too defensive today

[Juan Tanamera]

I sometimes wonder if the trolls that continually litter this message board ever engage what tiny fragment of grey matter they have between their ears.
Only a short while ago we gave the team with the 2nd most potent attack a fantastic game and drew 1-1.
Today we faced probably the best team the Premier League has seen in a decade and lost 0-3.
And all some of you can think is we didn't attack them enough.
One or two things to consider here; Chris Wood went off injured. No Sam Vokes on the bench so we ended up bringing on on Ashley Barnes. City might just gave had a big say in how the game transpired, them having the better players and all that.
All you with nothing more than negative thoughts about Burnley, why not **** right off and pretend you support someone else.

[Notsosuperstevedavis]

Why? You get 0 points for losing 0-1.

But goal difference is worth a point at the end of a season.

Im going to give the majority of posts on here the benefit of the doubt.

Some people only see 1 game. SD has 38 games to manage and see through all the BS.

We defended like our lives depended on it. 2 and 3's in our own 6 yard box at times.

The forwards pressed and pressed. We had a good go and come out of it shining. You only need to look at Stoke's result to see what could happen.

Not getting beat 5/6/7-0 could actually keep us up right there.

I dont think it will be that close. But that's what managers do. Consider all the options.

But some posters can't consider whats for tea. Nevermind anything else.

[tim_noone]

all im saying is that we might as well have gone for it without having 10 men behind the ball all game. might have had a better chance of getting a result. we were just waiting on them to score. chance wasted in my book.

I think the game plan changed when wood almost got the one chance we needed but got injured as a result. After that we wouldn't have scored if we were still playing!

[KRBFC]

I sometimes wonder if the trolls that continually litter this message board ever engage what tiny fragment of grey matter they have between their ears.
Only a short while ago we gave the team with the 2nd most potent attack a fantastic game and drew 1-1.
Today we faced probably the best team the Premier League has seen in a decade and lost 0-3.
And all some of you can think is we didn't attack them enough.
One or two things to consider here; Chris Wood went off injured. No Sam Vokes on the bench so we ended up bringing on on Ashley Barnes. City might just gave had a big say in how the game transpired, them having the better players and all that.
All you with nothing more than negative thoughts about Burnley, why not **** right off and pretend you support someone else.

At Spurs we took risks to get an equaliser, what changed? Why didnt we take a risk to try and nick something today? Like you say, we drew at Spurs, should have gained confidence from the away results and the fact we've been 0-1 down away at big clubs previously and walked away with something.

[pushpinpussy]

But some posters can't consider whats for tea. Nevermind anything else.

yes youre right there get with it

[Stayingup]

Exactly we paid them to much respect and set up not to get hammered.
I'm sick of this anti football we play,as fans we deserve more.
It seems Dyche is found wanting again,this is why no top 6 team will go near him.
It would be best if he moved on then the club can do the same

Whetever your on I'll have a double. Forget any worries and reality can go out the window.

[tim_noone]

We were looking to go one nil up prior to them scoring ....and would have shut up shop.we didn't get the luck today.it was damage limitation in the end.and I didn't realise vokes was injured.

[BabylonClaret]

At Spurs we took risks to get an equaliser, what changed? Why didnt we take a risk to try and nick something today? Like you say, we drew at Spurs, should have gained confidence from the away results and the fact we've been 0-1 down away at big clubs previously and walked away with something.

Because (for the third time) WE ONLY HAD ONE FUXKING FORWARD. ONE. AND HE WAS ALREADY ON THE PITCH.

The game plan was right. We DID get forward. We DID cause some problems and they were a bit rattled. We started the 2nd half really well and had Wood still been on maybe we would have got something more from that period, who knows.

[Top Claret]

I thought we really had a go 1st half and tried to hit them on the counter. No complaints from me, the gulf between City and the majority of the EPL is massive

[BabylonClaret]

Top post from top claret there. Some people really need to give their heads a wobble.

Bottom line was they were better rhan us. But theyve been better than everyone else theyve played too so its no disgrace.

[KRBFC]

Because (for the third time) WE ONLY HAD ONE FUXKING FORWARD. ONE. AND HE WAS ALREADY ON THE PITCH.

The game plan was right. We DID get forward. We DID cause some problems and they were a bit rattled. We started the 2nd half really well and had Wood still been on maybe we would have got something more from that period, who knows.

City only had one forward on the pitch at once, I don't understand how we couldn't take more of a risk with only one striker on the pitch?

[ClaretLoup]

Burnley have scored eight goals this season. Vokes and Wood have scored give of them. City have the best defence in the Premier League along with Man Utd.

After Wood went off its a damage limitation exercise or nick one from a set piece. Maybe Gudmundsson could have come on earlier but realistically what other options did Dyche have at 1 - 0 down?

[tim_noone]

There's a big difference between aguero and Barnes though?

[Sidney1st]

Has he really just compared Barnes to Aguero???

Ah brilliant

[KRBFC]

There's a big difference between aguero and Barnes though?

