Dan Burn

[NWMag]

12 hours ago, Lotus said:

 

Personally I think it was a pace issue. I thought Burn was worried if he tried to close him he'd just knock it past him. Given Burn's lack of pace I think he took the best position he could. 

Obviously if Tino had been in that position that particular shot probably wouldn't have ended up the same way. Other problems may have come up but I doubt that one.

 

Would really need to see Tino start a few games in succession before making a judgement call.

Fwiw, last season I wanted Targett to come on for Burn and couldn't understand why he wasn't playing. When he finally got on it was obvious why Targett had been on the bench...

Can't tell with Tino until he gets a run in the team. 

 

Tino has already had a run in the team, was man of the match in most of the games. Should have kept his place once Burn was fit and scandalous he didn’t tbh. 
 

 

[Hanshithispantz]

29 minutes ago, TRon said:

Burn would look fine in a Steve Bruce line up where there is no space in behind him because we are sat deep. In a back 3 where those around him are pushing up, he's just never going to be able to cope if the man he's up again has space to run against him one on one. It's easy to forget that when Howe first took over Bruce's team we didn't try to dominate possession as much because of the players we had, and we had a very mean defence for about a year.

The idea's to prevent teams hitting it long though. Having a physical back line while limiting space for the opposition in midfield, theoretically, leads to them trying to hoof it to a forward which the defence eats up. Burn is well suited to that, he's great at intercepting balls across the ground too, again, handy when the opposition is looking to find an outlet.

 

It obviously never worked against Luton, and in general it's going to be more effective when we're pressing like we do when at full strengh, and have a sweeper keeper, but I'm still struggling to remember Semenyo taking advantage of it in the way people expected. Great strike for the goal though.

 

 

20 touches, 8 passes. No aerial's won despite being a physical player. Ogbene was a different story...

 

 

 

 

Edited February 18 by Hanshithispantz

[Lush Vlad]

42 minutes ago, Displayname said:

Its clearly already warranted.

Some of it is, sure. Nobody is perfect. 

[TRon]

1 hour ago, Hanshithispantz said:

The idea's to prevent teams hitting it long though. Having a physical back line while limiting space for the opposition in midfield, theoretically, leads to them trying to hoof it to a forward which the defence eats up. Burn is well suited to that, he's great at intercepting balls across the ground too, again, handy when the opposition is looking to find an outlet.

 

It obviously never worked against Luton, and in general it's going to be more effective when we're pressing like we do when at full strengh, and have a sweeper keeper, but I'm still struggling to remember Semenyo taking advantage of it in the way people expected. Great strike for the goal though.

 

 

20 touches, 8 passes. No aerial's won despite being a physical player. Ogbene was a different story...

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think that works fine when we are close to full strength, but when you have so many key players out who are integral to keeping the ball and pressing it effectively (Joelinton, Willock for example) then the gaps start to appear. I don't know, I think there has to be a reason we are conceding two goals a game every game at the moment. Not to mention we look much less likely to score them with our strikers missing.

[St1pe]

At this point I just think it’s poor management by Howe. Burn isn’t a bad player but his confidence is shot and he’s clearly targeted by every opposition team so not only is he under constant attack from the other team every mistake he makes is highlighted by the fans. 
 

It’s not entirely dissimilar to Lascelles’ drop in form and a break from the first 11 did him so much good. 
 

Tino is such a ready made replacement as well so it’s not like the injury issues affect this one. So this is on Howe for me, I hope he adapts. 

[Andy84]

Baffling thing to me is that Burn has missed a of football this season.  Tino deputised absolutely fine and excelled 

[Fezzle]

Thing is all players have good and bad games, burn and lesser extent longstaff due to having fuck all else seem immovable regardless of them. Both have had plenty good fwiw. Tino came in and was great so it's hard to understand leaving him out when we play a team with a winger who can get at him. Similar to almiron nailed on when some games Murphy would be a better option 

[Yorkie]

 

Adam Clery (who's very good in this format I have to say) absolutely nailing the Burn stuff for me. From 32:58.

[Beth]

2 hours ago, Yorkie said:

 

Adam Clery (who's very good in this format I have to say) absolutely nailing the Burn stuff for me. From 32:58.

"Still a chance of 5th or 6th" What has the bald bloke been smoking?

[AyeDubbleYoo]

4 hours ago, Yorkie said:

 

Adam Clery (who's very good in this format I have to say) absolutely nailing the Burn stuff for me. From 32:58.

He’s too sensible to do a Newcastle podcast really. 

[Lush Vlad]

4 hours ago, Yorkie said:

 

Adam Clery (who's very good in this format I have to say) absolutely nailing the Burn stuff for me. From 32:58.

He was much more bearable than usual on this. Find his tactics stuff incredibly annoying and unfunny. Whilst also being interesting. 
 

Norman was also good. He should be on more. More succinct and accurate with his analysis. Too many regulars on there just kind of waffle on and bash out word salads for a couple of minutes. Resulting in fuck all of use actually being said.  

[St. Maximin]

6 hours ago, Yorkie said:

 

Adam Clery (who's very good in this format I have to say) absolutely nailing the Burn stuff for me. From 32:58.

I don’t think he is at all. He claims we ‘function better’ with him in the side, but our home form since he got back in the side completely suggests otherwise. Actually don’t mind him away for games like Villa (where he was good), but at home against weaker sides without the midfield cover, it’s suicidal. Far from all his fault as it’s a slow defence, but he’s the obvious change.
 

People act like Livramento is unproven there too. He put in some excellent performances at both LB and RB and imo was our best player before Christmas. It’s not like he can’t defend either or even being a more attacking player would harm the way we ‘function’ as his recovery pace is so fast. Plus his mistakes don’t get highlighted as much because he’s on to help us salvage a result following goals Burn had a hand in. 
 

