Eddie Howe

[gbandit]

The one thing so far in all of his time here that I have a significant issue with is Burn starting over Tino. Everything else I’m happy to accept that Eddie knows far more than we do and he’s also achieved some amazing things so should be given the benefit of the doubt. On the Tino situation I cannot understand a single argument for why Burn starts over Tino. I can’t make it make sense

[RS]

[54]

1 minute ago, LionOfGosforth said:

 

I think this is a key part, we don't know what's up behind the scenes, there's reasons for everything. I'm as perplexed by the Burn thing as most.

Don't forget Tino did come off a ACL tear just before he joined us, could be something to do with that.

[LionOfGosforth]

2 minutes ago, gbandit said:

The one thing so far in all of his time here that I have a significant issue with is Burn starting over Tino. Everything else I’m happy to accept that Eddie knows far more than we do and he’s also achieved some amazing things so should be given the benefit of the doubt. On the Tino situation I cannot understand a single argument for why Burn starts over Tino. I can’t make it make sense

 

Not sure many people can beyond it's all part of a tactical structure that EH prefers. At a certain point, and I say this as one of Eddie's biggest supporters, it becomes a problem keeping the same player in the firing line and getting it in the neck for making mistakes, all for the sake of loyalty/team harmony and/or tactical structure. Unless Tino needs managing due to prior injury. 

 

 

Edited February 10 by LionOfGosforth

[David Edgar]

Just now, black_n_white said:

The defence is clearly not the main issue here.

 

The main issues are:

 

1) No Pope - so we can't play the high line to close down the space opponents have in midfield

2) Having to play Miley in midfield - which compounds the first issue. Miley just isn't ready for the physicality and it is showing

3) Injuries in general - so we are very inflexible in general, but especially off the bench

 

I think Dan Burn can play LB for us if we have Pope and a functioning midfield. But he is so vulnerable at the moment to balls over the top or wide. And I know we won today, but we relied on individual quality in a game that 2/3 we would lose. And I don't fully attribute that to Howe, before anyone says it. It is because of the reasons listed above. Although, at the same time, I am frustrated that we aren't addressing the LB issue and Tino is stuck on the bench. Maybe it is Burn's leadership, or his height, or the familiarity/partnerships with other players that keeps him on the pitch. I could be very wrong and it wouldn't be any better with Tino. But even still, I think it is completely fine to say "hey, that's a glaring issue" and "can Howe not do something about it?" Maybe the answer to the second question is no.

 

Will reemphasise that I think Howe is class, cos I think people are seriously missing that. 

[Pilko]

The Burn thing seems strangely stubborn, Livramento has proven to be reliable and a good defender and we could do with his pace in the backline if the opposition has speedy wingers when we've got the table footy keeper rooted to his line 9 times out of 10.

 

Can understand why he wants him in for his height and his leadership qualities but I would also expect a bit more of a "horses for courses" approach if there's someone on the opposition right wing who can catch pigeons.

 

Also don't understand the hesitation to sub a clearly gassed Gordon when we have Murphy available, he was on fumes for about 15 minutes. It didn't matter in the end but it seemed fairly clear to see.

 

Good win in the end but another heart stopping game to watch. I'd love a boring 1-0 win with loads of control from us soon.

[Tsunami]

We are abysmally slow in midfield and that is exposing us in front of Botman and Schar and then we have Burn horribly exposed to pace down our left. Willock is a huge miss, he can break lines with his pace. We are largely predictable and sideways in the middle.

 

Can’t wait for next season/ to have all players available plus a reliable centre forward, we’ll be a completely different side to deal with.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

8 minutes ago, LionOfGosforth said:

 

I think this is a key part, we don't know what's up behind the scenes, there's reasons for everything. I'm as perplexed by the Burn thing as most.

 I can think of a few. The back three element, height against high balls, experience with the other unit, he sees Tino as primarily an RB, he wants at least one decent sub to bring on, Tino would be exposed too because our midfield is porous. Probably others. 
 

I’m not saying which of those are true but it’s really not hard to put yourself a bit in the manager’s shoes. 
 

Edit: soz other people already have loads of reasons

 

 

Edited February 10 by AyeDubbleYoo

[Gallowgate Toon]

Well in the hunt for European contention and a winnable cup fixture coming up, I think he's done pretty decently this season considering the context.

