Andrew 4748 Posted May 26, 2015 Share Posted May 26, 2015 I can't see why Ings, as their main forward in a one upfront formation, isn't largely to blame. You have a very basic view of football, and cannot have watched Burnley much (certainly not for the level of insight you seem to think you have) this season for that to be the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvin 5223 Posted May 26, 2015 Share Posted May 26, 2015 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). Just on that last note, Sissoko staying here will be evidence to the contrary surely? If he was playing better, or in a better team, he'd be able to get his CL move. Now he has to suck it up and play for us again next year due to his poor performances. As for the main point, you're basically saying that Ings' form fell away towards the end of last season, and was contributive to Burnley being relegated? I'd say that's a fair statement. That happens though, and the team in general should have been able to handle certain players falling away; that they didn't suggests that they were overly reliant on him. That said, all that's going to happen is that Liverpool will buy him, ruin him as a player, and he'll end up playing for Stoke or someone - which is probably about his level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makom 0 Posted May 26, 2015 Share Posted May 26, 2015 You have a very basic view of football, and cannot have watched Burnley much (certainly not for the level of insight you seem to think you have) this season for that to be the case. I claim no insight beyond what's already been confirmed by a cursory review of what both their own players and manager have said, and what all the pundits and commentators said, during the season. I obviously didn't watch every minute of Burnley's season, but I watched enough (including at least three games on full Game of the Day replays) to know that if people really want to keep claiming they have a more convincing analysis of what went wrong in their season than their own staff and the people whose job it is to do so say happened, they really need to start bringing some evidence to the table that backs up their theories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew 4748 Posted May 26, 2015 Share Posted May 26, 2015 I claim no insight beyond what's already been confirmed by a cursory review of what both their own players and manager have said, and what all the pundits and commentators said, during the season. I obviously didn't watch every minute of Burnley's season, but I watched enough (including at least three games on full Game of the Day replays) to know that if people really want to keep claiming they have a more convincing analysis of what went wrong in their season than their own staff and the people whose job it is to do so say happened, they really need to start bringing some evidence to the table that backs up their theories. No, what you've been saying is the Burnley not scoring enough to stay up is Danny Ings fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howay 12496 Posted May 26, 2015 Share Posted May 26, 2015 But he was probably their best player or at least one of their best, like I said he does deserve blame as all the members of the squad do but definitely no more than the others. They conceded 53 goals which isn't exactly very good defensively, Newcastle conceded 10 more than them but we scored a lot more and our top scorer also got 11. As Andrew has just said I think it's overly simplistic to say he was mostly the lone man up top so he deserves most the blame, he did his job admirably scoring basically 40% of their goals which is a heavy burden. The rest of the squad simply weren't pitching in with their fair share. Players go through patches and his form didn't stay consistent but he's also 22 years old and was in his first Premier League season, I don't think it's fair to attribute him as having more blame than others tbh. They went down as a squad of 25 players, a squad that simply wasn't good enough. He played alongside Vokes last season and the two of them were very successful, Vokes was injured and missed a lot of this season and never settled into Premier League football afterwards as the team was already fighting relegation, so it was a 22 year old lad, in his first Premier League season, playing up top alone when he was used to playing in a two, at the head of a team that was basically the same side they had in the Championship. They were predicted to come bottom by most pundits, which shows how poor their squad was seen to be. I don't feel like he is largely to blame at all and sure Dyche will have quotes saying he wishes they took their chances but most clubs can say that, I'm sure Pellegrini said that a couple of times this year and they had the league top scorer up front. