Match Report and MOM v Burnley

I am going to predict we stay up by 1 point.
Fair report Neil.
Burnley are effective but also a better referee would have sorted their disgraceful "game craft".
Has there ever been a more embarrassing manager than Dyche? His performance today was fit for the gutter.
Their fans will point to the win but if that's what it takes you can keep it.
Agreed; though this particular game was so bitty and ugly, we couldn’t really get any momentum going until midway through the second half. Atkinson was desperately poor.
You can’t do anything if you’re getting clattered. 2 head injuries. No doubt if we’d done just one ourselves to one of their players it would have been a straight red card. Yes we lacked a bit of creativity but an awful ref like him today probably would have found a way to rule any goal out had we got the ball in the net. And the cynical fouls kept happening. Cheating Barnes trying to get Billing sent off etc. Another good example of ref bias and ineptitude was when we had thatgood move and saw the ball brush him and he blew up with Stacey in on goal. There was no way we were going to be allowed to win. He and they sapped all Chance of creativity. He should never ref again.
 
The most predictable result ever. Can't deal with shithousery or physicality still despite having a physical Lerma & Billing. Never looked like scoring like many games this season. Chelsea looks like a fluke.
 
Totally agree with that last sentence. It’s why I am disappointed we have stopped trying to dominate sides and take big risks. Our championship side was the pinnacle of watching football for me. You went two down and you still thought you’d win. We have had spells like that in the PL. I just don’t like what we have become and would rather go down trying to smash teams than just stay up playing safe. And let’s have a go at a cup too.
This :clap::utc:
 
The goal we let in was an absolute clusterfuck. All outfield players were in the Burnley half but Stacey played it back to the keeper. As Franno and Mepham were both near their box, if we didn’t win the initial header from Rambo’s punt we were going to be in deep trouble. As it happened, it wasn’t a swift counter from Burnley, but with players rushing back into position, the organisation wasn’t great and that’s why we lost Rodriguez.

I kind of want to blame the sub, but as someone else mentioned it’s hindsightitus. I actually thought the effort was good today it’s just the quality in the final third was abysmal. That’s a big worry. You can motivate players to work harder, you can’t make players deliver more quality than they possess.

King out wide is a plus point but we really need to hope Stan is fit and can make an impact asap. For all his faults, he’s the only player who can understand the role Cook was trying to play today.

I do think the formation can work. It was certainly no more blunt than the 4-4-2 we’ve seen over the past few months. Gosling tried to get forward as is necessary from a midfielder in a 4–3-3. He just doesn’t have the talent to receive the ball on the half turn and that failing is killing our attacking play. Without someone capable of doing this, the wide forwards come deeper to look for the ball and it turns into 4-5-1.
 
I thought King was on fire today. Everything he did came off (bar his shot) - flicks, turns, link up play. A great watch.
 
We can try Stanislas in a more creative role but until we get Brooks back we’ve no one who can confidently be expected to create chances. That’s why - sorry to be repetitive - we need to buy in the transfer window. Ibe, Smith out (anyone else?); attacking midfielder in.
 
Another home game at fortress dean court with no goals, no chances, no saves from the opposition keeper. Becoming a bad habit carried over from last season.
Lots of individual effort but poor tactics and the first half a 5 man midfield was overrun. Fraser was very poor in possesion, Solanke doesnt seem to know where the ball is, target man good in the air good hold up play being converted to deep lying non scoring atacking midfielder.
Stacy, Mepham, Rico,Lerma didnt deserve to be on a losing side.

The craven atkinson was bullied by the burnley players, far too many challenges that played the man not the ball, the assault on Fraser was clearly carelss and reckless and injured the player.

The ginger allardyce does seem to have howes number.
 
Another home game at fortress dean court with no goals, no chances, no saves from the opposition keeper. Becoming a bad habit carried over from last season.
Lots of individual effort but poor tactics and the first half a 5 man midfield was overrun. Fraser was very poor in possesion, Solanke doesnt seem to know where the ball is, target man good in the air good hold up play being converted to deep lying non scoring atacking midfielder.
Stacy, Mepham, Rico,Lerma didnt deserve to be on a losing side.

The craven atkinson was bullied by the burnley players, far too many challenges that played the man not the ball, the assault on Fraser was clearly carelss and reckless and injured the player.

The ginger allardyce does seem to have howes number.

Solanke? Why pick on him? He was only on the pitch for 3 minutes before they scored. He's not the problem, Fraser and Wilson's loss of form is the problem. And Rico needs a kick up the backside for getting that yellow and being suspended against Arsenal.
 
Another good report. Thank you. Not a great game mainly because Burnley were very physical and did everything to stop AFCB playing but otherwise were just kick and rush. 21 fouls tells you all you need to know about their tactics.
 
Surely the time is coming to give Kilkenny a game. He can't be any worse than some of those out there yesterday. He may be the spark we need.

