've played decent possession football but lacked a cutting edge up front. The possession stats for our first three games bear this out. Is this the same as failing to perform?
I can see that Newcastle was simply a shite performance, but I've never seen an away team dominate a match the way we dominated Villa, it didn't seem like a failure to perform to me, just a failure to score, in one case, by the width of the crossbar.
As I've tried to say before, I accept that Moyes deserves some criticisms, but he also deserves some praise, and not just when everything falls into place and we produce a perfect performance and result. We have a clear point of disagreement, which is the quote you use of mine in (53) and having identified that, and the other linguistic one, I'm not sure where else we can go from here.
I'm still not sure that offering an interpretation of events should be seen as lying, and I definitely think you're guilty of being dramatic. On a more philosophical level, I also think you're guilty of being absolutist about a relative concept, but I don't think I'm going to persuade you of that. Disagreeing with you isn't the same as lying though, as I said before, why 'lie' when the truth is right there in black and white, so its a shame you feel the need to repeat that as it does you no credit.
56 Posted 20/09/2010 at 21:21:56
I said A; you said that I said B, and you said that B is bad.
I say, "No: I said A, not B: A ≠ B; A is not bad." You replied A = B and therefore A is bad.
I said, if I had meant B I would most definitely have said B. I didn't. I meant A and I said A.
You're right: it is all there in black and white (although I very much doubt if anyone else is reading at this point...)
Bottom line is this: Don't tell me I said B if I in fact said A. And don't then pretend that, because YOU think they are the same, then it's okay to lie about what I said. It's not.
To use your parsimonious phrase ? it does you no credit.
Can we stop this nonsense now?
57 Posted 20/09/2010 at 22:33:20
Add Your Comments
In order to post a comment to the MailBag, you need to be logged in as a registered user of the site.
Or Sign up as a ToffeeWeb Member — it's free, takes just a few minutes and will allow you to post your comments on articles and MailBag submissions across the site.