West Ham were poor - why?

[Spijed]

Because we made them look poor - nothing more nothing less.

How many times have we heard that under SD?

As for the excuse of travelling - what utter rubbish. Arriving at 2am in London on a Friday morning should have no effect whatsoever on your body clock. It's not as though they'd just arrived back from Australia!

[Woodleyclaret]

Because we outplayed them and except for a string of saves from Fabianski we would have had 6

[Vegas Claret]

they flew from Southampton too !! hilarious excuse, they weren't good yesterday but that's cause our pressing was what it was last season and we actually bothered passing the ball

[Vintage Claret]

Serves them right for flying from Southampton, soft gets

[bodge]

Pellegrini is providing an excuse for his players, i was worried prior to the game as they played well at Southampton.

Obiang not playing was a bonus but Bardsley snuffing out Felipe Anderson was key but make no mistake it was our bright high tempo play that did for them, they didn't match our determination.

Oh and Lucas Perez was absolutely trousers.

[Aclaret]

Because we outplayed them and except for a string of saves from Fabianski we would have had 6

Fabianski always seems to play well against us, good keeper.
I think we were at em straight from the off and they didn't like it, seemed to knock them out of their stride.

[Blackrod]

We made them look poor. We bossed the game. Credit where it's due. We've often made some poor sides look good this season.

[boatshed bill]

I've just watched it on Clarets player. I didn't think they were all that bad really.
Our goals should have been saved (both near post efforts), but we could have had others, admittedly. Had we not got ahead anything could have happened. Second half Tarky was awesome.

[Roosterbooster]

Because we outplayed them and except for a string of saves from Fabianski we would have had 6

I thought the 2 goals were from more difficult positions than 4 of the misses. We missed the target / ball entirely for 3 of them. The Barnes save second half was excellent. But I thought Fabianski could have potentially done better with both goals. If that had been Hart, he would have been slated.
That being said, we set ourselves up brilliantly, pressured them early and high up, and for the first time this season, attacked quickly from the turnover. That really unsettled them. I have a feeling a lot of this is due to Heaton. He is constantly telling the defence to push up. You can hear him from the other end of the pitch. And pushing up automatically makes the opposition drop deeper and makes atttacking easier.
I am really buzzing after yesterday

[FactualFrank]

I thought the 2 goals were from more difficult positions than 4 of the misses. We missed the target / ball entirely for 3 of them. The Barnes save second half was excellent. But I thought Fabianski could have potentially done better with both goals. If that had been Hart, he would have been slated.
That being said, we set ourselves up brilliantly, pressured them early and high up, and for the first time this season, attacked quickly from the turnover. That really unsettled them. I have a feeling a lot of this is due to Heaton. He is constantly telling the defence to push up. You can hear him from the other end of the pitch. And pushing up automatically makes the opposition drop deeper and makes atttacking easier.
I am really buzzing after yesterday

Yeah it could be the domino effect, with Heaton organising the defence, in turn, it positively impacts the midfield and then attack.

[boatshed bill]

Yeah it could be the domino effect, with Heaton organising the defence, in turn, it positively impacts the midfield and then attack.

Not conceding first makes such a difference.

[Silkyskills1]

Not conceding first makes such a difference.

Fair point. We've only won 4 but have scored the first goal in all of them. Think it might have been last March(Everton at home) for the last time we won after going behind.

[Rileybobs]

We haven’t picked up a point after going behind this season.

[JohnMac]

Because we played like we can play and long may it continue!

[tiger76]

We surprised them with our high tempo start and once we'd scored they didn't fancy it.

I see they have signed Sami Nasri now his drugs ban is ended,£80,000 a week till the end of the season with an option to extend,rather them than us.

[AndrewJB]

We surprised them with our high tempo start and once we'd scored they didn't fancy it.

I see they have signed Sami Nasri now his drugs ban is ended,£80,000 a week till the end of the season with an option to extend,rather them than us.

Now we’ve played them twice, I don’t mind them winning the rest of their games.

