PDA

View Full Version : Why is this team struggling more than the 09/10 team?



theclaret57
19-10-2014, 08:57 PM
Last season we finished second with ease, almost 20 points more than the one that went up previously.

For a team that went up in the Play-offs it adapted far better than this seasons one.

Why?

dougcollins
19-10-2014, 08:58 PM
Goals for.

Bin_Ont_Turf
19-10-2014, 08:59 PM
Because we had Robbie Blake

we had Robbie Blake
we had Robbie
we had Robbie
we had Robbie Blake

mdd2
19-10-2014, 09:00 PM
Prem teams of today seem to have more foreign players a market we do not know and look more skilful than they were 4 years ago. I think our team is better than 2009-10 but may be less successful due to the quality of the opposition.

LifeOfRiley
19-10-2014, 09:01 PM
Generally the opposition are better than they were in 09/10.

northeastclaret
19-10-2014, 09:03 PM
It's simples we failed to strengthen our best 11 from last season in any position unlike when we won promotion last time, apart from arguably Boyd for Kightley.

daveisaclaret
19-10-2014, 09:05 PM
After 8 games in 09/10, we'd had 4 performances where our defence/defending put us in a position to win games. Midfielders and strikers stepped up and won us those games.

After 8 games this year, we've had 4 performances where our defence/defending put us in a position to win games. We've not scored in any of them.

DarkCloud
19-10-2014, 09:14 PM
The OP is a very good question and one which I've thought about often recently. Like most others I think this present team is generally better, but crucially not in front of goal. Whether an Ings/Volkes pairing would have made any difference is impossible to say, but Fletcher/Nugent/Blake was clearly more threatening than what we've got this time and that's a shame. Yesterday Tripps put in some excellent crosses (at last), but no one was good enough to convert them.

Bin_Ont_Turf
19-10-2014, 09:15 PM
Go on then we all know what it is leading to...

Heaton
Trippier
Caldwell
Shackell
Mee
Elliott
Jones
Arfield
Blake
Ings
Fletcher

claptrappers_union
19-10-2014, 09:54 PM
The League is miles stronger... last time, the relegation fodder was the likes of Wigan, Blackburn, Portsmouth, Wolves, Birmingham, Bolton, Stoke, Hull...

This season though, I can even see the likes of QPR finding form and staying up. Its difficult to guess which other teams will take the relegation spots this season. Burnley I think will finish rock bottom now though the team is better than last time.

gogogadgetlegs
19-10-2014, 10:05 PM
we're older.

billyhamilton82
19-10-2014, 10:52 PM
We had a very good team and played with no fear in 09/10. People seem to be looking down their noses at that squad because they only went up through the play offs but in actual fact they were a better Premier league team IMO.

They only went down because Coyle left.

They knew they could beat Premier teams and had nothing to fear following their exploits in the cup the previous season.

They also had a lot of creative players who already knew they could hurt Premier teams in Blake, Elliott and Eagles.

Add to that the signing of Steven Fletcher up front and even Andre Bikey in defence though he was a loon he was already proven to be capable at this level and had the physique to compete. The failure to strengthen the midfield was our major downfall pulling Bikey out of position and missing McCann's marauding runs. That said Coyle had lined up the proposed signings of Holden, Wilshere and to a lesser extent Weiss to plug the gap and we were still above the bottom three and looking stron

GordonvaleClaret
19-10-2014, 10:56 PM
This time last year, after 8 games, Sunderland had 1 point, Palace had 3. We're doing better than them two were and they both survived. Early days yet.

Inchy
19-10-2014, 10:59 PM
We had more creative players back then.

We don't have any real flair players that can change the momentum of a game.

We do have a far stronger defence now.

wherewasi
19-10-2014, 11:12 PM
Rose-tinted spectacles, I'm afraid. The gap is tiny between what happened last time and this.

Last time we had 12 points vs 4 this time but the difference is small. Swap Arfield missing a penalty for Saha and Carrick missing penalties and the gap would have been 8 vs 6. You can go into lots of 'if only's and this or that could have happened. Wade gets a deflection against Everton.. it goes in... Barnes gets one against Sunderland... it hits the bar... but let's just leave it at missing and taking penalties which is as close to a goal as you get without actually scoring.

