• Long and Dunne v Leicester?

Posted: **Sat Sep 19, 2020 5:45 pm**

If so, a massive challenge. I'm sure they are up for it, though.

Posted: **Sat Sep 19, 2020 5:48 pm**

If Tarks is still struggling with the stubbed toe (ahem) then it will be won't it? Someone o here said it would be a disgrace if we started with Long and Dunne and was quickly shot down as that scenario being a non starter.

Hopefully it will be (a non starter) but at least Dunne had a decent game o Thursday. I'm less worries we will get hammered if Tarks isn't there.

Posted: **Sat Sep 19, 2020 5:53 pm**

If it’s Long and Dunne, I can see Pieters playing a sweeper role - would make sense to assist in protecting the back 4

Posted: **Sat Sep 19, 2020 6:04 pm**

Nothing against either of them but I’m hoping Tarks is back with Long. In a situation where we have not received an acceptable bid, I think it’s inexcusable not to play him given our current injuries/transfer window activity (lack of).

Posted: **Sat Sep 19, 2020 6:10 pm**

Zlatan wrote: ↑
Sat Sep 19, 2020 5:53 pm
If it’s Long and Dunne, I can see Pieters playing a sweeper role - would make sense to assist in protecting the back 4

A sweeper ? Thats a real blast from the past

Posted: **Sat Sep 19, 2020 6:12 pm**

They'll do their best but if Vardy runs at them with that electric pace of his, I really dont think they'd be able to live with him.

So Pieters playing behind them might be a good idea.

Posted: **Sat Sep 19, 2020 6:14 pm**

ElectroClaret wrote: ↑
Sat Sep 19, 2020 6:12 pm
They'll do their best but if Vardy runs at them with that electric pace of his, I really dont think they'd be able to live with him.

So Pieters playing behind them might be a good idea.

Pieters playing in front of them could work better, but I bet we go 4-4-2

Posted: **Sat Sep 19, 2020 6:16 pm**

I have a feeling his toe won't be fit for tomorrow.

So 4-5-1 might work better. Give the defence a bit more protection, while also filling central midfield with bodies.

Posted: **Sat Sep 19, 2020 6:19 pm**

FactualFrank wrote: ↑
Sat Sep 19, 2020 6:16 pm
I have a feeling his toe won't be fit for tomorrow.

So 4-5-1 might work better. Give the defence a bit more protection, while also filling central midfield with bodies.

Will do well to find 5 fit midfielders!!!

Posted: **Sat Sep 19, 2020 6:19 pm**

Like this?

Pope,
Bardsley, Long, Dunne, Taylor
Brady, Brownhill, Westwood, Benson, Pieters
Rodriguez

I've left out anything we could sell (except Nick Pope)

Posted: **Sat Sep 19, 2020 6:24 pm**

boatshed bill wrote: ↑
Sat Sep 19, 2020 6:19 pm
Like this?

Pope,
Bardsley, Long, Dunne, Taylor
Brady, Brownhill, Westwood, Benson, Pieters
Rodriguez
I've left out anything we could sell (except Nick Pope)

Are we likely to be selling Wood? If it's one up front I reckon Wood will start.

Posted: **Sat Sep 19, 2020 6:25 pm**

nil_desperandum wrote: ↑
Sat Sep 19, 2020 6:24 pm
Are we likely to be selling Wood? If it's one up front I reckon Wood will start.

I'm just being flippant

But that shows that we will go 4-4-2, because Jay and Wood are nailed on starters...
I suppose we could do a 4-4-1-1 with Jay in the old "10" position.

Posted: **Sat Sep 19, 2020 6:33 pm**

The fact that this is even being discussed as a realistic option is in itself a complete joke.

Posted: **Sat Sep 19, 2020 6:38 pm**

If Tarks doesn't play, he's off. And if we get dicked because of our lack of investment, Garlick deserves all the pelters he's gonna get.

Posted: **Sat Sep 19, 2020 6:46 pm**

nil_desperandum wrote: ↑
Sat Sep 19, 2020 6:24 pm
Are we likely to be selling Wood? If it's one up front I reckon Wood will start.

Wood has got to start, he's got a terrific record against Leicester, and he'll be hoping to continue that rich vein of form against the Foxes.

