Dan Burn

[Heron]

Just now, Ronaldo said:

Forest Gump was rapid. Let’s not rewrite history. 

[JEToon]

22 hours ago, Lotus said:

Don’t understand what he was doing for their goal. 

marking Ferguson, it’s not that complicated. 
 

It’s odd to see the stick Burn has been getting for the goal, the situation left of 3 v 2 should have been manageable it’s far more on Schaar than Burn. 

 

 

Edited October 20 by JEToon

[Kanji]

23 minutes ago, JEToon said:

marking Ferguson, it’s not that complicated. 
 

It’s odd to see the stick Burn has been getting for the goal, the situation left of 3 v 2 should have been manageable it’s far more on Schaar than Burn. 

 

 

 

This. 

[Lotus]

2 hours ago, JEToon said:

marking Ferguson, it’s not that complicated. 
 

It’s odd to see the stick Burn has been getting for the goal, the situation left of 3 v 2 should have been manageable it’s far more on Schaar than Burn. 

 

 

 

From what I remember (which may be fallible) he was not tight to Ferguson. So if he’s chased a forward deep and can’t get anywhere near him he should really be playing closer to his own box.

I do agree that 3 of our defenders should’ve done considerably better off 2 attackers doing a simple 1-2.

But BDB is a good defender in a low block but not so useful with the way we’re trying to play.

Clearly, Kelly is even worse in training so BDB is the better option.

[Rod]

2 hours ago, JEToon said:

marking Ferguson, it’s not that complicated. 
 

It’s odd to see the stick Burn has been getting for the goal, the situation left of 3 v 2 should have been manageable it’s far more on Schaar than Burn. 

 

 

 

Spot on.  Nowt to do with Burn their goal.  All on Shaare and Tino but mainly Shaare. (Sorry about spelling)

[JEToon]

9 hours ago, Lotus said:

From what I remember (which may be fallible) he was not tight to Ferguson. So if he’s chased a forward deep and can’t get anywhere near him he should really be playing closer to his own box.

he dropped seeing the trajectory of the ball, he’s man marking someone he won’t be closer to the box if his players moved to the halfway line , you’re asking him to cover about 40 yards in 4 seconds and leave a player exposed, it’s not sense 

 

he’s next to no fault in the goal

 

 

Edited October 21 by JEToon

[et tu brute]

3 hours ago, JEToon said:

marking Ferguson, it’s not that complicated. 
 

It’s odd to see the stick Burn has been getting for the goal, the situation left of 3 v 2 should have been manageable it’s far more on Schaar than Burn. 

 

 

 

He was totally out of position for the goal and this happens a few times during a game. You're a defender with very limited technical skill, stick to what you're best at. His passing is also an issue as I've mentioned before. I'll not even go into his heading at set pieces and not dominating that area in both boxes. His defensive play is usually decent, but as above he has a lot of negatives also

[JEToon]

6 minutes ago, et tu brute said:

He was totally out of position for the goal and this happens a few times during a game. You're a defender with very limited technical skill, stick to what you're best at. His passing is also an issue as I've mentioned before. I'll not even go into his heading at set pieces and not dominating that area in both boxes. His defensive play is usually decent, but as above he has a lot of negatives also

He is man marking someone who’s moved to the halfway line, he’s there to be on that players arse if they win the ball and be tight to them to stop them turning and having time and space or wining it in the air, he is nothing like out of position.

 

He literally spent a game doing the exact same thing to Haaland.

 

He is our biggest most physical player he will clearly be tasked with following and marking other sides biggest and physical players when the ball is in the air, it’s sense. 

 

its a 3 v 2 scenario left behind him that’s a complete botched job, not what Burn is doing 

 

The rest of your post is transposing what you think of him on this scenario, it’s apples and oranges 

 

 

Edited October 20 by JEToon

[et tu brute]

10 minutes ago, JEToon said:

He is man marking someone who’s moved to the halfway line, he’s there to be on that players arse if they win the ball and be tight to them to stop them turning and having time and space or wining it in the air, he is nothing like out of position.

 

He literally spent a game doing the exact same thing to Haaland.

 

He is our biggest most physical player he will clearly be tasked with following and marking other sides biggest and physical players when the ball is in the air, it’s sense. 

