Roundheads and Cavaliers
A few years ago, when Martinez was in his pomp and the idea of Everton suffering tough times seemed the sole preserve of only the most stubbornly pessimistic of fans, I wrote an article that attempted to contrast our new manager with his immediate predecessor.
In essence it was an exercise that sought to illustrate the differences between two very different approaches to football.
One, as exemplified by Moyes, and others such as Pulis and Allardyce, embraced stability as the greatest achievement for a club. I termed it at the time as the ‘dream of a perpetual seventh’. The theory, so it went, explained that with these sort of managers, let’s call them Roundheads from this point on (and you’ll see why in a bit), shooting for the stars remained something for other clubs, those blessed with greater resources, to do.
ADVERTISEMENT
For Roundheads, football was about accepting limitations and nullifying opponents, not trying to outclass them. As such, sides that played under these managers were rarely exciting but they were reliable. They would likely never win anything, but they would never go down and, importantly, always ensure that the fans were provided with a feeling of security.
By contrast, when you hire someone like Martinez, and others of his ilk, such as Laudrop, Rodgers and Klopp, what you are getting is a Cavalier. For them, the Holy Grail is the ability to outshine the opposition. Attacking and creativity are given much greater weight than defending. These are the kind of managers extremely comfortable with conceding goals because they fully expect to score multiple times during a game. For them, an open 4-3 victory riddled with defensive mistakes is far more satisfying that a tightly fought 1-0 win. It’s why, despite Everton’s shambolic defensive record in recent months, Martinez has done little to rectify the problem. For him, unlike his predecessor, clean sheets are not a priority.
My article at the time speculated that Kenwright had appointed a Cavalier to do what his Roundhead couldn’t. Moyes, for all his magnificent work, never seemed capable of taking Everton to the next level. Martinez hinted that he could. After all, hadn’t his Wigan side secured silverware? And done so against one of the strongest sides in the country? Here was proof that the Cavalier approach could make a side greater than the sum of its parts. The fact that Martinez’s dashing approach had vanquished the more cautious Moyes methods on the way to that Wembley win probably helped Kenwright in his musings on the Scot’s successor.
But the problem with the Cavalier is what happens when it all goes wrong, when the buccaneering style stumbles, when the goals-for are not enough to counter the goals against. The downside of the Cavalier approach is the risk of a club operating at the very bottom of its parameters.
Every club has these, the likely extremities that they can reach in any given season. When a club like Manchester United has a ‘bad’ season what pundits really mean is that they have finished seventh, or the bottom of their parameters. And when a club like Swansea has a great season, this means they have reached the top of theirs. Although not set in stone (just look at Leicester), these parameters offer a reliable guide as to where a club could finish each season.
For Everton, in the era of Modern Football, our parameters probably extend to fourth at the top down to just outside the relegation zone at the bottom. Under a Roundhead, somewhere in the middle is a likely outcome. Moyes, as probably the best practitioner of his art in the league at the time, did manage something slightly better, giving Everton an average of seventh during his reign (including one actual fourth). Although he had one poor season early on, this was clearly a blip, a momentary failure amidst seasons of solidity.
When Martinez first arrived, his buccaneering mentality benefited hugely from the defensive foundations that existed at Everton. Like some sort of collective muscle memory, Everton’s players retained their knowledge of defending and for a while, a perfect union existed between Roundhead and Cavalier, creating a side that was as sure-footed in attack as it was in defence.
But eventually, the muscle memory faded, the influence of Moyes dissipated and Everton became a more recognisable Cavalier outfit. Over the past two seasons is seems as though the side’s attacking brio has become more impressive at the same rate as Everton’s defensive ability has deteriorated.
Notions such as marking, clean sheets and pressing no longer dominate the club’s character in the way that they once did. Everton might regularly field six defensive players, but they never seem to operate as an effective defensive unit. It’s near criminal that on three separate occasions in recent months, the side has scored three goals and yet still not taken home all three points.
Moyes, for all his limitations, was the best at what he did; the uber-Roundhead if you like. Under the management of a lesser man, like an Allardyce or a Pulis, you couldn’t imagine Everton qualifying for Europe or reaching an FA Cup final.
Martinez, for all his talents, has never been the best at what he does. Everton hired a mediocre Cavalier; worse still, a mediocre Cavalier who had just taken his club down to the Championship. The longer his career continues the more it looks as though that successful Cup run was a blip. Incrementally, he has taken a club that regularly finished in the top seven and with access to more money than any Everton manager has seen for a generation, turned it into one that is slowly sliding towards the bottom of its parameters.
Roberto Martinez, during his reign at the club has given Evertonians some entertaining times. His first season was exhilarating, the Europa campaign briefly exciting and a first League Cup Final in a generation was tantalisingly close. He has also brought some wonderful players to the club and brought on some exciting talents.
