Boro v Burnley (A) 1-1

[gephind 7]

It took him until 70 odd minutes to take off a clearly broken Bamford in a similar situation against Norwich last year, not surprised rhodes played all game.

 

You are a bitter man. Talking about Last years playoff final.

 

I wasn't talking about the playoff final...

 

I was talking about the game away at Norwich where we were 1-0 up away from home, under the kosh and Bamford had done his ankle in.

 

I'll accept your apology this time but please stop jumping down my throat when you don't even know what I'm talking about.

I was not jumping down your throat sir, I was as I have been eluding do how you are always critical or at least more often than not. I shall reframe from commenting on anymore of your posts as annoying as they may be. Fine

[Martyn 15]

Anyone got any updates on Friend's injury?

[Brunners 7,982]

It took him until 70 odd minutes to take off a clearly broken Bamford in a similar situation against Norwich last year, not surprised rhodes played all game.

 

You are a bitter man. Talking about Last years playoff final.

 

I wasn't talking about the playoff final...

 

I was talking about the game away at Norwich where we were 1-0 up away from home, under the kosh and Bamford had done his ankle in.

 

I'll accept your apology this time but please stop jumping down my throat when you don't even know what I'm talking about.

I was not jumping down your throat sir, I was as I have been eluding do how you are always critical or at least more often than not. I shall reframe from commenting on anymore of your posts as annoying as they may be. Fine

 

Dude I'm not critical, Im just willing to admit when we're not great or flaws I see.

 

You, as far as I can tell, live firmly in the "we're always amazing and nothing is ever a mistake" camp.

 

By the sounds of things we were amazing for most of yesterday and I'm over the moon with 1-1.

 

I was simply pointing out a similar thing happened with our striker last year in a similar game. Is that so wrong?

[gephind 7]

It took him until 70 odd minutes to take off a clearly broken Bamford in a similar situation against Norwich last year, not surprised rhodes played all game.

 

You are a bitter man. Talking about Last years playoff final.

 

I wasn't talking about the playoff final...

 

I was talking about the game away at Norwich where we were 1-0 up away from home, under the kosh and Bamford had done his ankle in.

 

I'll accept your apology this time but please stop jumping down my throat when you don't even know what I'm talking about.

I was not jumping down your throat sir, I was as I have been eluding do how you are always critical or at least more often than not. I shall reframe from commenting on anymore of your posts as annoying as they may be. Fine

 

Dude I'm not critical, Im just willing to admit when we're not great or flaws I see.

 

You, as far as I can tell, live firmly in the "we're always amazing and nothing is ever a mistake" camp.

 

By the sounds of things we were amazing for most of yesterday and I'm over the moon with 1-1.

 

I was simply pointing out a similar thing happened with our striker last year in a similar game. Is that so wrong?

OK, I'm not wanting to debate about it, this is exactly what these forums are for, you have your point of view and I mine. I was my working life a sportsman and for me it is the way I see things does not make me right it's just how it is.

[Borodane 6,301]

 

It was the only change I would've made from what happened last night. Once we'd got the goal I'd have brought Nugent on straight away to press from the front.

 

Karanka pretty much never does that.... sadly.

 

Karanka literally almost always does that.

Ditto. Normally does

 

He always makes a like for like switch between Rhodes and Nugent. Agreed. That wasn't what I was meaning.

 

I was saying that when we go a goal ahead, Karanka (we) seem to be happy to then sit back and invite pressure on, rather than continuing to press high, trying to maintain the attacking pressure.

 

It's probably because we are almost experts at soaking up pressure. We almost always win when we go ahead. As others have said it's completely normal for a team to drop back and defend what they have when they go ahead in a game, especially one that is so even. Burnley were always going to punt long balls into the box and to combat that we needed men behind to win the second balls after Ayala and Gibson cleared it. Could we have afforded to leave men up the pitch? Maybe so (since we didn't win), but with the way we normally defend when the end draws nearer I have no qualms about us trying to defend. In the end they scored from a scramble after a corner kick and there is not much you can do about that.

[Brunners 7,982]

Except from clearing the corner kick of course :p

[Borodane 6,301]

Obviously, but the point was that it came from a set piece and that doesn't have much to do with us sitting back. It sounded like we defended well from open play but were undone by a set piece.

[Humpty 3,261]

In hindsight the Nugent/Rhodes switch would've been the better option tactically. The reason we limited Burnley to so few chances on their home patch was because we defended so well from the front. Burnley are a direct, long ball team. Stop them playing " quality" long ball out the back and restrict their attacking prowess. When Rhodes tired we stopped that and they started to get the ball in to more dangerous positions. As a result we sat deeper and conceded more set pieces. Easy to analyse in hindsight but it was the wrong substitution.

[wilsoncgp 9,283]

I was shouting to the radio before Maddo even mentioned to get Nugent on.

 

Unfortunately for Aitor though, like he said in the post-match interview, he was a bit limited in the changes he could make because he had to bring off Friend and Ramirez through injury. He had to choose between holding on by sticking an extra defender on and hoping the extra presence could take them through or sticking Nugent on to give us an outlet and not inviting so much pressure.

 

I went along with it when he did make the change but in hindsight, I think Nugent would have been the better option. We invited too much pressure on and for a team known for scoring scrappy goals and being quite successful from set-pieces, we let them do it even more by keeping Rhodes on. Nugent is more than capable of defending set-pieces as well.

