survival sunday™ - Newcastle crowned North East Top Dogs™ for the 4th year in a row!

[strawb 4188]

 

When it's an issue as obvious as the reason for Burnley's relegation and they're all in agreement on it, then yes, yes I do. And I certainly do over some idiot on the internet who claims they're wrong and that I know nothing about football for not agreeing with him.

Canny. What were the in depth thoughts of Collymore about Burnley's struggle to score goals?

 

Was it down to a misfiring 21 year old striker who scored 11 goals (30% of Burnley's goals this season) who is probably going to end up at bigger club? Or was it that despite playing "decent" football (a misnomer that is always said down a long nose at a supposedly "smaller" club) that their whole team simply wasn't good enough to create enough chances and score enough goals?

 

Also Burnley have been playing with 1 up front most of the season despite playing 442 all of last season because Sam Vokes was out for most of the season, so ignoring "forwards" like Boyd and Barnes who have been playing wide of the 5 behind Ings (10 goals between them) the REST of the TEAM got 6 goals. This to me doesn't point to a misfiring forward line.

 

I would say that Burnley's lack of goals was down to an ethos of trying to be hard to beat i.e. keeping goals conceded to a minimum, this obviously in turn leads to a lack of chances for their "misfiring" forwards. This leads to a host of narrow defeats and in turn adds to the pundit bollocks of them "playing well, just unable to score that one goal" which isn't necessarily true because if they had been more attacking they could have conceded 2/3 more..

 

I know Garth Crooks can get his points across more succinctly than that so I apologise.

[ChezGiven 0]

[Makom 0]

Canny. What were the in depth thoughts of Collymore about Burnley's struggle to score goals?

 

LONG BORING ESSAY REMOVED /toontasitc literary critic society

 

I know Garth Crooks can get his points across more succinctly than that so I apologise.

 

Y'know what, since no quotes I might find would convince you that your personal theories are bollocks, let's forget pundits completely. Let's take our cue from what Burnley themselves said. Here's some extracts from their post match comments from their 0-0 home draw with Spurs in April, the sort of game they should have been scoring in if they wanted to survive, as by then it was pretty obvious they were in deep shit.

 

 

Burnley manager Sean Dyche claimed the Clarets had the better of the match and rued a gilt-edged chance missed by Danny Ings, who shot straight at Michel Vorm when it seemed easier to score.

He said: "I think we edged the game, but there was not a lot in it.

"We kept the tempo high and kept pressing high. Danny has had a great chance and it was unlike him not to put it away, he almost hit it too cleanly.

"Having said that we are pleased to get another clean sheet against a top side."

Dyche picked out Ashley Barnes for special praise but said the whole of his team had performed well against a Spurs side boasting four England players. The Burnley boss also said he was not too concerned by their struggles to find the net - they have only scored once in five games.

He added: "I prefer to look at it as two clean sheets in last three games against some fantastic sides."

Burnley skipper Jason Shackell admitted the Clarets need to be more ruthless in front of goal.

He said: "I'm a little disappointed. I thought we played well and we had a few chances. We need to be a bit more clinical between now and the end of the season but it's another point and that's a point in the right direction.

"If Danny had put the ball in the back of the net of course it would have been different but he's been phenomenal and will get a few more goals for us before the end of the season for sure.

"We have said it from the beginning. We're hard to beat, we're organised and we're not an easy game for anyone. We have seven big games to go and we're looking forward to it."

 

It seems to me like they don't agree with your theory that it was the team not creating chances that was to blame. It's no surprise to anyone I'm sure that a promoted team like Burnley goes with one up front and tries to be hard to beat, but likewise nobody is really surprised if they go down when their strikers fail to take their chances.

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 3859]

 

Y'know what, since no quotes I might find would convince you that your personal theories are bollocks, let's forget pundits completely. Let's take our cue from what Burnley themselves said. Here's some extracts from their post match comments from their 0-0 home draw with Spurs in April, the sort of game they should have been scoring in if they wanted to survive, as by then it was pretty obvious they were in deep shit.