Absolutely but we have scored previously with one striker on the pitch. When I say "we should have went for it at 0-1 with 30 minutes left" it doesn't mean throw as many strikers on the field as possible it simply means pour more men forward and attempt to provide service to the lone striker. The whole team should've played 10-15 yards further forward, compress the pitch, try and force corners, set pieces and hope for the best. We were never going to score with 10 men inside our own half, City could've just passed it around their own defence for the final 30 minutes and won 1-0. No problem with the result but it seemed like we were quite happy to lose 0-1 after an hour which is disappointing Imo.

[KRBFC]

Has he really just compared Barnes to Aguero???

Ah brilliant

Not sure if you're trolling or just stupid.....

[tiger76]

Been working today so just catching up, sounded like we battled hard had a harsh pen given at an important time,i don't really know what people expect against Manchester City away, the reality is they are on a different planet to most Premier League sides,however ends their winning run will need some lady luck, and have to catch City on an off day.Newcastle and Swansea at home are much bigger games for us in the great scheme of the season, to that end hope Wood's absence isn't long term.

[Vegas Claret]

Not sure if you're trolling or just stupid.....

oh the irony

[KRBFC]

oh the irony

How did you find todays soccer game, dude?

[Goodclaret]

Sorry KRBFC but threads like this just make you look very silly. I commend your resilience in trying to stick to your unbelievably negative and anti Dyche slant but it doesn't help you when you try to argue with 99% of the rest of this messageboard.

If it's so easy to go to Man City and "go for it" and not get absolutely thrashed you could make a lot of money by letting the other 19 PL managers in to your secret.

[Sidney1st]

Not sure if you're trolling or just stupid.....

That gets asked far more about you then it ever will about me.

[Vegas Claret]

How did you find todays soccer game, dude?

You carry on embarrassing yourself son. Season ticket holder from 1983 until 2009, up until 2009 lived all my life in Burnley. How many games have you been on this season never mind since the 80's ?

[dsr]

I fully understand where the pushpin and KR are coming from. (La-la land, actually, but that's beside the point.) What they're saying is that playing "negatively", we let 3 goals in and never really looked like scoring 3. Wheras if we'd played a broad expansive game, or as KR suggests if we had matched City's formation and tried to beat them man for man, then we might have let in 6, but we could have scored 7.

You have to admire the optimism, don't you?

[Burnleyareback2]

Find our fans absolutely embrassing at times.

It’s funny when you hear these sorts of comments from West Ham, Brighton and Borough fans but from some of these posters need to have a word with themselves.

[KRBFC]

I fully understand where the pushpin and KR are coming from. (La-la land, actually, but that's beside the point.) What they're saying is that playing "negatively", we let 3 goals in and never really looked like scoring 3. Wheras if we'd played a broad expansive game, or as KR suggests if we had matched City's formation and tried to beat them man for man, then we might have let in 6, but we could have scored 7.

You have to admire the optimism, don't you?

Then you really don't understand my point then, I said we should have went for it and played attacking for the last 30 minutes while we were 1-0 down not the entire game.

[dsr]

Then you really don't understand my point then, I said we should have went for it and played attacking for the last 30 minutes while we were 1-0 down not the entire game.

Fair enough, I hadn't worked out the nuances between pushpin's original post and your contributions.

But according to the BBC, the five minutes between 55 and 60 minutes showed 45% of the action in the Man City third of the pitch, only 19% in Burnley's end, and Burnley having more possession. They were trying to go for it, they just didn't have the ability to pile forward continuously for the whole second half and still hold off City - as they proved on 73 when City scored the second.

[BabylonClaret]

Then you really don't understand my point then, I said we should have went for it and played attacking for the last 30 minutes while we were 1-0 down not the entire game.

You werent watching properly. We started fhe second half positively and had a go. Until aboit 65 mins we had 50% posessuon im the second half and City scoeed with 20 to go. So we couldnt chase the game for 30 mins at 1-0

Youre making yourself look silly.

[Rileybobs]

City only had one forward on the pitch at once, I don't understand how we couldn't take more of a risk with only one striker on the pitch?

We took more of a risk when we brought brought JBG on at 1-0 down with about 20 mins to go. 4 minutes later we were 3-0 down.

[KRBFC]

We took more of a risk when we brought brought JBG on at 1-0 down with about 20 mins to go. 4 minutes later we were 3-0 down.

I bet Dyche got a headache for such a risky move, what a brave man moving Arfield central to replace Hendrick.

[Rileybobs]

I bet Dyche got a headache for such a risky move, what a brave man moving Arfield central to replace Hendrick.

Considering we only had defenders and a goalkeeper as alternative options he probably did have a headache.

[Woodleyclaret]

Sean was right to keep it tight by why does he not play JBG instead of Arfield .The number of times Scott backed off challenges got embarrassing.Also Johan is far more of a consistent goal threat despite Scotties occasional goal.

[JohnMac]

I agree with the OP that Dyche got his team selection wrong and that dictated his tactics today.

He should have started with Rashford at the point and Messi in behind him. Neymar wide left and Ronaldo wide right would have put them on the back foot and Kroos would have ensured we kept possesion.

If you want to play Fantasy Football....