Burnley - Post Match Thread

SilverFox2 said:
To be clear we have players who deliberately aim the ball at the goal. The ball then either goes between the goal posts or it does not. If it does not it requires zero effort from their defence.
Yesterday being typical of our stats we shot at goal 21 times of which only 5 were on target ie between the goal posts.
Burnley had 10 shots at goal of which 5 were also on target.

I have no idea whether the attempts were good or bad opportunities just that some of our team thought they could score (otherwise why shoot) yet failed to hit the target let alone score on 16 occasions.
Click to expand...

But a harmless, frustrated, shot from 35 yards which the keeper sees all the way and catches easily is not better than someone hitting the post from a few yards out after we carve out a great 1v1 situation.

According to you, we need more of the former, and less of the latter - which is obviously rubbish.
 
domalino said:
But a harmless, frustrated, shot from 35 yards which the keeper sees all the way and catches easily is not better than someone hitting the post from a few yards out after we carve out a great 1v1 situation.

According to you, we need more of the former, and less of the latter - which is obviously rubbish.
Click to expand...

We certainly need more of shots if our conversion rate requires 21 shots to get 5 on target and does not improve. Incidentally, I cannot believe that Pep would insist that we pass the ball out of defence even in dangerous situations yet would condone frustrated shooting where no danger is about.

However that was not my point I am frustrated by our low conversion rate, our players are the ones who decide to have an attempt on goal not you or I so is their judgement wrong or do they need to be more accurate ?
Just getting more of those 21 on target would at least be an improvement. The problem then shifts to one similar to United today stats where they had 17 shots with 8 on target yet scored only 1 goal.

I know stats are not everything but we consistently miss the target altogether.
 
Last edited:
Guardiola's Disciple said:
Just struck me we're on course to finish with around 90 points given the current points tally. Not bad with a less-than-ideal defence.
Click to expand...
88 points. Drops to about 74 if you take the average from the Spurs game onwards. 95+ points if start converting most draws to wins again.
 
Just stirring but can I point out that the Burnley players were only "in an offside position" when the free kick was taken? If Otamendi had pulled him back before he had chance to go for the ball he would never have been "offside" as the attacker has to make a play for the ball to become offside.

So you could argue that Otamendi was prevented from playing the ball by the player in an offside position - so by barging into him he made the player offside!
 
OrigamiNinja said:
We scored two scrappy goals and created very little over the course of the game. We might get away with resting both, if any of our wingers were on top form but they're clearly struggling at the moment. Without KDB & Silva we struggled for any creativity. We got away with it yesterday, we might not get away with it against a half decent side.
Click to expand...

Scored 2
Yaya post
Robinson WC save from Aguero
Aguero unluckily called offside, ball in net. We did ok.
 
cleavers said:
If that's the case why does Fernadhino play every game ? Surely we're risking "knackering them out physically & mentally by January" as well ?

Some of the rotation is odd, Stones particularly, 2 internationals in England, and 1 CL game v 2 internationals in South America, 2 League games, and a CL game in the same period, and not even on the bench ? Yes I know we're short at CB, but we have no real cover for Fernadhino either.
Click to expand...

Suspect being outed on front page of one of the crappy red tops today as a 'love-rat' might have something to do with Stones omission.
 
Eebo said:
Suspect being outed on front page of one of the crappy red tops today as a 'love-rat' might have something to do with Stones omission.
Click to expand...
I don't read them, so I haven't seen it, but if he can't play football because of that then he should have no place in our squad I'm afraid, and he should probably keep his trousers on.
 
Eebo said:
Suspect being outed on front page of one of the crappy red tops today as a 'love-rat' might have something to do with Stones omission.
Click to expand...

Not seen that

So the great British press have decided they're out to get him?
 
cleavers said:
I don't read them, so I haven't seen it, but if he can't play football because of that then he should have no place in our squad I'm afraid, and he should probably keep his trousers on.
Click to expand...

I don't read them either but stopped at service station to try to get a proper paper and noticed the front page story.
 
cleavers said:
I don't read them, so I haven't seen it, but if he can't play football because of that then he should have no place in our squad I'm afraid, and he should probably keep his trousers on.
Click to expand...

Easy for you to say, but I can understand that some people might be bothered if their indiscretions were about to be plastered over a national paper, and be concerned how their childhood sweetheart might react. Of course we should all seek to live a perfect life but he won't be the first young lad to put it where he shouldn't. You or I probably don't have as much temptation thrown in our way.
 
Guardiola's Disciple said:
It's about time society made 'cheating' the norm and stopped acting so shocked every time it happens.
Click to expand...

Society probably does make it the norm, but the newspapers don't report 'normal' so make a big deal out of it.
Plus if it is you that is involved as cheater or cheatee then knowing that is normal doesn't make it feel any better or easier.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top