Bottomed Out

Against the top sides, however, you don't get anything because they recognise you as more than mere cannon fodder so always put in a proffessional performance. When you become a team at the top of the league the bottom sides start to accept that they won't get anything out of you by playing football so shut up shop often frustrating you, at the beginning of the transition stage like we are now the team still lacks the abundance of quality in the team and off the bench to break these sort of teams down consistently. The upside is that against the top sides your improved quality gives you a better chance of winning the big games as w ehave seen with our improved record against the perceived top sides (RS aside) over the last few seasons.

Hopefully we can kick on to the final stage where we remain a challenge for top teams both home and away, and we have the quality and the fear factor that just makes lesser visiting teams roll over and surrender at Goodison like they do at Old Trafford rather than putting in ridiculously competent displays of defense and counter attack football ill-befitting of their ranking in the league.

Do the maths again and give us how many points gained per player used and you will find us above almost everyone.

Am I allowed to say that without a formal statistics qualification or will people imagine I have a ginger-haired voodoo doll that I am currently sticking pins into?

Just a shame we have to go away to the four grounds we have never won at under D.M.

As I mentioned on another thread, he has nothing to lose going for it at these grounds, and I am sure he is aware of his record.

If this is his last season with us, does he intend to go out with a roar or a whimper?

I can't work out what that means in relation to your question; can anybody?

I was only attempting to clarify in as an unemotional way as possible to highlight what many fans have argued about in the last few weeks. We have underachieved against the lower placed teams in the last five seasons and this season we have managed to drop even more points against these teams than we usually do.

They have spent more money so why bother turning up?

Ultimately, however, I suspect that it is whether our 'weakest links' are up to the task that will determine things at this stage of the season. Unless he was injured (which I haven't seen reported anywhere) I can't see that Pip was left out against Villa for any other reason than he is thought to be essential for our chances against Utd. The draw at home with Villa can't be considered to be anything but 2 points dropped given their general form this season, so nothing but a win at Old Trafford will suffice to square the circle.

Personally, I would see retaining Oviedo at RB (and leaving Pip on the bench) as a greater example of really chancing our arm, but that sort of comment tends to get you castigated on TW these days.

Kevin, good post #089. Our first eleven can beat anyone but our failure at certain grounds is due to a negative, defeatist mindset. We can all recognize the qualities of David Moyes but when he goes to Old Trafford and beats that overrated side, thumps a poor Liverpool team at Anfield and wins at Arsenal, we will recognize them more. We can do it if Moyes believes we can.

Just asking because I've been told over and over again that the manager had no real alternative to playing Jags there, and yet I have not heard that Pip was left out because he was injured.

If he was left out because he was tired, then I think he should have been scheduled for some R&R for the coming game rather than the one just gone.

We would have beaten Arsenal had it not been for Vaughan's poor finishing and a ridiculously unlucky deflection of Lucas Neill's boot to allow Arsenal a draw. We've always played quite well at Stamford Bridge but Chelsea always seem to be in good form when we play them (as in not in the sort of form theyre in now).

Old Trafford and Anfield have been the biggest examples of our mental blocks. This needs to change this season undoubtedly if we are to have any chance of getting fourth. Football isn't played on paper though so all this looking at fixtures is largely meaningless. Wigan went and won at Anfield and the Emirates en route to staying up last year so comparing run ins is fruitless.

The only issue is the right back position. But Phil Neville is nailed on to play, either right back or holding role.

One thing is for sure, if we turn up and give them a bit of roughing up, Whiskey Nose will revert to his cat calling and snide long ball comments. If they win, it will compliments to the great job young Davey is doing:

Howard
Baines
Neville
Jagielka
Distin
Gibson
Osman
Pienaar
Mirallas
Fellaini
Big Vic

I picked the bottom 5 teams for the 2004/5 season and our overall PPG was 2.5, with a home record of 3 PPG and an away record of 2 PPG. So at least my memory stacked up but interesting to see the difference when we played the bottom teams in that season.

Liverpool won their trophies when there were no foreign players and only two subs. We won more titles than Man Utd before the start of the Premier League. Unfortunately, stats are used to brainwash people into believing any argument that suits the media.

Talking about teams below us, most of them spent more money than we did over the past couple of seasons and used more players.

