The system

Cubanclaret · Post by **Cubanclaret** » Mon Sep 03, 2018 9:07 am

taio wrote:This is absolutely spot on. And surely anyone who was at the game can see this.

Not true at all. If Barnes had played he wouldn’t have got close to Lindelof because Fellaini would have man-marked him out of the game which is exactly what happened in the game two seasons ago.

Maybe that’s why Dyche felt it was worth trying something different this time.

TVC15 · Post by **TVC15** » Mon Sep 03, 2018 9:09 am

It’s not just United though is it. We are struggling to create more than a couple of chances a games playing 4-5-1 with the personnel we have right now.
Not saying we should play 4-4-2 every week - in the same way we should not play 4-5-1 every week. It’s about the players we have available and in form and dependent on the team we are playing.

It’s a long long way from being simplistic and not for one minute pretending any of us have a clue compared to Dyche and his team. It just seems to me that we need a rethink of our tactics as we are losing games before we have started and we are on the backfoot because we making so few chances before or after conceding early goals.
We are ending most games 4-4-2 so it’s clearky a formation he is not against but by that point in the game it’s been too late recently. Why not start 4-4-2 then finish 4-5-1 if we have something to hang on to ?

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Sep 03, 2018 9:20 am

Olympiakos were absolutely terrible against us as well don't forget.

We only have ourselves to blame that we only drew the game.

Massive difference in the levels of effort and organisation put in by them compared to a prem team.

TVC15 · Post by **TVC15** » Mon Sep 03, 2018 9:31 am

When we won 5 games in a row earlier this year in 3 of those games we played 4-4-2 and in one of the other ones away at West Ham the game changed when we brought Wood on to partner Barnes.
We also played 4-4-2 v Man City when we drew 1-1.

It’s a bit of a myth that our success last season was all based on 4-5-1.

lucs86 · Post by **lucs86** » Mon Sep 03, 2018 11:12 am

Cubanclaret wrote:Not true at all. If Barnes had played he wouldn’t have got close to Lindelof because Fellaini would have man-marked him out of the game which is exactly what happened in the game two seasons ago.

Maybe that’s why Dyche felt it was worth trying something different this time.

And so when Fellaini is sat infront of Barnes the ball goes to Wood instead, who is then 1 on 1 with Smalling.
Every time it went near Wood he was completely crowded out. Barnes needed to start yesterday and 442 (not 4411) was the way.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Sep 03, 2018 11:15 am

Its also a myth that a lot wasn't built on 4-5-1 as well TVC15!

Personally, we play better football with 4-5-1 cos we have to keep it on the ground. I get that 4-4-2 has its uses though.

Its back to the players being confident on the ball and to make the runs. We are nowhere near that at the moment, whatever formation we play.

Vino blanco · Post by **Vino blanco** » Mon Sep 03, 2018 11:31 am

Keep flying the 4-5-1 flag, Lancaster, you seem to be the only one, who is. Sorry, Dyche thinks the same as you as well.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Sep 03, 2018 11:34 am

Well, having our most successful manager for a couple of generations on my side is something I guess.

But I'd rather have a bunch of massively over reacting football fans now you mention it!

TVC15 · Post by **TVC15** » Mon Sep 03, 2018 11:44 am

Not from me LC - i saw 4-5-1 working well last year and it was fundamental to our success in the first half of the season. I also agree that the football was better because we kept it on the floor a lot more. But the big difference here was Defour was running the game for us and also Cork in the first half of the season was great and much better than after Christmas. Add to that Brady finding his feet and playing really well and JBG being at the top of his game and it was a system that worked.
I also think Wood has lost something - not sure if it was his injury or just a confidence thing but he does not seem like he can lead the line on his own.

If the priority is now getting results with the players at our current disposal then just like it was in March when we went on the 5 game winning streak then we go 4-4-2 and sacrifice being easier on the eye.

My own team / formation would be :

Hart
Lowton Tarks Mee Ward
McNeil Cork Westwood Hendrick
Wood Barnes

When Brady and JBG are back and fit then maybe we go back to 4-5-1. But if we persist with 4-4-2 and Jeff plays like he has so far this season I would drop Westwood to the bench.

Barnes seems out of favour at the moment and not sure if its the couple of injuries he picked up because for the last few months of last year he was the first striker on the team sheet and scored a few really good goals.

