Let's start with the team that finished today

[jojomk1]

Now that we are almost safe we need to build for next season
Arfield and Boyd have been excellent signings over the last few years but we now need to move on a level and Brady plus JBG offer so much more for the future (age and pace)
Dyche always goes back to his trusted men (not complaining about that) but we now need to give these other two guys the time and space to prove their worth
And the same could be said of Gray - he offers something different to Vokes and Barnes in terms of pace and alternate tactics
Lets now enjoy the last two games and give these guys a starting chance to show their true worth for the future

[Vino blanco]

Agree.

[claretspice]

Disagree. Great to have those options when chasing a game. But Arfield and Boyd had good games today and against Bournemouth's attacking full backs, theyll probably both be important. Thing Gray might get a start mind

[Bordeauxclaret]

Plenty of room in behind then. Excellent.

[ElectroClaret]

The overriding thing is what's the best team to get us up the table as far as possible.
Two and a half million per position, isn't it? Or something like.

[CBT]

Disagree
Brady for Arfield maybe but JBG looks like he's one stretch away from injury everytime he runs Boyd for me everyday

[Slurpy]

I think the front two we start with depends on the opposition. Barnes and Vokes vs teams like Palace and Brom and start Gray vs teams like Bournemouth, who keep it on the deck.

[3putt]

Also agree. I definitely think the finishing 11 today was a better one than the starting.

[claretspice]

Also agree. I definitely think the finishing 11 today was a better one than the starting.

Better going forwards? Possibly. Better defensively? Nowhere near. And particularly going into an away game most teams will prize defensive solidity above attacking flair.

After another summer, once they understand our system better and the defensive demands it includes, then perhaps we'll see JBG and Brady in wide areas.

[Blackrod]

Started with the correct 11 yesterday for that particular match. Strongest bench we've probably ever had and they did their bit.

[3putt]

Better going forwards? Possibly. Better defensively? Nowhere near. And particularly going into an away game most teams will prize defensive solidity above attacking flair.

After another summer, once they understand our system better and the defensive demands it includes, then perhaps we'll see JBG and Brady in wide areas.

There is no doubt in my mind that Brady and JGB offer more of an attacking threat as does Gray. I agree you need more defensive solidity away, but at home?

You obviously completely buy into the Dyche system which is all about being defensive solid, but surely that style stems from players at his disposal? Surely you aren't hoping that Brady becomes another Arfield? If so, that is scarily negative and why on earth fork out £13 million for a proper winger?

We've done fantastically well this season, but most would agree that we have lacked a bit of attacking flair and pace. Sadly, the likely reason we have seen so little of our most technically skilled player is because he is not a workman like player who can run a marathon.

There is more than a little truth in the old adage that "attack is the best form of defence".

[jurek]

Although we've done reasonably well defensively we're short in terms of goals scored
and, I think, only Hull have scored less than us. 36 to our 37 goals.

The number of games we played in and had much less than 40% possession
and created less chances than the opposition was considerable.

So it does seem that we need to be able to score more goals and that means attack more often and better.
And create more chances.
No one, outside of our front three, has scored more than 2 goals or had more than 1 assist apart from Defour
who has scored 2 with 4 assists.

That's where we need to improve, in my opinion, and where possibly Brady and Gudmondsson
might be able to make better contributions.

[claretspice]

There is no doubt in my mind that Brady and JGB offer more of an attacking threat as does Gray. I agree you need more defensive solidity away, but at home?

You obviously completely buy into the Dyche system which is all about being defensive solid, but surely that style stems from players at his disposal? Surely you aren't hoping that Brady becomes another Arfield? If so, that is scarily negative and why on earth fork out £13 million for a proper winger?

We've done fantastically well this season, but most would agree that we have lacked a bit of attacking flair and pace. Sadly, the likely reason we have seen so little of our most technically skilled player is because he is not a workman like player who can run a marathon.

There is more than a little truth in the old adage that "attack is the best form of defence".

With a couple of exceptions (Bournemouth and Swansea) every team that has come up as a smaller club and established themselves at this level have done so by being really well organised, keeping their defensive shape and hitting on the counter attack - particularly on the road. We're no different. And that means that almost invariably, and certainly next saturday, we'll spend less time in possession than out of it. If your wide midfielders can't do the job required on them in the system for 60-65% of the time, then the fact they might be more creative for the 35-40% of the game that we have the ball isnt much compensation. Full backs are so important in attack these days that a winger who doesn't do his defensive job is a massive weak link. Thats not being negative, its not being dull, its simply realistic.

Neither JBG nor Brady are bad players defensively and i expect Brady in particular to be a regular next season. But only provided he can do the defensive job asked of him first. That will always be the requirement, certainly as long as we have a manager like Dyche whose principal strength is drillimg a team defensively. For all its a bit dull, players like Arfield and Boyd, like Jon Walters at Stoke, will always be valued more by managers than supporters because they follow instructions, track runners and do the other boring stuff. Its not romantic or exciting for supporters necessarily but its the way the vast majority of managers think.

