Sven Botman

[Guest HTT II]

3 minutes ago, bobbydazzla said:

Eddie wants to have a word with him before he goes off the rails, there’s pics circulating on social media allegedly of Sven in Benwell Lidl.
 

Putting his life at risk doing shit like that. 

I’m a Benwell man, if he needs protection…

[bobbydazzla]

1 minute ago, HTT II said:

I’m a Benwell man, if he needs protection…

He was in Lidl not the local brass house 😉 

[Jaqen]

Wonder if Burn will come back in to deal with Antonio on the weekend? 

[MrRaspberryJam]

4 minutes ago, HTT II said:

I’m a Benwell man, if he needs protection…

 

I imagine he just goes bareback. 

[et tu brute]

2 minutes ago, Jaqen said:

Wonder if Burn will come back in to deal with Antonio on the weekend? 

For Botman or Schar? I would say Botman has a more physical presence than Burn. 

[STM]

I'm not a fan of making defensive choices based on the opposition. We should play what we think is our best defence and plan to implement our game on them.

 

If we keep the ball, if we make the runs, if we put in the tackles, we should beat them, without having to change players to suit them.

[The Butcher]

Unless he's injured I really can't see a single reason for him not playing today. Having a CB capable of playing through the lines would've made such a difference with Bournemouth parking the bus.

 

He's a fret from set penises as well. Really disappointed.

 

[Lotus]

He'll be in next game after that rick from BDB (playing Billing onside). 

[Ronaldo]

Just now, The Butcher said:

Unless he's injured I really can't see a single reason for him not playing today. Having a CB capable of playing through the lines would've made such a difference with Bournemouth parking the bus.

 

He's a fret from set penises as well. Really disappointed.

 

 

Yeah I don't get that either. Odd one.

[r0cafella]

Can only assume it was a reward for Burn who did well standing in at full back. To be frank if he isn’t starting it wasn’t the time to but buy him though as we evidently need attacking players. 

[nemtizz]

The rotation would make sense if we had played recently but he's comfortably better than Burn.

[et tu brute]

2 hours ago, nemtizz said:

The rotation would make sense if we had played recently but he's comfortably better than Burn.

He is by far better in possession and positivity with the ball also. Nearly all Burns balls go sideways. He is also by far more of a threat at set pieces. Botman should be one of the first names pencilled in to the team sheet. Let the others be rotated to play alongside. 

[bowlingcrofty]

When we’re playing teams at home that park the bus, having Svenjamin’s ball playing skills helps like. BDB is the classic “comfortable on the ball but can’t do owt with it”, which is one step up from Jamaal “controlling a grenade” Lascelles but nowhere near as accomplished as Botman.

[The College Dropout]

Why didn’t he start?

 

I don’t want unnecessary rotation at CB.  
 

My concern was that this was a bit of a luxury transfer and rotating him would feed into that fear. 

[Danh1]

7 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

Why didn’t he start?

 

I don’t want unnecessary rotation at CB.  
 

My concern was that this was a bit of a luxury transfer and rotating him would feed into that fear. 

Had a slight niggle apparently. The amount of set pieces we had, he’d have been handy today 

[Jaqen]

8 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

Why didn’t he start?

 

I don’t want unnecessary rotation at CB.  
 

My concern was that this was a bit of a luxury transfer and rotating him would feed into that fear. 

 

I'm not sure if it's a 'luxury' but more clearly someone who they've identified as the long term first choice option at CB and didn't want to risk losing out on. 

 

There's probably the argument to be made we'd have been better off this season with Burn at CB and using those funds for a winger or a Maddison type signing but long term it makes sense. 

 

[WarrenBartonCentrePartin]

Felt like we might’ve got one from a corner today had he played.

 

Instead, Dan Burn was in his best ‘way down when he should’ve been up’ form.

 

 

Edited September 17, 2022 by WarrenBartonCentrePartin

[The Prophet]

Another error from Burn again today. Get Sven back in.

[Guest reefatoon]

Thought Burn had a good game actually.

[Happinesstan]

2 hours ago, et tu brute said:

He is by far better in possession and positivity with the ball also. Nearly all Burns balls go sideways. He is also by far more of a threat at set pieces. Botman should be one of the first names pencilled in to the team sheet. Let the others be rotated to play alongside. 

There was a lack of movement and showing for passes today. I'm not sure Botman changes that.

[et tu brute]

39 minutes ago, Happinesstan said:

There was a lack of movement and showing for passes today. I'm not sure Botman changes that.

Disagree

[jack j]

3 hours ago, reefatoon said:

Thought Burn had a good game actually.

He did aye. Far better than schar.

[Ronaldo]

Burn was fine, but Botman is obviously a better partner for Schar - who’s currently by a bit of a distance our best CB.

[Begbie]

3 hours ago, The Prophet said:

Another error from Burn again today. Get Sven back in.

I can understand why Howe went for Burn today. I do think he looked a littlebit shaky, and not his normal self leading the back line.

Solanke and Tavernier where just to good for him. Also his positioning on their goal was awfull and cost us a goal.

[The College Dropout]

9 hours ago, Jaqen said:

 

I'm not sure if it's a 'luxury' but more clearly someone who they've identified as the long term first choice option at CB and didn't want to risk losing out on. 

 

There's probably the argument to be made we'd have been better off this season with Burn at CB and using those funds for a winger or a Maddison type signing but long term it makes sense. 

 

That’s the argument I have.