Posted: **Sat Sep 19, 2020 7:00 pm**

He will play, worth risking

Posted: **Sat Sep 19, 2020 7:09 pm**

I never thought our squad could ever get worse than when we resumed post lockdown. If Dunne and Long start it already is. I cannot believe people on this Board are in acceptance of this sad situation. Dont have an issue if the situation forced us to partner Dunne with Mee or Tarks, but both Dunne and Long starting against a hungry Leicester side is criminal.If it happens its either because Tarks is going, or its SD's way of showing up the recruitment team and MG

Posted: **Sat Sep 19, 2020 7:11 pm**

If it gets too late in the window, we need to keep Tarky and tell the bidding club to come back in the next window. The points we would drop and the potential relegation from a defence not being good enough could be more than what we'd get for him.

Posted: **Sat Sep 19, 2020 7:12 pm**

Murger wrote: ↑
Sat Sep 19, 2020 6:38 pm
If Tarks doesn't play, he's off. And if we get dicked because of our lack of investment, Garlick deserves all the pelters he's gonna get.

If we keep a clean sheet should Garlick be praised!

Posted: **Sat Sep 19, 2020 7:19 pm**

warksclaret wrote: ↑
Sat Sep 19, 2020 7:09 pm
Dont have an issue if the situation forced us to partner Dunne with Mee or Tarks, but both Dunne and Long starting against a hungry Leicester side is criminal.If it happens its either because Tarks is going, or its SD's way of showing up the recruitment team and MG

Or it could be because he’s injured.

Posted: **Sat Sep 19, 2020 7:20 pm**

I don’t know about pieters playing as a sweeper it might be a good idea to play him as an extra keeper utc

Posted: **Sat Sep 19, 2020 7:20 pm**

Burnley Ace wrote: ↑
Sat Sep 19, 2020 7:12 pm
If we keep a clean sheet should Garlick be praised!

No?

Posted: **Sat Sep 19, 2020 7:21 pm**

warksclaret wrote: ↑
Sat Sep 19, 2020 7:09 pm
I never thought our squad could ever get worse than when we resumed post lockdown. If Dunne and Long start it already is. I cannot believe people on this Board are in acceptance of this sad situation. Dont have an issue if the situation forced us to partner Dunne with Mee or Tarks, but both Dunne and Long starting against a hungry Leicester side is criminal.If it happens its either because Tarks is going, or its SD's way of showing up the recruitment team and MG

Or both Tarkowski and Mee are injured...

Posted: **Sat Sep 19, 2020 7:25 pm**

Dunne and Long won’t do as badly as the two clowns ar the centre of Manchester Utd defence this evening

Posted: **Sat Sep 19, 2020 7:28 pm**

Will watch behind sofa

Posted: **Sat Sep 19, 2020 7:39 pm**

Isn't it strange if Tarks does not start that no mention was made by SD at the recent press conference.He spoke about Mee, Barnes, Cork and JBG in detail. It could have been something as simple as"Tarks has got an annoying injury to a toe, which is why he did not play v Sheff Utd, and is touch and go for Sunday"

I am afraid a number of this message board readers would be useless in forensics. My bet is he does not start and the club is using the time to find a replacement from the proceeds, which is why they are hanging in for money up front and minimal add-ons

Posted: **Sat Sep 19, 2020 7:47 pm**

Murger wrote: ↑
Sat Sep 19, 2020 6:38 pm
If Tarks doesn't play, he's off. And if we get dicked because of our lack of investment, Garlick deserves all the pelters he's gonna get.

My foxes supporting neighbour says he has heard that a deal has already been agreed with Leicester at £35m.

Bull **** or fox ****, time will tell.

Posted: **Sat Sep 19, 2020 7:53 pm**

warksclaret wrote: ↑
Sat Sep 19, 2020 7:39 pm
Isn't it strange if Tarks does not start that no mention was made by SD at the recent press conference.He spoke about Mee, Barnes, Cork and JBG in detail. It could have been something as simple as"Tarks has got an annoying injury to a toe, which is why he did not play v Sheff Utd, and is touch and go for Sunday"

I am afraid a number of this message board readers would be useless in forensics. My bet is he does not start and the club is using the time to find a replacement from the proceeds, which is why they are hanging in for money up front and minimal add-ons

I’m not sure speculation plays any part in forensics, quite the opposite in fact.