Last time after 8 games we had scored 7 goals, this time 4 - it's not like we were scoring huge amounts then either. Goal difference is actually the same at -9. We were also just about to go into a run of 12 games where we would get 8 points (actually it was 15 games and 8 points but some of you will reject that on the basis that Brian Laws was personally responsible for the last 3 defeats despite the preceding

BobS_2014
19-10-2014, 11:30 PM
We had Fletcher, Nugent, Robbie last time.

We have Juke, Sordell and Barnes this time with Ings either out of sorts/his depth and injured for half the games.

That speaks for itself.

Had we been scoring the chances this time we'd have been on a par.

BabylonClaret
20-10-2014, 12:25 AM
wherewasi is spot on.

Taking off the claret tinted specs we managed to fluke 2 wins at home against Utd and Everton (they both missed penalties) and we'd also scored a couple of our own.

We carried on a very high spirit into the early season and at home we capitalised on that. We shipped a lot of goals but managed to score - but by November we stopped scoring so much.

This time we've missed our best player in front of goal in four games we had on paper a decent chance to win. Add to that that we've missed our first choice centre midfield for most of those too and it's not surprising really.

If we'd had to play Sunderland and Birmingham at home without Blake, Fletcher, Elliott and Alexander we'd have got very little in either of those.

I think we're more competetive this time around - that West Ham side yesterday would have tonked our 2009/10 side. 3-1 sounds like a tonking but it really wasn't.

Colburn_Claret
20-10-2014, 09:56 AM
the strength of the prem is a lot stronger this time. It's frightening to think of how much harder, nigh impossible, it will be to make the grade if we fail this time and come back again.

With Fletch, Nugent and Blake we did have players who could score at this level, but I still believe this is a better team.

With OC it was all gung ho, we scraped a win or got a stuffing. I think we are going about games the right way. We are staying in games for far longer, we just have to put away one of those chances and take the points.

There being no magic fairy dust to sprinkle round it's up to hard work, belief, unity and focus.

BereavementDividend
20-10-2014, 09:58 AM
I've been dwelling a lot on recent results and worry of embarrassment and relegation etc but the way I see it is, I'd rather we have a season of winning against lower teams and going steady than playing a worldie against the big teams and getting a weeks worth of headlines then losing loads on the trot.

Quickenthetempo
20-10-2014, 11:26 AM
We had better attacking players and more pace in the team in 09/10. We moved the ball a lot quicker but our defence let us down with lots of silly goals.

But we showed signs of fast moving attacking football on Saturday which is good to see. But the defending was also shocking at times.

claretspice
20-10-2014, 11:57 AM
We did have some luck in 09/10. I think Wade Elliott's goal against Everton took a huge deflection, and the opening goal against Birmingham at home I seem to remember wsa a bad goalkeeping error.

But we had some bad luck, too. Its all very well saying we were fortunate that Saha missed a penalty for Everton, but my memory is that we were unlucky it was awarded in the first place. And with the best part of 2 of those 4 home games still to play, we lost McCann (who'd been excellent to that point that season) to injury.

We've had good luck this season, just as we've had bad. The penalty we got at Palace was the result of a brain freeze from the defender. We were gifted a way back into the game yesterday by a goalkeeping error.

I think there are a couple of differences between this team and the one 5 years ago which at least partially explain why we're doing so much worse after 8 games. The first is the quality of the attacking options. On Saturday, Kightly and Juke showed - not for t

The Bedlington Terrier
20-10-2014, 11:58 AM
As usual to complex questions there is not one simple answer. Last time we knew we could beat Premier League teams, this time I think the standard has raised considerably, Vokes and Ings are not at the helm of the team, we have a fantastic manager but unproven at this level. The learning curve is a steep one, undeniably we have skilfull players who are excellent technically but at present we are lacking Premier League nous. I watched Song on Saturday, the amount of play he broke up without exerting a sweat was unbelievable. I honestly think its just a question of time before we come to the party, I just hope the clock does not run down before its too late!

longside4evr
20-10-2014, 12:07 PM
To be honest I think the current team is following the same pattern the more losses we will take the bigger the hidings will come
Because moral drops heads will drop confidence goes and when your down at the bottom your luck just evaporates and your opponents seem to get the rub of the green and every decision under the sun that's just the way it is some things will never change - view external link (http://youtu.be/cOeKidp-iWo)

Jamb0MackemClaret
20-10-2014, 12:28 PM
tl;dr for spice's latest opus - the attack was better last time.