My reply to your stats is a fair one if you consider it properly rather than flippantly. I played the game at a pro level and understand the importance of being able to use more players. Personally, I have never agreed to the present use of subs as its unfair to teams with less money and makes it less of a level playing field.

I honestly believe that when Liverpool won their titles it was more difficult than today. Now the title is devalued and it's becoming more and more like the SFA.

Patrick's figures show that when the teams are considered as three groups, paradoxically the lowest teams do better than those above them but still below us. This pattern does not fit nicely with your point about the number of players used as the lowest group has a poorer record overall irrespective of the amount of players used.

Logically, there is another major factor to consider, potentially a psychological one that either affects the opposition or our players.

Perhaps as an ex-professional you could explain how Everton manage to do so well against teams above them and around them, but cannot perform to that level against the teams they should not only be beating but beating comfortably?

Of course when you're much admired Liverpool team were winning Leagues, stats were never ever mentioned. Nobody was aware of the number of times that Ian Rush scored and LFC were unbeaten in games, The infuriatingly long unbeaten runs were just skipped over without mention by the media. The number of Titles won, were never ever referred to as a way to influence the public that this was a club like no other. The number of medals won by Phil Neal were never ever mentioned.

I know these stats not because I want to remember them, but because even with the limited TV coverage of the 70s and 80s, I was bombarded by them, week after week.

From 1962-1971 all the traditional big clubs won the title at least once, with Man City and Leeds shipping in with a Title apiece, so no lack of competition in that era.

But I beg to differ with you assessment of it being more difficult for LFC to win the titles they did during the mid 1970s to the early to mid 1980s

In their hey-day exactly which clubs of considerable size were they competing with, Everton – only for 3-4 years. Man U – not realistic challengers for the title until SAF arrived. Arsenal – mostly mid table team for much of the period. Aston Villa – similar to Everton a couple of seasons and a European Cup and then disappeared.

So it was Forest, Derby, Ipswich, Southampton and perhaps the mighty Watford, hardly clubs of a size to be considered long-term threats to Liverpool's monopoly.

Admittedly Brian Clough did have a large part to play in the 70s and but for his failure at Leeds he may have come to Goodison and we may have seen a different tale.

All of this nostalgia doesn't explain how Everton can't compete in the PL – due to lack of finance – and yet at the same time they are able to compete with all their main rivals on a game by game basis.

If like you say even the lower placed teams spend more money than us, whose fault is that?

Would the Goodison faithful – even if they could afford it – pay £50-£60 to watch a game to improve the income stream?

Honest question. How many times has this lineup taken the field this season?

Howard
Coleman Jags Distin Baines
Osman Gibson
Mirallas Fellaini Pienaar
Jelavic.

There is always the possibility that we occupy a particular sub-group caused by our relatively long-term position as the 'best of the rest', but it still comes down to the coaching staff finding a way to make us more effective in these games somehow.

Personally, I feel that 58 will be enough for seventh and have wagered accordingly. But then, I'm no good at sums!

We're just not quite good enough and victims of our thus limited success.

I have asked this before but when was the last time Everton hammered someone? Moyes has a habit of getting his players to sit back on a lead when they could go up a gear and get a much better goal difference, an opposition side under the cosh will be concentrated on defending thus very little risk of attack and more chance of a clean sheet to boot.

It's plain and simple what it's down to, fucking woeful finishing.

Top 7 ladder /36

1. Man Utd – 21
2. Arsenal – 19 + 4
3. Everton – 19 +3
4. Liverpool – 15
5. Tottenham – 14 -1
6. Chelsea – 14 -2
7. Man City – 11

Bottom 14 /78

1. Fulham – 45 +17
2. Bolton – 39 +8
3. Stoke – 38 +5
4. Blackburn – 37 +0
5. WBA – 37 -1
6. Villa – 36 -1
7. Sunderland – 36 -3
8. Newcastle – 35 +7
9. Everton – 35 +3
10. Wigan – 35 -1
11. Brum – 31
12. Blackpool – 28
13. Wolves – 27
14. West Ham - 26

Shows that amongst the big boys were third best, but against the lower teams we got less than half the points available and this is where our season was a real let down.

In those days, some national teams were better as the youngsters came through more readily than they do today because ready made foreign stars were not bought.

Liverpool won their European titles with home grown players who were good enough to beat foreign opposition. The same goes for Man Utd's team when it won its first European title. Many English teams including everton won euro titles long before foreign players came to our shores to ply their trade.

