Newcastle United 4-4 Luton Town (03/02/24) | Reaction: pg40

[Hanshithispantz]

8 minutes ago, Shearergol said:

I 99% do agree with this, but I still truly believe that a “proper” DM will get the best out of Bruno and Tonali/Joelinton/Willock. It will help us control games. Good post though.

Think the plan was for Bruno and Tonali to switch though wasn't it? With Willock/Tonali/Joelinton having the recovery pace to get into defensive positions. Bruno, Miley, Longstaff is a really slow midfield which is going to expose flaws even more.

 

But it's not that I disagree with what people are saying when they point these things out, it's the way a handful of posters incessantly bang on about it whenever they get a chance, completely ignoring all context and exaggerating to the point of absurdity (such as ignoring that Burn drops into a back 3 when stating Livramento obviously should have been playing, and pretending he gets exposed by fast wingers week in week out).

 

 

Edited February 6 by Hanshithispantz

[Shearergol]

Just now, Hanshithispantz said:

Think the plan was for Bruno and Tonali to switch though wasn't it? With Willock/Tonali/Joelinton having the recovery pace to get into defensive positions. Bruno, Miley, Longstaff is a really slow midfield which is going to expose flaws even more.

 

But it's not that I disagree with what people are saying when they point these things out, it's the way a handful of posters incessantly bang on about it whenever they get a chance, completely ignoring all context and exaggerating to the point of absurdity (such as ignoring that Burn drops into a back 3 when stating Livramento obviously should have been playing, and pretending he gets exposed by fast wingers week in week out).

 

 

 

 

Yep, you're spot on. It's the same people over and over.

[TRon]

On 05/02/2024 at 12:56, Gallowgate Toon said:

Barnes had 2 decent chances after his goal and then the Bruno cross too but Luton shithoused excellently to take the sting out.

 

We were through another time too but the ball bounced and Murphy headed it to nobody iirc.

 

I think Luton played a massively risky strategy all game, tbh. We had players free nigh on 1v1 quite a few times in the game but the passes didn't arrive or the final ball was poor (mainly first half).

 

Refreshing though after years of promoted teams sitting deep and countering.

 

But they might have figured looking at our forwards that there was a good chance we'd not be able to apply the finishes, so it was worth playing an open game as they could then hurt us with their pace and power going down the other end. Same way as Forest did, and Liverpool did even when down to 10 men. Because of our style, while it's really exciting when we have all our top level players in the team, when we don't it evens up the playing field against supposedly lesser opponents.

[TheBrownBottle]

9 hours ago, Hanshithispantz said:

Think the plan was for Bruno and Tonali to switch though wasn't it? With Willock/Tonali/Joelinton having the recovery pace to get into defensive positions. Bruno, Miley, Longstaff is a really slow midfield which is going to expose flaws even more.

 

But it's not that I disagree with what people are saying when they point these things out, it's the way a handful of posters incessantly bang on about it whenever they get a chance, completely ignoring all context and exaggerating to the point of absurdity (such as ignoring that Burn drops into a back 3 when stating Livramento obviously should have been playing, and pretending he gets exposed by fast wingers week in week out).

 

 

 

Tonali isn’t a DM - I don’t think the plan was ever for them to switch.  Bruno’s position was always meant to be a DM - which was always odd to me, because I don’t think he’s particular good at it.  He’s far better further forward. 

[madras]

4 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Tonali isn’t a DM - I don’t think the plan was ever for them to switch.  Bruno’s position was always meant to be a DM - which was always odd to me, because I don’t think he’s particular good at it.  He’s far better further forward. 

They could balance each other out. There's no need to stay as a middle 3.

[Tiresias]

Bruno wasn't meant to be a DM, more deepest of the midfielders to collect the ball in the most congested spaces and creating from that. I agree btw I think he's best further forward but it's not a two midfielders attack and bruno defends midfield 3 I think Howe anticipated, it's more they defend as a collective but Bruno would probably be the one with most licence to go left or right side of pitch. 

[Aiston]

I swear Howe said he wanted a 'fluid' midfield three that just rotates when it needs to.

 

Would he even use a 'DM' despite all the calls from fans for one?

[TheBrownBottle]

4 minutes ago, Aiston said:

I swear Howe said he wanted a 'fluid' midfield three that just rotates when it needs to.

 

Would he even use a 'DM' despite all the calls from fans for one?

To do it, you’d need players who have the positional intelligence to operate in a ‘total football’ midfield.  There was no indication when everyone was fit that we have that in the present squad (this is not a criticism of the technical abilities of our midfielders)

[The College Dropout]

14 hours ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Tonali isn’t a DM - I don’t think the plan was ever for them to switch.  Bruno’s position was always meant to be a DM - which was always odd to me, because I don’t think he’s particular good at it.  He’s far better further forward. 

Agreed. There's no evidence for that being "the plan". When they played together, Bruno was the deepest CM, Tonali was RCM. Tonali's meant to be athletic and Bruno is not.

 

12 minutes ago, Aiston said:

I swear Howe said he wanted a 'fluid' midfield three that just rotates when it needs to.

 

Would he even use a 'DM' despite all the calls from fans for one?

It's fluid in the sense the player that is most often deepest (Bruno) has freedom to push forward, whether in the press or in possession. Someone is meant to fill in for him when that happens but this season that often hasn't been the case. 

[soyt]

21 minutes ago, Aiston said:

I swear Howe said he wanted a 'fluid' midfield three that just rotates when it needs to.

 

Would he even use a 'DM' despite all the calls from fans for one?

This is the thing. He is not using one, and that is why we have not signed a "6". The conversation of a 6 is pointless in a way, if he would want someone just protect the defense, surely Longstaff or Bruno would be asked to do it - even if its not their best position

[SUPERTOON]

26 minutes ago, Aiston said:

I swear Howe said he wanted a 'fluid' midfield three that just rotates when it needs to.

 

Would he even use a 'DM' despite all the calls from fans for one?

He confirmed interest in Phillips in January, so it’s definitely not out of the question.

[The College Dropout]

Our setup is similar to that Ancelotti Milan side

 

         Pirlo

Gattuso.   Seedorf

 

Pirlo is the deepest but he's not a DM. Gattuso & Seedorf were athletic and combative player that mitigated Pirlo's lack of athleticism. Similar happened at Juve with Pirlo, Marchiso, Vidal setup.

 

Those teams played with a 10 and we don't but I think there are parallels.

[80]

1 hour ago, Aiston said:

I swear Howe said he wanted a 'fluid' midfield three that just rotates when it needs to.

 

Would he even use a 'DM' despite all the calls from fans for one?

Yeah he's been pretty explicit that that's his aim. He likes the idea of more classic centre midfielders who do a bit of everything. That's close to a direct quote.

 

Whether he does anything different in the short to medium term is another matter, but I think full fluidity is his ultimate vision.

[Coffee_Johnny]

Just watched the goals back carefully, after the furore expecting to see Burny basically knocking the ball in our net 4 times. 
1st Botman gave away free kick, clumsy challenge from behind in dangerous spot, which led to goal. Ball into box dropped between Burn and Gordon. From set-up don’t think scorer was Burn’s ‘man’.

2nd Poor challenge in midfield by Longstaff. Dubs pushed ball back to centre of six yard box and directly to scorer.

3rd Burn foul, the (second) pull started outside of the box so soft penalty. Scored penalty at second attempt. Both saveable, Dubs could have kicked it away if stayed on his feet. Not into blaming keepers for conceding pellers, but it was a soft one nevertheless. 
4th Botman was drawn across centrally to help with Barkley. Left scorer on his own to receive and slot home.

 

Appreciate there were moments in match which put Burn in the spotlight. But the most game changing moments are when we actually concede. Haven’t heard Botman or Dubravka getting any grief. Not that I’m advocating any players getting excessive stick. Errors are part of the game; everyone makes them. 

 

 

Edited February 8 by Coffee_Johnny

[Bimpy474]

Just something to note, if the pull starts outside the box and continues inside, it's not a soft penalty, it's a stonewall one, as it was.

