+ Visit Burnley FC Mad for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 43

Thread: State of Play at Turf Moor

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    5,297
    sinkov : ( That Russian spy in the Ribble valley ! ) Yes, it was Taylor dragging behind that line of defence you are correct. Yet, I can not see how Mee allowed Bale to move in, goal wards, behind Mee's back. Then Taylor should have seen that he was playing Bale on-side, at the same time Mee could not have known Taylors exact position his back was facing Taylor. But sinkov, Mee can not move out of defence if he does not know exactly where Taylor was. Even if someone shouted ''defence get out!'' Mee has to have eye contact so that he knows to move out of defence, and that Taylor HAS moved out too.
    Yes, Taylor was at fault. But also Mee ,should have 'fended'/shielded, their magnificent Mr Bale, in fact ''shoved him inside a sack and sent him off to the rag and bone man!''

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    4,669
    Quote Originally Posted by sinkov View Post
    There are five teams below us in the league, we've played against them 9 times this season, and lost just one. There are five teams even less competitive than us, and we only need three, it's all relative.
    I see your philosophy Sinkov and I think that your thinking we’re all having a pop at Dyche - what I would say is that he’s not blame free in all of this even if it comes down to him being very specific in what he wants player wise.

    We don’t know what goes on behind the scenes I accept that but surely to set up like we did at Spurs is criminal.

    Also to listen to Dyche the last few weeks he’s happy with the players and is in fact sanctioning new contracts for players we all simply now are not good enough including on going talks with Robbie Brady

    As soon as Tarkowski said he had enough the writing was on the wall in my eyes anyway , I think it was a good yardstick that he could see it was t going the right way.

    I accept the manager can only work with what he has as you say but if he can’t sort out basic shape against teams and he keeps signing older players it catches up with you at some point

    Problem we have it’s now.


    https://boards.footymad.net/newreply...ply&p=39717828

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    21,844
    Quote Originally Posted by Balanbam00 View Post
    sinkov : ( That Russian spy in the Ribble valley ! ) Yes, it was Taylor dragging behind that line of defence you are correct. Yet, I can not see how Mee allowed Bale to move in, goal wards, behind Mee's back. Then Taylor should have seen that he was playing Bale on-side, at the same time Mee could not have known Taylors exact position his back was facing Taylor. But sinkov, Mee can not move out of defence if he does not know exactly where Taylor was. Even if someone shouted ''defence get out!'' Mee has to have eye contact so that he knows to move out of defence, and that Taylor HAS moved out too.
    Yes, Taylor was at fault. But also Mee ,should have 'fended'/shielded, their magnificent Mr Bale, in fact ''shoved him inside a sack and sent him off to the rag and bone man!''
    Can't agree with some of that Balan, the back four hasn't time for a committee meeting, Ben organises the defence, Taylor has to take his lead from him, Ben had Bale in his line of vision, he moved up leaving him offside, he had his back to Taylor, Taylor could see Mee, it was his responsibility to move out with Ben. I'm very surprised he didn't, normally our back four is good at this, perhaps it was so early in the game that Taylor hadn't 'switched on'

    In one respect you could say Pope was culpable as well, when Heaton was here he ran the back four, when he wanted them out he bellowed at them to get out and they all moved as one. It wouldn't have happened when Heaton was in goal, none of the back four could go to sleep then, Pope doesn't boss the back four like Heaton did.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    5,297
    sinkov: I have played football, also in defence ,many years, and not once have I had a committee meeting. In those days our Centre Half, controlled the back line of the defence with even someone's name being called if need be. I am sorry sinkov ,but a player who is controlling the defence can not move out of his position without knowing where all defenders are! As you say Mee is organising the defence. In this case Taylor ,who you did say was at fault was playing Bale on-side, correct. But Mee is facing the ball delivered from Son, and does not see Taylors exact position, he is on his blind side, in fact behind him ,therefore how can Mee move out of defence, out of his position? If Mee does not know Taylors exact position, or not sure where Mee is, whilst facing facing the ball and Taylor is somewhere behind him. At least he has to 'fend' off Bale, shield him ,stop him moving forward. But if Mee is 100 % sure Bale will be offside then Ok ,let him be off side. After the goal Mee raises his hand as if to claim to the linesman Bale is offside! ( There fore he did not know Taylors position and that Bale was onside!) That's as I see it.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    5,297
    As you say sinkov and correct ,''Ben had Bale in his line of vision, he moved up leaving him offside, he had his back to Taylor, Taylor could see Mee, it was his responsibility to move out with Ben. I'm very surprised he didn't,'' Yes, it was Taylors responsibility ,but Mee should not have moved, he was controlling defence. It would be the same if Taylor had been caught on the leg and had some injury, that he could not move or he moved slowly? Ultimately like with the team the buck stops with Dyce, and in defence the buck stops with Mee, if he is controlling the defence!

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    21,844
    We'll just have to differ on this one Balan, Mee can't be checking where the other three are all the time, he played Bale offside, it was the correct thing to do, it would have been almost automatic for him, a routine movement, it will be something they work on all the time in training, Taylor should have been expecting it, anticipating it even, but he seemed to be asleep.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    21,844
    Quote Originally Posted by army88 View Post
    I see your philosophy Sinkov and I think that your thinking we’re all having a pop at Dyche - what I would say is that he’s not blame free in all of this even if it comes down to him being very specific in what he wants player wise.

    We don’t know what goes on behind the scenes I accept that but surely to set up like we did at Spurs is criminal.