I have no problem with players going abroad to earn higher salaries but it should not be at the expense of developing our own young players. It's no coincidence that our national side is hampered by the lack of young English players. The emphasis on the clubs is getting into europe so the owners are buying up foreign players for quick fixes rather than building teams.

I believe that a maximum of four foreign players should be allowed per club. I also believe that the number of subs on the bench should be limited to four with only three used

Very interesting stats. Could it be that the top clubs play more to win against us and let us play in return. The bottom clubs especially at Goodison come and park the bus and that's when our creative limitations show.

I think he`s well overpaid for that achievement although I`m sure there are many of his contemporaries (Hughes, McLeish, McCarthy, Strachen to name but four) who would have made a complete balls of the job, however much they were paid!

I have to admit the man may have not fulfilled OUR expectations but he`s delivered well for his mate BK. Together, they`re a `project` and history will show they `done okay`. Trouble is, us older guys want for more! Think we might be waiting a while longer, eh?

A good manager who will never find a job so well paid, with the brief of avoiding relegation.

You have got to say though, he may have gone on to greater things if he had been backed by the Board — the Catch-22 there though is, would another Chairman have given him 11 years in the job, if he had many millions to spend? Doubtful.

On the contrary our mode and median position would be somewhere around 6th. Unfortunately the 4th placed finish does not distort the figures as much as an 11th placed finish would even though its a lot harder to move up that one place than it is to slip a few down in midtable.

A swift google effort has us 17th for net spend in the last 5 years!

http://www.transferleague.co.uk/league-tables/transfer-league-table-last-five-seasons.html

It's folly to make the assumption that because we do well against he better teams that we shoul by definition do better against the lesser teams. This is too simplistic. You could just as easily argue a case for doing less well against better teams. Are we overachieving against good teams or underachieving against lesser teams!?

I certainly think GP is a factor. We give the money clubs a riot of an atmosphere and our players will often respond. I'm encouraged also in a roundabout way by Brians observation that its our finishing which sucks. At least in this case we can improve. I'd be more concerned if we weren't actually getting on top or creating against lesser teams.

The other stat worthy of note is our points per pound spent on transfers which unsurprisingly has us at the top of the table. Even with salaries added we get decent bang for our buck. This won't detract from the dissapointment of not finishing in the top four, which I believe is beyond us. But then I've had a bad day at work, and of course tomorrow we'll be up to third, easy.

I use 3 methods , but all based on each team having an initial factor based on their last season's position - ie this season Man City have a factor of 0.5 at home and 1 away, Man Utd Utd 1 and 2 away ..... West Ham 10 and 20 - some ways similar to yours.

First method is a one-off taking full Everton fixture list , looks at 3 fixtures at a time, ie 1-3, 2-4,3-5,4-6 , looks at teams factors does a single mean per fixture and against a histotical table works out whether we are likely to win, draw or lose. Adds total and this year is 66 points which will get us 5th place.
Second method is same but updated after every full Premiership fixtue ie the 10 games per week and every clubs factor changes based on their up to date performances (takes about 1 hr per week to update) and forecasts all the next fixtures results - this years up to date is Everton predicted just missing on 4th and winning 5th place but literally one point ahead of Liverpool.
Third method much similar to yours based on 4-5 years previous results aginst clubs and updated only slightly each week and presently forecasting 6 or 7th due to remaining difficult fixtures we normally only lose or draw at best , ie Man Utd (a), Liverpool (a), Arsenal (a), Stoke (h), Sunderland (a), Spurs (a) .

So overall I have been writing in regularly that 4th is beyond us with 5th a bonus but could even be 6th and with Swansea or Bradford already bagged one Europa place, we could be Europe free again next year, with severe ramifications.

Last note - unfortunately our near neighbours are currently (behind Utd) the team my stats are showing the best possible chance to get 4 or 5th

I think it would help to motivate the players: "Come on, Lads. Let's get out there and dig ourselves out of this bottom 16 scrap." As long as it doesn't come from Rounds, it could work.

"Statistics are like a bikini. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital."

If Moyes was to go there is no automatic relegation, just like there is no automatic Prem title...total none arguement

Pro's and anti's we all agree that more money wouldn't hurt.

I think Patrick accurately nails where and why we are where we are.

We are just not good enough, but good enough to frighten the bottom half into parking the bus.