Fan Comment

The Second Year of the Project

I hate that buzz words have crept into football in recent years. Currently we have “the Project” and “productivity”; previously we had “philosophy”. Moyes wasn't too keen on management style buzz words but he did have “5-year plans” and used lots of old fashioned football parlance and clichés.

Koeman's project is not clearly defined. We assume it's about winning something, but really it is just another way of saying we will pay him a lot of money to achieve a goal, and that goal appears to be Champions League football.

A lot has been written on here in assessment of the former regime and evaluations of the success or lack of it, and the failings that led to its demise. Some seem to attribute the quite considerable success of the first year of Martinez as somehow being down to Moyes, but yet a lot play down the success of Moyes, which makes no sense to me either.

I have only ever called for the head of one Everton manager, and that was, astonishingly, Ronald Koeman. I vividly remember crying as an 8-year-old in a “ball park” in Southport in 1987 when my dad called me over to watch a TV where Kendall was giving a press conference to announce his resignation. I didn't really understand what was going on, but my dad led me to believe that it was going to break the team up, and he was quite right.

Obviously, I was still a young kid for Colin Harvey's reign and so, as painful as it was to watch Champions turn into also-rans, almost immediately, and see a class room full of half Evertonians, slowly become outnumbered by evil reds as they went from strength to strength and we slid down to mid-table. Next, Kendall came back and was gone. I was again angry at the blues for letting the great man leave, with rumours over a failure to sign Dion Dublin. Then came the Mike Walker years.

I was still just 15 when we sacked him, full of youthful optimism after the great escape and with an unwavering belief in my hero, Anders Limpar, and who I genuinely thought was the best striker in the world, the original TC (Tony Cottee). Everton fired Walker when I was fed up with him, but I hadn't really joined in the chanting on the terraces.

Royle came and brought glory to Everton once more. It now seems such a short time from 1987 to 1995, just 8 years. When you look back over the last 8 years of your life it seems so short, but for a young child growing up from a point of success to success and 8 years of what I could only describe as torture in-between, it seemed like decades. Royle left amidst rumours of a purchase of Tor Andre Flo being rejected by the board, and I was heart broken once more as a true blue had left.

Then came the dour Scot. He didn't impress me with his titles won in Scotland, particularly as he won them off the back of what had already been started by Souness. Smith actually won me around, with a succession of great performances and an exciting team with Oli Dacourt, Marco Materrazzi, John Collins, and Don Hutchison that seemed to be going places.

When things fell apart and the dark days came, I still clung to a view of “well last season we suddenly won 3 games in a row by 4 or more” and retained the view that Smith could turn it around. My dad gave up on a bleak boxing day game at Goodison against Derby. Smith played Unsworth at left mid, and we have a total of 6 centre backs playing (including Unsworth). Derby were just as bad and the game finished without a shot on goal. My dad didn't go again for 10 years! Still I never called for Smith's head, but I was not disappointed when he was sacked.

I got behind Moyes from the start. I always liked him, despite seeing his flaws, being frustrated by his tactics at times, and his safety-first approach. Moyes turned us into “plucky Everton”, but that was a damn site better than “shitty Everton” or “relegation-strugglers” as the papers called us. Moyes gave us our pride back, reasons to be hopeful, and most importantly he laid the foundations for his successors to build on. When he left for Manchester United, I was sad to see him go.

Moyes was a pragmatic manager. His Preston side were not defensive. And his first season here was very different from what followed.

However, it seemed to me that after a defeat to Newcastle, when we naively pushed for a stylish win, rather than closing up shop and “keeping it tight” as would become his hallmark, that Moyes changed.

Moyes was like an old diesel engine. He took his time. If we had lost his priority would always be a clean sheet. We would switch from attacking to defensive, no matter who the next game was against. And with the clean sheet he would slowly rebuild momentum, and only when we were on a run, playing with confidence, did he loosen the reins a bit. It's unfair to call Moyes just a defensive manager because there were some magical momentums, particularly when Osman, Arteta and Pienaar combined with some lovely one touch stuff.

After Moyes left, I wrote an article on here pushing for Everton to appoint Marcelo Bielsa. Biesla was mentioned again in the last couple of days, when someone reposted a video of him giving a training session at Marseille where he told Benjamin Mendy that he could go on to become the best left back in the world; there was some sniggers, but the great man was right once more. It's worth noting that Mendy has been signed by one of Bielsa's proteges in Pep Guardiola, and there was no doubt a phone call or between the two to discuss the transfer.