    Also to listen to Dyche the last few weeks he’s happy with the players and is in fact sanctioning new contracts for players we all simply now are not good enough including on going talks with Robbie Brady

    As soon as Tarkowski said he had enough the writing was on the wall in my eyes anyway , I think it was a good yardstick that he could see it was t going the right way.

    I accept the manager can only work with what he has as you say but if he can’t sort out basic shape against teams and he keeps signing older players it catches up with you at some point

    Problem we have it’s now.


    https://boards.footymad.net/newreply...ply&p=39717828
    Yes, it does seem open season on Dyche army, which I think is a bit unfair. I accept that the buck stops with the manager, so he cannot be blame free, I also accept he's made some dodgy signings, he's not perfect by any means. Someone has said he appears to have run out of ideas, I accept this also seems to be the case, but I don't see what he can do that's going to make any great difference. Change the formation, set up differently, earlier substitutions, more adventurous tactics, all like putting ear-rings on a pig imo, it won't make any difference. Two suggestions floated recently, get McNeill off his wing and play him more centrally and play Jay and Vydra up front together (even I was all for that one), both have been tried and we've gone even worse. Wood and Barnes together, seen as a right pair of useless non-scoring has-beens earlier in the season, are now looked upon as our possible salvation.
    Last edited by sinkov; 01-03-2021 at 04:18 PM.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    7,930
    The first goal came about because Taylor was not switched on. Mee moved out in line with Tarks and Taylor was in the prime position because he could see the whole of the field in front of him where the ball was going to come from. Had he switched on and moved with Mee they would all have been in line and Bale would have been offside. I played full back for the majority of my 40 years in senior football and I would have been more than disappointed if I had played someone onside when I could see everything in front of me, in fact, I would definitely have been bawling at them to get out.

    Yesterday reminded me very much of the Everton game on Boxing Day 2018 when they came to the Turf after being thrashed at home 2-6 by Spurs. They were on a real downer but we gave them a goal in the 2nd minute when Charlie should have put the ball into row Z in the Bob Lord but he tried to be clever in the corner, lost the ball and they scored ---just the perfect start when you are low on confidence. The first goal yesterday was just the spur that Spurs needed after they had been in the run of poor results. We never recovered.

    The other two goals in the first half had an element of fortune about them with the ball deflecting off the block made by Tarkowski and the ball coming off the top of Tarks head for the third. Certainly not the best day for our back four yesterday but that's football.
    Last edited by Supersub6; 01-03-2021 at 04:34 PM.

  9. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by sinkov View Post
    Can't agree with some of that Balan, the back four hasn't time for a committee meeting, Ben organises the defence, Taylor has to take his lead from him, Ben had Bale in his line of vision, he moved up leaving him offside, he had his back to Taylor, Taylor could see Mee, it was his responsibility to move out with Ben. I'm very surprised he didn't, normally our back four is good at this, perhaps it was so early in the game that Taylor hadn't 'switched on'

    In one respect you could say Pope was culpable as well, when Heaton was here he ran the back four, when he wanted them out he bellowed at them to get out and they all moved as one. It wouldn't have happened when Heaton was in goal, none of the back four could go to sleep then, Pope doesn't boss the back four like Heaton did.
    Good point is that sinkov, Tom never let the dullards in front of him neglect their post...

    Attachment 18530

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    4,669
    Quote Originally Posted by sinkov View Post
    Yes, it does seem open season on Dyche army, which I think is a bit unfair. I accept that the buck stops with the manager, so he cannot be blame free, I also accept he's made some dodgy signings, he's not perfect by any means. Someone has said he appears to have run out of ideas, I accept this also seems to be the case, but I don't see what he can do that's going to make any great difference. Change the formation, set up differently, earlier substitutions, more adventurous tactics, all like putting ear-rings on a pig imo, it won't make any difference. Two suggestions floated recently, get McNeill off his wing and play him more centrally and play Jay and Vydra up front together (even I was all for that one), both have been tried and we've gone even worse. Wood and Barnes together, seen as a right pair of useless non-scoring has-beens earlier in the season, are now looked upon as our possible salvation.
    I’ve nothing against Dyche Sinkov in fact I’ve said many times we owe him an awful lot.

    I do think though that your stance of you can’t polish a turd is a little far fetched , he shouldn’t have set up like that at the weekend we’re supposed to be trying to amass points not shaft goal difference.

    He’ll know that I’m sure , the point was and part of my previous post is that he’s the manager and he’s offering contracts to players who we should be thanking for their service but moving on.

    I just think that if he’s not responsible for the lack of recruitment as you hint towards, why is he tying old players down to 2 year contracts when we need younger fresher players at the club ?

    It’s kind of a full 360 degree , maybe there has been no money whatsoever available to him from the previous directors but if he recognises we need new blood and we can’t compete , why tie up our money on has Beens?

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Forum Info

Footymad Forums offer you the chance to interact and discuss all things football with fellow fans from around the world, and share your views on footballing issues from the latest, breaking transfer rumours to the state of the game at international level and everything in between.

Whether your team is battling it out for the Premier League title or struggling for League survival, there's a forum for you!

Gooners, Mackems, Tractor Boys - you're all welcome, please just remember to respect the opinions of others.

Click here for a full list of the hundreds of forums available to you

The forums are free to join, although you must play fair and abide by the rules explained here, otherwise your ability to post may be temporarily or permanently revoked.

So what are you waiting for? Register now and join the debate!

(these forums are not actively moderated, so if you wish to report any comment made by another member please report it.)



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •