Kid Icarus Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 7 minutes ago, Ronson333 said: Fair point, hopefully in the summer we upgrade the RW. That hybrid RW/AM is the priority for me Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronson333 Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 1 minute ago, Kid Icarus said: That hybrid RW/AM is the priority for me Yep agree, not just Miggy but Longstaff too. If that’s Tonali then great, but we need more from our right sided mid in terms of creativity and goals. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
80 Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 26 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said: What happens when he plays Livramento and it doesn’t magically solve our (much bigger) midfield problems? Who you gonna blame then? No blame required if the harm isn't self inflicted. We would not be so reliant on Trippier's assists if we had a dual threat down the left for a change, giving the opposition something extra to deal with. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wormy Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 (edited) 25 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said: We already know for sure it means Trippier (most assists in the league) stays back as part of a 3. You can guarantee plenty haven't considered that and the impact that has on the linkes of Miggy and Longstaff like. I could understand this argument were it not for the fact that we keep correcting away from it anyway. Sometimes he comes on and we switch to 5, sometimes he comes on and we switch to 3. If it happens game after game (which it is right now), is that not questionable? I will say that I don't think there's much Howe could do right now with the squad overall apart from this switch and yes, there's every chance it doesn't cure our ills. But why are we not trying? If it keeps being targeted over and over. And over. Why can't we find out what difference a change makes? I would like to state for the record that I love Howe and hope we find success with him and have been loathe to criticise him to any great extent up to now. However.. Is it not a concern if there's absolutely no deviating from the plan of a tall full back to make a three in transition when it has clearly not been working for an elongated period of time now? Edited February 17 by wormy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Icarus Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 Just now, wormy said: I could understand this argument were it not for the fact thay we keep correcting away from it anyway. Sometimes he comes on and we switch to 5, sometimes he comes on and we switch to 3. If it happens game after game (which it is right now), is that not questionable? I will say that I don't think there's much Howe could do right now with the squad overall apart from this switch and yes, there's every chance it doesn't cure our ills. But why are we not trying? If it keeps being targeted over and over. And over. Why can't we find out what difference a change makes? I would like to state for the record that I love Howe and hope we find success with him and have been loathe to criticise him to any great extent up to now. However.. Is it not a concern if there's absolutely no deviating from the plan of a tall full back to make a three in transition when it has clearly not been working for an elongated period of time now? It's hard to tell for sure, against Villa it looked like a 5 with Burn tucked in, and against Luton more like a 3 with Livramento pushed up, but in both cases Trippier stopped getting forward. We can both agree that's not what you want Trippier to be doing. Even if we had a midfield that could cover, with Joelinton and/or Willock, you could have them both getting forward, but that side of the game isn't a strength of the 3 were having to rely on. I don't envy Howe. For all the calling for Livramento, there'll be other problems that come up by playing him. Maybe at some point he'll think it's worth trying out regardless. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Icarus Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 17 minutes ago, 80 said: No blame required if the harm isn't self inflicted. We would not be so reliant on Trippier's assists if we had a dual threat down the left for a change, giving the opposition something extra to deal with. We don't have the midfield to be able to do that though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
80 Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 9 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said: We don't have the midfield to be able to do that though. To provide a threat down the left with Livramento and Barnes/Gordon, you mean? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Icarus Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 (edited) 3 minutes ago, 80 said: To provide a threat down the left with Livramento and Barnes/Gordon, you mean? To cover for having both full backs bombing on. When Liverpool used to do it they had Henderson/Wijnaldum/Fabinho covering. Full strength we could maybe do it, but our stand in 3 are struggling defensively enough as it is without having to cover for another full back. Edited February 17 by Kid Icarus Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_R Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 If we're weak at right wing, if Trippier must be allowed to get forward, and if Burn is a liability and if Livramento must start, then ... Trippier plays right wing, Livramento plays right back, Hall plays left back and Burn goes to the glue factory. Sorted. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holmesy Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 1 hour ago, Kid Icarus said: We don't have the midfield to be able to do that though. This is the argument I don’t get. We are literally shipping 3 goals per game on average. Every time Dan Burn goes anywhere near the halfway line we are in danger of conceding on the break. Are you suggesting we’ll ship 4 per game if we swap Burn for Livra, who actually has the pace to get back? People are making arguments against certain changes as if we’re defensively solid. Our defensive system doesn’t work, at all. Changing it is the only thing that makes sense. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Icarus Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 13 minutes ago, Holmesy said: This is the argument I don’t get. We are literally shipping 3 goals per game on average. Every time Dan Burn goes anywhere near the halfway line we are in danger of conceding on the break. Are you suggesting we’ll ship 4 per game if we swap Burn for Livra, who actually has the pace to get back? People are making arguments against certain changes as if we’re defensively solid. Our defensive system doesn’t work, at all. Changing it is the only thing that makes sense. Do you think the 3 goals per game is all down to Burn like? As well as our 'keeper, It's our midfield system that's not working (through no real fault of our own) and that has an impact on the defence. They're struggling as it is trying to defend and they're already easy to play though - Burn being so exposed is largely because we don't have Joelinton or Willock there to help him. My point is that it's not as simple as just hoying Livramento in, there'll be changes that you need to make if you do. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUPERTOON Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 1 minute ago, Kid Icarus said: Do you think the 3 goals per game is all down to Burn like? As well as our 'keeper, It's our midfield system that's not working (through no real fault of our own) and that has an impact on the defence. They're struggling as it is trying to defend and they're already easy to play though - Burn being so exposed is largely because we don't have Joelinton or Willock there to help him. My point is that it's not as simple as just hoying Livramento in, there'll be changes that you need to make if you do. If we are continually shipping goals, surely it’s worth putting Livramento in and changing things. It may not work, but neither is what we are doing now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Icarus Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 (edited) 1 hour ago, SUPERTOON said: If we are continually shipping goals, surely it’s worth putting Livramento in and changing things. It may not work, but neither is what we are doing now. I have no issue at all with bringing Livramento in, on the face of it I'd do the same, but I do think the fixation on Burn being the root cause of our issues is daft, the criticism of him is way over the top and in some cases offensive, and the notion that Tino coming in will solve our problems (or not create new ones) is also a bit naive. Edited February 17 by Kid Icarus Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holmesy Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 (edited) 15 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said: Do you think the 3 goals per game is all down to Burn like? As well as our 'keeper, It's our midfield system that's not working (through no real fault of our own) and that has an impact on the defence. They're struggling as it is trying to defend and they're already easy to play though - Burn being so exposed is largely because we don't have Joelinton or Willock there to help him. My point is that it's not as simple as just hoying Livramento in, there'll be changes that you need to make if you do. No, not all of them but you could make an argument for probably 4-5 out of the last 10. Of course the system exposes him, which is why his continued selection is so completely baffling. It’s basically an indefensible move on Howe’s part. “It’s not Dan Burn’s fault, it’s the midfield not giving him protection”. Right, but they’re not giving him protection every game, leaving him one v one against pacey wingers who rinse him. That’s just the way we play, so don’t fucking pick him. Whichever way you try to justify Dan Burn’s selection, you can’t. It doesn’t make sense on any level. Whether it’s Burn’s fault or not, he should not be playing. Edited February 17 by Holmesy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Icarus Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 5 minutes ago, Holmesy said: No, not all of them but you could make an argument for probably 4-5 out of the last 10. Of course the system exposes him, which is why his continued selection is so completely baffling. It’s basically an indefensible move on Howe’s part. “It’s not Dan Burn’s fault, it the midfield not giving him protection”. Right, but they’re not giving him protection every game, leaving him one v one against pacey wingers who rinse him. That’s just the way we play, so don’t fucking pick him. Whichever way you try to justify Dan Burn’s selection, you can’t. It doesn’t make sense on any level. Whether it’s Burn’s fault or not, he should not be playing. As I said earlier, if you play Tino and it means Trippier's the player that stays back in the 3 (as has been the case every time Tino's come on) then of course you can justify it - Trippier's the top assister in the league, you want him getting forward. You can argue that you just get Tino to stay back instead, but all we know is that we haven't seen us set up like that yet. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfcastle Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 Is there a chances to goal ratio for present, earlier this season with Pope and last season. Pope sometimes had little or nothing to do but did ,make regular good saves. Feels like we concede more chances now but not 2, 3, 4 goals worth of them Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holmesy Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said: As I said earlier, if you play Tino and it means Trippier's the player that stays back in the 3 (as has been the case every time Tino's come on) then of course you can justify it - Trippier's the top assister in the league, you want him getting forward. You can argue that you just get Tino to stay back instead, but all we know is that we haven't seen us set up like that yet. So change the system so we can accommodate two fullbacks. Virtually every other team in the league manages it - Liverpool play with Trent and Robertson, and last time I looked they were pretty fucking good! No one is holding a gun to Eddie’s head telling him he has to play a lopsided formation, with Burn dropping into a 3 to allow Trippier to get forward. It’s his system. And it currently doesn’t work! So change the fucking system. When Tino was starting games, the world didn’t end. In fact we looked more balanced and better defensively than we do now. We’re not suggesting some wild, experimental setup that’s never been seen before. We’ve seen it, and it worked. That’s why we’re so incredulous at this predictable clown show we’re being served up. Edited February 17 by Holmesy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 (edited) Said weeks ago I think 5-2-3 is worth a shot while the numbers are how they are at the minute and I think I'd go with it. Livramento in for Longstaff/Miley, tuck Burn into LCB (I'd probably go Botman LCB and Lascelles the CB but I doubt Howe should drop Burn). When we get a couple of midfield bodies back, go back to how we were. Edited February 17 by Optimistic Nut Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lotus Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 Replacing any player will create new problems. You just hope it solves more than it opens so there is a net positive. If we get a new RW who's extremely cunning on the ball and has got 2 feet and can really pick a pass but doesn't run 14km a game at near constant sprints, it will create new problems. It will certainly solve a few but having a gifted player at RW will inevitably mean losing Miggy's energy. A player as good as say, Foden (proven, not just potential) with the ball but relentlessly chases lost causes and is rarely injured will have an extremely long queue of clubs trying to sign him Dan Burn will be 32 in a few months. He won't be speeding up. There's lots I think he's good at. He's got a couple of problem areas that the team covered for last season. This season he hasn't had the help and he's had to defend more 1 vs 1 situations. He's struggled some. Defenders at a Euro level of ambition club should be able to cope with 1 vs 1s more times than not. Sometimes they'll get done, sure. Not every game though. Maybe EH just thinks the team won't cope well with changing shape atm. Maybe he thinks it's better to draw or lose playing the shape he wants now and just wait it out until players return. The growing issue is that the momentum has shifted and that's hard to turn around. Also, reputations are a long time coming but are often quick to lose. I'm worried about PIF. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Icarus Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 (edited) 38 minutes ago, Holmesy said: So change the system so we can accommodate two fullbacks. Virtually every other team in the league manages it - Liverpool play with Trent and Robertson, and last time I looked they were pretty fucking good! No one is holding a gun to Eddie’s head telling him he has to play a lopsided formation, with Burn dropping into a 3 to allow Trippier to get forward. It’s his system. And it currently doesn’t work! So change the fucking system. When Tino was starting games, the world didn’t end. In fact we looked more balanced and better defensively than we do now. We’re not suggesting some wild, experimental setup that’s never been seen before. We’ve seen it, and it worked. That’s why we’re so incredulous at this predictable clown show we’re being served up. They don't, it's how teams played a few years ago but not now, not even Liverpool - Robertson's often on the bench and Trent plays in midfield. And when they did, they had 3 streetwise midfielders to cover them, at the moment we don't. Man City play Ake at LB and set up similar lopsided way to us too. There's no top team in the league that you see play like that now. As for the rest, a clown show? Really? This is why people go on about the criticism and scapegoating being over the top. You should be embarrassed. Edited February 17 by Kid Icarus Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pubteam Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heron Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 Dan Burn has strategically been left wide open and made our scapegoat as a result. Anyone 'blaming' Dan Burn needs to look directly at Eddie Howe's failures. How you can berate someone for giving their absolute all for the team they absolutely adore is beyind me. If you cannot get the above you're a fucking idiot. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUPERTOON Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 1 minute ago, Heron said: Dan Burn has strategically been left wide open and made our scapegoat as a result. Anyone 'blaming' Dan Burn needs to look directly at Eddie Howe's failures. How you can berate someone for giving their absolute all for the team they absolutely adore is beyind me. If you cannot get the above you're a fucking idiot. Must people are blaming Howe in fairness Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heron Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 Just now, SUPERTOON said: Must people are blaming Howe in fairness Rightly so. My comment wasn't aimed at those on the site but those in general. Heard a podyi9n of fans blaming Burn as soon as soon as goal #2 went in. We're leaving Burn open to the elements like. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heron Posted February 17 Share Posted February 17 I just cannot have it. Dan Burn man. Top lad. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now