Dan Burn

[The College Dropout]

43 minutes ago, Lotus said:

Played them inside in a very dangerous situation. Seems like he does that at least once a game. Don’t know if it’s lack of mobility to get back in line if he drops deep on the cover or he’s just not switched on enough.

Other aspects of his game were good though. Until he crossed the halfway line.

Poor concentration and reading of the game. There’s a reason why he’s spent most of his career not at this level.  

[Heron]

But also arguably saved our win with a last ditch tackle around 80ish minutes. No Dan Burn bashing here. Cheers.

 

 

Edited September 16, 2023 by Heron

[Kid Icarus]

[Heron]

43 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

It's a measure of how far we've come that people are getting their knickers in a twist over Dan Burn. 

 

He's a good few levels above what we've been used to over the last decade or so, being slow and not being Alaba or Robertson is about as bad as it gets, otherwise he's a very solid defender and good on the ball. Even 2 or 3 years ago he'd be one of our best players.

 

 

 

Exactomundo.

 

I think people are underestimating how strong a 4th placed PL team can be. The names of the CL are dazzling people and actually you don't have to be Roberto Carlos at LB to be a good LB. You are a defender primarily. Dan Burn defends us sufficiently by and large.

[Heron]

I am actually going to go further. I appreciate and understand his limitations, but Dan Burn for me is actually a very, very good defender (based purely on defensive attributes) his one flaw is his lack of pace but more often than not he makes up for this in his reading of the game.

 

He's a massive cog in our machine for me, alongside Trippier and Botman. It speaks volumes that he's part of the leadership team and when you see some of the 'off the ball' stuff today you see more than just the lanky, try-hard, local lad. He's an intelligent and talented defender and a Geordie to boot.

 

 

Edited September 16, 2023 by Heron

[Kid Icarus]

If Hall comes in, either our system changes or Trippier stays back. Maybe that's wrong, but I'm not totally sure people have considered that that might be the case.

[Shak]

There's probably somewhere between Dan Burn and Roberto Carlos in terms of attacking output from the position

 

His attacking shortcomings going forward are highlighted more by us not having Willock at LCM, he was excellent at getting out on the left flank and providing some of what we lose by not having a good attacking LB.

[The College Dropout]

I don’t even think Burn is good defensively in open play. 
 

 

Brentford didn’t play with wingers today. They played with wingbacks which we managed to pin back for most of the game. Burn didn’t have a winger against him most of the match. 
 

Teams have marked him as a weak spot offensively and defensively.  A lot of teams just leave him free when defending.  He’s not going to do owt. 

[GEFAFWISP]

With the way Trippier is being instructed to play we need to start a more technically gifted, attacking capable LB, whether that's Hall or flipping Livramento.

[The College Dropout]

And teams have also been targeting the space in behind Trippier.  So Trippier’s positioning has been much more conservative this season. He’s much deeper.  

[Gallowgate Toon]

39 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

If Hall comes in, either our system changes or Trippier stays back. Maybe that's wrong, but I'm not totally sure people have considered that that might be the case.

Some interesting options using the squad.

 

1. Tripper stays back when Hall pushes up

2. We go to a more aggressive shape and leave Schar/Botman to crack on with the deepest covering mid ahead. Feel like we've tried this this campaign to very mixed results.

3. We drop into more of a box mid when both FBs push high

4. We copy City's 2-3-5 shape - either FBs help make the 3 or CMs stay together. Could be a mix.

 

It's true that removing Burn would create some gaps but it'd also give some new opportunities - there are lots of ways to win. I think we'd miss him most from defensive set pieces.

[The College Dropout]

I don’t think it does create gaps. Hall can build up in the 3 but actually be able to use good distribution to find targets forward.  Botman is composed and can hit a nice switch. But his passing is sideways in the main.  Burns passing is limited and he’s easily ruffled. Hall can sit deep. Hit switches. Or play progressive passes.  
 

Burns best asset imo is his defensive presence from set pieces. 

[Pilko]

I thought he was outstanding today. He won loads of crucial headers and I can't remember him wasting a pass. He's an absolute warrior and whilst he may occasionally have a game where some pace merchant runs rings round him, I think his durability, dependability and strength can be underappreciated.

 

We will in time have someone more traditional play left-back and I'm sure they'll contribute a lot more in the final third and be much more adept at carrying the ball. I do wonder however if they'll be able to lock down their part of the pitch as effectively as Burn did today - Brentford had very little joy down his side, one early chance apart.

 

Definitely understand the cries for some more technical ability and pace in the position but I think whilst Hall beds in and gets used to the league he'll learn a hell of a lot about the defensive, gritty side of being a left-back by watching this fella. 

 

 

Edited September 16, 2023 by Pilko

[The College Dropout]

He didn’t play against a winger today btw. Do people realise that? His job was to defend set pieces which he did well and provide cover for the CBs on the counter which he also did well. 
 

But he didn’t have much to do defensively in open play.  And he didn’t offer much going forward. Distribution was solid. 
 

Outstanding? Then what was Bruno?

[madras]

I thought they played a game where they let him have the ball knowing he'd not he creative with it ( a bit like what teams done with Dummet at LB) but he used it to get far enough  forward to give them problems.

 

 

I wouldn't used it as a tactic going forward though.

[Optimistic Nut]

2 hours ago, Kid Icarus said:

If Hall comes in, either our system changes or Trippier stays back. Maybe that's wrong, but I'm not totally sure people have considered that that might be the case.

 

Do you not just do what pairs of full-backs have done for years in these instances? If one goes, the other stays back. That's how it should be.

 

There were several occasions we went forward down the left today but it broke down, or Burn turned back/sideways. I don't think it'd take much of a tweak and upgrade.

 

 

Edited September 17, 2023 by Optimistic Nut

[Miggys First Goal]

[Decky]

Surely we can start Hall on Sunday, come on. 

[Holmesy]

On 17/09/2023 at 01:55, Optimistic Nut said:

 

Do you not just do what pairs of full-backs have done for years in these instances? If one goes, the other stays back. That's how it should be.

 

There were several occasions we went forward down the left today but it broke down, or Burn turned back/sideways. I don't think it'd take much of a tweak and upgrade.

 

 

 

Exactly this! Almost every other team plays with two fullbacks that defend AND attack. This apparent rule that we can only have one is absurd.
If that’s the only way out system works, serious questions should be asked of the coaching team 

[nufcnick]

Dan burn is absolute pony, the one think that really does my head in with Eddie is his persistence with him 

[Aiston]

Decent defensively.

 

Some awful passing though.

[jonny1403]

Solid as a rock 

[Zero]

Overall that’s a pass for me but Hall has to start next game. 

[Cf]

I don't think we are at a point of starting Hall yet but feel like we need to start with our Burn exit plan. 

[Myleftboot]

Is Hall actually a left back?