Burnley (A) 21/12 Build-Up & Match Thread

[Tredman]

I can see Nuno playing him to the right of the front two a bit like Neto started on Tuesday. He wouldn’t be playing as a true centre forward if so though.

I actually thought he played an important role when he came on without individually being brilliant. He attracted players towards him and it allowed us to attack space better.

personally I think I’d still start Silva, but could see why he might use Adama in that way, as long as he isn’t just hugging the touchline.

That was kinda my point, but it’s long lost in the the thread. I though he did well when he came on up front. Couple that with the fact that silva is 18 and a bit of a wimp then it makes sense to rest him in this game.

Should have known better really.

 

[prawnking]

Given this is a game we should be looking to win from the front foot, and that Burnley don't score many goals, I think 4 at the back is the way to go. Especially if Boly doesn't play.


Rui

Semedo - Coady - Saiss - Marcal

Neves - Moutinho

Traore - Neto - Podence

Silva

Agree with some of the logic there, but looks a team lacking height and physicality?

 

[Tredman]

If Donck is out I can’t see him picking Otasowie over Neves or Moutinho, it just won’t happen.

Problem is neither Neves or Moutinho can play the role Nuno asked Donk to play (and that Otasowie did play). So do we change our whole style or play Otasowie?

 

[The Bear]

Agree with some of the logic there, but looks a team lacking height and physicality?

Coady, Saiss Marcal, Neves and Traore can all hold their own physically.

 

[prawnking]

Coady, Saiss Marcal, Neves and Traore can all hold their own physically.

Out of that list we've all seen at least Coady outmuscled in certain games.

Burnley will be playing some big lumps and I think the lack of a presence like Boly/Donk or even the height of Kilman/Otasowie is certainly a point worth consideration

 

[PuntsWolf]

Problem is neither Neves or Moutinho can play the role Nuno asked Donk to play (and that Otasowie did play). So do we change our whole style or play Otasowie?

I agree. But if we’re playing 4-2-3-1 then two more holding players who are good on the ball may be a better option anyway. Try and control the game and allow the front 4 to cause problems rather than requiring a player to get forward on the counter.

Agree with some of the logic there, but looks a team lacking height and physicality?

Burnley aren’t Stoke. The forwards and the CBs are physical fuckers but they aren’t a team of mutants.

 

[Tredman]

I agree. But if we’re playing 4-2-3-1 then two more holding players who are good on the ball may be a better option anyway. Try and control the game and allow the front 4 to cause problems rather than requiring a player to get forward on the counter.

Burnley aren’t Stoke. The forwards and the CBs are physical fuckers but they aren’t a team of mutants.

I think we have a fundamental difference of opinion on the number at the back

 

[Premier Quality]

Burnley aren’t Stoke. The forwards and the CBs are physical fuckers but they aren’t a team of mutants.

Agree with that - we need to be aware of it, but shouldn’t change our game because of it.

I like Tarkowski, I think he’s an excellent defender. We need to play around him rather than trying to beat him in a physical challenge because he’ll win. But that’s Silva, Pod and Neto’s game anyway, so we should stick with movement and triangles to get the opportunities.

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

That’s what I would pick too. That three behind Silva needs to be quite fluid and pulling their lumbering defenders all over the place.

 

[prawnking]

Agree with that - we need to be aware of it, but shouldn’t change our game because of it.

I like Tarkowski, I think he’s an excellent defender. We need to play around him rather than trying to beat him in a physical challenge because he’ll win. But that’s Silva, Pod and Neto’s game anyway, so we should stick with movement and triangles to get the opportunities.

I'm not saying we change our game?

I'm saying conceding the physical and aerial side of the game to them with our selection choices may not be wise.

Removing Boly and Donk from the team removes a lot of our physical power and height, pretending that Neves and Marcal (while undoubtedly tenacious) can make up for it is pretty optimistic imo.

We're not at the Man City stage where we can play a bunch of diminutive players and still dominate teams like this

 

[PuntsWolf]

I think we have a fundamental difference of opinion on the number at the back

Well yes, in our negative, deep, dull 3-4-3 set up then the neves Moutinho won’t work.

In a more positive set up it could be fine. Like every game, it’s how you play it not what you play.

 

[Johnny75]

That was kinda my point, but it’s long lost in the the thread. I though he did well when he came on up front. Couple that with the fact that silva is 18 and a bit of a wimp then it makes sense to rest him in this game.

Should have known better really.

Don't think Silva is a wimp and I thought Adama was shite when he came on.

 

[Tredman]

Don't think Silva is a wimp and I thought Adama was shite when he came on.

Silva goes down too easily - possibly because he expects it to be given. He’s also lightweight but that’s natural for his age and build.

 

[Johnny75]

I think that side of his game is improving and didn't think he got to dominated by Chelsea at all.

I agree with your 3-4-3 as it allows us to push them back and forces us to keep the ball on the deck in the main.

Must get on top of Burnley's pretty weak midfield, particularly Westwood, so winning 2nd balls is key for me. Which is what I thought Otasowie did really well when he was on.

 

[sycophantia]

That was kinda my point, but it’s long lost in the the thread. I though he did well when he came on up front. Couple that with the fact that silva is 18 and a bit of a wimp then it makes sense to rest him in this game.

Should have known better really.

Nothing wrong with your opinion (although 'wimp' is a bit harsh) not sure Traore actually did much when he came on, rather his reputation made Chelsea put 2 or 3 defenders on him which opened up space and we took advantage. I've no issue with Traore starting tomorrow but would prefer Silva for the first half

 

[Wilf Wolf]

Traore is a much better option off the bench at the moment. If he’s only on for 30 minutes he goes at it full on all the time. He is the last thing a tiring defender wants to face.

 

[Freddeno]

We have just scored 13 goals in 13 games ourselves..clearly where it is lacking winning more games..

 

[Gonby's Games Gone By]

Traore did nothing when he came on and Silva is adapting his game very well, IMO. The Villa game his best outing to date for me but he certainly showed up against Chelsea.

In those days, we were still calling them "Bakelites". https://gonbys.com/burnley-1962/

 

[Jinky]

If Adama doesn't play (I think he will), then I wouldn't mind Vitinha starting in the 10, with Neto & Podence playing either side of him and Fabio up top. There's not a lot of experience between those 4, but potential wise, it's through the roof.

Otasowie & Neves as the two central midfielders in behind them with a back 4 of Marcal, Saiss, Coady & Semedo. That's what I would go with and I reckon we could cause Burnley some trouble.

---------------Fabio-------------
Podence-----Vitinha-------Neto
-------Otasowie---Neves-------
Marcal--Saiss--Coady--Semedo
------------Patricio--------------

Something like that.

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

I do rather like the look of that. Probably a little too risky for Nuno but it would have a lot of potential