I would have thought we will see him against Arsenal or Brighton and definitely against Luton. Burnley was not the game for a slight small skillful debutant.

His performance at Burton and being subbed at half time set him back I think although nobody can ever shine in eleven changes. He was physically lacking though which will have needed work. He was so good in that friendly it would be great to see him when surrounded by protecting first team players.
 
Solanke? Why pick on him? He was only on the pitch for 3 minutes before they scored. He's not the problem, Fraser and Wilson's loss of form is the problem. And Rico needs a kick up the backside for getting that yellow and being suspended against Arsenal.
Nope, not going to blame Rico for that card. Not when Burnley were time wasting from the get go, not giving the ball back just like he did without a yellow and the guy who he refused to give the ball to (albeit did get a yellow as well) should've had about 4 yellows in the game.
 
Nope, not going to blame Rico for that card. Not when Burnley were time wasting from the get go, not giving the ball back just like he did without a yellow and the guy who he refused to give the ball to (albeit did get a yellow as well) should've had about 4 yellows in the game.

is that the first "get go" on the forum?
 
I haven't seen the game as I was elsewhere yesterday and refused to watch MotD last night!
The bit where the ref blew up when it touched him, despite us going through......how bad was that decision in reality? I thought they only had to stop play if it hit them and stopped a pass getting to the destination?
 
I haven't seen the game as I was elsewhere yesterday and refused to watch MotD last night!
The bit where the ref blew up when it touched him, despite us going through......how bad was that decision in reality? I thought they only had to stop play if it hit them and stopped a pass getting to the destination?
The exact law is:-

  • If the ball touches the referee (or another match official) and goes into the goal, team possession changes or a promising attack starts, a dropped ball is awarded
Now technically you could argue that because we already had the ball a promising attack hadn’t started. But there is no doubt the attack became more promising as a result of touching the ref. I’m almost certain the law was changed for exactly the situation that occurred yesterday. Common sense suggests the decision was correct and I don’t think any neutral would argue.

https://www.the-ra.org/news/ifab-law-changes-2019-2020
 
The exact law is:-

  • If the ball touches the referee (or another match official) and goes into the goal, team possession changes or a promising attack starts, a dropped ball is awarded
Now technically you could argue that because we already had the ball a promising attack hadn’t started. But there is no doubt the attack became more promising as a result of touching the ref. I’m almost certain the law was changed for exactly the situation that occurred yesterday. Common sense suggests the decision was correct and I don’t think any neutral would argue.

https://www.the-ra.org/news/ifab-law-changes-2019-2020

Thanks.

So to me then....I can see why the law was changed [ when it hits the ref and stops a team from progressing ] but the example with us yesterday probably shouldn't have needed stopping.
 
The exact law is:-

  • If the ball touches the referee (or another match official) and goes into the goal, team possession changes or a promising attack starts, a dropped ball is awarded
Now technically you could argue that because we already had the ball a promising attack hadn’t started. But there is no doubt the attack became more promising as a result of touching the ref. I’m almost certain the law was changed for exactly the situation that occurred yesterday. Common sense suggests the decision was correct and I don’t think any neutral would argue.

https://www.the-ra.org/news/ifab-law-changes-2019-2020
Having read that, I disagree with the decision being correct. Player A passes the ball to Player B, it brushes the ref and still gets to Player B, almost making no difference as to whether it hits it the ref. The 'promising attack' would have happened even if it hadn't hit the ref. (This is so long as I am remembering the incident correctly).
 
Having read that, I disagree with the decision being correct. Player A passes the ball to Player B, it brushes the ref and still gets to Player B, almost making no difference as to whether it hits it the ref. The 'promising attack' would have happened even if it hadn't hit the ref. (This is so long as I am remembering the incident correctly).
I think the wording of the law could be tidied up. If you are saying the ‘promising attack’ would have happened anyway then it’s a bit of a subjective call to make. I’m pretty certain the intention of the law was to bring back what happened yesterday for a drop ball. I just think if you allow refs to make subjective calls in this spot, you will eventually get inconsistencies.

I mean if it touches the ref when a side is pinging it about in their own half under no pressure, by all means play on. If it occurs during an attacking phase around the opponents box then you give the drop ball.
 
I think the wording of the law could be tidied up. If you are saying the ‘promising attack’ would have happened anyway then it’s a bit of a subjective call to make. I’m pretty certain the intention of the law was to bring back what happened yesterday for a drop ball. I just think if you allow refs to make subjective calls in this spot, you will eventually get inconsistencies.

I mean if it touches the ref when a side is pinging it about in their own half under no pressure, by all means play on. If it occurs during an attacking phase around the opponents box then you give the drop ball.
Yes, you are right it is a subjective call, however it made that little difference hitting the ref I can't imagine our player would have done anything different once he received the ball - and this is why I don't think the game should have been stopped. Had Player A been passing to Player B and then it went to Player C, then it would have made a massive difference.
 

;