Alp12Mac
20-10-2014, 12:34 PM
The standard of player in the Premier League has risen significantly since 09/10.

Whilst I believe the work ethic of this side is much better than 09/10 I also believe we don't have any quality players in the team.

Nugent and Fletcher plus Blake and to a lesser extent, Eagles, were all capable players in the Premier League.

Jones has shown composure but there aren't any defence splitting killer passes.

Trippier has stepped up but his balls into the box are not being converted because although he works hard, Juke is too slow in thought and deed and quite honestly looks a little lost in front of goal.

Barnes tries hard but his boots are made of Teflon, nothing sticks first time.

Boyd has flashes but his best form has been at Championship and League One level.

Heaton is lacking presence in the box and appears rooted to his line, confidence maybe?

Danny Ings has had one good season in his career and the weight of expectation may be wearing on him. Yes he is giving it everything bu

mikeS
20-10-2014, 12:49 PM
We are struggling because of the lack of goals mainly.

Injuries to two key forwards Vokes and Ings, also midfielders like Marney and Jones.
We started the season with untested forwards (Jukey and Sordell) at this level who have been brought in with the hope they can step up to the Premier League without having played for us at a division lower first and built their confidence up a bit.

We need someone nwho can put the ball in the net on a regular basis and we haven't had that luxury yet.
First half on Saturday we had a handful of chances any or all could have gone in.

ClaretTony2014
20-10-2014, 01:45 PM
"the attack was better last time"


Probably due to the fact that we didn't bother defending.



And there would be very little points difference if Carrick & Saha had scored their pens in 2009 and Arfield had at Palace.

Quickenthetempo
20-10-2014, 02:15 PM
9 (11) Burnley 8 4 0 4 7 16 -9 12 are the league table figures for the 09 team after 8 games.

Shocking to think after such a good start we only went on to win another 4 games all season.

We added very good players in Fletcher, Mears and Bikey at the start last time with Cork coming in January.

The board/Dyche combo have gone with squad players that haven't improved the 1st x1 massively so far. Lets hope they come good or we have a better January with transfers.

claretspice
20-10-2014, 04:05 PM
"Probably due to the fact that we didn't bother defending"

Do people really believe this? We conceded 2 goals in the first 4 home games last time around, and one of them was a last minute consolation.

Even allowing for the two penalty misses against United and Everton (and you yourself in the Everton match report said that McCann was unlucky to concede that pen - it was a dive - so lets not get carried away with the idea that Saha missing it was a particular slice of luck) we won those games by being clearly the better side, restricting the opposition and scoring goals. Not that should have been as a surprise, coming as it did on the back of an excellent defensive record at the back end of the previous season.

Luck may well have played a part in us getting more points in the opening 8 games last time around, but as other posts on this thread set out, its far from the whole story.

I think there is something in the argument that there are less weak sides in the PL now than 3 years a

Jamb0MackemClaret
20-10-2014, 05:10 PM
Ifs and buts. Everton and United didn't score their penalties, just like ours wasn't at Palace. I don't think we've been hard done by in many games apart from perhaps at Swansea where I felt we did enough for a draw. Pretty much every other result has felt about right. As for didn't bother defending - that team was more fun to watch too...

BobLordsFridge
20-10-2014, 05:16 PM
By the end of October in 2009 we'd won 5 out of our 6 home games.

That's not really luck is it?

Relatively speaking we were simply better in those opening 3 months than we have been this time around.