Posted: **Sat Sep 19, 2020 7:57 pm**

levraiclaret wrote: ↑
Sat Sep 19, 2020 7:47 pm
My foxes supporting neighbour says he has heard that a deal has already been agreed with Leicester at £35m.

Bull **** or fox ****, time will tell.

Burnley have apparently already said they want £50 million. I'd be surprised if they decided to accept £15 million less, when it means we're knackered in defence.

Posted: **Sat Sep 19, 2020 8:01 pm**

Rileybobs wrote: ↑
Sat Sep 19, 2020 7:53 pm
I’m not sure speculation plays any part in forensics, quite the opposite in fact.

For me, and my mind works in a certain way, there is sufficient evidence that hes going. Its probably unfortunate that we are playing Leicester and thats where is move will be. Wouldn't surprise me if Rogers & SD who are mates have spoken, and SD has said you can have him but we are skint.We need a bit of time and the money upfront so we can get a replacement. Bear in mind Tarks lost the captaincy in the friendly (and he was a brilliant captain and performer post lockdown) and has also kept low and remained quiet in all this

Posted: **Sat Sep 19, 2020 8:02 pm**

Leicester are now 3/5 from 13/20, pay your mortgage off early

Posted: **Sat Sep 19, 2020 8:05 pm**

warksclaret wrote: ↑
Sat Sep 19, 2020 8:01 pm
For me, and my mind works in a certain way, there is sufficient evidence that hes going. Its probably unfortunate that we are playing Leicester and thats where is move will be. Wouldn't surprise me if Rogers & SD who are mates have spoken, and SD has said you can have him but we are skint.We need a bit of time and the money upfront so we can get a replacement. Bear in mind Tarks lost the captaincy in the friendly (and he was a brilliant captain and performer post lockdown) and has also kept low and remained quiet in all this

There is evidence that he may leave, and if he does he does. But we don’t know that for sure, it’s pure speculation. There’s also evidence that he’s staying. If we knew he was leaving before Thursday’s game then I have to wonder why news of a bid being accepted hasn’t been made public, these things aren’t often kept under wraps.

I think your scenario with Dyche and Rogers is fanciful as neither will be involved in transfer negotiations.

Posted: **Sat Sep 19, 2020 8:06 pm**

If Pieters plays in defence tomorrow, I can see him being at centre back.

Posted: **Sat Sep 19, 2020 8:10 pm**

I wouldn’t be surprised to see United come in for him this week.

Posted: **Sat Sep 19, 2020 8:11 pm**

Pieters is not a good header of the ball.He has many other qualities but if you watch him at full back, he will climb but lacks direction in placing the ball

Posted: **Sat Sep 19, 2020 8:12 pm**

DAVETHEVICAR wrote: ↑
Sat Sep 19, 2020 7:25 pm
Dunne and Long won’t do as badly as the two clowns ar the centre of Manchester Utd defence this evening

Whats that got to do with the fact we could be playing 2 league one standard centre half's? Jeez wouldn't life be brilliant if we could turn every little thing into a positive like you do.

I need to find god I think

Posted: **Sat Sep 19, 2020 8:16 pm**

Bin Ont Turf wrote: ↑
Sat Sep 19, 2020 8:06 pm
If Pieters plays in defence tomorrow, I can see him being at centre back.

I don't think it's a terrible idea but surely he would have played at CB against Sheff U if that was in Dyche's mind?

Posted: **Sat Sep 19, 2020 8:24 pm**

Bordeauxclaret wrote: ↑
Sat Sep 19, 2020 8:10 pm
I wouldn’t be surprised to see United come in for him this week.

Good! at least then we'll get the £50m to reinvest in the squad. I'd rather we kept Tarks, but if he's set on going, then we need to maximise his value. And if that means selling to Utd then so be it.

Posted: **Sat Sep 19, 2020 8:43 pm**

Problem would be if United bid £35m or so and Tarkowski says he wants to go (which he would).

Posted: **Sat Sep 19, 2020 8:57 pm**

MACCA wrote: ↑
Sat Sep 19, 2020 8:02 pm
Leicester are now 3/5 from 13/20, pay your mortgage off early

They've shortened a whole 0.05?

