Football 2011-2012

[eFestivals]

As you say everyone is doing it, you can't afford to be left behind.

yep, that's exactly what I've been saying - so it gives Everton no advantage.

[Benj]

If you agree with what i posted then yes...

[eFestivals]

Far from scientific but to show why Soton are perhaps investing in new Training facilities, this is there current/ old set up

http://goo.gl/maps/AK29

This is Everton's

http://goo.gl/maps/0yyY

PMSL - they both look like some pitches to me.

It's funny that, players needing pitches to train on.

[Benj]

yep, that's exactly what I've been saying - so it gives Everton no advantage.

[Benj]

PMSL - they both look like some pitches to me.

It's funny that, players needing pitches to train on.

Edited June 14, 2012 by Benj

[strummer77]

Everton would- naturally- struggle to finish 7th next season with Moyes in charge. Without Moyes in charge I can't see them coming 7th or above for the life of me.

[Benj]

Everton would- naturally- struggle to finish 7th next season with Moyes in charge. Without Moyes in charge I can't see them coming 7th or above for the life of me.

[eFestivals]

I didn't say it did, your'e the one who stated that laods of lower league clubs had better infrastructure set ups than Everton and then quoted one where they were currently training out of a shed and not due to have it built until the end of next season!

No wonder you thought lower league clubs had better set ups then!! Playing out of their little shed changies!

The whole point is its more than a few pitches, as you were trying to allude to re soton, shame it hadn't or indeed the Spurs one been built yet!

do they train in the shed?

Do your googlemap views show you what's inside those 'sheds', both yours and theirs?

I guarantee that any difference for what's inside those 'sheds' will have such a marginal difference at the playing end of things that it won't be able to be measured - and that's because they'll all be trying to implement 'best practice' as best as they can.

The sorts of extras you might have in your new building will only be a difference between on-site facilities and off-site ones - such as scanning equipment for injuries, for example. While that's an advantage and convenience to the running of the club it makes as-good-as no difference to what happens on the pitch, because that injury will get scanned and diagnosed either on-site or off-site.

Edited June 14, 2012 by eFestivals

[Benj]

do they train in the shed?

Do your googlemap views show you what's inside those 'sheds', both yours and theirs?

I guarantee that any difference for what's inside those 'sheds' will have such a marginal difference at the playing end of things that it won't be able to be measured - and that's because they'll all be trying to implement 'best practice' as best as they can.

The sorts of extras you might have in your new building will only be a difference between on-site facilities and off-site ones - such as scanning equipment for injuries, for example. While that's an advantage and convenience to the running of the club it makes as-good-as no difference to what happens on the pitch, because that injury will get scanned and diagnosed either on-site or off-site.

[eFestivals]

Full sized indoor pitches so you can train in all weather conditions?! Whilst the other team have to train in a school type sports hall

Yeah, that wont make any difference whatsoever. Massage facilities, ice baths, proper monitoring equipment.

You say they're all building them, why if a shed will do?! Why have Soton invested all this money replacing their shed if they can all just pop down the local Fitness First for 60 quid a month

You can work the training routines around the weather. Not ideal, but perfectly workable.

They'll still get massaged, have ice baths, and be monitored. Fuck me, I know for a fact that top athletes (fitter than footie players) have ice baths in wheelie bins!!

It is, as I've said, mostly a difference between on-site and off-site. But there's of course also difference in control and consistency, because the facilities are not the club's own.

Nowhere have I said such things won't make a difference, but what i've said is that the differences in what happens on the pitch will be too marginal to measure.

[strummer77]

BORING!

[Benj]

Not really. Think it's absolute delusion that Everton fans want rid or would consider it a good move. Reminds me of when some clueless fuckers wanted Rafa out. That turned out well.

You haven't got the 7th best squad in the league, but your manager suits your squad and is able to get the best out of them. Sometimes certain managers suit certain clubs.

[eFestivals]

He's done a great job, which has included setting Everton up to function quite happily without him.

He's defo done a great job. It's probably very true that he's set Everton up to function much better without him than Everton would have functioned without him if he'd not done those things.

But nothing about that gets to mean that the next manager will succeed at a better or even the same level. The history of footie gets to show that there's about an equal chance of of a drop in performances as there is of anything else.

[pink_triangle]

While I agree Everton have a squad who should comfortably be in the top 10, part of that is down to the fact that they seem to be far better at keeping their top players than the likes of Villa, Sunderland etc. I have no doubt thats largely down to Moyes, the likes of Arteta stayed far longer than he would have at almost any premiership side and very few players seem to be agressively engineering moves away.

Its true that if another manager took over they shouldnt be in a relegation fight next season but thats looking very short term. If Everton had a couple of conecutive season where they got gradually worse in wouldnt take long before they were potentiall sucked into the pack, started losing players they would have previously kept and then who knows what could happen after a bit of bad luck or a few injuries. As Neil said if a side like newcastle can postiivelty surprise us, theres no reason it couldnt go the other way for another side. Changing the manager is a gamble and I just dont see what Everton have to gain from gambling. They arent going to compete for the champions league, I suppose they may win the league cup but thats a bit of a long shot. When you change the manager theres a chance the club may get better, worse or stay the same, I think in evertons case getting worse is more likely than getting better.

Edited June 14, 2012 by pink_triangle

[Benj]

Nowhere have I said such things won't make a difference, but what i've said is that the differences in what happens on the pitch will be too marginal to measure.

Edited June 14, 2012 by Benj

[Benj]

He's defo done a great job. It's probably very true that he's set Everton up to function much better without him than Everton would have functioned without him if he'd not done those things.

But nothing about that gets to mean that the next manager will succeed at a better or even the same level. The history of footie gets to show that there's about an equal chance of of a drop in performances as there is of anything else.

Edited June 14, 2012 by Benj

[eFestivals]

So why have these clubs invested all this money as opposed to just buying in a few wheelie bins?

Oh yeah, I forgot, you know FAR better than them as to how top sports function

they're investing their money to have the facilities they're using anyway.

Do you think the likes of Nigel Adkins at Southampton - whose background is physio, don't forget - would have spec'd out their own facilities and then said "until they're built, our players are doing none of that"?

He, like any other manager, will be doing their best to do everything they think of as best practice anyway, if for no other reason than because they can't afford to not be doing them when everyone else is.

The difference on the pitch between doing none of those 'modern' things to doing them will be massive. The difference on the pitch between doing them off-site compared to on-site will be small.

The difference for the club is convenience, consistency, and cost.

Edited June 14, 2012 by eFestivals

[strummer77]

It is, its been long covered pages back

Not many want rid, most who actually follow the club and don't just lap up all the media balls about poor little Everton living only on the tactical genius of Moyes, know it would be far from a disaster if he leaves, assuming the replacement not being an utter retard (Gary Megson).

He's done a great job, which has included setting Everton up to function quite happily without him.

Edited June 14, 2012 by strummer77

[thetime]

Getting back to spurs, what about rafa? No club to wrangle with and good pedigree and still resides in the UK the last I heard.

[eFestivals]

Getting back to spurs, what about rafa? No club to wrangle with and good pedigree and still resides in the UK the last I heard.

resides in Liverpool. So that becomes pretty much no different to having to move from overseas.

Good shout tho. Could happen I guess.

[kaosmark2]

If Everton's training facilities are so good, how come they consistently get a large number of injuries that are consistently Moyes' excuse for consistently starting shit?

[eFestivals]

I don't lap up the media balls at all anyway, I think his ability as a manager is overrated and I think it's laughable that people consider him the next United manager and a worthy successor to Ferguson, however he definitely suits Everton and that's all that matters.

he defo suits everton.

There's a lot about him which I find similar to fergie, which is why I see him as a good fit there. Whether or not he does actually have the management skills at the higher level we've yet to see, but there's no guarantee with any other manager either, so I don't see it as a particularly big risk for Utd to give him a go.

There was time when I'd have thought he was a definite, but now I see it as more likely that Utd would want a 'glamour' manager of some kind - which I think would be foolish of them but it's their choice.

[pink_triangle]

Nope it doesn't, it almost certainly doesn't mean that we'd be guaranteed to go down like many have said either though.

We're more likely to make further progress, given the same resources, under a new man, simply because they'd be an influx of new ideas. Unlikely perhaps, only as much as the club completely imploding and going down though.

[Benj]

they're investing their money to have the facilities they're using anyway.

Do you think the likes of Nigel Adkins at Southampton - whose background is physio, don't forget - would have spec'd out their own facilities and then said "until they're built, our players are doing none of that"?

He, like any other manager, will be doing their best to do everything they think of as best practice anyway, if for no other reason than because they can't afford to not be doing them when everyone else is.

The difference on the pitch between doing none of those 'modern' things to doing them will be massive. The difference on the pitch between doing them off-site compared to on-site will be small.

The difference for the club is convenience, consistency, and cost.

Edited June 14, 2012 by Benj

[Benj]

If Everton's training facilities are so good, how come they consistently get a large number of injuries that are consistently Moyes' excuse for consistently starting shit?