[3putt]

Although understanding your point in the first paragraph, I don't entirely agree. Most teams should be able to accommodate at least one flair player. That type of player can do more than enough to win a game on his day in that 30-40% of the game that you refer to. A dangerous player also gives the opposition a bit more to think about and can nullify their threat to a degree.

Sadly your second paragraph is hard to argue against, particularly with Dyche as manager for clearly he is all about defensive organisation. He is extremely good at what he does and has been great for the club, I just hope we can have a bit more emphasis on attacking football next season.

Maybe I'm old fashioned, I want my team to succeed and achieve but I also want to be entertained.

[claretspice]

Although understanding your point in the first paragraph, I don't entirely agree. Most teams should be able to accommodate at least one flair player. That type of player can do more than enough to win a game on his day in that 30-40% of the game that you refer to. A dangerous player also gives the opposition a bit more to think about and can nullify their threat to a degree.

Sadly your second paragraph is hard to argue against, particularly with Dyche as manager for clearly he is all about defensive organisation. He is extremely good at what he does and has been great for the club, I just hope we can have a bit more emphasis on attacking football next season.

Maybe I'm old fashioned, I want my team to succeed and achieve but I also want to be entertained.

I think any flair player will always have to work hard first and foremost. But in our set up, he's more likely to be given a role off the main striker rather than out wide. Thats where Dyche deployed Ings, who i'd say had a but of flair. As i say, full backs are such an attacking outlet these days that its imperative the wide midfielders do their defensive job, particularly in a set up based on 2 banks of four. At Bournemouth next week, the wide players will need to track their full backs. You cant just sacrifice one side of the pitch in the hope they can do something magical on the rare occasions they get the ball.

Much better to keep your discipine and take your chances to counter attack effectively. You dont need flair to do that - flair comes into its own when you're being challenged to break down a massed defence. We rarely are.

I don't think it's fair, incidentally, to characterise this as negative or unique to Dyche. Its the approach Pochettino amongst others takes (although common sense is that they have far more of the ball, so modify their approach a bit accordingly). The only managers who take a different approach are those who base their entire strategy around dominating possession of the ball, which is rare in teams in the bottom half of the league, and even then you can generally see that players are required to know the system inside out before they get their place - Howe is notorious for only trusting his old guard.

[3putt]

Who's characterised this as being negative or unique to Dyche?

I do agree with your ascertain that it's a bit dull, not romantic or exciting for supporters.

You write with conviction about the style and seem to believe it's the only way to play. I'm not suggesting we need something magical in a player, just that we have a player than can regularly open up a team with pace, flair or whatever. Why would such a player only get the ball on rare occasions? I don't recall Robbie Blake only getting the ball on a rare occasion. If a team has a player than can make things happen and open up the oppositions defence they will look to utilise as much as possible.

[what_no_pies]

I think the front two we start with depends on the opposition. Barnes and Vokes vs teams like Palace and Brom and start Gray vs teams like Bournemouth, who keep it on the deck.

Surely Gray is a bigger threat against big lumbering defenders that can head the ball all day long but lack pace and don't like it in behind.

[claretspice]

Who's characterised this as being negative or unique to Dyche?

I do agree with your ascertain that it's a bit dull, not romantic or exciting for supporters.

You write with conviction about the style and seem to believe it's the only way to play. I'm not suggesting we need something magical in a player, just that we have a player than can regularly open up a team with pace, flair or whatever. Why would such a player only get the ball on rare occasions? I don't recall Robbie Blake only getting the ball on a rare occasion. If a team has a player than can make things happen and open up the oppositions defence they will look to utilise as much as possible.

Wasn't particularly addressing that comment about it not being unique to Dyche at you.

Re Blake - interesting one. In the Premier League, ans away from home in particular, i'd certainly say we got him on the ball in attacking areas rarely - very rarely. Certainly not enough to justify the obvious defensive weakness he gave us. I don't think the way we play is the only way to play - Bournemouth and Swansea certainly have certainly been successful with a different approach - but i do think when you are a club like burnley you need every single player able to execute the game plan. If you accept you're not going to dominate the ball, you cant afford a defensive weak link, certainly not in your two banks of four.

I think we all agree that it'd be good if we can add more pace, and quality, this summer. I suspect Dyche does too. But firstly, i don't think that will come at the expense of defensive solidity. And secondly, the OP was about next Saturday. The summer gives us an opportunity to integrate better the more creative players we already have (like Brady) and perhaps to add one or two more. But for now, i'd be surprised of Dyche sent out a team without Arfield and Boyd (one or other perhaps, though i doubt it) because they do the defensive stuff best. And i think its hard to argue thats the wrong approach.