Hopefully we'll reverse the situation and do far better this season than we did in Nov-Jan in 2009-10.

theclaret57
20-10-2014, 05:23 PM
"Everton and United didn't miss their penalties"

Saha put his past the post!

garfunkal
20-10-2014, 05:31 PM
And there would be very little points difference if Carrick & Saha had scored their pens in 2009 and Arfield had at Palace.

Yes but that didn't happen so completely irrelevant

minniemouth
20-10-2014, 06:00 PM
Don't know but at least, so far, I don't feel cheated at all. That became a regular occurence last time and when there's nobody around to kick it's so frustrating.

Jamb0MackemClaret
20-10-2014, 08:16 PM
"Everton and United didn't miss their penalties"

Saha put his past the post!"

Beast had it covered.

enola_gay
20-10-2014, 08:25 PM
And there would be very little points difference if Carrick & Saha had scored their pens in 2009 and Arfield had at Palace.

And if my auntie had *******s she'd be my uncle.

Akinbadbye_20
20-10-2014, 09:07 PM
If we are talking about scoring goals and being clinical, then surely Barnes should be in the side ahead of Juke.

Barnes is much more of a goal threat than Juke but his all round game is not as good. I think it might be worth going with Barnes for the next few games, hes the only one of the strikers not to have been given his chance to start this season

RogerEliHatTrick
20-10-2014, 09:41 PM
I thought Barnes had started a game.

No luck against Everton last time as Tony Hibbert cheated and dived without being touched. We also played very well against Man Utd last time in the PL.

We lack individual quality particularly up front. We do not have any PL quality strikers.

Jamb0MackemClaret
21-10-2014, 09:40 AM
"If we are talking about scoring goals and being clinical, then surely Barnes should be in the side ahead of Juke."

He missed probably the best chance we created on Saturday. I wouldn't call him clinical. He might be a better finisher than Jutkiewicz but it can only be marginal.

Akinbadbye_20
21-10-2014, 10:52 AM
'He missed probably the best chance we created on Saturday. I wouldn't call him clinical. He might be a better finisher than Jutkiewicz but it can only be marginal.'

Rubbish, hes not only more clinical but his movement in the box is far better. The chance he hit the bar with was not a sitter, he got too good a contact on it if anything. He has a record of scoring goals and if some ways reminds me of Austin but obviously not as good

the_quoon
21-10-2014, 11:49 AM
oddly, i've seen both ings' and barnes' chances described as sitters but neither were.

a sitter is what balotelli missed agaisnt qpr on sunday where he skied it over an open goal.

treadmillclaret
21-10-2014, 12:02 PM
Plenty of debates in the last few months as to why we are struggling.

Extreme views range from sacking Dyche (thankfully just a few morons) to the other extreme of backing the Board and the manager blindly.

All of the lads I go on the game and in my view most Burnley supporters think that both the Board (through a lack of investment) and the manager (in those he has brought in) have got their strategy for survival pretty wrong over the summer.

The TV money has increased significantly since the last time we promoted and the gulf between the premier league and championship has just grown every year and is now massive - and its even bigger when the championship team going up was one of the lower spenders in the championship - like ourselves.

West Ham - perfect example of what we are up against. They struggled last year but already had players who were on massive wages / brought in for big transfer fees...like Caroll, Downing, Diame, Noble, Nolan.
At a conservative guess i`d say the t

Jamb0MackemClaret
21-10-2014, 12:07 PM
"The chance he hit the bar with was not a sitter, he got too good a contact on it if anything."

He's hit it too well if anything, Clive.

treadmillclaret
21-10-2014, 12:37 PM
looked like a sitter to me - he was only 2 or 3 yards from the goal.

clearly not as easy as balotelli's chance - but should have scored and have we had a better chance all season ?

garfunkal
21-10-2014, 12:43 PM
Anyone who has played football should realise that the Barnes chance was easier , Barnes was closer ,( it was harder to miss ) also the ball was behind ballotelli , still should of scored though .

the_quoon
21-10-2014, 12:44 PM
a ball coming at you at pace, at an awkward height, with a man marking you and a goalkeeper to beat = not a sitter, ever.

RationalHumanist
21-10-2014, 12:59 PM
I'd say on paper it's a sitter for a professional footballer but everybody misses chances, even the best. What it comes down to is whether it was a lack of confidence or simply probability. That we won't know, unless it becomes a common characteristic. Tbh though, we haven't missed all too many sitters all season. We should have done better so far in front of goal but it's hard to gauge it on such a limited amount of very clear cut chances.

My worry is that the teams we appear to have done decently against are ones who have pretty much not turned up against us, rather than us outplaying them. This is to be expected to some extent given how weak we are in comparison to many but if this is what we are going to be relying on whilst also struggling in front of goal to make these teams pay then there is very little chance at all.

treadmillclaret
21-10-2014, 01:07 PM
yep but wasn`t that awkward a height and wasn`t that much pace either. His man had got the wrong side and the goalkeeper was trying to get over to that side of the goal.

Sitters aren`t just those like Ballotellis or Ronnie Rosenteil (misspelt i`m sure !!)...these are just the easiest sitters.

In many ways Barnes chance was more of a sitter than when you are through one on one on goal because all he had to do was hit the goal from 2 or 3 yards...and the chance of him hitting the keeper was small - as was the chance of the keeper saving it.

The "hitting it too well" argument doesn't cut if for me either - he didn't hit it too well - he hit it too high !!

Jamb0MackemClaret
21-10-2014, 01:11 PM
It's all relative, obviously, but I think it's probably the best chance we've missed this season. Balotelli's was worse but a Premier League striker should be scoring the Barnes one. The strikers could legitimately have pointed to a lack of clear chances being the reason they weren't scoring before Saturday but Barnes, Ings and Jutkiewicz all had very good chances and didn't even hit the target with them.

Akinbadbye_20
21-10-2014, 01:20 PM
If playing regularly he'd have buried it im pretty sure but it definitely wasnt a sitter.
He deserves a chance from the start for me

claretspice
21-10-2014, 01:24 PM
I'm not sure these comparisons between different misses are particularly helpful, or that there's a particular bucket of chances which can easily be classed as sitters, with the rest in a different bucket.

Barnes' chance was the sort of chance that in the Premier League has to be taken 9 times out of 10. There was nothing particularly difficult about it, he didn't have to generate power, he had time and he just had to open his body and guide it into the net. Whether you class it as a sitter or not is semantics. It was a bad miss and for all that I agree that Barnes gets into better goalscoring positions in the box (I'd have backed him to get a tap in when Boyd crossed low first half for example), he's no better a finisher than Juke and his link up game is vastly inferior.

treadmillclaret
21-10-2014, 01:41 PM
On what basis does he warrant a start ?

In the time he was on the pitch on Saturday he missed an easy chance and he allowed himself to mark and be very easily beaten by Sakho for their 3rd goal (though i`d also be putting blame on Shackell and Duff for not picking him up between them)

Barnes has not shown anything since we signed him in January which would be enough to justify he should start against Everton - or any other team in the Premiership.

The only thing he has slightly in his favour is the extent all the other strikers are struggling at the moment.

Ings has to start - we need somehow to get him somewhere close to the player he was last year...which puts him miles ahead of any of the fit forwards we have on our books.

The other place up front based on the games they have played for Burnley - either last year or this - for now has to be Juke.

Jukes has not been as good as or effective as Vokes - but none of us knew how Vokes would fair this year.

And Ings has not been th

sheffieldturfite
21-10-2014, 04:38 PM
I think Wherewasi has this closest to the truth.

The two are fairly similar but for a host of lucky incidents. On the whole teams this season have defended superbly against us. From memory did we score a bobbler through the keeper in one of those early wins? Then of course we had the two missed penalties for Man U and Everton. But for those three things we would have finished on a dismal 24 points.

