El Segundo

I doubt Kamara or Carlos would have signed for us unless Gerrard, Purslow and Lange were able to "sell the project" with promises of some ambitious incomings apart from them and Coutinho. So I'd be surprised and disappointed if there aren't at least two more major signings before the window closes, especially as our net spend so far is only around £30m so FFP shouldn't be an issue.. I'd bet Kamara and Carlos wouldn't be too happy either if we're done.

You surely can't be serious. He seemed to have it in for us and seemed to give a ropey decision against us every time he reffed us - the Jon Moss of his era. Gave the Enckelman throw-in goal against Blues even though Enckelman didn't appear to have touched the ball. Once gave Sunderland a pen against us when their player clearly handled it. Hated the bloke. There were numerous times I wished him serious harm. Conversely I never had an issue with Uriah Rennie.

Factor in 5 subs, 2 cup competitions, Covid and injuries, I don't think 8 midfielders is too many.

I'd agree, it isn't clear form the initial incident at normal speed, which is why the ref initially didn't give it. But VAR showed it to be a clear pen - and that's what it's (meant to be) there for. Yet some seem to still be insisting Kane manufactured it. I'm not sure what they are seeing or not seeing.

Lord knows that anyone with eyes can see that Kane does "go down easily" a lot of the time to win pens and I am fully in agreement at finding such antics disgraceful. I'm also hugely against the "there was contact" argument for giving dubious pens. But I'm genuinely struggling to see how or why this incident is being disparaged as an example of that. He clearly has his trailing leg caught by the defender while trying to run towards the ball, which causes him to trip himself up. No "dangling of the leg seeking contact" from what I saw and certainly no dive, he was caught and tripped over as a result of the contact made with his trailing leg. Clear penalty.

It wasn't offside because the German defender made a deliberate attempt to play the ball and directed it into Kane's path. That's not the same a s a deflection or a ricochet according to the laws. And it wasn;' a dive either, the defender catches his back leg which makes him trip himself up. Not sure what you lot are on about. Even so, another example of dullard Southgate's failure to get any creativity out of a squad rammed with some of the best creative talent we've had for donkeys years - until Bowen and especially Jack came on. They created more clear chances between them in 20 minutes than Sako, Sterling and Mount did in 65-70. Why anyone, including Southgate, rates Sterling I will never know. He scuffs a few tap ins at the back stick and that's about it, everything else is shite and he seems to have a real aversion to passing to Jack both for City and England. Absolute camel.

A bit of context - we are by no means the only team to collapse from a a dominant position in the face of world class opposition this season. That includes some other world class teams - City themselves against Real Madrid, PSG also against Real, Villareal against Liverpool, and Real themselves came close to chucking it away against Chelsea. So I'm not sure we should be all that embarrassed about our own collapse against arguably the best team/squad on the planet.

We played a great game until about the 70th minute, and it showed what we could be capable of if we can find a way to stop shooting ourselves in both feet and get a little more mental fortitude. Both managers changed things with the subs, theirs worked, ours didn't, but then they have about a billion quid's worth of talent sitting on their bench. Gerrard wasn't to know that Nakamba would have such a mare - he's been much improved/good under Gerrard thus far, as acknowledged by many on here. I think it was more changing the shape to try and hold the lead than keep the counter-attacking approach that had worked so well. That is down to Gerrard. Olsen wasn't great but I'm not convinced Martinez would have made much difference. He hasn't exactly been brilliant on low shots from outside the box this season - e.g. Rodri at VP, a couple from West ham and one from Arsenal. Michael Oliver was a disgrace for blowing about 20 seconds after the 4 minutes were up when City had players down for at least a minute, maybe more, during the four minutes. But what were the penalty claims and other bad decisions people are angry about , I don't recall much?

5 defeats in a row was bad under Smith but perhaps a bit unfair he was dispensed with so swiftly. I think Purslow took the first opportunity he could to get his mate in, probably his plan all along. The initial improvement meant that after round 30 of games we were effectively 10th. By round 33 we were 15th and finished a mighty 14th, a whole two places ahead of where we last were under Smith. That, to me, means Gerrard has failed to improve us. I reckon Smith was quite capable of getting us to 14th if given the chance. I don’t think it reflects well on Gerrard or Purslow that we: · finished below Newcastle who were 15 points behind us after 20 games. After another 12 games they were level with us and after one further game were ahead of us. · finished below Palace who had to replace half their squad last close season, hired a manager with not much of a track record and whose squad probably cost less than half of ours. · finished below newly-promoted Brentford whose team was built on a shoestring · finished 6 points ahead of Everton and 7 ahead of Leeds who have both been shite all season. · Failed to win any game against top 7 opposition under Gerrard. All this after inheriting a squad that was regarded by many as top 10 level quality (if you disagree, ask yourself, are they any worse than the squads of Brentford, Palace, Newcastle, or Brighton?). Then adding someone who’s regarded as a world class playmaker, a French international left back and a utility defender with loads of PL and CL experience. No doubt some of those players would not have signed for Smith, which is one plus of having Gerrard. But is there any point in having them if you can’t use them effectively? Compare to what Howe has achieved with a few additional signings to a squad that many would say was largely bottom 5/ championship level. No doubt we’ll attract some more top players because of Gerrards’ reputation but they will still need coaching and tactics for the team and results to be up to scratch. I also hope the supposed pursuit of the likes of Suarez doesn’t mean our policy will be one of Galactic-OAPs Hard to think of many positives really except for some of the players we might attract. I’m not going to look at Stevie G through rose coloured specs because he was a huge name as a player and a media darling. The style of play frustrates me, with no width and ultra-slow tempo and transitions. I kept an open mind when he was appointed and think he’s been average to mediocre as a manager so far. He needs to improve massively next season.