[Shearergol]

2 hours ago, Coffee_Johnny said:

Just watched the goals back carefully, after the furore expecting to see Burny basically knocking the ball in our net 4 times. 
1st Botman gave away free kick, clumsy challenge from behind in dangerous spot, which led to goal. Ball into box dropped between Burn and Gordon. From set-up don’t think scorer was Burn’s ‘man’.

2nd Poor challenge in midfield by Longstaff. Dubs pushed ball back to centre of six yard box and directly to scorer.

3rd Burn foul, the (second) pull started outside of the box so soft penalty. Scored penalty at second attempt. Both saveable, Dubs could have kicked it away if stayed on his feet. Not into blaming keepers for conceding pellers, but it was a soft one nevertheless. 
4th Botman was drawn across centrally to help with Barkley. Left scorer on his own to receive and slot home.

 

Appreciate there were moments in match which put Burn in the spotlight. But the most game changing moments are when we actually concede. Haven’t heard Botman or Dubravka getting any grief. Not that I’m advocating any players getting excessive stick. Errors are part of the game; everyone makes them. 

 

 

 

 

Wasn't the 4th when Burn tried a Schar run up front, lost it, then Trippier pushed far too far forward? Not really sure why you're mentioned Botman in that

 

Oh, and most penalties are saveable if the keeper goes where the ball is, no? Don't often see keepers just staying on their feet though, so think you're being a little harsh there.

[Shearergol]

20 minutes ago, Bimpy474 said:

Just something to note, if the pull starts outside the box and continues inside, it's not a soft penalty, it's a stonewall one, as it was.

 

In common sense terms, shouldn't it be a freekick?

[Coffee_Johnny]

1 minute ago, Shearergol said:

 

Wasn't the 4th when Burn tried a Schar run up front, lost it, then Trippier pushed far too far forward? Not really sure why you're mentioned Botman in that

 

Oh, and most penalties are saveable if the keeper goes where the ball is, no? Don't often see keepers just staying on their feet though, so think you're being a little harsh there.

I don’t know re what happened before the ball got close to our goal. In our final third, it was Botman who moved away from the scorer/left ‘his’ man, or at least the attacker he was closest to,  who was then freed up to receive the ball and score. 
Point I was making re the penalty (..ties) is that they were pretty pedestrian. Central, not at high pace. If you read the player correctly and wait you save both. Some penalties you have to guess and go as the ball is stuck to stand a chance. 

[Shearergol]

3 minutes ago, Coffee_Johnny said:

I don’t know re what happened before the ball got close to our goal. In our final third, it was Botman who moved away from the scorer/left ‘his’ man, or at least the attacker he was closest to,  who was then freed up to receive the ball and score. 
Point I was making re the penalty (..ties) is that they were pretty pedestrian. Central, not at high pace. If you read the player correctly and wait you save both. Some penalties you have to guess and go as the ball is stuck to stand a chance. 

 

But that's the point. 2 of our 4 defenders had wandered off upfield. Botman HAD to make the move, as part of a 2 man defence. Our fullbacks had fucked off, one of them being Burn, who gave the ball away cheaply.

 

EDIT: on penalties, over 85% of penalties awarded in the league are scored. Blaming Dubs ffs

 

 

Edited February 8 by Shearergol

[Coffee_Johnny]

1 hour ago, Shearergol said:

 

But that's the point. 2 of our 4 defenders had wandered off upfield. Botman HAD to make the move, as part of a 2 man defence. Our fullbacks had fucked off, one of them being Burn, who gave the ball away cheaply.

 

EDIT: on penalties, over 85% of penalties awarded in the league are scored. Blaming Dubs ffs

 

 

 

Reread what I said. Or don’t. Always happy to promote some research activity! 

[Shearergol]

4 minutes ago, Coffee_Johnny said:

Reread what I said. Or don’t. Always happy to promote some research activity! 