I think we are doing better than 09/10 but for some finishing and a few crucial injuries sadly missing winnable games. There is a comparison in my head to Ings missing that header and Nugent sticking in one against Sunderland. Those are the margins but the team as a whole is better, as is the manager, in a far stronger league.

longside4evr
21-10-2014, 05:15 PM
Trouble is can we surpass 2009 points tally and if we can we need points on the road 2 of the 4 picked up have been away
The 2009 team picked up 4 points away all season Hull win and a draw at city.
what do we class as winnable games as many thought Southampton would be one before a ball was kicked as the table changes so will what we class as winnable games but this can catch you out on many occasions and it turns out to be another confidence blow So the Mantra of one game at a time and see where it takes us is the order of the day and hope we can pull some surprises of here's hoping anyway.
But comparing this team with the 2009 one could also have a bad baring to our expectations in truth.

culmclaret
22-10-2014, 07:17 AM
There is more quality in the bottom half of the table than in 2009/10. Our current side is probably marginally better but we are now in a league of four or five sides at the bottom, rather than 10 as in 2009/10, and we've failed to beat one of them at home. I still think we can do it but we are going to need some luck along the way and no more significant injuries.

DiBraidio
22-10-2014, 08:39 AM
Didn't it take Fletcher 8 games to score last time around? He was being absolutely slaughtered on here as being too left footed and not good enough.

Not scoring is clearly the problem. Not only do we have players who've never played at this level, we've forwards who've never played together. Not to mention players playing out of position because of the number of injuries we've had.

David Nugent has scored 1 goal, a penalty.
Vardy has 1 goal, Austin has 2.

Jukes has had more shots than Vardy and Nugent put together but their accuracy is twice as good as Jukes who gets one in three on target.

Danny Ings has had 11 shots, more than Vardy and Nugent but he's only had 2 on target, they've both had 6 on target.

Ashley Barnes has had one shot fewer than Ings with the same number on target but has played a little of half as many minutes of football.

I for one have every faith that SD knows where the weaknesses are and will do what needs to be done to improve things. As he always s

bleedingClaret
22-10-2014, 10:40 AM
For me, Barnes is the most likely to score goals of our forwards at the moment.
I would play Juke & Barnes for their overall work rates.
Both Sordell and Ings need to come off the bench when defenders are tired and softened up by Juke & Barnes.
Neither Ings nor Sordell offer enough without goals.
Danny's gonna be holding out for Bournemouth, and in League 1 in 2 Years, rather than Southampton in the Prem.
One swallow does not a summer maketh!
Don't know whether he needs to pull his socks up in life or roll em down on the pitch but Juke looks better supported by Barnes.
Only my opinion of course.
UTC

enola_gay
22-10-2014, 10:59 AM
Barnes sort-of reminds me of James O'Connor.

JOC didn't have the range of passing or skills to be a real playmaker, he didn't have the defensive skills to be an effective holding player, he didn't do enough going forward to be a proper attacking midfielder. He was usually just a shirt flitting around in the midfield to occasional effect and nuisance value. As dandeclaret once described him, a dog chasing a bus; he'd chase it all day, sometimes even catch it, but he'd have no effect on its direction.

Barnes isn't as poor a player as JOC was but I'm left equally confused by what he actually brings to the party. His hold-up/link play is average at best, he's not a prolific finisher, he's not a Blake-esque creator. Against West Ham he looked to me like someone running around to little effect and fluffed what may not have been a sitter, but was an eminently presentable chance.

This isn't a Premier League-tinged observation either as I wasn't wholly convinced by him in the Championship, a

wherewasi
22-10-2014, 11:53 AM
Agree with enola_gay.

I know some posting on here genuinely believe now, as they did at the start of the season, that Barnes is one of the best 2 forwards we have at the club. I disagree and would play any of the other 4 or Kightley or Boyd up front before him but, hey-ho, that's life; we disagree.

What does annoy me is that, eight games in, we already have lots of people falling into the mindset of whoever isn't playing at the minute / whoever used to play for us is better than what we've got. After Barnes has played a few times and (let's say) he doesn't score, we'll be left with Sordell (I don't think anyone much thinks he's in the top 2) and, inevitably, moving on to the boss as the target. Turns out we're not as different from other PL fans as we'd like to believe.