 

its a 3 v 2 scenario left behind him that’s a complete botched job, not what Burn is doing 

 

The rest of your post is transposing what you think of him on this scenario, it’s apples and oranges 

 

 

 

Halland doesn't drop deep much for a start, he's usually playing off the last man. Burns does not have the pace to follow players to the half way line as he will be crucified with one pass in behind. There was once yesterday he was in a forward midfield position, which was absolutely ridiculous 

[JEToon]

7 hours ago, et tu brute said:

Halland doesn't drop deep much for a start, he's usually playing off the last man. Burns does not have the pace to follow players to the half way line as he will be crucified with one pass in behind. There was once yesterday he was in a forward midfield position, which was absolutely ridiculous 

You’re transposing what you think is true, not what was true. Burn was up Haalands arse against City in the in middle of the park, no player just stands statically in one area for an entire game i.e Haaland can’t in any world just stand in the 18 yard box, during phases of play he moves,  nor should Burn just stand in one place football isn’t like that, during a game he will end up in a “forward midfield position” as a natural consequence of being up the park for set plays etc and so on. 

 

He also doesn’t need pace when he’s looking to win a ball that’s feasibly going to played in the air. It made perfect sense for him to be where he was for the goal, on Ferguson, boxing that off Brighton which he did. 

 

You are taking what you want to be true rather than dealing with the what was.

 

 

 

 

Edited October 21 by JEToon

[et tu brute]

1 minute ago, JEToon said:

You’re transposing what you think is true, not what was true. Burn was up Haalands arse against City in the in middle of the park, no player just stands statically in one area for an entire game, nor should Burn, during a game he will end up in a “forward midfield position” as a natural consequence of being up the park for set plays etc and so on. 

 

He also doesn’t need pace when he’s looking to win a ball that’s feasibly going to played in the air. It made perfect sense for him to be where he was for the goal, on Ferguson, boxing that out for Brighton off which he did. 

 

You are taking what you want to be think is true rather than dealing with the what was.

 

 

What absolute total bollocks

[JEToon]

7 hours ago, et tu brute said:

What absolute total bollocks

It’s not, the part which is bollocks is you saying for instance Haaland, doesn’t drop deep, I didn’t say he drops deep, you have. 

 

Every time Man City kick off he (Haaland) is tasked with being around the half way line, i.e “deep” to win flick ons which is when Burn was up his arse 

 

For any set play, of course Burn will be tasked with following, more often than not, a sides largest most physical attacking threat.

 

its literally sense, you’re saying he’s slow, so why in Christs name would he then be on for instance Wellbeck from a flick on, because that doesn’t make sense.

 

 

 

 

Edited October 21 by JEToon

[et tu brute]

2 minutes ago, JEToon said:

It’s not, the part which is bollocks is you saying for instance Haaland doesn’t drop deep, I didn’t say he drops deep, you have. 

 

No, but every time Man City kick off he is tasked with being around the half way line, i.e “deep” to win flick ons which is when Burn was up his arse 

 

For any set play, of course Burn will be tasked with following, more often than not, a sides largest most physical attacking threat.

 

its literally sense, you’re saying he’s slow, so why in Christ’s name would be then be on for instance Wellbeck.

 

 

 

 

 

Kick off is twice a game and I've yet to see any defender on the halfway line. Or do you mean goal kicks and free kicks, again the City keeper usually gets it a lot further than the half way line (when he does kick that long which he very rarely does). Set plays he is never even near the 6 yard box as he usually takes a position wide of the goal. With his size he should be dominating everyone in the air. As for Welbeck he should be in a position to cover the other central defender and vice versa. He does not have the pace or technique to cover players on the halfway line and he certainly shouldn't be anywhere near the opposition box in open play as a central defender. I'm not replying anymore as I totally disagree with anything you're saying. You would think he had the pace and technique of a Stones or a Van Dyk the points you are making

[JEToon]

10 minutes ago, et tu brute said:

Kick off is twice a game and I've yet to see any defender on the halfway line. Or do you mean goal kicks and free kicks, again the City keeper usually gets it a lot further than the half way line (when he does kick that long which he very rarely does). Set plays he is never even near the 6 yard box as he usually takes a position wide of the goal. With his size he should be dominating everyone in the air. As for Welbeck he should be in a position to cover the other central defender and vice versa. He does not have the pace or technique to cover players on the halfway line and he certainly shouldn't be anywhere near the opposition box in open play as a central defender. I'm not replying anymore as I totally disagree with anything you're saying. You would think he had the pace and technique of a Stones or a Van Dyk the points you are making

Of course I mean free kicks, corners and goal kicks, restart of play is a massive, massive part of a game. 
 

You are speaking in what it is you think to be true, not what was or is. 
 

Ederson and City use restarts as a massive attacking tool, and do so often. They target set areas in doing so they don’t just see how far Ederson can kick it. 

