You need the element of surprise

ablueclaret · Post by **ablueclaret** » Sun Feb 19, 2017 9:18 am

This little footballing gem rarely appears in SD"s handbook, but it is important particularly against opposition like Lincoln.
Yesterday we presented them with the standard Burnley format, it looked tired, uninspired and lacking in variety, it was SD at his most stolid.
It is the one chink in his armour and the day I hear him say, 'yea we like to release the jack in the box from the framework ' then I know he is heading for the very top.

taio · Post by **taio** » Sun Feb 19, 2017 9:22 am

Who's jack?

Right_winger · Post by **Right_winger** » Sun Feb 19, 2017 9:26 am

In a roundabout way your stating that Dyche is stubborn and I agree with that view.

However yesterday was more than just a tactical flaw, the players were not up for it, and gave a couldn't be arsed performance apart from 1 man, almost like it was instructed. It seems that in the surface Dyche is quietly happy we have gone out the cup.

Personally I think it's a disgrace that we were allowed to put in such an inept performance.

Just watch the reaction at Hull though. Yes we will play the same way tactically but there will be more urgency and heart in our performance

ablueclaret · Post by **ablueclaret** » Sun Feb 19, 2017 9:30 am

Hull will now be the touchstone for the rest of the season.

RocketLawnChair · Post by **RocketLawnChair** » Sun Feb 19, 2017 9:40 am

I saw the thread title and thought you were debating a cure for hiccups ablue..

BOO

ablueclaret · Post by **ablueclaret** » Sun Feb 19, 2017 9:46 am

Hold your breath for hiccups RLC, must say thats what I was doing yesterday waiting for a piece of footballing magic.

BabylonClaret · Post by **BabylonClaret** » Sun Feb 19, 2017 10:09 am

I expect his plan was to make sure we held firm and wore them down rather than get all giddy and try and bounce them like earlier teams did and came unstuck. The trouble was that we struggled to capitalise on the number of openings we did make down to a poor final ball or a poor shot/effort.

for the last 15 we actually started to turn the screw a bit and had they not dragged us into an argy bargy towards the end which effectively disrupted any rhythm and put barton completely under the microscope for the rest of the game it woul dhave likley been a draw at worst.

lets not pretend Lincoln had some amazing masterplan and tactically outhunk (?) Dyche, other than to disrupt our game and hold on for a draw or a bit of luck (which they duly got)

ablueclaret · Post by **ablueclaret** » Sun Feb 19, 2017 10:11 am

Their goal wasn't luck it showed up a defensive weakness.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Sun Feb 19, 2017 10:13 am

Ablue literally wetting himself with excitement with this defeat. He's back in his element.

Ric_C · Post by **Ric_C** » Sun Feb 19, 2017 10:16 am

Unfortunately Jack was in Belgium sorting out his hamstring

BabylonClaret · Post by **BabylonClaret** » Sun Feb 19, 2017 10:20 am

ablueclaret wrote:Their goal wasn't luck it showed up a defensive weakness.

Agree we defended it very poorly but given it was their only effort on goal it took a bit of luck for them to :

a) get the corner when it wasn't
b) make sure it's on target
c) have us defend poorly at the same time.

I'm not saying it's a flukey goal because they obviously worked on that set piece but i am saying that they had a bit of luck to ahve the chance and then we defended it badly.

It was their only chance - that's a bit of luck to make sure it counts. Bit similar to us against Livcerpool. We won 2-0 and worked hard to defend that but we had v few chances on goal and on the day it just went our way.

boatshed bill · Post by **boatshed bill** » Sun Feb 19, 2017 10:48 am

It wasn't their only chance though, was it?
They could easily have scored early on in probably their first serious attack.

bartons baggage · Post by **bartons baggage** » Sun Feb 19, 2017 10:56 am

ablueclaret wrote:This little footballing gem rarely appears in SD"s handbook, but it is important particularly against opposition like Lincoln.
Yesterday we presented them with the standard Burnley format, it looked tired, uninspired and lacking in variety, it was SD at his most stolid.
It is the one chink in his armour and the day I hear him say, 'yea we like to release the jack in the box from the framework ' then I know he is heading for the very top.

F~~~ o## YOU ABSOLUTE BORE OF A MAN.

boatshed bill · Post by **boatshed bill** » Sun Feb 19, 2017 11:04 am

Perhaps an exploding football, with all flashing lights coming out of it.....or doves?
They wouldn't be expecting that!

S0S-1971 · Post by **S0S-1971** » Sun Feb 19, 2017 11:20 am

I think the mascots could have put a better performance in yesterday , very disappointed but looking on the bright side this embarrassing defeat should hopefully provoke a positive reaction at Hull next weekend .

Right_winger · Post by **Right_winger** » Sun Feb 19, 2017 11:24 am

bartons baggage wrote:F~~~ o## YOU ABSOLUTE BORE OF A MAN.

What's the issue? He come up with a valid point. You don't agree with it then say why rather than this tripe.

bartons baggage · Post by **bartons baggage** » Sun Feb 19, 2017 11:28 am

Right_winger wrote:What's the issue? He come up with a valid point. You don't agree with it then say why rather than this tripe.

99% of his post have an anti Dyche agenda,he repeats the same crap over and over.

taio · Post by **taio** » Sun Feb 19, 2017 11:31 am

An element of surprise would be you actually going to a game and not concocting posts by throwing together what you read on here

Bobzuruncle · Post by **Bobzuruncle** » Sun Feb 19, 2017 11:38 am

What got me was that they put same deep far-post corner in from the other side just 30 secs before and that says to me we were simply not thinking straight. i don't agree that there was a lack of effort , i saw plenty of effort just poor choices and poor organisation. 3 changes to defence is the main reason imo.

You need the element of surprise

You need the element of surprise

Re: You need the element of surprise

Re: You need the element of surprise

Re: You need the element of surprise

Re: You need the element of surprise

Re: You need the element of surprise

Re: You need the element of surprise

Re: You need the element of surprise

Re: You need the element of surprise

Re: You need the element of surprise

Re: You need the element of surprise

Re: You need the element of surprise

Re: You need the element of surprise

Re: You need the element of surprise

Re: You need the element of surprise

Re: You need the element of surprise

Re: You need the element of surprise

Re: You need the element of surprise

Re: You need the element of surprise