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

[The Tactician]

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://nortr3nixy.nimpr.uk/content.php?827-Albion-1-1-Burnley-14-09-19

Roll on Newcastle.

 

[Bold Seagull]

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://nortr3nixy.nimpr.uk/content.php?827-Albion-1-1-Burnley-14-09-19

Roll on Newcastle.

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]

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]

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.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

March doesn't like slinging it over first time with his left (the goal came from him checking back onto his right),.

I believe that you may have rather confused your left and your right...

 

[Bold Seagull]

I believe that you may have rather confused your left and your right...

I'm losing it Jerry!

 

[Jack Straw]

Thanks for an entertaining report with accompanying wonderful ARTWORK.

 

[AZ Gull]

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://nortr3nixy.nimpr.uk/content.php?827-Albion-1-1-Burnley-14-09-19

Roll on Newcastle.

Very good ...... but Connolly made his Premier League debut against Man City.

 

[The Tactician]

Very good ...... but Connolly made his Premier League debut against Man City.

Completely correct, apologies. Thank goodness for NSC’s Under-23s expert!

 

[Peter Grummit]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.