EVERTON CARETAKER MANAGER Duncan Ferguson reiterated that he is not planning to put himself in contention for the permanent position despite a 3-1 win over Chelsea on Saturday.
Ferguson, a popular former Everton player, was placed in temporary charge of the team following Marco Silva’s dismissal in the wake of their 5-2 midweek Merseyside derby defeat against Liverpool.
The Scot made an impressive impact, with Everton sharper and snappier than they had been under Silva – evidenced by their 37 tackles, more than any other team in a Premier League match this season.
Richarlison got the opening goal in the fifth minute, before Dominic Calvert-Lewin netted either side of Mateo Kovacic’s first league strike for Chelsea.
But Ferguson remains realistic about his status, adamant he will not be putting forward his case to club decision-makers despite lifting Everton out of the bottom three.
When asked if he would be sending a message to majority shareholder Farhad Moshiri and director of football Marcel Brands staking his claim for the job, Ferguson told BT Sport: “No, honestly, I won’t be saying that. That’s not what I’m saying.
“I’m here for Everton, I’m here for as long as they want me here, and I’m sure they [the club's hierarchy] are out there looking for their candidates, and rightly so.
“We want the best guys in the world managing this football club, but this was an incredible experience for me, an unbelievable experience I’ll never forget.
I’m just looking to get home and lie down, I think. We’re not looking ahead - I was just looking at this game and that is it, we’re savouring the moment. It’s three fantastic points.
“I think you saw on the touchline how enthusiastic I was, but you know it’s one game, one result. I think I’ve answered the question [about going for the position].”
Frank Lampard, Ferguson’s opposite number on Saturday, was left fuming with Chelsea’s defensive frailties, convinced all three “terrible” goals were gifts.
“We always knew they were going to have a go and they’ve got good players, they’re just in a slightly false position for whatever reason,” he said.
I’m more worried about us. It wasn’t good enough from us, conceding three terrible goals from our point of view.
“We know Richarlison is good in the air on crosses and the last thing you want is to go one down early here, then they can be organised and make things very difficult for you.
“We got in their box so many times and [were] not getting shots away, trying to walk it in at times, so [there were] lots of things I wasn’t happy with.”
The42 is on Instagram! Tap the button below on your phone to follow us!
Crazy decision. Completely accidental clash of heads.
A five game ban for this is outrageous. How is a decision like that arrived at. It was clearly accidental.
Cant watch the clips because I’m in Australia ffs. But the fans I’ve spoke to say it’s a yellow a most and even that’s harsh. Any truth to this??
@Dara: no
@Dara: Do they not have YouTube in Australia ?
Shameful decision. Warranted a yellow card at best. He’ll be badly missed for the ECC games where his brawn and explosive speed would have levelled things up for Connacht.
Whatever about whether it was right or wrong, how can they suspend 1 week off the 6 week ban for ‘remorse’ when the red card was challenged? Surely that is a prime indication that not alone was there no remorse but the feeling was that it wasn’t even a red card. This incident aside, I would be concerned that the judicial process is flawed on that basis.
His biggest mistake was not being Owen Farrell.
I think he’s a lucky lad to only get 5 weeks, accidental or not he clearly didn’t learn his lesson from the last high shot.
@Jim Demps: I don’t think people here understand. The tackler has an obligation to tackle safely. Accidental or not he has made head to head contact which could have been avoided. The player doesn’t dip in fact he may even come up a little at impact. It’s a clear red and when it’s your second of the season 5 weeks seems lenient.
@Jim Demps: It was an accidental clash of heads after the attacking player changed his running line. I think 5 weeks is harsh, I’d love to see how they arrived at this decision. He does need to lower his tackle height though. Owen Farrell only got 5 weeks for tackle on Charlie Atkinson and in terms of intent those tackles are like chalk and cheese. With Farrells tackling track record it should have been far longer.
@Jayme Mc Goldrick: yeah that’s it. Accidental or not the outcome is still a dangerous tackle. I get why people are annoyed, I’d probably be the same if it was a munster player but it’s not like it’s a new rule, a head shot has never been legal.
@MacEoin.T: I think the decision is pretty clear, he got 6 weeks the first time and it was reduced to 3 for having a clear record. He then got 6 weeks this time and didn’t get the reduction for having a clear record. If anything I’d be saying he didn’t deserve the one week reduction given he clearly hasn’t learnt his lesson.
@Jim Demps: Out of interest, does a player get a clear record at the beginning of each season or is it a pro career duration timeframe?
@MacEoin.T: I know in the amateur game in Ireland they look at your records for 5 years so I assume it’s probably something similar. They definitely don’t get a clean slate at the start of the season anyway. Punishing repeat offenders more harshly I think is a good way to go. Like if Papalli gets sent off again for another high shot I’d say he could be looking at 10+ weeks.
@Jim Demps: he’ll be back in time for the game against Munster on the 9th of January Jim. We’ll get a proper look at him in action then.
@Jim Demps: Would you stop Jim, Farrell got the same ban for trying to take Atkinson’s head off and you’re arguing the Papali’i deserves the same? You’re dreaming lad.
@Paddy Kennedy: I’m not arguing anything, I’m saying that’s how it works. Farrell actually got a 10 week ban reduced by half for a first offence. Farrells was worse and he got a bigger ban, papalli is in the dock for the second time in four games and gets less of a reduction. It’s fairly straightforward
@David Finn: great stuff, hopefully he takes the time between now and then to learn how to tackle in Union. He’ll be a serious player once he irons out those mistakes.
@Paddy Kennedy: It was Farrell’s first red so he got more lenient treatment. The fact that Farrell should have had plenty of reds in recent seasons can’t be taken into account.
Players & coaches have to understand how seriously World Rugby is taking head injuries and act accordingly. That means a lower body position in any potential tackle situation.
Clearly difficult to get it right all the time so some players will get unlucky from time to time. Lack of intent doesn’t seem to be a mitigating factor.
Crazy biased decision.
That makes no sense. How the ref made out he led with his head is beyond me. The attacking player steps and papali has to change direction to make the tackle, their heads collide. 5 games is ridiculous.
Outrageous decision! Ref & TMO bottled it!!
I really don’t understand all the comments arguing that this is somehow disproportionate. It was a clear red card, it was clear he was going to get a significant ban and if he doesn’t learn how to tackle lower he’s going to miss more games than he plays. Crazy decision by Connacht to contest this and I’d argue you shouldn’t get a reduction if you contest the decision, as you’re clearly not remorseful if you think you didn’t commit an offence.
The hypocrisy on this forum , when it was Peter O Mahony deliberately targeting someone’s head in the ruck with his shoulder a few weeks ago (imo, is much worse than an accidental clash of heads) people here were saying ‘he was frustrated’ and ‘playing on the edge’!