I doubt Bielsa would have brought the success that I believe possible. But I am sure he would have brought an unprecedented level of excitement for us blues. The greatest attribute of his teams is hard-work, and immediately upon winning the ball the team attacks the goal as one. You will all recall his exciting Chile side in the 2010 World Cup.

I didn't want Martinez because of the failings for which we now all castigate him for. Martinez would be over, and in that first season I was his biggest fan. And as you can see from the lengthy explanations above, I like I did under Smith, held to the belief that he could return to that glorious first season.

I cannot accept any argument that the first season was luck or just down to Moyes's defence. Martinez got us 72 points, the fourth most we have ever got. We played the best football I have ever seen us play. It was a truly magical season and there was no luck about it. Where it went wrong was down to a number of factors, injury to McCarthy and injury to Oviedo / Baines meaning that we never again had the attacking threat on the left that we had for the first ¾ of that first season. McCarthy was unbelievable that season and we moved the ball very quickly.

Bielsa is the man that Pep Guardiola spoke to before making a final decision on taking his first head coaching position. He flew to Argentina and instead of an hour long meeting, they talked for hours. Bielsa took the dining room furniture into the back garden to help Pep understand some tactical utterings. Then Pep took the Barcelona job and did something football had never seen before and created one of the best sides the world has ever seen by combining the hard-pressing style that Bielsa pioneered and combined it with the Barcelona way implemented by Cruyff.

Guardiola's football is not all about passing. It is about hunting in packs, harassing the opposition, winning the ball high up the pitch and immediately attacking. Whereas Bielsa's sides go straight for the goal and will use long passes, Guardiola takes a slightly more measured approach that involves less risk of losing the ball and evolved into a style whereby once we win the ball, you can't take it off us. The modern Barcelona have lost all of the high-press from their game and resemble a more traditional Cruyff side.

Martinez was quite rightly fired. I won't argue with that. He had lost the dressing room, his football was not working, and so he had to go. I didn't push for Bielsa this time, my preference was actually De Boer on the basis that there would be less change from Martinez's style and so less disruption. I was hoping that the Dutch great could inject some defensive know-how into the side whilst keeping the attacking flow of the team that I so loved to watch.

Koeman arrived and I, as ever got fully behind him. But I was not impressed. He was not saying the right things, he kept referring to Everton and didn't seem to identify himself at all with Everton. Results were not good, the team was dull to watch to make things worse, and he seemed to be rubbishing the players.

Most of us, in agreeing that Martinez should go, were saying that the team was dramatically underachieving. In order for a team to underachieve, they must be below the level where they should be, which I think we all agreed was 7th. So for Koeman to come in, be below 7th, to play crap football, and moan about everything really pissed me off.

We also had a great U23 side with Tom Davies as the star. Many here were calling for Tom to play. And then he did. But who of us clamouring for Tom to play would have picked him against Man City, in That Game? Forget what's happened since, but think back to the time, to when he'd played just a few games. I have been schooled by Moyes that you need to pick a rigid, defensive side against a team like that and to keep it tight. There's no room in that side for an 18-year-old kid. Koeman disagreed and everything changed. From then on, we suddenly started to see Koeman's Everton.

People talk about philosophy as if it is something new. It is not. In the 80s and 90s we called it, as I have done above, “style”. In those days, there were more varying styles. The passing sides like Norwich and Spurs, the long ball sides like Watford and Wimbledon, whilst Everton were a good passing side, we were a very energetic side, who liked to get the ball wide. We talk about the “high-press” ever since Bielsa and his disciples (Guardiola, Pochettino, and Sampioli) implemented it around the world, only to be copied by the likes of Klopp and then every other German side. My dad told me, "That's nothing new son, we called it “closing down” and we were doing that in the 50s as a kid!""

What makes me think Koeman is the right man for the job is a number of factors. He is a stubborn man. Stubbornness is a curious quality. Alex Ferguson was a very stubborn man. He believed in himself and was single-minded and stubborn enough to achieve the success that he did despite the problems that nearly saw him sacked before we won anything. Roberto Martinez was very stubborn and refused to buckle or change his methods. But here it is viewed by us as a bad quality. Martinez' stubbornness was not his undoing for me. An unwavering belief in his methods was fine. He was never ever going to adapt to the point where he'd throw on a big man and play route one football, and I was fine with that, even if it meant losing games.

