It was the same determination to try and keep hold of the ball and play it mostly on the deck that saw us dominate the upstarts at City and claim a most satisfying 3 points.
I would like to think that all the time spent talking tactics and coaching from Moyesy and Round has something to do with this but I suspect the real reason is a team full of ball-players:
- A centre back in Heitinga who distributes purposefully and accurately.
- A midfield general in Fellaini who whenever possible takes the ball down (rather than starting a game of head tennis) and can start attacks quickly and effectively.
- An attacking trio of Pienaar, Billy and (to some extent) Donavan who all possess great touch and footballing brains.
Tim has many strong qualities but touch, technique and accurate distribution are not what his game is about. Perhaps his overall contribution lets us overlook these occasional deficiencies?
With a full team to choose for might Moyes be tempted to play two strikers with the Yak and Saha? Or maybe move Arteta into central mid and Pienaar to play the hole? Or perhaps I'm being pedantic and am trying to fix what ain't broke?
Whatever happens, long may the exile of hoofball continue!
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 21/01/2010 at 14:09:28
Have you ever thought that perhaps Moyesy bought these players specifically so that his team would play better football? Can we give credit where credit is due please?
I also thought Cahill was a pain in the arse to City the entire game and was needed on the pitch, he also almost scored one of his trademark headers. Like you said, it aint broke so don’t fix it.
2 Posted 21/01/2010 at 14:16:10
You can’t have a team made up entirely of "ball players" you invariably start to try and walk the ball in, and you also become lightweight — just like Arsenal.
You need a mixture of everything. That's how we battered City and that’s how you have a successful team in the league. You have players to play multiple systems and change things.
Cahill’s a scrapper when he needs to. Also, his record of being the highest goalscorer in the Premier League records, with his head says that ANY team would want him.
We need him scrapping in the box. Just like we sometimes need to bring Vaughan on to chase tired defenders, or we need Fellaini to get the ball down.
As for the "play football" thing. Moyes has always tried to play football, but that's sometimes determined by the opposition and by our own players' form. The City game, every player on the pitch was a "Moyes Player" he’s introduced to the team.
If that doesn’t say something to people, I don’t know what does. He defeated a £200 million team with a team less than half that. Actually about a quarter.
We brought on three players — Vaughan, Coleman and Baxter — combined fee: £150,000. City brought on Robinho, Benjani and SWP — about £60 million. And we didn’t break stride.
Some humble pie needs eating considering the slating Moyes was getting earlier in the season.
3 Posted 21/01/2010 at 14:22:32
You mix it up. Its about possession, but importantly - using possession properly.
Why do people always look for extremes is what I want to know?
A good team makes itself unpredictable to the opposition.
Thats how we kept Asharvin and Tevez out of the last two games because we (Moyes) predicted their game plan... and did our own thing.
4 Posted 21/01/2010 at 15:26:15
The thought that David Moyes and Steve Round give their instructions about team shape, how to play etc and then players like Heitinga, Fellaini, Pienaar then ignore them and just go and do their own thing is nuts.
It’s been said in another recent thread and by myself in a thread a couple of weeks ago but the mere fact that David Moyes bought all these players tells me he wants to play good football. If he wanted out & out hoofball, he’d have bought Kevin Davies from Bolton for £15 million not Fellaini.
And for what it’s worth – I thought Cahill’s work rate against City was incredible. Maybe it sometimes goes un-noticed but the chasing down defenders and not letting them settle was class – a total pain in the arse of the other side and I loved it. I still think, when he’s in form he should be in the side for his work rate and goal threat.
5 Posted 21/01/2010 at 15:35:03
The answer is his workrate and commitment. Essential qualities, but enough on their own? Perhaps.
’Have you ever thought that perhaps Moyesy bought these players specifically so that his team would play better football? Can we give credit where credit is due please?’
Er... yes is the answer. I’m not a moron. I’m a fan of moyes and am not trying to discredit him at all, merely pointing out that its the players in the team that make the difference and pleases me. The players that (obviously) he has chosen.
6 Posted 21/01/2010 at 15:33:01
It is more to do with the players than than the manager and his tactics how the team play but the manager is responsible for what type of players he brings in, and the majority of them have been skillful technical passing players with the odd player who is effective and gets stuck in.
7 Posted 21/01/2010 at 15:33:56
Agreed on everything about Fellaini. I wonder how long before he starts getting man-marked, like Makelele was for Chelsea? Managers realised all their attacks started through him so putting a man on him forces you to go long ball.
8 Posted 21/01/2010 at 15:42:55
As for Cahill's trademark headers being a rarity, it is no coinicence that he has scored less headers while Arteta has been injured. When Arteta returns, Cahill's headers will become much more common.
9 Posted 21/01/2010 at 17:23:46
10 Posted 21/01/2010 at 17:55:35
If we continue to play football, well I’ll be happy to be wrong again.
11 Posted 21/01/2010 at 19:39:58
Sometimes you’ve got to try and put yourself in David Moyes's shoes and see it from his point of view rather than be blinkered and not look at the bigger picture.
I would rather Moyes played it safe then replicate the Leeds, Portsmouth, Newcastle, Charlton etc way.