 

I am frustrated with his use of Burn, like. Yes, he did stuff well tonight when it came to scrappy defending (and he did improve as the game went on) but he's such a an obvious weak link while our midfield is down on personnel and it creates pressure on other players imo. The set piece point is a fair one to a degree but Burn is also part of the problem when it comes to conceding set pieces 

[nemtizz]

13 minutes ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

TBF we did sign a world class CM before this season. 

And our midfield still looked average with him in it. 

[Andy]

Just now, Pilko said:

The Burn thing seems strangely stubborn, Livramento has proven to be reliable and a good defender and we could do with his pace in the backline if the opposition has speedy wingers when we've got the table footy keeper rooted to his line 9 times out of 10.

 

Can understand why he wants him in for his height and his leadership qualities but I would also expect a bit more of a "horses for courses" approach if there's someone on the opposition right wing who can catch pigeons.

 

Also don't understand the hesitation to sub a clearly gassed Gordon when we have Murphy available, he was on fumes for about 15 minutes. It didn't matter in the end but it seemed fairly clear to see.

 

Good win in the end but another heart stopping game to watch. I'd love a boring 1-0 win with loads of control from us soon.

 

This is pretty much how I feel about the Burn situation too, it's my only frustration with Howe really. Tino looks better at both ends of the pitch, the only advantage of Burn is aerial duals, but that shouldn't be a deciding attribute for a modern fullback. 

 

He's costing big chances 2 or 3 times a game, Elanga could've scored today 10 minutes before he actually did, in near-identical circumstances. Him constantly being exposed for pace is a big part of the reason that we constantly drop back so deep imo. 

[LionOfGosforth]

1 minute ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

 I can think of a few. The back three element, height against high balls, experience with the other unit, he sees Tino as primarily an RB, he wants at least one decent sub to bring on, Tino would be exposed too because our midfield is porous. Probably others. 
 

I’m not saying which of those are true but it’s really not hard to put yourself a bit in the manager’s shoes. 
 

Edit: soz other people already have loads of reasons

 

 

 

 

I'd add tactical structure to that (maybe you meant that by the back 3 comment), plus team harmony/loyalty and also, he doesn't think he's as bad as some on here clearly do. Also Tino may be struggling in training due to prior injury...so yeah, plenty of reasons. I'm not the one screaming in match threads about it and calling our esteemed gaffer an idiot and a fraud so not quite sure why you picked on my post 

[nufcjmc]

30 minutes ago, Rafalove said:

Haven’t really criticised how much and I’m glad we won, but I thought it was a bit mad not bringing Murphy on with our current injury situation.

Agreed although playing devil's advocate Murphy has played recently and while I hope in the match day squad fit to start it may be that they wanting to manage his minutes due to length he was out. I would have changed it just to try and utilise the squad with the benefit of the 5 subs and now having a few genuine options but we clearly don't know how much the squad is suffering knocks. 

[Checko]

I would have preferred Tino today as well for pace vs the counter. It's worth bearing in mind though that when Burn came back in we had been shipping a ton of goals with Tino at LB. I don't think it was Tino's fault, but I can see why Howe would want to go back to the back 4 that conceded the joint fewest goals in the league last year.

 

It hasn't really worked overall to be fair, but Burn has been overall very solid for 2 years here and is one of the team leaders. Even just a few games ago he was having some good games, so you don't necessarily just discard him after a couple of bad games. There are things like squad harmony and dynamics to be considered, which we won't know so much about. Also he's really fucking tall.

[Rafalove]

Just now, nufcjmc said:

Agreed although playing devil's advocate Murphy has played recently and while I hope in the match day squad fit to start it may be that they wanting to manage his minutes due to length he was out. I would have changed it just to try and utilise the squad with the benefit of the 5 subs and now having a few genuine options but we clearly don't know how much the squad is suffering knocks. 

 

Perhaps. And Howe has earned the benefit of the doubt. Though even a ten minute cameo would suffice just to give someone like say Wilson a rest. Gordon needed to come off five or ten minutes sooner.

[The College Dropout]

8 minutes ago, David Edgar said:

 

It isn't though, is it? You know exactly that it is about Dan Burn at left back. Who isn't going to be frustrated by his lapses and cost goals in recent games? I do think Howe is an idiot for keeping him in the side when Tino is there. I can only assume there is something we don't know preventing Tino from starting.

He just rates Dan Burn as a LB much higher than anyone else in the squad. Dan Burn has started nearly every match of note that he’s been fit for since he joined.  

[TheBrownBottle]

If I had a criticism it wouldn’t be selection - it would be running players into the ground well past the point of their endurance.  Gordon had ran has race and needed his head to be wobbling when he was jogging back before a sub was made.  That’s how you can get fatigue injuries.  We’ve got to start identifying earlier that a player is completely spent.

 

We won so as far as I’m concerned Howe got the selection and tactics right. 

[Chris_R]

40 minutes ago, David Edgar said:

 

I can only assume there is something we don't know preventing Tino from starting.

 

There isn't though, is there?

 

Livramento, who's looked excellent every time he's played, doesn't play because of Burn

Hall, who Chelsea fans were gutted to lose, didn't play because of Burn

Targett, Villa's player of the season before he joined us, didn't play because of Burn

 

It's got nothing to do with who the other player is, or their fitness or availability, he just insists on playing Burn no matter what. And TBH I can't see that changing, because he's shown no sign at all of wanting to change it.

 

It's like he thinks this is some kind of tactical masterplan, us going 3 at the back when Trippier goes up, like there's no way we can deviate from that, no way we can play differently. Even though literally every other team in the world manages to play without a giant left back, and despite how shaky Burn is against pace.

 

Love Eddie, love Burn frankly too, but this stubbornness in the face of clear evidence is awful and he needs to try something else. But he won't.

 

 

Edited February 10 by Chris_R

[Gallowgate Toon]

For all of the snipes about him only having Plan A, btw, I think he's trying quite a lot of stuff at the moment and has had backup plans in recent away games.

 

We tried much more of a 3-2 today in possession, Miley back and usually partnered by either Tripps or Longstaff with Bruno roaming. Feels like the 3-2 is a way to try hold possession more and manage the gaps we leave during turnovers at the moment. Didn't work perfectly as our inclination is still to press a lot but it shows that he's tinkering imo.

[Rafalove]

9 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

If I had a criticism it wouldn’t be selection - it would be running players into the ground well past the point of their endurance.  Gordon had ran has race and needed his head to be wobbling when he was jogging back before a sub was made.  That’s how you can get fatigue injuries.  We’ve got to start identifying earlier that a player is completely spent.

 

We won so as far as I’m concerned Howe got the selection and tactics right. 

 

 

Again he gets the benefit of the doubt for now as we still have a small squad and for large periods had few options, but as we build a bigger squad he will need to utilise it. 
 

 

We’ve had a lot of injuries this season but he’s also had moments where he could have protected players better.

being 3-0 up against Crystal Palace at half time  four days before we played a midweek game against Dortmund for one.

[Gallowgate Toon]

Murphy picked up a knock in the warm-up which gives more explanation to Gordon staying on. Still could've brought Krafu on a few earlier, like.

[TheBrownBottle]

3 minutes ago, Rafalove said:

 

 

Again he gets the benefit of the doubt for now as we still have a small squad and for large periods had few options, but as we build a bigger squad he will need to utilise it. 
 

 

We’ve had a lot of injuries this season but he’s also had moments where he could have protected players better.

being 3-0 up against Crystal Palace at half time  four days before we played a midweek game against Dortmund for one.

Murphy was on the bench mind - he did have an option today

 

edit: didn’t realise Murphy had a knock.  But honestly, even Ritchie for the last few minutes.  We can’t just be burning players out

 

 

Edited February 10 by TheBrownBottle

[AyeDubbleYoo]

23 minutes ago, LionOfGosforth said:

 

I'd add tactical structure to that (maybe you meant that by the back 3 comment), plus team harmony/loyalty and also, he doesn't think he's as bad as some on here clearly do. Also Tino may be struggling in training due to prior injury...so yeah, plenty of reasons. I'm not the one screaming in match threads about it and calling our esteemed gaffer an idiot and a fraud so not quite sure why you picked on my post 

Didn’t mean to pick, I was just trying to suggest some reasons. 

[AyeDubbleYoo]

FWIW I’ve never really rated Burn as an LB and I was criticising him even when we were good. I’m just saying that from a manager’s POV there must be a lot of factors to consider. And also, it’s just one individual selection so is quite a small factor in our results. 

 

 

Edited February 10 by AyeDubbleYoo

[LionOfGosforth]

Just now, AyeDubbleYoo said:

Didn’t mean to pick, I was just trying to suggest some reasons. 

 

No sweat mate, i'm in here fighting EH's corner, not questioning him.