Oh and it would be nice to see Vydra playing with either Barnes or Wood as not saying he is as good as Ings but he is more in this style of a technically good no 10 with an eye for goal. My favourite football under Dyche was when we had Ings and Vokes up front. I know it was in the Championship but they destroyed many teams and if both had stayed fit they looked good enough for the Premier League to me.

NL Claret · Post by **NL Claret** » Mon Sep 03, 2018 11:47 am

A few things for consideration - the successful first half of last season was built on the following:

Exceptional goalkeeping by Pope (no criticism of Hart btw)
A fully fit and in form Ward
Steven Defour
Robbie Brady
JBG

At this moment in time, we have non of the above apart from possibly some of Hart's shot stopping.

quoonbeatz · Post by **quoonbeatz** » Mon Sep 03, 2018 12:20 pm

TVC15 wrote:Not from me LC - i saw 4-5-1 working well last year and it was fundamental to our success in the first half of the season. I also agree that the football was better because we kept it on the floor a lot more. But the big difference here was Defour was running the game for us and also Cork in the first half of the season was great and much better than after Christmas. Add to that Brady finding his feet and playing really well and JBG being at the top of his game and it was a system that worked.
I also think Wood has lost something - not sure if it was his injury or just a confidence thing but he does not seem like he can lead the line on his own.

spot on. 451 was great when we had our best players playing. the way the midfield 3 of hendrick, defour and cork interchanged and covered each other was key.

claretspice · Post by **claretspice** » Mon Sep 03, 2018 12:29 pm

I can see the arguments both ways on systems - 442 or 451, but I tend to agree with Lancaster, it doesn't matter greatly either way if you don't have the players on the pitch.

What we're really debating is whether we'd have been a more effective unit to play against Man United with Ashley Barnes (probably) on the pitch instead of one of the midfield 5 - most likely, young McNeil. I wasn't there yesterday so I can't comment on the specifics, but it strikes me as arguable (and if I'm honest, that's what I thought we'd do pre-match). We're a bit out of form and Barnes is one of those players who can help dog a team back into form.

However, whilst this has occasionally worked against the big-boys, its definitely has its limitations. It is no coincidence that the two top sides we've struggled with the most in the last two or three years (particularly at home) have been United and Spurs, both of whom are the closest thing to a better version of Dyche's Burnley in the top 6. We couldn't get close to Mourinho's Chelsea either, because he always makes sure he does a job on us.

TVC15 · Post by **TVC15** » Mon Sep 03, 2018 12:38 pm

Yet we beat Chelsea and drew with Spurs and United - all away from home I accept but still 3 of our best performances under Dyche.

Right_winger · Post by **Right_winger** » Mon Sep 03, 2018 12:39 pm

Not having the required players is ultimately down to Dyche aswell. Nearly 6 years he’s been with us and we are woefully short in a lot of areas.

If Dyche can’t turn this around then we will have seen peak Dyche.

TVC15 · Post by **TVC15** » Mon Sep 03, 2018 12:42 pm

Oh dear - just as we were starting to have a reasonable debate

TVC15 · Post by **TVC15** » Mon Sep 03, 2018 12:48 pm

claretspice wrote:I can see the arguments both ways on systems - 442 or 451, but I tend to agree with Lancaster, it doesn't matter greatly either way if you don't have the players on the pitch.

What we're really debating is whether we'd have been a more effective unit to play against Man United with Ashley Barnes (probably) on the pitch instead of one of the midfield 5 - most likely, young McNeil. I wasn't there yesterday so I can't comment on the specifics, but it strikes me as arguable (and if I'm honest, that's what I thought we'd do pre-match). We're a bit out of form and Barnes is one of those players who can help dog a team back into form.

However, whilst this has occasionally worked against the big-boys, its definitely has its limitations. It is no coincidence that the two top sides we've struggled with the most in the last two or three years (particularly at home) have been United and Spurs, both of whom are the closest thing to a better version of Dyche's Burnley in the top 6. We couldn't get close to Mourinho's Chelsea either, because he always makes sure he does a job on us.

For me its primarily about what players are available / in form and who we are playing is also important.
McNeil was not the one who needed sacrificing yesterday - it was Lennon. McNeil puts in a quality ball and without JBG and Brady from the albeit little we have seen of him he and Lowton (who was on the bench) are the only players who can put in a decent ball.