What lost it for Martinez was an inability to fix things in the transition. To see that when we won the ball we did not move the ball fast enough. That Barry and McCarthy or Besic took too many touches, that the passes were not incisive enough and that we were not attacking sides. We were allowing teams to get back into defensive shape before we got an attack going, and so found it harder to get through sides. This was not a failing of his tactics, but of his coaching and management. When McCarthy was struggling with injuries and was not the same player, he should have identified the need for someone else to be brought in to do his job and to move the ball quicker.

Ronald Koeman is much more of a pragmatist. He is flexible in his tactics and formations. He likes passing football in the dutch way, but he never plays Total Football. His teams are much too rigid for that. You saw that Baines and Coleman were much more anchored in defence for the first quarter of last season. Effectively, he spent the first part of the season trying to make us harder to beat. Clearly, he missed out on some attacking targets. But everything seemed to change with Schneiderlin and a clear style of play emerged.

So what is Koeman's style of play or philosophy? He likes a hard-pressing direct team. This is very much in the Bielsa style and he even played something resembling the Bielsa 3-4-3 for a period. Bielsa abandoned his 3-4-3 when he had his most success in Europe, with Athletic Bilbao, seeming to accept that you needed a back four to be successful in Spanish football and European football.

Bielsa is a very ruthless man. When he was manager of Argentina he was not popular. Bielsa has his vision, his way of playing and he selects the best players to fill the roles that he has. If a player cannot fit into his system, then he does not get selected.

Bielsa managed Argentina in 2002, when they played England. Bielsa was battling the Argentinian press and FA because Argentina's supposed best player was none other than our perennial transfer favourite , Juan Roman Riquelme. For those who have forgotten, Riquelme played for Villarreal when we played them in the infamous Champions League Qualifier. He was the ultimate luxury player. He was as good an old fashioned Argentina number 10 as you will ever find. He strolled around the pitch (never ran) and put his foot on the ball and dictated play. He slowed games right down, dominated the possession, and then exploded things to life with a pass into the box that no-one else could see. A master creator. But there was no room for him in Bielsa's team.

You cannot have a midfielder who does not run. The high-press does not work if you have one player strolling around the pitch. Winning the ball high up the pitch and suddenly bursting at goal does not work if the No 10 gets it, puts his foot on the ball and lets the defence re-organize, whilst he looks for a Hollywood pass. Bielsa ultimately left the Argentina job because they would not let him drop Riquelme which meant Bielsa could not play the way he wants to play.

Koeman is in the same vein. Ruthless. He only wants players who will fit into his system, conform to his pre-determined roles and enable him to enact his vision. I think Everton's square peg here is Ross Barkley. He seems at odds with Koeman's hard-running side; he came good at the end of the season for me when he did conform and played on the right of a front three. But clearly Koeman was softening up the Everton faithful for Barkley's departure, as he did not fit into the way he wants to play. He does not close down enough, he does not attack quickly enough, and he puts his foot on the ball too often.

Koeman played a variety of formations last season. Firstly, the 4-2-3-1 as favoured by Martinez. This made it an easier transition. Let's properly understand the formation:

Fullback — old fashioned left and right sided defenders. Can go forward and overlap but has a wide player ahead of him.

Centre-backs — old-fashioned holding the middle with a “stopper” like John Terry who will go forwards to win the headers and engage the opposition striker and a “covering” centre-half who will drop deeper in case the other centre-half misses the header or gets skinned. The stopper is bigger and stronger and the coverer is quicker, more agile and usually better on the ball.

Defensive midfield — there are two players here. But they have very different roles. Liverpool had the perfect embodiment of them in recent years. First of all you have a Javier Mascherano, the bulldog to run around and chase everything and tackle — James McCarthy / Idrissa Gueye. Then you have the Xabi Alonso. The cultured player with a long range of passing who can find the passes forwards to the wings, the channels, and the striker. He should also be able to exchange quick short passes and move the ball quickly, so should have quick feet. Whilst this player is playing just in front of the back four, he actually has very little in the way of defensive capabilities which is why he needs the other player to cover for him. The idea is this player is so good at passing that he can launch a quick attack with a great long pass, think Alonso to Gerrard.

Attacking Midfielders — there are three of these. It depends on the type of formation as it can be narrow with attacking midfielders in the channels, like Mirallas, or wingers on the touchline, like Deulofeu. There is a central Number 10, who either is an out and out play-maker like Riquelme, but if you have a player like Alonso, then this central player can be more of a Gerrard or a Cahill, and instead of creating, they finish.