But, at the same time, he has virtually destroyed what made Everton so impressive under Moyes and that which underpinned the club’s recovery after the dark days of the 1990s. Everton were once hard to beat and Goodison a difficult ground to visit. That is no longer the case. Against almost every side we play, it’s not a question of if the opponent will score but when. Conceding has become a near inevitability. And his Cavalier approach down the other end of the park is not impressive enough to counter that weakness at the back.
Howard Kendall once said that Everton’s managers get three years to prove their worth. Martinez is nearing the end of his third season and I doubt there are many Blues who would argue that this particular experiment is setting the world alight.
I don’t know who should replace him. There might be a manager out there who can provide us with stability and the capacity to make the most of this talented group of players that the squad boasts. But in reality, suitable candidates look thin on the ground.
What does seem certain though, is the failure of Everton’s dalliance with a manager as carefree as Martinez. He promised a lot and for a time looked like a shrewd gamble. But Bobby’s style is just not good enough to accommodate his tactical shortcomings in other areas. Before things get even worse, it’s time to say goodbye to our ‘phenomenal’ Cavalier.
Jim Keoghan is the author of Highs Lows and Bakayokos, the story of Everton in the 1990s, which is published by Pitch Publishing later this year.
Reader Comments (30)
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
2 Posted 02/02/2016 at 23:51:07
Then I decided I'd better read your linked article first then the main piece.
Right at the bottom you nailed it 'Mediocre Cavalier'.
I'd settle for him gone yesterday at minimum and the end of Howard's 3rd season. max.
3 Posted 03/02/2016 at 00:25:12
The football we were subject to last season and for plenty of this can be described accurately as 'passing the ball side to side along the back line' How is this 'cavalier' or indeed just plain old 'entertaining'?
The philosophy seems to be one of caution and patience with the occasional flash of recklessness.
It is no coincidence we self-implode whenever the opposition pressure us high up the pitch; that is where we are keeping the fricking ball!
Conversely, the 'dour/dull/boring' Moyes based his game of solid basics and high volume of crosses into the old 'Positions of Maximum Advantage' (laughably so at Man Utd if you recall their game against Stoke... I think). Hardly sophisticated but not exactly lacking in entertainment either.
But yeah, whatever. Wish people would draw the more accurate comparison between the two types of style (Grim Grafters versus Spoilt Losers) rather than any fanciful notion of Roundheads and Cavaliers.
4 Posted 03/02/2016 at 00:25:43
In every walk of life and in business, success is gained and sustained by those who strive for continuous improvement. Standing still in the Premier League will drive you backwards. I get the impression that our phenomenal cavalier feels that his philosophy is best and seems unwilling to learn from his mistakes. The "I will never change my philosophy" approach and condescending patter in interviews is so frustrating.
Looking forward to Highs Lows and Bakayokos and our phenomenal cavalier riding into the sunset, sooner rather than later.
5 Posted 03/02/2016 at 00:41:41
What makes his philosophy so unacceptable is the sight of 'little Leicester' – bottom of the league in March last year and spending about half 'our' project has cost – roaring ahead at the top of Premier League and stuffing it to the RS big time.
But what WE need is patience. All will be well by 2018. Or not.
7 Posted 03/02/2016 at 04:42:11
8 Posted 03/02/2016 at 05:13:33
9 Posted 03/02/2016 at 07:24:24
The second way to play us is for the opposition to stay in their own half with banks of players who let the tip tap go on in our half (which makes the possession look good) but with no result until we again lose the ball when we try and get near the opposition goal, these teams have fast forwards looking for the long ball over our defence who all then race back trying to defend.
As with most things there are different ways to set up and play, I did, do want RM to succeed but after watching us at home he really does not seem to have the inclination or the skill to implement a system to make us harder to beat and yet win.
The exciting football he seems to desire? I have to agree with comments above that many many times it's very slow, it can be the tip back and forth across the back line until put back to Howard to kick upfield, or the pass to Stones who stands with the ball inviting attackers to tackle him, while stood near our penalty area.
Until the team play with pace and desire for the full match with a different mind-set I cannot see much change, but am hoping for the change to start against Newcastle.
10 Posted 03/02/2016 at 09:04:01
This is year three. It ain't working.
Am always wary of people talking about in the future... they deep down, they ain't cutting it now and promise yourself future glory and there is nowt to worry about.
Show us a vision, be honest and it's a different issue. But keep telling us what we know ain't true and it's a recipe for trouble.
11 Posted 03/02/2016 at 10:03:11
This is part of the Moyes mythology. He started as a yo-yo manager & only achieved successive top half finishes in his 6th season. It was the fact that he then maintained top half finishes until his departure that seems to have lead to myth of him being Mr Consistent – he didn't start that way, he became consistent.