NL Claret · Post by **NL Claret** » Mon Sep 03, 2018 12:51 pm

"McNeil was not the one who needed sacrificing yesterday - it was Lennon."

McNeil was probably taken off as he was knackered - 18 year old lad having played 2 games in 4 games will have taken his toll and he was beginning to become ineffective. Sadly there's not a lot on the bench in terms of wide players. Put Ward at full back and Taylor into left midfield - that has already proved not to work.

claretspice · Post by **claretspice** » Mon Sep 03, 2018 1:00 pm

If we're playing 4-4-2, though, Dyche will feel is even more important that he can rely on his 4 across midfield to do the defensive jobs allocated to them because there is less cover. No disrespect at all to McNeil, who excites me immensely, but he's nowhere near as good defensively as Lennon is and so my guess is the final slot came down to Barnes of McNeil. But this doesn't matter - the question comes down to whether had Barnes replaced any one of our midfield 4, would we have been better off. And it is a leap of faith to say it definitely would have been. It ignores the fact that on occasions, in the past, Barnes hasn't made that difference.

Same as the argument about Defour. Defour played in the home game against Spurs last December, when Spurs declared at 3 and could have had more, and when we were fortunate to be only one down at half time. When the big clubs come to us and are fully focused and play well, its a bloody tough gig for us to compete. One of the things that has changed here is that after the last couple of seasons, there's a bit more of an expectation we will go toe to toe with these teams, but I'm not sure that's especially realistic, particularly when we're depleted by injury and a bit down on form.

BleedingClaret · Post by **BleedingClaret** » Mon Sep 03, 2018 1:46 pm

Heaton
Lowton Tarks Mee. Ward
Hendrick Cork McNeil.
Vydra Barnes
Vokes

I’ve picked this team based on realities, like injuries for example to JBG who seems to keep breaking down, but more so on listening to the general consensus of fans around me yesterday in particular but this season in general.

Most want Heaton over Hart because they believe he commands the defence better
The large majority would play Lowton not Bardsley
Many including me think Taylor will take Wards place at some point but most seem to think we need to get back to last seasons back four with Heaton behind them
Tarks is a pick over Long who most accept as good enough cover.
As with Taylor/Ward, Gibson may challenge Mee but I can*t ditch Mee based on The Lukaku Monster giving him a tough game yesterday.
JBG I’ve mentioned but wingers don’t seem to be working for us at present Lennon is being questioned as to his effectiveness
Hendrick has played well this year and most agree he’s not a number 10 but is better back in midfield, it’s 2 from 3, Hendrick Westwood & McNeill I just have heard more people suggesting Westwood should make way for Hendrick dropping back.
Wood seems the least combatant of the 3 forwards at the moment.
Although as above with Midfield its 2 from 3 Wood Barnes Vokes
Most have noted Mcneills ability and desire plus confidence to shoot, which is another factor that Lennon and Westwood don’t offer a goal scoring threat.
Brings us to Vydra, we have no idea as yet but he has pace and he potentially has goals and right now we are not taking our chances.
IMO yesterday when the team sheet was circulated in the pubs and heard over the radio in cars on the route to the game most of the moods dropped,I heard:
Hart notHeaton. Bardsley! Taylor too...
1 up top, Wood on his own.
No Barnes and Vokes thought we were channelling Thursdays performance
No Vydra
McNeill got a start; most were pleased, but then they questioned whether that was a positive or along with Bardsley & Taylor maybe was SD still fielding a weak team with a defensive formation as he thought we had no chance of winning.the game which subsequently started with a subdued clarets faithful.
IMO the formation above with us banging the ball at Vokes and Barnes with Vydra buzzing around possibly pinning Fellani back and Lowton and Ward confident in possession, Bardsley was not yesterday, only 1 target man up front didn’t help him & Taylor isn’t confident with the ball at his feet when in our own half, at the moment.
Just maybe stopping Fellani supporting the midfield might have given us a chance to match up in midfield and have made Pogba and Sanchez work back and they don’t like that, not for Man U at least.
I just think Heaton and that back 4 Vokes in the air Ash the Bash McNeil the young gun Vydra the new one with Cork’s industry and Hendrick’s potential creativity and all the front 6 with goals in them would, IMO, have seen the game start with the Claret faithful buzzing.
Maybe we’d have still lost, maybe even heavier but there’s a buzz created when giving something a real go, as Thursday proved.