I like McGinn and he showed why tonight. I think he's unfairly criticised sometimes - for example his possession stats are sometime lower because he is more willing to try the risky forward pass, the so-called "key passes" that will lead to chances. Buendia gave the ball away loads in the first half of the season for the same reason. I'd rather that than the robotic sideways and backwards passes of some of those with better stats, but who do little to actually create anything.

I’m not enjoying watching Gerrard’s Villa that much. For me there is a lack of intensity and tempo, a lack of movement off the ball, and players too often isolated with few options but to pass it backwards or sideways. I said similar after the Palace game where we managed to pass it back to Martinez after starting out on the left of Palace’s area. It seems to be keeping possession for the sake of keeping possession, rather than to actually achieve anything with it. I guess I’m a bit old school but to me it’s exasperating, frustrating and just a bit boring. Maybe that’s where we miss Grealish most. The lack of width is painfully obvious sometimes. Several occasions where a defender or midfielder got the ball out wide in our half and absolutely no-one ahead of them to play it forward to. First half, for all our possession, we created very little in terms of clear chances. A lot better second half but Pope had a bit of a blinder, and unlike Lloris, not all the shots were more or less straight at him. I still don’t know how he got to Traore’s header. Whatever the stats are my perception is that Gerrard has not improved us or moved us forward. 14th place is garbage compared to where we were when he joined and after adding a couple of big players. Admittedly it’s from a lower base but Howe improved Newcastle significantly, to the extent where they will now finish above us – that does not reflect well on Gerrard and his team at all. His focus seems to have been less on improving what he has, like Howe has done, and more on identifying what he needs to implement his way of playing next season. I think he could and should have done both. I honestly don’t think we would have done any worse had we kept Smith. Seems to me Purslow was set on getting his mate in at the first opportunity, and 5 defeats on the bounce gave him that opportunity. I think if Gerrard wasn’t such a big name a lot more people would be very doubtful of him. Yes most of our defeats are by the odd goal and you could say, in that respect, we are close to being a good side in that respect. But small margins are often the most difficult to make up and I’m not sure I see enough potential there for us to do it sufficiently to challenge top 8. I guess we’ll find out next season.

Flat and turgid until Ramsay and Buendia came on. Prior to that we had no-one willing/able to run at them with the ball and carry the game to them. Zaha is an eternal Duracell unhappy bunny with a face like a smacked arse all the time. Still very unconvinced by Gerrard-ball. About half way through the second half we had the ball just outside the left side of Palace’s area. From this promising position we proceeded to make 6 or 7 passes that ended up with Martinez at the other end. It’s all very well keeping the ball but I really struggle to see the of point of that kind of thing.

The winners in life and sport are often those who make the fewest unnecessary errors and get the basics right 99.9% of the time. That ain’t us. Too many players come armed with a lack of concentration, ice skates instead of studded boots, and a cache of bollocks ready to drop, which they do all too frequently, whether it’s a poor final ball, missing sitters or defensive cock ups. As in the first half against Spurs we created multiple promising positions only to fail to finish or find a decent final ball. It’s frustrating. Gerrard - Strange and wrong decision to sub Nakamba and drop Luiz back to DM. Probably cost us the game. Tactically quite good including getting us to play some longer balls over their high line for Ings and Watkins to run onto. However I still hate the keeping it narrow, lack of width thing he insists on, and we really need to ditch the playing it out from the back all the time until we have some defenders who are better on the ball. Referee – Is there a minus score, a sub-Mike Dean level? I hadn’t realised it was Jon Moss until after the first few shocking decisions and then the penny dropped. The man who gave Man City an offside goal because he didn’t know the laws of the game, and then gave them a penalty when the ball was blasted at Cash’s arm from about a yard, having previously denied us a blatant handball pen against Arsenal away when the ball had travelled 10 yards or more. Never get anything out of him and tonight was no different but while he perhaps didn’t directly affect the result, he did probably manage to plumb new depths in terms of bias and incompetence. Achieved the rare feat of being slagged off by name by the crowd. Crowd – did we really have to go back to the 80s and sing signing on songs? So out of touch and pathetic. Marginally offset by calling out Jon Moss by name.

The guy obviously has a touch of world class ability about him but in practical terms I can see why he didn't make it at Barcelona. To be a top team these days you need 10 outfield players all with good technique but also all working their socks off with and without the ball. Coutinho doesn't do that, he's a bit of a passenger whenever we don't have the ball, and especially away from home. Buendia offers far more of an all round game. I was talking with an old colleague who is a long standing Arsenal fan and when he asked me what I though about Coutinho, my responses, as above, prompted him to say it sounded like their Mesut Ozil situation. We all know how that ended even though they got some brilliant moments from him. For me it might be worth signing him as a big name who might help us attract some others, but I'm not convinced..

So how many games is the right number to judge him on? How many games would it take to judge a manager that isn't Gerrard, such as Hassenhuttl who we were supposedly interested in? Sherwood got 28 games including the cup run, Garde got 23, De Matteo 12. All considered long enough to know they weren't up to it and never would be despite all inheriting squads that were a shower of shite compared to what Gerrard's inherited. Those are extreme examples perhaps but the point is that after 20 games and a transfer window I think it's enough to expect to see some progress or to have doubts. A good coach can and should be expected to make any squad greater than the sum of it's parts. Gerrard isn't doing that and he appears to be blaming the players for it. Being one of the greatest players of his generation doesn't make him a good coach. Being able to attract Coutinho based on his reputation doesn't make him a good coach. If he gets more of that ilk in based on his reputation it still won't make him a good coach. Displaying some tactical nous and flexibility, motivating the players to excel, making us hard to beat, improving our ball retention and movement - those are the mark of a good coach and are the kind of things I hoped and expected to see some evidence of after 20 games. I want to believe in Gerrard but if we are not seeing those traits now I'm not convinced we ever will.

The main differences I see in our playing style are a lack of width, except when the fullbacks are allowed to get forward, and increased defensive vulnerability. We still try to play it out from the back and often fail. We still build far too slowly, even more so than under Smith, and fail to take advantage of the gaps left when other team have pushed players up to press. We still have misfiring strikers. We still have a midfield you can drive a bus through at times. We still have players who give the ball away far too often under little or no pressure. We still have a manager who seems reluctant to make subs until it's too late, and who is unable to anticipate and counter tactical changes by his opposite number. I was neither massively for nor against Gerrard when appointed, I had an open mind. I think he's been disappointing in not improving what he inherited. I even think we are worse in some aspects. He seems far too focussed on only being judged once he can get in his type of player, rather than making the best of what he's got now. I do wonder how much slack people would be giving to other coaches given the same results - for example Hassenhuttl, who was mentioned as a possible recruit.

I'd say we've been safe for a while. The only one of the bottom three with any chance of catching us is Burnley and they would have to make up 11 points over the last 7 games, plus a goal difference deficit of 15. So a minimum 3 wins and two draws with us getting nothing. That perhaps becomes a little less unlikely when you consider they play us twice. Win both of those 2-0 and it gives them two of the three wins they need and they catch up 8 on the goal difference, +4 for them, -4 for us. Even then they would need to make up a further 5 points and seven goals gain in the remaining 5 fixtures, with us getting nothing. Unprecedented and unlikely I would say, and even then, Everton would need to catch us as well, making up 8 points and 15 goals in the process over their 8 remaining games. Despite this I still think Gerrard has under-performed badly with the squad he inherited plus Digne, Chambers and Coutinho. I think it's a it's a squad well capable of top ten and he's failing at the moment.

I don't think I've implied anything of the sort though. What I've said, or tried to say, is that Nyland , for example, and despite being rightly derided for many aspects of his all-round game, was nevertheless a decent shot stopper, who, in my opinion might have done better than Martinez has recently in one aspect of goalkeeping, getting down to low shots. That's not the same as saying he's in the same league as Martinez at all, he clearly isn't. The are hundreds of keepers around who are great shot stoppers - considered the very basics for a keeper - but don't have the all round game to be top level.

I know I'll be in the minority and probably get pelters, but really don't get the hype with Martinez. I think he's great at coming for crosses (from general play, not so much from set-pieces), does some great reflex saves occasionally but seems to be quite poor at times with shot-stopping, especially getting down to low ones. I honestly think someone like Nyland, who despite his shortcomings elsewhere was a very decent shot-stopper, would have saved quite a few that Martinez has let in. I'd jump at 50m for him if we could get it as long as we replaced him with someone decent, and I'm not kidding.