 

A lot of your post is a bit “I don’t like Dan Burn” you’re past speaking about the specific incident and Brighton goal and what Burn has been tactically tasked to do in the goal, he was doing what he was asked, and done it without issue. The goal is a chain of events which he’s not that involved in. He wasn’t being asked to use his pace or be Virgil Van Dijk, you’ve regressed to talking gibberish and muddying what was being spoke about with about 19 other things. The point you don’t agree with I’ve made stopped existing to you a few posts ago. 

 

 

Edited October 21 by JEToon

[et tu brute]

3 minutes ago, JEToon said:

You are speaking in what it is you think to be true, not what was or is. 

[JEToon]

1 minute ago, et tu brute said:

by far and away the most coherent and sensible post you’ve made. 

[Heron]

From my recollection Dan Burn had absolutely no wrong doing in the goal and actually had a very good game - with only one late mistake where he lost the ball at LB which was then recovered. He did his fair share recovering mistakes from the likes of Hall and actually I think Hall has improved defensively because of Dan Burn and his guidance. Just as Hall has probably alleviated some problems for Burn by being pacey and quick on the ball.

 

Dan Burn is in the same realm as Longstaff for me, albeit he is probably slightly stronger in his respective position. Both have limitations but folk seemingly don't like them and so, become hyper critical of them simply to assert their desire to be right rather than have any objectivity about said players performances.

 

Just my perception, but I sometimes think Geordie players are held to a higher level because they're local. I really don't get it. It's almost like a subconscious backlash against the utter shite stereotype about us only wanting 11 Geordies yada yada yada.

 

 

Edited October 21 by Heron

[et tu brute]

4 minutes ago, Heron said:

From my recollection Dan Burn had absolutely no wrong doing in the goal and actually had a very good game - with only one late mistake where he lost the ball at LB which was then recovered. He did his fair share recovering mistakes from the likes of Hall and actually I think Hall has improved defensively because of Dan Burn and his guidance. Just as Hall has probably alleviated some problems for Burn by being pacey and quick on the ball.

 

Dan Burn is in the same realm as Longstaff for me, albeit he is probably slightly stronger in his respective position. Both have limitations but folk seemingly don't like them and so, become hyper critical of them simply to assert their desire to be right rather than have any objectivity about said players performances.

He was out of position for the goal despite what mr clueless says. I actually mentioned in one of my posts that I don't think he's bad defensively and has been our best defender this season. His limitations with the ball and his total lack of pace are an issue though. 

[Lotus]

I think BDB is a much more important part of the squad than Longstaff. I just think the style we’re trying to play doesn’t suit him very well. 
I think that’s true for a couple of our players.

 

[Sibierski]

BDB was good yesterday. One of his critics (more for the long term) but he was good yesterday. Activating his extension though just for me makes the Kelly signing even more pointless. So we’ve now got a silly high expensive wages back up LB. As Botman / Burn are confirmed LCB options next season.

 

RCB is now the key. Does Schar sign a short deal, knowing full well he will become a back up RCB? Or do we sign him to new deal, buy a young RCB, and go into next season with the main 3 CBs the same as what we had start of 22/23 season  

 

 

Edited October 21 by Sibierski

[nufcjmc]

I really like what i saw defensively from him saved our arse a few times what I still don't like is his threat from the air in the opposition box and that we seem to persist with him starting our attacking build up from the back. Mentioned a few times ok you want to keep Bruno up the pitch so he isn't always constantly coming for the ball but giving it to BDB who then puts his foot on it holds it holds it holds it who then gives the simple pass to hall who in turn gives it to Gordan who usually has a player in front and behind him at this point is slow and predictable. Not expecting BDB to suddenly learn how to spray a ball all over the park but playing in this way makes him more integral in how we push forward and he doesn't seem good enough for it. 

[JEToon]

You literally only have to watch the reaction of Burn to the goal to see how the situation was supposed to be managed, he is, rightly, p*issed off at the other 3, he isn't sprinting back to be in position, he isn't holding a hand up and offering an apology, he is wondering, like the majority of people, what it is the other 3 are playing at. 

[AyeDubbleYoo]

I’m sure part of the reason that Ferguson and Welbeck both played was to draw our defence in two different directions and create exactly the kind of staggered line which led to the goal. 

[buzza]

Both schar and livramemto were too weak and let welbeck shove his way through.

They both were guilty and Dan burn should not even be near this conversation

[Shays Given Tim Flowers]

Schar wasn’t live to the quick free kick at all. His starting position was woeful and meant he couldn’t put any pressure on Welbecks touch which wasn’t particularly great. He got caught too far from the ball to make a challenge and left plenty of space behind him for a simple ball in behind.