What I do agree with is on how the crowd reacts and it seems harsh when other defenders are at fault. But we all know it’s frustration at the manager not using alternatives. 

 

 

Edited February 19 by St. Maximin

[Ketsbaia]

I do agree that from a tactical perspective, if Howe insists on a four-man defence it needs an attacking full-back (Trippier) plus a defensive one - something which Livramento is not. Injuries and the bizarre Hall situation mean there's nobody else.

 

But, knowing this, why don't we try other ideas? Whether it's Trippier/Livramento as wing-backs that also allows some CM rotation, or even trying Botman as the LB/CB hybrid and bringing Lascelles in. I dunno. Something else that isn't the obvious weekly scenario where the opposition puts a fast winger on Burn and we get destroyed. If the whole fanbase has figured it out then top-class Premier League managers absolutely have.

 

Nervous about what Saka will do, to put it lightly!

[OverThere]

3 hours ago, Ketsbaia said:

I do agree that from a tactical perspective, if Howe insists on a four-man defence it needs an attacking full-back (Trippier) plus a defensive one - something which Livramento is not. Injuries and the bizarre Hall situation mean there's nobody else.

 

But, knowing this, why don't we try other ideas? Whether it's Trippier/Livramento as wing-backs that also allows some CM rotation, or even trying Botman as the LB/CB hybrid and bringing Lascelles in. I dunno. Something else that isn't the obvious weekly scenario where the opposition puts a fast winger on Burn and we get destroyed. If the whole fanbase has figured it out then top-class Premier League managers absolutely have.

 

Nervous about what Saka will do, to put it lightly!

Don't agree. When Trips goes forward the other side stays and vice versa. Not beyond Livro to grasp that. With Burn the obvious advantage is defending and attacking set pieces but in open play I see more disadvantages than advantages.

 

 

Edited February 20 by OverThere

[The College Dropout]

I don't agree. Livra can position himself more defensively in build-up if necessary.

 

 

Villa do it, sometimes they have an "attacking" FB play much more defensively.

 

If Dan Burn starts at FB in a back 4 against Saka, it is going to be ugly.

[Lotus]

Who was it said Tino wasn’t fast at all? One of the regulars anyway. Very odd thing to say. Being kind it may that his running style doesn’t look like he’s on the point of breaking a lá Gordon or Miggy so maybe they just felt he wasn’t travelling very quick.

Anyway, I’d be astonished if Tino hasn’t the tactical nous to hold position to allow Trips to venture forward. 
Also, it’s not as if Burn never gets forward because he does. And when he does it is impossible for him to quickly or even moderately recover position.

Anyway. It’s an odd season and it’s raised as many questions as it’s answered. Hopefully we’ll be able to look back in a years time and understand what was going on.

 

 

Edited February 20 by Lotus

[Guest]

3 hours ago, The College Dropout said:

I don't agree. Livra can position himself more defensively in build-up if necessary.

 

 

Villa do it, sometimes they have an "attacking" FB play much more defensively.

 

If Dan Burn starts at FB in a back 4 against Saka, it is going to be ugly.

 

"If one goes, the other stays back". Been pretty much how full-back partnerships have worked from day 1. 

 

Honestly think Livramento would transform the way we play and also how teams approach us.

 

You can vary the way we attack, it's not just relying on the Bruno/Almiron/Trippier triangles. Livramento would be a huge help to Barnes or Gordon going forward on the left, but all he has to do when Trippier goes forward, is sit back. Same would be true for Trippier when Livramento goes forward. It saves his legs a bit as well.

 

Defensively, teams will have to be a bit more intelligent than just "give the ball to the right-winger and run at Burn". Of course Livramento will make slip-ups positionally on occasions, still get beaten by wingers, but at the moment it's far too fucking easy. 

 

 

Edited February 20 by Optimistic Nut

[thomas]

it's fairly damning that 80% (conservatively estimated) of the fanbase would rather see an out-of-position Tino at LB instead of Burn  

 

And I'm one of them.

[Lotus]

Tbf, I’d need to see Tino get a run of games with what are most likely the best 11 to judge. It could be that it happens and we see what it is that EH is concerned about.

[St. Maximin]

4 hours ago, thomas said:

it's fairly damning that 80% (conservatively estimated) of the fanbase would rather see an out-of-position Tino at LB instead of Burn  

 

And I'm one of them.

He looks no more out of position than Burn tbf. Burn has played quite a lot at LB, but he is a 6ft7 CB that just happens to be left-footed. He often drifts into a CB position and nowadays the high number of right-footed LWs makes right-footed LBs more effective imo. 
 

To me it just looks like the classic case of a manager who wants a player he can ‘trust’ because the more exciting and seemingly more obvious option is risky, which is a bit of a shame. Surely you try and mould the way they play to complement the players around, because whatever he’s trying to do with a very sluggish and easily targeted LB isn’t working. 

[The College Dropout]

4 hours ago, Lotus said:

Tbf, I’d need to see Tino get a run of games with what are most likely the best 11 to judge. It could be that it happens and we see what it is that EH is concerned about.

I think Howe just rates what Burn brings to the team highly

[buzza]

Burn is on a bad run of form, the manager needs to make a change for the good of the team. Against Saka you need somebody with pace and who is able to turn quickly, this is not big Dan unfortunately... Tino has to play!

[TBG]

Should've started.

[Gawalls]

Seems harsh dropping him - you do 20 - 25 things wrong week in week out and it gets so bad other teams target you and the manager can’t stand by you ffs. ?

[Myleftboot]

Horses for courses.