EarbyClaret · Post by **EarbyClaret** » Mon Sep 03, 2018 7:22 pm

Last season, after our amazing start, everybody wanted to talk to SD and know the secret of our success. In one interview (probably several) he said something along the lines of - people make too much of 4-4-2/4-5-1 - it's about how the players on the pitch perform - difficult to argue with that.

In terms of technical ability, rated against the other PL teams, we'd be in or around the relegation places every time. What set us apart last season was the intensity of our football - take that away and we're going to be vulnerable against everyone in this league.

The majority of posters on here gave the team a free pass for the embarrassing no-show at the Emirates towards the end of last season but the fact that was allowed to happen was massively worrying - a complete anti-Burnley performance never before seen in the Dyche era.

Sadly, although not quite to that level of non-performance this season has started in much the same vein. Yes the game has moved on and we don't necessarily have the personnel to adapt but play with the level of intensity we had become used to and we were always competitive. I don't know if it's a case of becoming increasingly difficult to motivate the same group to those demanding levels or an attempt to evolve without the personnel to deliver but what we are currently doing isn't working.

Hart/Heaton/Pope - it doesn't matter if there's no midfield screen and no solid bank of 4/4 in front no 'keeper stands a chance. We absolutely need to get back to basics and if the current incumbents can't deliver then the personnel needs to change, wherever possible with our limited options.

cricketfieldclarets · Post by **cricketfieldclarets** » Mon Sep 03, 2018 8:06 pm

EarbyClaret wrote:Last season, after our amazing start, everybody wanted to talk to SD and know the secret of our success. In one interview (probably several) he said something along the lines of - people make too much of 4-4-2/4-5-1 - it's about how the players on the pitch perform - difficult to argue with that.

In terms of technical ability, rated against the other PL teams, we'd be in or around the relegation places every time. What set us apart last season was the intensity of our football - take that away and we're going to be vulnerable against everyone in this league.

The majority of posters on here gave the team a free pass for the embarrassing no-show at the Emirates towards the end of last season but the fact that was allowed to happen was massively worrying - a complete anti-Burnley performance never before seen in the Dyche era.

Sadly, although not quite to that level of non-performance this season has started in much the same vein. Yes the game has moved on and we don't necessarily have the personnel to adapt but play with the level of intensity we had become used to and we were always competitive. I don't know if it's a case of becoming increasingly difficult to motivate the same group to those demanding levels or an attempt to evolve without the personnel to deliver but what we are currently doing isn't working.

Hart/Heaton/Pope - it doesn't matter if there's no midfield screen and no solid bank of 4/4 in front no 'keeper stands a chance. We absolutely need to get back to basics and if the current incumbents can't deliver then the personnel needs to change, wherever possible with our limited options.

Exactly.

Those calling Joe Hart out are laughable. Since January 1st this year we have kept 3 clean sheets in the league. And we havent won any!!! That is the worry.

alwaysaclaret · Post by **alwaysaclaret** » Tue Sep 04, 2018 1:04 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:And how many goals did we score? Did we look like we were going to score?

Apart from a couple of headers in the very last minute of the game from Vokes and Vydra, we didn't look like really troubling them once.

Look, 4-5-1 is our best formation, not 4-4-2. We clearly are struggling at the moment playing either and that won't change till we get players back or the current crop form improves so we can compete at this level.

With the exception of Hendrick, pretty much everybody is either slightly down or some cases, way down from last seasons performance levels and the results reflect it sadly.

Dare I suggest the players may not be happy with the 451 system, which could be a reason their underperforming, I particularly saw a marked difference in wood's performance once vokes and vydra came on, he actually showed some passion and put some effort in, just an observation mind. But in my honest opinion wood is not equipped to play up on he's own, too weak, can't jump, and just doesn't usually show the passion us burnley fans like to see.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Tue Sep 04, 2018 1:07 pm

I think people are reading too much into the Olympiakos performance.

Yes, it was lovely to see us creating chance after chance, but lets be honest, Olympiakos rolled over completely and we won't get that versus anyone in the premier league now Sunderland are down.