12 Posted 21/01/2010 at 19:57:25
Cahill and Neville, of course, have massive experience and full tool kits of skill necessary to play well in the PL. But they bring more to the table than that. That is what an "X Factor" actually is, not to be a poor karaoke act, but to do something special - which others can’t copy.
Thank heavens our squad is now so good that these players aren’t absolutely necessary, but we will miss them when they’re not there. Remember Lee Carsley?
13 Posted 21/01/2010 at 19:51:41
From the sublime now, Cahill, back through to the 60s and 70s. Clough brought John McGovern from 4th div Hartlepool to the European cup final. Tommy Jackson and Dennis Stevens???.
Coaches mostly know or they wouldn’t keep picking them. Do the simple things, run all day, tackle anything, play anywhere and never complain, will cover the seeming multitude of sins of omission as seen by those who only look but don’t actually see...He, isn’t as good a A at xxx or B at yyy or C at zzz etc etc.
But even after a poor for him season the stats still stack in his favour we win more with him than with out him.
As Tim says he would run through a brick wall for Moyesey, why? because he knows he is valued
This year is after all the year of the Tiger.
14 Posted 21/01/2010 at 21:18:05
First touch, pace and ball playing kills have always been more limited - maybe these are becomimg more apparent as he passes the 30 mark?
15 Posted 21/01/2010 at 21:38:38
The same can be said for Osman and Hibbert, Tony is a great defender but little else, Ossie isn’t bad in the middle but doesn’t have a great engine or build which in turn impacts on Hibbert at right back.
Timmy is a pain in the arse and puts a shift in every time he plays, he also is fantastic in the air, but he does lose the ball through touch or silly fouls he commits which breaks down our attacks and gives the ball to our opponents. I for one would certainly keep Timmy but would be looking for a long term replacement in that role.
16 Posted 21/01/2010 at 21:29:34
To me it’s a confidence thing. When the team is playing well you’re likely to show pass and move, if not then you’re more likely to play it long. Also it depends on the players. If you have Big Dunc to aim at who can push the play 50 yards nearer their goal then as a defender you’re more likely yo play that way. Some players eg Yobo don’t really have the skill to play the ball to midfielders as much and don’t want to give the ball away in their own half with a sloppy pass. So they’re more likely to play the longer ball.
Football is a results based game — a club’s survival can depend on it — the long ball works sometimes.
I want to see Everton play the ball on the ground as much as anyone but am realistic/pragmatic enough to realise that we can’t do this all the time. Playing the direct ball isn’t a sin. I for one am pleased that Everton can mix it up and see that they try to play football on the ground when they can. So please can we not try to make out that Moyes wants us to play like Wimbledon 1988 (when they won the Cup).
17 Posted 21/01/2010 at 21:53:20
When that news is announced, managers and players around the PL will let out a collective sigh of ’good riddance to the annoying little bastard.’
As old Jonesy would say, "They don’t like it up em" and Tim was an expert at doing just that.
In that respect he reminds me of Davy Hickson, another annoying little bastard who didn’t give a shit about getting in the enemy’s face.
After facing up to those two defender in any game would know they had ’been in a game.’
As with past greats of our club Cahill will be fondly remembered.
18 Posted 21/01/2010 at 22:43:19
19 Posted 21/01/2010 at 22:43:24
20 Posted 21/01/2010 at 22:54:26
Cahill’s name is already engraved in the Everton Hall of Fame, no doubts, but he hasn’t finished yet. Good times still to come.
21 Posted 21/01/2010 at 23:02:58
TWebbers can be quick to judge, and our favourite Hollander was castigated by many for ’hoofball’. I recall that he was good at the long pass. A subtle difference, lost to many.
Hard as nails, Heitinga knows his, and everyone else’s job, and tells them. He is a great leader. Ratty restored to us.
22 Posted 21/01/2010 at 23:37:10
I believe what Tim lacks in touch, he more than makes up for in spirit and effort. A team needs a few kick-arse players like Tim and Pip — they are the engine of side 100% every game. All the great sides have had them and plenty of names have been trotted out that prove this point... McGovern et al. His recent performances have been top notch harassing the opponents touch players and not letting them play and now we are starting to actually get a subs bench back DM can risk giving his legs a rest and stop him burning out.
Sam I think you are right with the statement "don’t fix what ain’t broke" tinker with it a bit though to allow for Mikey coming back
. A team where Tiger Tim is our least skilful player is one that I very much like!! May it long continue.
23 Posted 22/01/2010 at 03:11:05
24 Posted 22/01/2010 at 12:56:59
I agree 100% wholeheartedly. If Timmy is the worst ball playing player we have in the team, we aren’t too bad!
25 Posted 22/01/2010 at 13:34:51
Pienaar is a better ball player than him. But Pienaar can’t win a header or hassle a defender or play in goal mouth scrambles or lunge inot 50/50 tackles.
Cahill - can and does.
While you need superb players who can produce the tricks and flicks, you also need some grit and determination.
Neville can’t pass a ball to feet all of the team and he can’t go past a player - but he is in the same boat as Cahill...
You hear the finesse players shouting and screaming in the tunnel and urging the players forward. Cahill - a much needed and required resource.
Add Your Comments
In order to post a comment to Fan Articles, 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.