Ah ok that makes a difference then, Lampard's PL % win rate drops to just under 31% and 0.9 ppg as Laughable chimp mentioned, which makes Gerrard's record significantly better. The article I read it in was trying, I think, to imply Gerrard has been performing worse than Lampard, which is why it surprised me. Looks like a case of lies, damn lies and statistics.

I read today that Gerrard's win percentage with us is less than Lampard's at Everton which I found hard to believe, however Wikipedia (I know) suggest it's true though. Gerrard 38.1% from 21 games, Lampard 38.46% from 13 games. Points per game slightly better though at 1.24 compared to 1.15 because we've drawn a couple of games and they haven't. Not sure what this says about Gerrard's performance so far but Lampard doesn't seem to be generally considered a successful appointment by Everton.

My worry with Gerrard and hs stated desire to bring in a few "finished articles", is that it ends up like Lerner/MON mk II where the coach is given the keys to the bank vault, spends it on a bunch of 28-29 olds, it doesn't work out, and we're left with an expensively assembled but ageing squad with little or no sell on value and not able to cut it in the top 6. I don't think Gerrard has (yet) proved himself worthy of being trusted with a huge transfer budget in the summer and beyond. I can't see that he's really taken us forward from where we were under Smith, and I think a really good coach would get more out of the squad we have than he has managed. I am far from convinced that buying a few finished articles is going to fix the tactical and coaching shortcomings. Surely his job is also to coach unfinished articles to make them better. I don't think there has been a great deal of evidence of that apart from maybe Nakamba.

When things have gone pretty well first half the best managers should/would be asking themselves a couple of things at half time i) "what is my opposite number likely to change to counter our dominance and improve his chances?" ii) What should I do to prepare for that change and be ready to counter it? I don't think either Smith or Gerrard do this. Conte is a top manager, so no surprise he changed Spurs tactics at half time, despite them being ahead. Gerrard should have had a plan b to deal with that. He clearly didn't and never does. He just keeps on with plan A regardless, as many managers do. I think instead of warning players they are playing to stay at the club next season, he should be more concerned about keeping himself here next season. Any other manager losing 7 out of 10 at any time in the season would be crucified by fans and media alike, and rightly so.

Difficult to know what to make of that. My emotions went from anger at gifting a goal after 3 minutes yet again, to delight at the way we murdered them for the rest if the half tinged with frustration that we couldn’t make it pay. Digne was having Emerson on toast down the left, Coutinho was great, and the others were all doing their bit. Lloris, poor finishing, and over-elaboration were the only reasons we weren’t 3-1 or 4-1 up at half time and I was optimistic we’d get back into it. Then we just decided to give a couple of world class players the run of our half. Bonkers. Konsa has become a liability and Chambers or Hause should be in ahead of him. What the **** was that weak header under no pressure straight to Kane to gift a goal, utter shit. I’ve said it before and I know a lot of people will disagree vehemently and call it blasphemy but I honestly do not think Martinez is a top notch keeper, certainly not a good low shot stopper. Should Kolosveski really have been beating him from there? It’s not the first low shot that he should have saved but hasn’t, not by a long way. Very slow to get down to the low ones. Ask yourself if Lloris would have let that one past him. Overall it was no better or different to a lot of schizo-type performances under Smith. One more defeat and StevieG has matched Smith’s 5 defeats in a row, having already come close to it. Progress? Hmm doesn’t feel like it.

I recall when we hired Gerrard some pundit who focused on Rangers said we should be prepared to see football more influenced by Benitez's pragmatic style than anything else. I can kind of see why he said that now. I think SG has done ok but have some concerns. The insistence on playing out from the back even when it's obvious a team is pressing us into errors and when the players look very uncomfortable with it. I don't think our defenders and midfielders are good enough on the ball to play that way against a good pressing team. When we do go forward it's often too slow and laborious, giving teams time to organise themselves behind the ball. I don't understand why we don't mix it up a bit with some fast breaks and one touch stuff. We have players like Bailey, Ramsey and Ollie who could thrive with that kid of approach. But the thing I really dislike is this absence of width. Ok it's supposed to be provided by the full backs but then you need really top notch full backs. Even then if the opposition decides to play two wingers high up the pitch, the full back are either pinned back (see Young v Sako) and there's no width at all, or the gaps are exploited if the midfielders don't cover - which they often don't - see the many breakaways from Wolves. A bit of tactical flexibility would be nice. There are other frustrating issues - a seeming lack of urgency, a frequent reluctance to play the ball forwards when there is a safer ball backwards or sideways, a lack of movement up front which has been an issue for years, giving too much respect to some teams instead of getting at them. These are things that good coaching can and should fix. I'm also not sure about SG's stated desire to bring in "finished articles" as opposed to promising younger talent. It might work to boost us into the top 6 or 7, but it might not, and then leave us with a lot of older expensive players on very high salaries if it doesn't work and /or SG moves on. Jury is still out on SG for me.