 

 

It seems to me like they don't agree with your theory that it was the team not creating chances that was to blame. It's no surprise to anyone I'm sure that a promoted team like Burnley goes with one up front and tries to be hard to beat, but likewise nobody is really surprised if they go down when their strikers fail to take their chances.

http://usvsth3m.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/5aZ5DFK.jpg

[Makom 0]

Dyche was also pretty sure what went wrong after their 0-1 home defeat to relegation rivals to Leicester, also in April....

 

 

we have created enough chances once again

 

The BBC pundit writing up the match also seemed to agree....

 

 

a failure to find the net looks increasingly likely to cost Sean Dyche's side their Premier League status, and they paid for not taking the opportunities they created - extending their run without a goal to five games.

 

but pundits eh, what are they like!

Edited May 25, 2015 by Makom

[Haydnator 45]

Why the hell is there a Burnley discussion going on?

[Makom 0]

To prove Strawb is a know nothing boring cunt. Is there any other reason for a discussion on Toonstastic?

[Haydnator 45]

Strawb is a know nothing boring cunt.

^

If that is a point you're trying to make I don't believe you can get that point across to him or any of the forum members by having a debate on why Burnley haven't scored many goals. Please, just...stop.

[Makom 0]

^

If that is a point you're trying to make I don't believe you can get that point across to him or any of the forum members by having a debate on why Burnley haven't scored many goals. Please, just...stop.

 

It is when it's literally the only thing he's said here about football, followed up with the claim I know nothing about football when I criticised it, after which he launched into this thread to jump on the bandwagon (your confusion is likely down to the fact the original argument was a few days ago - it's clearly festered with him). I was happy to just keep insulting him in ChezGiven style in an attempt to make my point, but he seemed to quickly tire of responding in kind with his wierd 'so you lie pundits do you!' angle, and foolishly tried to return to his original point about Burnley using something like a reasoned argument (which is definitely not Chez style). Which is where we now find ourselves.

[trophyshy 7073]

[Rayvin 5186]

Mako, have you tried not vociferously rejecting the ideas of everyone who takes up a topic for discussion with you? If you gave a little ground, tried to understand the other side of the argument and acknowledged the point, even if you continue to disagree with it, you'd likely get some reciprocal traction on your own ideas.

 

Almost every thread has become a shit slinging contest between you and another miscellaneous member of the board.

 

</Kissinger>

[Makom 0]

Ray, I get plenty of traction here with reasonable people who are interested in having a conversation. The only people here calling me a mackem cunt are the ones who you'd never be able to have a decent conversation with in the first place - the clue being in the fact they think I'm a mackem. In reality, as seen in here, the most mackem thing I've said on the forum is that finishing above them while getting spanked in the derby multiple times in a row is nothing to crow about. A rationale person interested in debate would be able to handle reading something like that and would make some kind of case for how it's wrong (impossible in that instance), instead of going off on a Newcaslte-Online style panty wetting fit, getting all hysterical and calling me nasty names like a bunch of fucking children.

[Rayvin 5186]

If you say so - I do genuinely think you add something to the boards; maybe I'm just not seeing the more reasonable debates as I don't read every thread.

 

I also have admittedly seen some more good natured ribbing, so perhaps I misspoke.

 

Long day and all that...

Edited May 25, 2015 by Rayvin

[ewerk 30369]

I haven't read a single one of his posts in over a week.

 

I'm the real winner here.

[Rayvin 5186]

[The Fish 10779]

 

Dyche picked out Ashley Barnes for special praise but said the whole of his team had performed well against a Spurs side boasting four England players. The Burnley boss also said he was not too concerned by their struggles to find the net - they have only scored once in five games.

He added: "I prefer to look at it as two clean sheets in last three games against some fantastic sides."