Striker — a lone striker who needs to be a great all-round player. Big and strong. Can hold the ball up. Can pass, can shoot, can do everything. Failing that, make him like Marcus Bent and be full of energy.

This formation is probably the most popular and has been for sometime. However, it is starting to become dated and its use is very much in decline. The frailties of it are the isolation of a number of players. Firstly the striker is isolated. He's easily policed by two opposition centre-halves. If the opposition fullbacks can get forward they isolate further by pinning back the two wide players. The Number 10 can be easily marked out of the game by an opposition defensive two. And then your own defensive two find there to be little movement and so on winning the ball they take longer to release the ball and longer to get the ball forward. This is exactly what happened to Martinez's side.

There is a number of 3-4-3s. I loved watching Bielsa's 3-4-3 for Chile. Back 3 - Here you have two normal centre halves, with a third sweeping up behind. This ain't a German sweeper though, this is a high defensive line to properly enable the high press, so the middle defender drops deepest to receive the ball in possession but he also strides forward with the ball when it is won, like a defensive midfielder.

Midfield 3 — the central player sits deeper and almost slots into the back 3 when defending, forcing the middle defender back. His two central colleagues are just that, central. They play as standard central midfielders and do not go wide, unless the play opens up for them to do so.

Attacking midfielder — this player could also be seen as part of a front 4! He plays in-between the central midfield 3 and the attacking front 3, which is why this formation is also called a 3-3-1-3 as it is hard to box him off as a midfielder or an attacker. Tim Cahill would be perfect for this role. It's not a Number 10, it's an all action Number 8 running hard, chasing and harrying the defence, giving it off keeping it simple and then getting in the box late to score.

Front 3 — as is the theme of this formation — they are all narrow. They are set up to pin the opposition defence back. You have a central striker and two inside forwards to work the channels.

This formation has no width whatsoever. There are no fullbacks and no wingers. It's all "in your face" tackling, designed to not give anyone any rest, to win the ball and by formation design to be immediately on the attack. The opposition have to sit deep and attack you on the flanks. It didn't work in Spain and Bielsa changed to a flat back 4 and tweaked a more standard 4-2-3-1 to fit his style of in your face football.

Here you will note 3 players immediately, Fernando Llorente (of Swansea), who is the perfect lone striker, Ander Herrera (of Man Utd) who played as the attacking midfielder, and Javi Martinez, perhaps the best defensive midfielder in the world for the last few years or so. Bielsa used him in central defence like Guardiola did with Mascherano. He plays as a covering defender, sweeping up and chasing and harrying the attacks.

Koeman's 3-4-3 is very different.

Back 3 — as about wing backs — wide and pushed up operating as wingers and getting right forward but also trying to defend as fullbacks.

Central midfielders — these operate as per two central midfielders in a 4-4-2. They need to both be box to box and to get forward. They don't worry about bring the ball out of defence as the middle centre back does this. It does not suit Gueye and Schneiderlin, but rather Klaassen and Davies.

Front 3 — here we have a narrow 3, with a central striker and two inside forwards operating in the channels and not getting wide.

We should not see this formation again as Schneiderlin does not fit into it. If you call the wingbacks defenders and rename the formation a 5-2-3 then you can see how Koeman has adapted. You then push the middle central defender forwards and make him into a defensive midfielder, ie, Schneiderlin and then the 523 is a 433 and this is where we are at now:

Centre Backs — as above, stopper being Williams and the covering defender will be keane but he is also more of a stopper. Koeman likes his centre-backs big and strong.

Fullbacks — less like wing backs but far more licence to go forwards than in a 4231.

Central midfield — Schneiderlin to drop deeper on the left and pick the ball off the back four and bring it out, Gueye to harass and harry and make most of the running. Centrally of the two will be Klaassen. This position is about harassing, harrying, chasing and winning the ball, but also to be the play-maker the focal point of the attacks. This is not a Riquelme style play-maker, but someone who never puts his foot on the ball, someone who takes few touches, someone to keep the ball in motion, to keep the attacks going and to not lose momentum.

Attacking 3 — a central striker and two inside forwards. Sandro looks top class and still so young. He appears to be predominately right footed. His role is to run to the left of the central striker, slightly deeper and to play the channel. The central striker Koeman prefers is the Lorente or Pelle type.

Some may not know what the “channel” is. This is the gap in a 4-4-2 between the full-back and the centre-back. Modern formations see more players in this area, such as Eden Hazard. If a winger hugs the touchline, he has less room, can become isolated and it's hard for him to get the ball. A player in the channel can go outside onto the wing or come inside for the shot.

Kevin Mirallas does his best work as an inside forward operating the left-hand channel. He loves to run in off the fullback across into the central striker position and shoot with his favoured right. Sandro looks like he does this also, but whereas this is all Mirallas does, by this I mean he hardly ever gets properly wide and whips in a cross, or puts in a good pass, the signs are there that there are more tricks in Sandro's locker.

Coming in off the left is not a good trick for a team with a static Number 9 like Lukaku. The fullback follows the winger, and the gap left is not exploited. Rooney playing up top has shown that he will pull wide, knowing what Sandro is doing and will fill this gap. Rooney is a clever footballer and can see this. Rooney will then either get into space in the left position, or he will make the fullback stop his run, or he will drag the centre-back out of position creating a space to run into. This move suddenly is very effective with options and a defence pulled apart due to the mobility of these two players.

The problem for most sides is replicating this on the right-hand side. This means finding a player who has a good left foot and is comfortable on the right. There is one we can all name, and that is Lionel Messi, who has made this his stock in trade and, being so unusual, left backs have found this hard to deal with. However, we have our own player: Ross Barkley. He is right footed. He moves the ball mainly with his right, but he can do so with his left. He will cross with his right, as per that perfect cross for Lukaku. But what sets Barkley apart in this formation from most is that he actually shoots better off his left. So Barkley can turn inside and let rip with that almighty howitzer of a left foot. He can also slip a pass into feed Sandro or Rooney.

Sadly, for me, Barkley is not going to be here much longer. So, this is a position I think we need to fill. Sigurdsson is definitely Goodison bound, that is obvious. Sigurdsson can't play the central midfield role. He's too deep there. It's not his game. He'd be a square peg in a round hole. Sure, he runs far more than most. He will fit into the chasing and harrying. But his game is not moving the ball quickly from deep, it is slipping people through on goal from just outside the box. This is why I think he will play on the right of a front three.

Keiran Dowell has enjoyed a good run out in pre-season as part of a front three. I think he's done himself a few favours and will have impressed Koeman. But I do think this is Koeman trying to get the side ready for Sigurdsson. Here's a similar player in terms of style. Neither will get wide and get a cross in from the by-line, but they will turn inside and cross from anywhere, even unorthodox positions, or just play a great long pass in.

I think back to Southampton and their front three of Mane, Tadic, and Pelle. Mane brought the speed, Tadic the tricks and passing, and Pelle the strength and power. So I see Sigurdsson as a Number 10 operating from a number 7 position but with a lot more running, chasing and harrying, as a Tadic. Sandro is Mane. He just needs a Pelle. Rooney can play as the Number 9 and as the wide Number 10. It's a long hard season remember.

I am not calling Koeman a genius, just passing on how I understand Koeman's tactics, how he has played, and how he appears to be setting the side up to play. This is now his team. If they aren't players he signed, like Coleman, then they are still his players because he has kept them in his team as they play his way. That way is fast football like Bielsa, which is why I have mentioned him so much, and in your face football. It's not quite the high press all action football or Bielsa or the knock-off version Klopp plays (heavy metal football the Germans called it), but it's similar.

Koeman is more flexible and pragmatic. Bielsa's lack of pragmatism, his stubbornness will mean that he is remember as a cult figure in football, the pioneer of the high-press, one of the great football philosophers but sadly not one of the great managers. If you want to catch him in action this season, then watch Lille. His antics on the sidelines are almost as entertaining as his team's. It's that pragmatism that allows certain managers to succeed.

Was Alex Ferguson the best at coaching players? Well, he never went on the training pitch and got his hands dirty for the last five seasons at least, so surely not. Was he the best at tactics? He was never a pioneer like Bielsa, he instead followed the fashions and implemented them, which is why he did not replicate his domestic domination into European Domination and he is seen as somewhat less tactically aware than say Mourinho. Neither was he a great scout, he signed many big named obvious players and had them flop badly. Perhaps the greatest of these was Juan Sebastian Veron, one of the best players the world has ever seen, and back in action in Argentina now well into his 40s, but Ferguson could not work out how to utilise him, and yet, either side of his spell in England, he was world class.

Ferguson, like the great rugby coach Clive Woodward, is a master delegator, he employs the best scouts, tacticians and coaches and then brings it all together. We may be doing that now. Walsh, Koeman, and Unsworth. We mostly seem to be feeling very optimistic.

Reader Comments (37)

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

About these ads

---

---