 

If Ramirez is injured for Saturday, it might be time to try out the 4-4-2 with Stuani and Nugent/Rhodes, though I fully expect it to be Downing shifted into the middle with Adomah left and Stuani right. Downing's certainly seemed better back in the middle from the Reading and Bolton games.

 

I really don't see him switching formation at this stage of the season. Stick with what you know to avoid any uncertainty because uncertainty brings added pressure.

 

I don't think he will either, no but if any time is right to use it, it's going to be when Ramirez is out of the team as he's the only natural #10. Downing is good in his own right but if you have to take Ramirez out of the team, it ends up being Adomah stuck on the left (where he did admittedly have one of his better performances at Ipswich earlier this season) and Stuani on the right. And what with De Laet currently looking likely to come in for George with that injury, that means our entire left-side looks really unbalanced.

 

At least if you go 4-4-2, you can keep Downing left, Adomah right and put Stuani up front where I genuinely feel he'll be more effective.

 

I'm not saying we should definitely do it as you're right, changing system at this point might do more damage than good. But I still worry about having Stuani on the right. He hasn't played well out there for a while. Would be a good time to have Reach as an option if De Pena isn't ready yet.

[MMC 1,000]

In hindsight the Nugent/Rhodes switch would've been the better option tactically. The reason we limited Burnley to so few chances on their home patch was because we defended so well from the front. Burnley are a direct, long ball team. Stop them playing " quality" long ball out the back and restrict their attacking prowess. When Rhodes tired we stopped that and they started to get the ball in to more dangerous positions. As a result we sat deeper and conceded more set pieces. Easy to analyse in hindsight but it was the wrong substitution.

 

I think also on that note Ramirez going off will have had an impact. He plays a lot higher up the pitch than Forshaw and often times if Nugent or Rhodes is applying pressure on one CB, Ramirez is galloping up to put pressure on the other. Forshaw just tends to sit a little in front of Grant & Adam.

[Guest Changing Times]

In hindsight the Nugent/Rhodes switch would've been the better option tactically. The reason we limited Burnley to so few chances on their home patch was because we defended so well from the front. Burnley are a direct, long ball team. Stop them playing " quality" long ball out the back and restrict their attacking prowess. When Rhodes tired we stopped that and they started to get the ball in to more dangerous positions. As a result we sat deeper and conceded more set pieces. Easy to analyse in hindsight but it was the wrong substitution.

 

It can't just be easy in hindsight if lots of people at the time felt that's what we should have done? Karanka's job is to get these decisions right.  The problem is when there are two options to take he seems to almost always take the most defensive/cautious one and that's what happened last night in my opinion.

[Will 2,958]

In hindsight the Nugent/Rhodes switch would've been the better option tactically. The reason we limited Burnley to so few chances on their home patch was because we defended so well from the front. Burnley are a direct, long ball team. Stop them playing " quality" long ball out the back and restrict their attacking prowess. When Rhodes tired we stopped that and they started to get the ball in to more dangerous positions. As a result we sat deeper and conceded more set pieces. Easy to analyse in hindsight but it was the wrong substitution.

 

It can't just be easy in hindsight if lots of people at the time felt that's what we should have done? Karanka's job is to get these decisions right.  The problem is when there are two options to take he seems to almost always take the most defensive/cautious one and that's what happened last night in my opinion.

 

Even if he'd made that decision, who's to say that we wouldn't have conceded?

 

The only reason we're even mentioning it is because we have the benefit of hindsight, had we won last night nobody would have said that they thought Nugent should've been brought on.

[Guest Changing Times]

 

 

Even if he'd made that decision, who's to say that we wouldn't have conceded?

 

The only reason we're even mentioning it is because we have the benefit of hindsight, had we won last night nobody would have said that they thought Nugent should've been brought on.

 

You can say the same thing about every single decision he or any other manager makes in a game though. By your logic no decision can ever be wrong because things still might not have worked out even if a different decision was made and of course we can't prove it one way or the other. 

 

What we do know is that we didn't win last night, we were under a lot of pressure and people were saying it at the time not just afterwards. Therefore it isn't hindsight regardless of what would have happened had we done things differently.

[boroinbishop 65]

In hindsight the Nugent/Rhodes switch would've been the better option tactically. The reason we limited Burnley to so few chances on their home patch was because we defended so well from the front. Burnley are a direct, long ball team. Stop them playing " quality" long ball out the back and restrict their attacking prowess. When Rhodes tired we stopped that and they started to get the ball in to more dangerous positions. As a result we sat deeper and conceded more set pieces. Easy to analyse in hindsight but it was the wrong substitution.

 

It can't just be easy in hindsight if lots of people at the time felt that's what we should have done? Karanka's job is to get these decisions right.  The problem is when there are two options to take he seems to almost always take the most defensive/cautious one and that's what happened last night in my opinion.

 

When we're 1-0 up towards the end of the game trying to hold on of course he's going to make the more defensive approach, for me he made the correct decision in doing so, ideally we would have had nugent to bring on too but unfortunately injuries prevented that

[Borodane 6,301]

With the way Burnley were playing and pumping balls and bodies into the box I think it was a correct decision to put Kalas on for an attacker. Ideally he would still have had a substitution to bring Nugent on for Rhodes, but like BiB says, injuries prevented that move.