Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[Albion] Albion 1-1 Burnley MATCH REPORT- FEAT. ARTWORK



The Tactician

Well-known member
Feb 18, 2013
1,052
ARGGGGHHHHHH.

A(nother) frustrating game, but I hope you enjoy the write-up nonetheless. It includes some great ARTWORK from my wonderfully talented significant other, that hopefully takes the edge off the disappointment.

It’s worked wide to March once again, five minutes before the break. Now perhaps the most controversial moment in an otherwise straightforward affair.

Solly sends a clever pass over the top to Murray, who takes the ball in his stride nicely. Glenn gets his body in between Lowton and ball, who has absolutely zero patience in defending and shoves the forward to the ground. That looked like a pen. But obviously, we really wouldn’t want VAR to interfere. Well, I mean check it of course. Give us a nice confused pause, but ultimately don’t try and implement the correct decision. That would be unnecessary.

Read the rest HERE: https://www.northstandchat.com/content.php?827-Albion-1-1-Burnley-14-09-19

Roll on Newcastle. :albion2:
 


Bold Seagull

strong and stable with me, or...
Mar 18, 2010
29,719
Hove
ARGGGGHHHHHH.

A(nother) frustrating game, but I hope you enjoy the write-up nonetheless. It includes some great ARTWORK from my wonderfully talented significant other, that hopefully takes the edge off the disappointment.



Read the rest HERE: https://www.northstandchat.com/content.php?827-Albion-1-1-Burnley-14-09-19

Roll on Newcastle. :albion2:

Good read again.

I didn't really see it as a back 4, it all just seemed very asymmetrical to allow March a more advanced role, Maupay and Murray to play closer together, and Gross freed to try to knit things together. Burn played much higher than Webster who remained a sort of full back / centre half, whereas Burn was still an out and out wingback. It led to a lot of checking back whenever we got into wide areas because March doesn't like slinging it over first time with his left (the goal came from him checking back onto his right), and Gross doesn't seem to favour the first time hit cross either. We allowed them to regroup far too often I felt.
 


Hamilton

Well-known member
NSC Patreon
Jul 7, 2003
12,390
Brighton
Good read again.

I didn't really see it as a back 4, it all just seemed very asymmetrical to allow March a more advanced role, Maupay and Murray to play closer together, and Gross freed to try to knit things together. Burn played much higher than Webster who remained a sort of full back / centre half, whereas Burn was still an out and out wingback. It led to a lot of checking back whenever we got into wide areas because March doesn't like slinging it over first time with his left (the goal came from him checking back onto his right), and Gross doesn't seem to favour the first time hit cross either. We allowed them to regroup far too often I felt.

It was somewhere between a back 2 and a back 5 at different points in the game :)
 


Bold Seagull

strong and stable with me, or...
Mar 18, 2010
29,719
Hove
It was somewhere between a back 2 and a back 5 at different points in the game :)

It was very fluid, and using that brilliant architectural word, 'asymmetrical' for much of the time and didn't really fit into our typical symmetrical notations of a formation. That's why the Guardian write up saying 'Brighton switch to a back 4 on the half hour' is a bit misleading really, nothing that definite happened.
 










AZ Gull

@SeagullsAcademy Threads: @bhafcacademy
Oct 14, 2003
11,588
Chandler, AZ




The Tactician

Well-known member
Feb 18, 2013
1,052
Very good ...... but Connolly made his Premier League debut against Man City.
Completely correct, apologies. Thank goodness for NSC’s Under-23s expert! :bowdown:
 


Peter Grummit

Well-known member
Oct 13, 2004
6,769
Lewes
It was very fluid, and using that brilliant architectural word, 'asymmetrical' for much of the time and didn't really fit into our typical symmetrical notations of a formation. That's why the Guardian write up saying 'Brighton switch to a back 4 on the half hour' is a bit misleading really, nothing that definite happened.

Disagree. It's one thing playing as an inverted winger but Solly looked lost as an inverted wingback, where you have to defend on your wrong foot. As soon as Webster went to Right Back it allowed March to push up the pitch, that created space for Gross to play in the inside right pocket and run the game. I am fortunate in having a perfect view of this at WSU north end and it was clear as day. Credit to GP for changing things promptly.

PG
 


Bold Seagull

strong and stable with me, or...
Mar 18, 2010
29,719
Hove
Disagree. It's one thing playing as an inverted winger but Solly looked lost as an inverted wingback, where you have to defend on your wrong foot. As soon as Webster went to Right Back it allowed March to push up the pitch, that created space for Gross to play in the inside right pocket and run the game. I am fortunate in having a perfect view of this at WSU north end and it was clear as day. Credit to GP for changing things promptly.

PG

When I said asymmetrical what I mean was while Webster went to a more traditional right back, on the left Burn still remained more of a wing back. I agree with your points as it happened, I just didn't see it as a 'traditional' back 4 as didn't really see Burn playing full back in the same way Webster was on the right. It was a good move as it played to their individual strengths rather than just working to a rigid formation.
 




Peter Grummit

Well-known member
Oct 13, 2004
6,769
Lewes
When I said asymmetrical what I mean was while Webster went to a more traditional right back, on the left Burn still remained more of a wing back. I agree with your points as it happened, I just didn't see it as a 'traditional' back 4 as didn't really see Burn playing full back in the same way Webster was on the right. It was a good move as it played to their individual strengths rather than just working to a rigid formation.

I have some sympathy with that, in that we didn't have a conventional wide player on the left so Burn pushed up. Having said that, Webster was given licence to roam too, to great effect for the goal. I agree we are operating with much more fluidity this season.
 


Bold Seagull

strong and stable with me, or...
Mar 18, 2010
29,719
Hove
I have some sympathy with that, in that we didn't have a conventional wide player on the left so Burn pushed up. Having said that, Webster was given licence to roam too, to great effect for the goal. I agree we are operating with much more fluidity this season.

I was really impressed with Webster, great feet, doesn't panic. Can see why we paid big bucks for him. The flexibility Webster and Burn are giving us is great, far from 4 centre backs, we have real alternatives across the back line as Saturday showed.
 


GT49er

Well-known member
Feb 1, 2009
46,471
Gloucester
Good read again.

I didn't really see it as a back 4, it all just seemed very asymmetrical to allow March a more advanced role, Maupay and Murray to play closer together, and Gross freed to try to knit things together. Burn played much higher than Webster who remained a sort of full back / centre half, whereas Burn was still an out and out wingback. It led to a lot of checking back whenever we got into wide areas because March doesn't like slinging it over first time with his left (the goal came from him checking back onto his right), and Gross doesn't seem to favour the first time hit cross either. We allowed them to regroup far too often I felt.

As has been the Albion way for a long time - this is one thing it will probably take Potter a long time to weed out. Fannying around in those positions is deeply embedded in the Albion psyche.
 



Paying the bills

Latest Discussions

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here