Burnley v Norwich report

See link
https://www.uptheclarets.com/fa-cup-end ... or-clarets

Sad to hear the crowd getting on Brady's back, makes a change from Hendrick.
Don't we like the Irish?!

To be honest I cannot remember anything like a 4-4 possible score at half time! 4-1 to Norwich maybe. They ran us ragged at the back

Martinc265 wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 26, 2020 7:34 pm

To be honest I cannot remember anything like a 4-4 possible score at half time! 4-1 to Norwich maybe. They ran us ragged at the back

Really

Saves from Rodriguez (should have scored) and Brady
Two shots from Brady just wide
Wood effort blocked
Tarkowski hit the bar

They did run us ragged at the back and it was pretty much the same at the other end

Hart made a number of saves, Tarks brilliant clearance of a goal bound effort that had beat Hart and the fact they should have scored in the first few seconds of the game.
What I am saying is they had 3 times more on target in the first half and should have been at least 3 goals up in the first half alone from on target shots/efforts.

I've never understood this idea that if a team misses three good chances, then they could have been or deserve to be three goals up.

All it means is that they had three good chances to score.

If one of those chances goes in, then it's a completely different game, as both teams adjust their tactics accordingly.

My observation was around the report saying it could have been 4-4 at half time. My opinion was that we couldn’t complain if we were 3 goals down at half time, based around the on target efforts. Better still to say I was pleased they didn’t have a good striker taking those chances.

Martinc265 wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 27, 2020 11:49 am

My observation was around the report saying it could have been 4-4 at half time. My opinion was that we couldn’t complain if we were 3 goals down at half time, based around the on target efforts. Better still to say I was pleased they didn’t have a good striker taking those chances.

Not quite. You were totally dismissing my suggestion that it could have 4-4 and having watched back that first half I see no reason to change my view.

Then we would have to agree to disagree Tony, opinions are what they are

Martinc265 wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 27, 2020 1:50 pm

Then we would have to agree to disagree Tony, opinions are what they are

I went off what I saw on the day and I've seen it back - I am fully aware that they missed chances but seems you must not have been able to see what happened at the other end. Those chances for us were not opinions but chances.

No, I saw chances, I didn’t see too many of ours on target, that is what I base my opinion on. I saw a host of them on target for Norwich.

Martinc265 wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 27, 2020 2:41 pm

No, I saw chances, I didn’t see too many of ours on target, that is what I base my opinion on. I saw a host of them on target for Norwich.

Who said anything about on target? Not even you, you wrote: "To be honest I cannot remember anything like a 4-4 possible score at half time! 4-1 to Norwich maybe. They ran us ragged at the back"

I'd try reading my report again if I were you. It makes no reference to chances being on or off target and it also references a number of chances that we had.

Well, I said to my daughter at half.time that it's incredible that the scoreline.is.0-0, it could easily be 3-3 or even 4-4. Goalscoring chances at.both ends.

I actually clarified it on my 2nd and 3rd post around being on target. Well to score you have to get them on target, that is what I am on about. I am not getting into an argument with you, I have my opinion you have yours. Maybe my mind is going in my old age and I need to provide more reasoning behind an opening post, I thought it was fairly reasonable, apologies to all who has taken offence.

What I noticed in the report is that we made 5 changes and all the incoming players were internationals

Ex internationals more like with the exception of Long who, at best, is a part time international.

It is so sad that we will probably never see Brady back at his best and, while I am not one of the moaners, there are clearly players who we need to remove from the payroll

To be fair Tony you may have got it wrong...... I think we worked it out at 5.5 at half time

Grumps wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 27, 2020 3:54 pm

To be fair Tony you may have got it wrong...... I think we worked it out at 5.5 at half time

I got a text at half time that said this should be 5-5 but I thought I'd be conservative and knock it down one.

Down_Rover wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 27, 2020 3:40 pm

What I noticed in the report is that we made 5 changes and all the incoming players were internationals

Ex internationals more like with the exception of Long who, at best, is a part time international.

It is so sad that we will probably never see Brady back at his best and, while I am not one of the moaners, there are clearly players who we need to remove from the payroll

And this is exactly why we need two or three bodies this window. There’s a big overhaul needed and likely in summer. And Dyche doesn’t do big overhauls.

Down_Rover wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 27, 2020 3:40 pm

What I noticed in the report is that we made 5 changes and all the incoming players were internationals

Ex internationals more like with the exception of Long who, at best, is a part time international.

It is so sad that we will probably never see Brady back at his best and, while I am not one of the moaners, there are clearly players who we need to remove from the payroll

Simple fact is that all five of the players who came in for this game have played internationally for their country although admittedly only Brady & Long are likely to play again internationally.