 

Doesn't that point to the very strategy Strawb said Burnley were employing?

 

I'd also suggest that strawb has backed his view with considered analysis of Burnley over the past two seasons, whereas you've cherry picked quotes.

 

To get back to the kernel of the matter. Danny Ings played well this season, has received praise from managers, and pundits alike.

 

Burnley weren't relegated because of him, they were relegated despite his efforts. They were relegated because they hadn't invested in sufficient quality throughout their team (£9.5m Net spend). They worked hard in every game and can't be faulted for their application.Is it fair, then, to punish Danny Ings, simply because he's playing in a weaker team than, say, Lukaku (Who actually scored fewer)? Both are 22, both scored double figures, you'd punish one ahead of the other because of circumstance?

 

Is it not better to have a performance weighted wage for every player in the league, thereby rewarding effort?

[strawb 4188]

Can't be arsed with the rest but this here, coming from you?

 

strawb, on 25 May 2015 - 9:59 PM, said:

..LONG BORING ESSAY REMOVED /toontasitc literary critic society..

 

[Makom 0]

Can't be arsed with the rest but this here, coming from you?

 

strawb, on 25 May 2015 - 9:59 PM, said:

 

 

I thought you read this forum regularly? If you did, you would have understood what that meant.

 

As for "can't be arsed with the rest", well, I'm truly shocked.

[Monkeys Fist 42129]

Wow, this is so tense!

[Makom 0]

 

Doesn't that point to the very strategy Strawb said Burnley were employing?

 

I'd also suggest that strawb has backed his view with considered analysis of Burnley over the past two seasons, whereas you've cherry picked quotes.

 

To get back to the kernel of the matter. Danny Ings played well this season, has received praise from managers, and pundits alike.

 

Burnley weren't relegated because of him, they were relegated despite his efforts. They were relegated because they hadn't invested in sufficient quality throughout their team (£9.5m Net spend). They worked hard in every game and can't be faulted for their application.Is it fair, then, to punish Danny Ings, simply because he's playing in a weaker team than, say, Lukaku (Who actually scored fewer)? Both are 22, both scored double figures, you'd punish one ahead of the other because of circumstance?

 

Is it not better to have a performance weighted wage for every player in the league, thereby rewarding effort?

 

I've cherry picked nothing. Finding quotes to support my position is ridiculously easy - because it's the truth. You and Strawb can theorise whatever you like using whatever reasoning you like, without supporting quotes from people who actually get paid to analyse football or indeed from the people involved, it's piss poor. And I see no conflict between Dyche praising a clean sheet and them going down after not scoring enough goals. Ings can feel pissed off all he wants, the reality is any spending Burnley might have done would likely have been to buy a better striker, especially since he said at the start of the season he wanted away, and as can be seen, they were quite happy with how the rest of the team was performing. As for the last line, there's no fair way to measure individual performance on the pitch, so that's a complete non-starter.

[strawb 4188]

I am assuming that your quotes came after the 0-0 at Burnley in April?

 

If so, Burnley and Tottenham had 10 shots at goal each, Burnley hitting the target with 4 while Tottenham hit the target with 2. Are the Spurs forwards misfiring too? Probably not. The fact that Ings missed a sitter is neither here nor there, all strikers miss chances.

 

As far as cherry picking quotes goes, Burnely manager Sean Dyche: "We edged it overall and kept a very good side quiet. That's two clean sheets in three games and there's plenty of endeavour.

"I was really pleased the way the team went about it. That was a very motivated group of players who want to be in the Premier League. We're not disappointed. We've gone for the win and that's eight clean sheets for the season now, so there's clear progression."

 

Doesn't even mention Ings' miss, and seems more than happy with a clean sheet.

 

So yeah now I cba with your noise.

[Makom 0]

And yet, your entire argument rested on their supposed inability to create chances. Funny how that went out of the window once we started dealing in facts?