 

OK, I've re-read. The post starts off as a "why are you blaming Burn, not Botman". Your next post then says that you don't actually know what happened before the goal. I take it our fullbacks being MILES out of position doesn't matter to you? We only start the blame part when the goal goes in?

 

Your next point is that if Dubs reads the penalty taker correctly, he saves the penalty. Well great, yeah let's not blame the ridiculous decision to commit a foul and give a penalty away, let's blame the person with a 15% change of saving it.

 

What do you want me to re-read here?

[Coffee_Johnny]

Just now, Shearergol said:

 

OK, I've re-read. The post starts off as a "why are you blaming Burn, not Botman". Your next post then says that you don't actually know what happened before the goal. I take it our fullbacks being MILES out of position doesn't matter to you? We only start the blame part when the goal goes in?

 

Your next point is that if Dubs reads the penalty taker correctly, he saves the penalty. Well great, yeah let's not blame the ridiculous decision to commit a foul and give a penalty away, let's blame the person with a 15% change of saving it.

 

What do you want me to re-read here?

Try again. You’ve obviously got time on your hands 

[Shearergol]

Just now, Coffee_Johnny said:

Try again. You’ve obviously got time on your hands 

 

Might be quicker if you want to point it out? Or don't

 

[NewportHatter]

On 05/02/2024 at 12:56, Gallowgate Toon said:

I think Luton played a massively risky strategy all game, tbh. We had players free nigh on 1v1 quite a few times in the game but the passes didn't arrive or the final ball was poor (mainly first half).

 

Refreshing though after years of promoted teams sitting deep and countering.

 

 

Yeah, noticed that within about 2 minutes of the start. I know we have been much more aggressive away from home in recent weeks (certainly in comparison with games like Chelsea and Villa, early on in the season). But even so, having our back three of Bell, Osho and Mengi, not only go 1v1 on Murphy, Gordon and Almiron, but to back ourselves to do so, a good 10-15 yards inside your half most of the time, is a crazy decision that I was remarking at the time (not crazy as in bad but just crazy as in madcap genius that could go either way).

 

I think several things hurt that in the last 30 mins. We were absolutely out on our feet trying to play that way on the back of doing twice earlier in the week v Brighton & against Everton in the Cup, because we literally don't have the squad depth to rest in the Cup. That lack of squad depth meant it made it difficult to maintain that with the changes. As much as we love Pelly and Woodrow, there is a huge drop-off when they come on. The other thing is that there has been only 2 times this season that a striker has actually caused our back three (no matter who the personnel) problems as a physical presence. They are Callum Wilson...and Callum Wilson (as a caveat, Haaland was injured when we played them). Him doing that again on a couple of occasions gradually forced that defensive line back.

 

Also, thinking about why Howe went for Burn for you guys.

I'll be honest, I was shocked as well seeing as Chieo Ogbene is one of, if not the quickest player in the league (Van der Ven went quicker than him at the weekend but he was the record holder before that).

However, if he'd seen the Brighton game back, Estupinan got roasted so badly by Ogbene that De Zerbi yanked him at half-time only for Tariq Lamptey to get an equally horrid time.

Also, take into consideration that (relative to our open-play output) we are one of the best attacking set-piece teams in the division.

Therefore, I wondered if he figured that if neither Burn nor Livramento could live with Ogbene for pace, then it'd be better to play Burn to try and help counteract our set-piece threat. It wouldn't be the first time that has happened this season as Arsenal dropped Zinchenko to play Jakub Kiwior at LB. (I know Burn has been a regular starter for you but it would certainly come into the equation if he thought about bringing Tino in to deal with Ogbene).

 

Not saying it was the right call (although Tino was MIA when Ogbene almost scored late on), but without hindsight, certainly an understandable one from that POV. The bigger issue was, as highlighted on MoTD that if you were going to play Burn, he needed  more protection than he got.

 

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Any fullback will look poor if isolated and exposed by a rapid forward, the same as any CB will. Defending is a lot more about the organisation and the whole team unit than anything else. I don't particularly rate Burn but since he is the generally trusted option I don't really expect him to be replaced every time the opponent has a quick winger.