David Moyes made three stoppage-time substitutions against Manchester City—just seconds before their last-gasp equaliser. It was a moment that left fans questioning the manager's decision-making, but does the blame truly lie with him?

Football is famously a results business, and the buck almost always stops with the manager. But with the dust settled on Monday's dramatic draw, I found myself wondering: do we overemphasise the influence of the man in the dugout?

Let's break down what happened. Moyes brought on Nathan Patterson for Merlin Röhl in the 90th minute, even though the German had run himself into the ground. Patterson then slipped when trying to close down Jeremy Doku before City's equaliser. Another late substitute, Carlos Alcaraz, didn't cover himself in glory either. But here's the question: should Moyes really shoulder the responsibility for basic defensive lapses? City's second goal—slicing through Everton's defence just seconds after they'd taken a 3-1 lead—was even more alarming.

Substitutions are just one route of managerial influence. In a role where countless factors are out of their control—the imbalance of quality between teams, the vagaries of refereeing decisions and VAR, and pure fortune on either side—it's easy to point fingers at the manager. But is that fair?

That's not to absolve Moyes of any blame. He has his culpability this season, and his flaws have been discussed with increasing repetition. But until the three pillars of success—recruitment, investment, and coaching—are strong, Everton will always be up against it. There's an argument that the importance is in that order.

Look at the Premier League's recent overachievers: Brighton, Brentford, and Bournemouth. Each has lost highly-touted head coaches without batting an eyelid. Why? Because they've excelled in unearthing talent, allowing for further investment through substantial sales, and providing coaches with the spoils to succeed. That's the blueprint—and it starts long before the manager's touchline decisions.