[Howay 12496]

This argument is really about if Danny Ings is the major reason for Burnley's relegation or not? Of course he's fucking not.

The only players that outscored him were: Aguero, Kane, Costa, Austin, Sanchez, Berahino, Giroud, Hazard, Benteke, Pelle, Rooney and Silva.

As far as chances being created they weren't all falling to Ings, by December the player who had taken the 2nd most shots in the Premier League without a goal was Ings teammate and fellow striker Lucas Jutkiewicz with 31 (Balotelli was above him with 45), a player they brought in after getting into the Premier League and he ended the season with no goals from 25 appearances. Burnley didn't have enough quality throughout the side, that's why they went down. Austin scored 18 goals and his team still went down so is he to blame for his side going down and be punished from joining a Premier League side?

Ulloa was Leicester's top scorer, with 11 goals, his side stayed up because their team scored more in general than Burnley, they had more quality throughout the side. Leicester scored 46 goals in total, Burnley scored 28 meaning Ings scored about 39% of his sides goals, Ulloa scored 23% of his. Ings isn't a massive superstar, they bought him for under a million quid I'd say they got a great return from the lad, scoring 21 goals in their promotion season and more than his fair share of goals in the Premier League. It's not solely down to him. Does he deserve some blame? of course, every member of the side deserves some blame as it was a joint effort but to want to block the bloke from moving to another Premier League side because you think he is solely to blame for a 25 man squad being relegated isn't a fair assessment of the lad.

 

FWIW I think Ings has potential, he's 22 and managed a good return in this league, I just hope he moves to a club where he plays.

[Monkeys Fist 42129]

This argument is really about "someone" not getting any attention from Mummy when they were little. .

[Makom 0]

This argument is really about if Danny Ings is the major reason for Burnley's relegation or not? Of course he's fucking not.

The only players that outscored him were: Aguero, Kane, Costa, Austin, Sanchez, Berahino, Giroud, Hazard, Benteke, Pelle, Rooney and Silva.

As far as chances being created they weren't all falling to Ings, by December the player who had taken the 2nd most shots in the Premier League without a goal was Ings teammate and fellow striker Lucas Jutkiewicz with 31 (Balotelli was above him with 45), a player they brought in after getting into the Premier League and he ended the season with no goals from 25 appearances. Burnley didn't have enough quality throughout the side, that's why they went down. Austin scored 18 goals and his team still went down so is he to blame for his side going down and be punished from joining a Premier League side?

Ulloa was Leicester's top scorer, with 11 goals, his side stayed up because their team scored more in general than Burnley, they had more quality throughout the side. Leicester scored 46 goals in total, Burnley scored 28 meaning Ings scored about 39% of his sides goals, Ulloa scored 23% of his. Ings isn't a massive superstar, they bought him for under a million quid I'd say they got a great return from the lad, scoring 21 goals in their promotion season and more than his fair share of goals in the Premier League. It's not solely down to him. Does he deserve some blame? of course, every member of the side deserves some blame as it was a joint effort but to want to block the bloke from moving to another Premier League side because you think he is solely to blame for a 25 man squad being relegated isn't a fair assessment of the lad.

 

FWIW I think Ings has potential, he's 22 and managed a good return in this league, I just hope he moves to a club where he plays.

 

This isn't solely about Ings, this was originally about Burnley's inability to score enough goals to stay up, which for whatever reason people seem to be doggedly trying to prove isn't the reason they went down, against all available evidence. When it's widely acknowledged that they were having no difficulty either keeping clean sheets or in creating chances, then frankly I can't see why Ings, as their main forward in a one upfront formation, isn't largely to blame. Not solely of course, but from a player contribution perspective, which was the whole point of the players wages thread, he definitely is. And it's precisely because he will be able to walk away from that team and walk into another PL club, while most of his team mates have to stay at Burnley, that shows quite conclusively that there is currently no real relationship between what happens in the real world, and what happens in football (which was also the premise of the wages thread).