Dan Burn

[AyeDubbleYoo]

He’s always been very committed to running about, including attacking. Just gets a bit more chance at LB (and in a better team so he doesn’t have to stay camped on the edge of his own box). 

[Jack14Bojangles]

What a guy. I like this type of player.

[PauloGeordio]

Commited!

[huss9]

9 hours ago, PauloGeordio said:

Commited!

[Pablo123]

Breaking his hand with a Vulcan death grip on some cunt. Some boy!

[cubaricho]

https://www.instagram.com/p/DPpTBnxDvTW/

[Alberto2005]

Absolutely shite today.

[NE27]

Not a full back and Eddie is doing him dirty persisting.

[JoeyBartoon]

Love him at centre back but he’s such a shite left back 

[buzz]

Unfortunately don't see what other options we have. Trippier at LB in his current physical state would probably be even worse. 

 

Would be tempted to try Thiaw there just for recovery pace and bring Schar back in.

[Mole]

4 minutes ago, NE27 said:

Not a full back and Eddie is doing him dirty persisting.

What's the alternative? Like he obviously isn't one but he doesn't have a choice currently.

[Ronson333]

He’s trying his best and he’s still a fantastic centre back, but he’s not a left back anymore but we don’t have any better options.

[johnny36]

In Dec 2023 against Forest and Feb 2024 against Luton he was torn apart by pacey winger..2 years later hes still been torn apart.

.It was predicted to happen before game even started..Only alternative is Krafft at RB and Trippier at LB..We need a back up fullback in January

[Kid Icarus]

Burn!? Yous are singling out Burn!? Wtf

[ohmelads]

Burn was OK despite a tough assignment. Elanga, Gordon, Joelinton were levels below the rest and were rightly subbed. We instantly looked better when those 3 came off and deserved at least a draw but it was too little too late. 

[Nine]

4 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

Burn!? Yous are singling out Burn!? Wtf

Nothing new 

[Eveready]

Doing his best out of position.  Don't really see what the alternative is currently other than possibly Tripps at LB and Krafth at RB, but even then were shoehorning and likely looks just as bad.

 

I think the club is also looking at the bigger picture as I think Burn is currently going to be in the side no matter what, and him moving back central likely means benching Botman, who is concerned about playing time and we're trying to tie down to a new contract.

[Andy]

9 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

Burn!? Yous are singling out Burn!? Wtf

 

He's doing the best he can in the position, but he really shouldn't be starting there in 2025 for us, which obviously isn't his fault. 

 

Said it in the match thread but the problem with him at left back is that our defensive line drops back to accommodate for his lack of pace, then the gaps open up between them and the midfield (more so than normal). 

 

For me, irrespective of how well he plays in that position, it will always be a problem for us as was evident two seasons ago. 

[Kid Icarus]

7 minutes ago, Andy said:

 

He's doing the best he can in the position, but he really shouldn't be starting there in 2025 for us, which obviously isn't his fault. 

 

Said it in the match thread but the problem with him at left back is that our defensive line drops back to accommodate for his lack of pace, then the gaps open up between them and the midfield (more so than normal). 

 

For me, irrespective of how well he plays in that position, it will always be a problem for us as was evident two seasons ago. 

I take the point you're making but I think our problems today go way beyond that like, particularly as I think Burn going forward was probably better than anyone else, which probably says it all.

 

There was no mitigation for the defence to midfield gap either, Welbeck was free in there all afternoon without anything changing, I still can't quite believe that.

[NE27]

Would never dig Dan burn out for effort, he's a square peg in a round hole and it shows.

 

But not sure what the answer is atm.

[gbandit]

17 minutes ago, NE27 said:

Would never dig Dan burn out for effort, he's a square peg in a round hole and it shows.

 

But not sure what the answer is atm.

Personally think we’d find better balance playing Trippier at LB and either Thiaw at RB or Murphy there. Would probably go, Thiaw, Schar, Botman, Trippier as the back four but there’s precisely zero chance this happens 

[Ronson333]

We could try Krafth at left back

[Mole]

45 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

Burn!? Yous are singling out Burn!? Wtf

Aye I don't get it at all. Probably considering some thought Minteh would destroy him coming into the game it's an easy thing to fall back on.

 

But from what I saw he wasn't the problem today at all. We were too open down the middle for the second goal and the wingers simply weren't good enough are things I would point to before anything else.

[Sibierski]

Giving how much the club must have clearly had doubts about Hall fitness, I find it quite staggering that it was signed off Targett could leave with no replacement.

 

Surely, SURLEY, Howe didn’t think Burn as back up LB is good option? It’s like Kelly at LB again. 

[Pilko]

2 hours ago, Sibierski said:

Giving how much the club must have clearly had doubts about Hall fitness, I find it quite staggering that it was signed off Targett could leave with no replacement.

 

Surely, SURLEY, Howe didn’t think Burn as back up LB is good option? It’s like Kelly at LB again. 

 

Eddie would have went Burn LB ahead of Targett anyway even if he had stayed and was fully fit IMO.