[clitheroeclaret2]

Not conceding first makes such a difference.

Not conceding 3 in first 22 mins or so as v Everton helped!
As poor as we were in that game we were excellent v whu

[tim_noone]

Bust their Bubble!

[dsr]

I've just watched it on Clarets player. I didn't think they were all that bad really.
Our goals should have been saved (both near post efforts), but we could have had others, admittedly. Had we not got ahead anything could have happened. Second half Tarky was awesome.

That "near post" thing is a myth perpertrated by pundits who don't actually know everything they think they know. It's all very well suggesting that the goalkeeper should cover his near post to the extent that a near post shot could never go in, but that just means leaving a gaping gap at the far post. Both shots were hit hard from close in, and both came from passes across goal so the keeper had to get across.

The keeper's job is to cover as much of his goal as possible. When the shot is coming from that range, you can't cover it all - if a man less than ten yards away is going to blast the ball off the post (Wood) then you just have to accept, as a goalkeeper, that you couldn't do anything about it.

[warksclaret]

Biggest difference for me was Barnes & Wood. Back to glimpses of their effectiveness together last year. On this form these two can define our future

[alwaysaclaret]

Biggest difference for me was Barnes & Wood. Back to glimpses of their effectiveness together last year. On this form these two can define our future

I'm a huge fan of vokes, and normally prefer vokes to wood, but the evidence seems these two are a better pairing, this was wood's best game for sometime but then this was the case with several players on Sunday although my feeling usually is that wood is just not passionate enough, but this was clearly there on Sunday, how much was down to the Heaton effect ? But long may it continue. Utc's

[warksclaret]

Can't think of a fan who did not get a kick from knowing he was starting. SD built his team around him-first Burnley cap for an immense time, and hugely popular whoever in football you talk to. We will never know how important he was Sunday but I feel it has been SD's most influential team change since he joined us.

[claretnproud]

Because we made them look poor - nothing more nothing less.

How many times have we heard that under SD?

As for the excuse of travelling - what utter rubbish. Arriving at 2am in London on a Friday morning should have no effect whatsoever on your body clock. It's not as though they'd just arrived back from Australia!

they had a bad day because pellegrini got his tactics badly wrong and Dyche got his right. We for once played an attacking line up and had a go. That useless excuse for a player Lowton ( on this seasons form ) was not playing. West ham had to shuffle their pack a bit and it was poor. Their striker Armoutovic ( spelling ) had a shocker.
That wasnt west hams form. You dont win 5 from 6 games in the prem playing like that. We had a shocker at Palace which wasnt a general reflection of our team and West Ham have done the same at turf moor. It Happens.
Yes, we played well but we often play well, like against Liverpool and Spurs and get little or nothing. T he difference was that they had their worst day and we had our best.
why are some posters struggling to see that west ham were abysmal. Thats a reflection on them, not us. We played well and deseerved to win by more than 2-0.

[joey13]

Because we made them look poor - nothing more nothing less.

How many times have we heard that under SD?

As for the excuse of travelling - what utter rubbish. Arriving at 2am in London on a Friday morning should have no effect whatsoever on your body clock. It's not as though they'd just arrived back from Australia!

Dyche is still using traveling as an excuse for our poor start
Southampton is in a different time zone to the rest of the country thought everyone knew that

[boatshed bill]

That "near post" thing is a myth perpertrated by pundits who don't actually know everything they think they know. It's all very well suggesting that the goalkeeper should cover his near post to the extent that a near post shot could never go in, but that just means leaving a gaping gap at the far post. Both shots were hit hard from close in, and both came from passes across goal so the keeper had to get across.

The keeper's job is to cover as much of his goal as possible. When the shot is coming from that range, you can't cover it all - if a man less than ten yards away is going to blast the ball off the post (Wood) then you just have to accept, as a goalkeeper, that you couldn't do anything about it.

Not a myth, IMO, more a priority. Though I do accept that covering as much goal as possible is all part of it. People hammered Tom Heaton on here for one of Burton's near post goals.