Posted: **Sat Sep 19, 2020 8:57 pm**

not sure it would be the worse thing if we get battered 6-0, Dyche can just turn around and say "told you so"

Posted: **Sat Sep 19, 2020 8:58 pm**

Bordeauxclaret wrote: ↑
Sat Sep 19, 2020 8:43 pm
Problem would be if United bid £35m or so and Tarkowski says he wants to go (which he would).

release clause is 50 million for Utd, City and Liverpool - we might have to settle for slightly less but not 35 million, that's pocket change for Utd

Posted: **Sat Sep 19, 2020 8:59 pm**

One thing to remember:
These are Burnley players, cut the negativity and get behind them in any way you can.

Posted: **Sat Sep 19, 2020 9:00 pm**

Realise it’s £50m but I suspect they’ll know they wouldn’t have to pay it.

There’s been no links that I’m aware of by the way, all speculation on my part.

Posted: **Sat Sep 19, 2020 9:05 pm**

Don’t forget Charlie is our 5th choice centre back

Posted: **Sat Sep 19, 2020 9:08 pm**

Duffer_ wrote: ↑
Sat Sep 19, 2020 8:16 pm
I don't think it's a terrible idea but surely he would have played at CB against Sheff U if that was in Dyche's mind?

May not have been in his mind then (thinking Tarky would be fit) but could have been since.

Anyway it was just a thought in response to those who were saying Pieters playing sweeper, which is never going to happen.

Bit concerning is a Long and Dunne partnership against Leicester. I think Tarky will play though.

Posted: **Sat Sep 19, 2020 9:09 pm**

FactualFrank wrote: ↑
Sat Sep 19, 2020 7:57 pm
Burnley have apparently already said they want £50 million. I'd be surprised if they decided to accept £15 million less, when it means we're knackered in defence.

TBH Frank, i'm surprised you'd be surprised! In my minds eye I see the board seeing the fee written down and visibly shaking. I say for £35m, they take it. Don't want them to, but they will.

Posted: **Sat Sep 19, 2020 9:25 pm**

They take whatever they feel fit, £30m whatever, and get to blame it all on the pandemic.

Win win.

Posted: **Sat Sep 19, 2020 10:08 pm**

Ah the pandemic. The 2020 version of itv digital.

Posted: **Sun Sep 20, 2020 6:08 am**

Taylor more likely than dunne.

Long and Dunne v Leicester?

Long and Dunne v Leicester?

Re: Long and Dunne v Leicester?

Re: Long and Dunne v Leicester?

Re: Long and Dunne v Leicester?

Re: Long and Dunne v Leicester?

Re: Long and Dunne v Leicester?

Re: Long and Dunne v Leicester?

Re: Long and Dunne v Leicester?

Re: Long and Dunne v Leicester?

Re: Long and Dunne v Leicester?

Re: Long and Dunne v Leicester?

Re: Long and Dunne v Leicester?

Re: Long and Dunne v Leicester?

Re: Long and Dunne v Leicester?

Re: Long and Dunne v Leicester?

Re: Long and Dunne v Leicester?

Re: Long and Dunne v Leicester?

Re: Long and Dunne v Leicester?

Re: Long and Dunne v Leicester?

Re: Long and Dunne v Leicester?

Re: Long and Dunne v Leicester?

Re: Long and Dunne v Leicester?

Re: Long and Dunne v Leicester?

Re: Long and Dunne v Leicester?

Re: Long and Dunne v Leicester?

Re: Long and Dunne v Leicester?

Re: Long and Dunne v Leicester?

Re: Long and Dunne v Leicester?

Re: Long and Dunne v Leicester?

Re: Long and Dunne v Leicester?

Re: Long and Dunne v Leicester?

Re: Long and Dunne v Leicester?

Re: Long and Dunne v Leicester?

Re: Long and Dunne v Leicester?

Re: Long and Dunne v Leicester?

Re: Long and Dunne v Leicester?

Re: Long and Dunne v Leicester?

Re: Long and Dunne v Leicester?

Re: Long and Dunne v Leicester?

Re: Long and Dunne v Leicester?

Re: Long and Dunne v Leicester?

Re: Long and Dunne v Leicester?

Re: Long and Dunne v Leicester?

Re: Long and Dunne v Leicester?

Re: Long and Dunne v Leicester?

Re: Long and Dunne v Leicester?

Re: Long and Dunne v Leicester?

Re: Long and Dunne v Leicester?

Re: Long and Dunne v Leicester?

Re: Long and Dunne v Leicester?