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makom 0 Posted May 26, 2015 Share Posted May 26, 2015 Just on that last note, Sissoko staying here will be evidence to the contrary surely? If he was playing better, or in a better team, he'd be able to get his CL move. Now he has to suck it up and play for us again next year due to his poor performances. You're assuming Sissoko is staying. And if he does stay, who can really say that he was a target of a bigger club right up until Carver's shit slide? We'll never know for sure. I can't see how, if he was genuinely an Arsenal target before Carver, why they wouldn't think they could still use him now. Unlike Ings, Sissoko was an established PL player well before Carver got his hands on this team, and surely Arsenal have the coaching staff to undo any lasting damage being exposed to Carver this season might have done to him, if they took him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew 4748 Posted May 26, 2015 Share Posted May 26, 2015 A lot of Burnleys issue was an overreliance on Ings, Ive watched them a lot this season (as a lot of you know I am from and still live in Burnley) He was heavily involved in the buildup play which often meant that he was the one who had played the pass/beat a man that opened up space for a final ball, what this led to was a ball played to a second striker/runner from midfield who simply wasn't there.A fit Vokes or perhaps Charlie Austin (had they kept him) would have made a massive massive difference to Burnley this season.Saying that they didn't score enough and thats Ings' fault is, at best, over simplifying it.That you can't understand how it wouldn't be Ings fault means crediting you with "at best" would be generous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaddockLad 17257 Posted May 26, 2015 Share Posted May 26, 2015 The reason Burnley got relegated is because of them being the second lowest spenders this season. Only a Stoke spent less and for that reason they had a brilliant season, although a decade in the top division gave them a distinct advantage over newbies like Burnley. Bruce spent 40million at Hull and got them relegated hopefully that will put paid to any thoughts of him comimg here.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom 14011 Posted May 26, 2015 Share Posted May 26, 2015 Only 5 teams created less than Burnley & only 5 teams had a lesser shot accuracy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howmanheyman 33200 Posted May 26, 2015 Share Posted May 26, 2015 The reason Burnley got relegated is because of them being the second lowest spenders this season. Only a Stoke spent less and for that reason they had a brilliant season, although a decade in the top division gave them a distinct advantage over newbies like Burnley. Bruce spent 40million at Hull and got them relegated hopefully that will put paid to any thoughts of him comimg here.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew 4748 Posted May 26, 2015 Share Posted May 26, 2015 Only 5 teams created less than Burnley & only 5 teams had a lesser shot accuracy... Whats the criteria for a created chance? I've honestly never seen a team that fired the ball across the face of goal but just lacked a finishing touch as often. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makom 0 Posted May 26, 2015 Share Posted May 26, 2015 No, what you've been saying is the Burnley not scoring enough to stay up is Danny Ings fault. Not really. This all started in the wages thread, after I said: And god knows why you're even mentioning Ings - Burnley went down because they failed to score enough goals. On what planet does that become a good argument for allowing their strike-force to leave for another PL club? to which strawb said: If you think that Burnley's struggling to score goals this season is down to the forwards, rather than the team as whole you understand less about football than you do about brevity. to which I replied: Good luck finding a single pundit/commentator who has not blamed Burnley's relegation primarily on their misfiring strikeforce. Their general team play was very well received, hence all the plaudits for their manager. Him being annoyed at having been shown to be wrong was why he turned up in here to give me shit in here, hence why the debate has eventually turned back around to the issue, once he realised his pisstaking about Garth Crooks wasn't getting him anywhere. I'm not saying it's Ing's fault per se (I've no idea if his prior performances warranted him being used as a sole striker), nor that the lack of goals is entirely down to him (as opposed to the strikeforce in general, which of course includes others in a one upfront). I'm simply trying to counter the idea that some originally were trying to argue there, that it's not manifestly unfair that misfiring strikers should not suffer any penalty in their careers when their teams go down for reasons that everyone agrees was a misfiring strikeforce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howmanheyman 33200 Posted May 26, 2015 Share Posted May 26, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom 14011 Posted May 26, 2015 Share Posted May 26, 2015 Whats the criteria for a created chance? I've honestly never seen a team that fired the ball across the face of goal but just lacked a finishing touch as often. No idea tbh - but I imagine it has to be something which would put the onus on the attacking player to produce something decent rather than percentage football etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makom 0 Posted May 26, 2015 Share Posted May 26, 2015 Only 5 teams created less than Burnley & only 5 teams had a lesser shot accuracy... And? The fact that Burnley created lots of chances, and their shooting accuracy didn't translate to goals scored (and it's not even close if they were really 5th in terms of accuracy), is what I've been saying happened all along. It shows quite conclusively why they went down. I've no idea why people are trying so hard to claim otherwise..