TVC15 · Post by **TVC15** » Tue Sep 04, 2018 1:23 pm

Not sure about that LC.
Olympiakos are a passionate big club in Greece with a fervent fan base - I doubt the players could get away with rolling over completely.
You could see how happy they were to get through at the end and their reaction when they scored.
This is a team who are used to being in the Group stages of the Champions League every year. The Europa League for them is arguably more important than their domestic league - financially and reputation wise.

I think we played well because we knew we had to win convincingly to go through and we went for them for the off - something we do not do (or need to do) in the league. The 4-4-2 we played caused them problems and we opened them up time and time again.

We also need to bear in mind that whilst Olympiakos have much more experience in Europe than Burnley we are now a far richer club than them so we do have players that cost a lot more than their players...and "on paper" a lot of our team should be better players so is it really that big a surprise that we dominated the game and made so many chances ?

Before this game had many of us heard of any of their players ?.....if any of them were good enough for the Premier League they would be playing here and earning a lot more.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Tue Sep 04, 2018 1:37 pm

Agree with all of that, but they massively underperformed TVC

We had space, time, well, everything we needed to score the two goals (apart from actually scoring them of course!)

There is no way we'd have that sort of space v United

TVC15 · Post by **TVC15** » Tue Sep 04, 2018 1:58 pm

Agreed - I know we were never going to get that against United (or many other teams in this league to be honest).

I don't know whether our slow lethargic starts are connected to tiredness and the Europa league or whether they are a deliberate strategy of conserving energy / keeping things tight etc. Whichever one it is (and it might be both) its very difficult to suddenly switch on the energy or regain the momentum in a game.

If you start the way we have been doing and then also lose a goal or two we have no track record at all under SD of being able to get back into the game - and that's partly because the other teams are so good at killing games off.

The 2 games we have started well are Olympiakos and Southampton - both of these games we should have won comfortably and we played well. I know neither are Man United but both are decent teams.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Tue Sep 04, 2018 2:01 pm

its bizarre because we were more than good v Southampton, more than good first half v Watford.

Thats why I'm not panicking too much yet.

TVC15 · Post by **TVC15** » Tue Sep 04, 2018 2:04 pm

Yep forgot about Watford really. After first 5 minutes we played really well and should have been in the lead at half time.

DCWat · Post by **DCWat** » Tue Sep 04, 2018 4:34 pm

I think you’re devaluing our performance against Olympiakos somewhat, Lancaster. I’m not saying they were great by any means but a lot of that was down to how we played it, in the second leg.

Had we taken the game to them over both legs, I’m sure we’d be looking at the next trip in Europe now.

Ooogeorgeorgeoghani · Post by **Ooogeorgeorgeoghani** » Tue Sep 04, 2018 5:42 pm

No issues with 4 5 1 but not with wood up top

DCWat · Post by **DCWat** » Tue Sep 04, 2018 6:07 pm

Ooogeorgeorgeoghani wrote:No issues with 4 5 1 but not with wood up top

Wood up top with Vydra may be a different kettle of fish.

Safron · Post by **Safron** » Tue Sep 04, 2018 9:53 pm

Unfortunately we don't pick the team and never will

taio · Post by **taio** » Sun Sep 16, 2018 12:49 pm

Got your wish CCF. Hopefully we'll see the difference.

cricketfieldclarets · Post by **cricketfieldclarets** » Sun Sep 16, 2018 7:54 pm

taio wrote:Got your wish CCF. Hopefully we'll see the difference.

Well the systems changed. But doesnt help when your best full backs and best strikerd are on the bench im afraid.

italianclaret88 · Post by **italianclaret88** » Sun Sep 16, 2018 7:55 pm

cricketfieldclarets wrote:Well the systems changed. But doesnt help when your best full backs and best strikerd are on the bench im afraid.

Ward and wood?

The system

Re: The system

Re: The system

Re: The system

Re: The system

Re: The system

Re: The system

Re: The system

Re: The system

Re: The system

Re: The system

Re: The system

Re: The system

Re: The system

Re: The system

Re: The system

Re: The system

Re: The system

Re: The system

Re: The system

Re: The system

Re: The system

Re: The system

Re: The system

Re: The system

Re: The system

Re: The system

Re: The system

Re: The system

Re: The system

Re: The system

Re: The system

Re: The system

Re: The system

Re: The system

Re: The system