Overall some interesting points, but maybe you're a little generous to both managers.
12 Posted 03/02/2016 at 10:17:47
13 Posted 03/02/2016 at 10:30:11
I am firmly of the view that Roberto is not for turning, his stubborn approach mirrors Moyes in a strange way, but with OFM, we did see him getting the very best out of his Roundhead players with-remember – a squad of 18 players or less most often? Conversely, Roberto has inherited very good players and (to his credit) built a bigger squad, but we look more like a rag-tag army of conscripts rather than a tight and effective fighting unit, epitomized by the blessed Tim Cahill, God how we miss him in a fight.
14 Posted 03/02/2016 at 11:00:14
My counter argument is that there are other variants to the two discussed and that the most successful managers fit into a more nuanced phase (described as cavaheads and roundaliers here). I've attempted to drop some of the Premier League managers into classification. It's not coincidence that many of the most successful managers and the ones I'd like us to look at next come in a more nuanced form.
I'd happily have a Pochetino, Koeman, Bilic, Hiddink or Mourinho next.
Of those, only two are available though in the summer and with Mourinho likely to hit Man Utd, the short list gets shorter. What about Hiddink though? He's proven to be a winner and turn things round in a short-time and seems to be familiar with premier league.
Cavaliers: Wenger, Klopp, McClaren, Martinez, Neil, Monk, Flores.
Roundheads: Allardyce, Pulis, Van Gaal.
Roundaliers (defence first but with flair players): Mourinho, Simeone, Bilic, Pardew, Pochetino, Di Matteo
Cavaheads (Attacking football but with strong defensive system): Guardiola, Ferguson, Ranieri, Koeman, Hiddink.
15 Posted 03/02/2016 at 11:17:53
Everyone closing down and pressing the opposition.
16 Posted 03/02/2016 at 11:55:51
17 Posted 03/02/2016 at 12:18:04
18 Posted 03/02/2016 at 12:39:03
Success usually comes instantly, especially in the last decade, the days of old whiskey nose gradually building up a championship winning team are long gone.
Look at Leicester, Chelsea last season, RS when they signed Suarez. Where did you get this idea Roberto will slowly build up a great side with a seven-year plan? It's laughable.
19 Posted 03/02/2016 at 12:46:51
Next year the consolidated projection for money distribution means that the difference between an 8th place and a 15th place finish will be 㾼M (source www.totalsportek.com). Incidentally, and there are some anomalies in the upper placings, the difference between 7th and 15th will be a whopping 㿉M. So you may not be bothered looking at the end of season table but you can guarantee that everyone else – board, shareholders, the manager for available funds - absolutely *is* concerned. Any business (and let's not kid ourselves here please) likes to financially project with a degree of certainty and any likely new owners are likely to sit in the "investor" rather than the "speculator" camp. So no "cavaliers" for any serious businessmen – get the best roundhead you possibly can.
As to the article, some really good points, but some big flaws in my opinion. It seems to follow statistical projection, saying that a roundhead ends up safe in the middle (i.e. discard the high and low placings and take a mean) but a cavalier has a much wider range of possibility (i.e. random). Yet for me the 'uber roundhead' would have been Mourinho, who was almost – until this season which proves even roundheads can slip - guaranteed to get you titles. I would also put Alex Ferguson and Howard Kendall strongly in the roundhead camp since they clearly built teams on defensive principles. They knew you have to earn the right to play first, and I don't think anyone will argue that their teams looked easy on the eye. The cavalier approach is just fundamentally flawed since it relies on gambling that you will always just play, play well, and play better than the opposition, which is simply not possible all the time. Sometimes you compromise and grind out wins to be successful. As in the real lesson from history, the roundheads trounced the cavaliers through organisation, innovation, discipline and flexibility of the New Model Army and this will always be the case.
Secondly though, and I know this isn't fashionable and doesn't conform to the boring, dour stereotype soundbite received wisdom, but we actually played some terrific entertaining football under Moyes at certain periods. Particularly towards the end of his tenure, and most particularly when he was given big money (for the time) to buy a really top, top striker. Yakubu definitely was in this bracket before his ankle ligament injury. Martinez has been granted funds to buy players that Moyes never was and on that basis alone you cannot directly compare the two. Certainly if you look at the teams that the respective managers inherited the differences between the two styles and the outcomes are even more stark. Not in a good way for Mr Martinez' philosophy either.
So it's roundheads all the way for me, but get the best roundhead you can possibly afford!!
20 Posted 03/02/2016 at 14:44:04
21 Posted 03/02/2016 at 14:57:55
This guy is accurately described in the article. What can we expect from a man with a Premier League win ratio below 30% who never hit the heights as a player. Wrong profession, this guy: should be a spin doctor for the Tories as he can make success stories out of abject failure.
22 Posted 03/02/2016 at 17:58:53
To torture the analogy further; it is worth noting that the dear leader of the Roundheads instigated a programme of reform that transformed a losing side into a winning one, incorporating tight, disciplined units pressing their opposition with intensity. His rule was never outright popular but after he passed on he was later dug up, his corpse mutilated and eventually tossed into a pit by a gang of fanatics.
Conversely, the head of the Cavaliers bungled his way through one ill-conceived idea after another, remained inflexible due to his trenchant belief in his God-given righteousness, played favourites at court whilst banishing those who spoke against him, spent money like it was going out of fashion, enjoyed some initial success on the battlefield but developed a habit of throwing away the advantage. When the time came to try him, he turned on the crowd, stated; "the King can do no wrong" and by the end of it all he was totally off his head.
Maybe there is something in the analogy after all.
23 Posted 03/02/2016 at 17:59:42
You're calling out Roberto as 'a helmet' ...?
24 Posted 03/02/2016 at 18:19:56
You do what is needed to get the result in different circumstances. You're not committed to a 'style' or a 'philosophy', you're committed to winning home games and games against lower opposition, and getting draws in games where the teams are strong or you're away and they have a strong home record. It means being able to defend when you need to, it means tipping the balance on set pieces because they can be the difference between one and three points, and can be worth ten points over a season.
Martinez is a 'cavalier' not because he attacks too much without defending, but because he puts other things ahead of the results. Its a mentality more than a tactical choice. We're so frustrated because he's an extreme example of it, and its got to the stage where we can't even attack all that successfully, because we don't have a solid foundation from which to spring those attacks.
Good managers will always be about balance and adaptability. They won't really have any extreme ideas unless they're about hard work or 'getting the result'. Martinez does so much that is good, but it is all completely undermined and pointless if he won't acknowledge the things holding us back. He could click his fingers tomorrow and become an instantly better manager and we'd be an instantly better team, but he seems committed to futile and harmful beliefs about football which are just plain demonstrably wrong.
25 Posted 03/02/2016 at 18:23:37
However the City game (regardless of the off-field activities of the "Lovable" Raheem) confirmed in that hackneyed old cliché: "He has now taken the club as far as he can"
After going 2-0 nil up at the council house it was inevitable that the Pale blues would throw the kitchen sink at us, which they did.
What did he do? Make changes to beef up the defence and make it difficult for them? No same old same old with the predictable outcome.
He only plays one way has no Plan B and the opposition know it (not to mention the hapless Kone). Time to go methinks.
26 Posted 04/02/2016 at 02:16:35
Simply put Alex, I don't see how you buy into Roberto having a long term plan.
He talks the talk, but doesn't walk the walk.
His long term plan is clearly flawed, because all his young talented players will jump ship once we fail to finish were we should.
No cups and no CL football will eventually mean no Sones, Ross, Del boy or Rom.
This will mean more building, resulting in more time being needed.
Meanwhile everyone else has the same plan .
Its called fraud.
27 Posted 04/02/2016 at 06:02:03
Here's the thing, lads: he does not exist!!
We have two choices in my view: (1) We get a billionaire and buy titles like Man City and Chelsea; or (2) We build the club from top to bottom. We buy the best young kids we can. We stick to a style of play but practice, practice till we are excellent at it.
That's the two options. For me, Roberto has his faults, no doubt. But so does LVG, Klopp, Mourinho etc. I'm prepared to let him finish his project.
28 Posted 04/02/2016 at 12:43:26
May I suggest the following reading matter if you haven't already done so – The Civil War by Peter Ackroyd (heavy going but good)
Killers of the King by Charles Spencer (Lady Diana's brother). This is a great read and is about the retribution brought about by Charles 2nd against his father's executors once he was restored to the throne after the demise of Cromwell. Its basically a massive manhunt to find and punish the men who signed the death warrant for Charles 1.
29 Posted 05/02/2016 at 12:30:00
Don't keep to repeating the same thing over & over again expecting a different result!!!
30 Posted 05/02/2016 at 15:41:54
31 Posted 06/02/2016 at 10:52:44
This is worth looking at.
http://statsbomb.com/2014/07/defensive-metrics-measuring-the-intensity-of-a-high-press/#prettyPhoto
Add Your Comments
In order to post a comment, 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 Talking Points submissions across the site.
-sm.jpg)
-sm.jpg)
-sm.jpg)
-sm.jpg)
1 Posted 02/02/2016 at 23:43:27
The criticism of the defence has been warranted, but do you remember when Moyes teams were incapable of putting their foot on the ball in the last 10 minutes when defending a lead?
If Martinez needs to learn anything, it's how to manage people's expectations. But we shouldn't condemn him for ambition.