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew 4748 Posted May 26, 2015 Share Posted May 26, 2015 And? The fact that Burnley created lots of chances, and their shooting accuracy didn't translate to goals scored (and it's not even close if they were really 5th in terms of accuracy), is what I've been saying happened all along. It shows quite conclusively why they went down. I've no idea why people are trying so hard to claim otherwise..... 5 teams creating less puts them down at the bottom end of the table on that front. I think his point is literally the opposite of how you've read it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom 14011 Posted May 26, 2015 Share Posted May 26, 2015 Aye It's like he's read what he wanted to read rather than what was actually written. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makom 0 Posted May 26, 2015 Share Posted May 26, 2015 A lot of Burnleys issue was an overreliance on Ings, Ive watched them a lot this season (as a lot of you know I am from and still live in Burnley) He was heavily involved in the buildup play which often meant that he was the one who had played the pass/beat a man that opened up space for a final ball, what this led to was a ball played to a second striker/runner from midfield who simply wasn't there. A fit Vokes or perhaps Charlie Austin (had they kept him) would have made a massive massive difference to Burnley this season. Saying that they didn't score enough and thats Ings' fault is, at best, over simplifying it. That you can't understand how it wouldn't be Ings fault means crediting you with "at best" would be generous. Well, I certainly watched QPR less than Burnley so I can't confirm this with my own experience, but I'm pretty sure one of the post-season reviews pointed out that one of Austin's strengths was the fact he was the initiator of many of his goals by dropping deep first, and then popping up in the box to benefit from the end result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makom 0 Posted May 26, 2015 Share Posted May 26, 2015 (edited) Aye It's like he's read what he wanted to read rather than what was actually written. Ate, I did. I read it too fast. You should have used "but" rather than "&", that would have been the more appropriate clause given the intended meaning. But it's still not great for Burnley - it still means that despite the fact 5 teams were less accurate than them in front of goal, they still conspired to score the fewest amount of goals. And that's clearly not a statistical anomaly, given the fact they were the 5th highest in terms of chances created. Ergo - their strikeforce were misfiring, relative to the competition. Edited May 26, 2015 by Makom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaddockLad 17257 Posted May 26, 2015 Share Posted May 26, 2015 I tried to end this by (correctly) indicating the bottom line is playing budget but was, as usual, ignored. That fuckin makom is basically Dick Dastard Mackem bastard iyam... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makom 0 Posted May 26, 2015 Share Posted May 26, 2015 (edited) I tried to end this by (correctly) indicating the bottom line is playing budget but was, as usual, ignored. That fuckin makom is basically Dick Dastard Mackem bastard iyam... You said Burnley went down cos they were the 2nd lowest spenders, but then also said Hull went down despite spunking £40m (on top of an already established PL squad). But yes, if Burnley had spent money on a PL standard striker, they clearly would have stayed up. But some are even railing against that in here too.... Edited May 26, 2015 by Makom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makom 0 Posted May 26, 2015 Share Posted May 26, 2015 Mako is part of the celebration police, of course he is. I'm celebrating because we're going to be playing in the top league next season and not scrambling about getting beat off Doncaster on a shitty arsed Tuesday night, you power minge. Officer Shearer judges you. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/32872197 If, at best, they are going to get mid-table mediocrity and not even going to have a go in the cups, then I can understand them wondering what is the point of being a Newcastle fan? This season has ended on a high for them, because the club stayed up on the final day, but there is no cause for celebration. Since January it has been a long, hard slog for Magpies supporters. The only emotion is relief - that the season has ended and that Newcastle are still in the Premier League. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McFaul 35 Posted May 26, 2015 Share Posted May 26, 2015 Shut up and put some clean yfronts on you mackem cunt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trophyshy 7083 Posted May 26, 2015 Share Posted May 26, 2015 This obsession with being right never, ever ends well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeys Fist 42442 Posted May 26, 2015 Share Posted May 26, 2015 This obsession with being right never, ever ends well.BUT HE HAS A BACON SHED, YOU N/O STEREOTYPE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now