Unlucky? It would appear not

[Col city fan]

If Babylon isn't anything it's 'a dick'.

One of the best posters on here IMO.

Until we next have a disagreement..then he's one of the worst.

[Fox Ulike]

No problem - if I'm wrong I apologise.

 

Just came across like you were being a cnut. Again, if you weren't then my mistake.

 

 

So if he isn't a cnut, you apologise.

 

But if he is a cnut, you don't.

 

Seems fair.

[Fox Ulike]

The thing is that we create a lot of chances that do not result in shots. The amount of times we get into good areas in games and then do nothing and the attack breaks down. I don't just blame the strikers for this and sometimes I wish they were more brave and shoot more often. Nugent is the only one for me that tries to. A lot of the times we get into good positions and overplay the ball trying to score the perfect goal and lose all the momentum. For me, also it's not the number of chances it's the number of clear cut chances we have had. Maybe other teams near us have more chances a game, but we seem to spurn more guilt edge chances. Like the Wilshere header which I admit I forgot about. And the Lukaku misses, 2/3 came after we were 2-1 up, and we dropped back into our own box. We literally invited them to score. 

 

In the Spurs game you could argue Nugent could have scored twice in the first half as well, although they weren't as clear cut as Chadli's, although the goals Spurs scored were all soft and two were unlucky on our part. Kane's second would have been saved and Schlupp OG was real misfortune. 

 

I'm not trying to make out that we have been robbed or there has been a major injustice. But it seems like most of the goals we score have to have real quality about them. When was the last time we had 3 deflections for a goal or a scruffy unlucky OG in our favour.

 

 

Sorry but that’s a really lame argument.

 

There are no stats for creating a chance that doesn’t result in a shot, so it can’t really be proved. But this is exactly the same for every other team in the division. The difference is that other teams have more possession so create more chances so have more shots. The reason our strikers don't shoot is because they are rarely put in good shooting positions. We don't create enough chances.

 

I think you naturally tend to concentrate and remember our missed chances, but tend to gloss over the chances that the opposition miss.

 

For me, it all comes down to lack of numbers in midfield and so lack of possession, for which we’re the third worst in the division.

 

If you’re outnumbered in midfield, you don’t have much possession.

If you don’t have much possession, you can’t create many chances.

If you can’t create chances, you don’t have many shots

If you don’t have many shots, you don’t score many goals.

 

Simples!

[Col city fan]

Sorry but that’s a really lame argument.

There are no stats for creating a chance that doesn’t result in a shot, so it can’t really be proved. But this is exactly the same for every other team in the division. The difference is that other teams have more possession so create more chances so have more shots. The reason our strikers don't shoot is because they are rarely put in good shooting positions. We don't create enough chances.

I think you naturally tend to concentrate and remember our missed chances, but tend to gloss over the chances that the opposition miss.

For me, it all comes down to lack of numbers in midfield and so lack of possession, for which we’re the third worst in the division.

If you’re outnumbered in midfield, you don’t have much possession.

If you don’t have much possession, you can’t create many chances.

If you can’t create chances, you don’t have many shots

If you don’t have many shots, you don’t score many goals.

Simples!

Again...Spot on

It's about control of games.

We simply do not control enough games. The Spurs game was a great example.

It was 7 goals, could have been more and we were exposed time and time again.

My view all season is that those individual errors we have suffered have been, in part, down to this lack of control. When put under so much pressure, defenders will make mistakes. When desperately needing goals, strikers will snatch at chances.

Again, whilst Pearson has been tinkering with his defence and attack he's missed the biggest thing that needed changing..The midfield.

[Babylon]

If Babylon isn't anything it's 'a dick'.

Oh I can be.

 

I'm very self aware.

[Manwell Pablo]

Again...Spot on

It's about control of games.

We simply do not control enough games. The Spurs game was a great example.

It was 7 goals, could have been more and we were exposed time and time again.

My view all season is that those individual errors we have suffered have been, in part, down to this lack of control. When put under so much pressure, defenders will make mistakes. When desperately needing goals, strikers will snatch at chances.

Again, whilst Pearson has been tinkering with his defence and attack he's missed the biggest thing that needed changing..The midfield.

 

It's a terrible example. Leicester City are never going to go to White Hart Lane and "control a game" against that Spurs side unless you invest about 100 million pounds + into the first team, we did well to run them as close as we did had it not been for a penalty that never was we'd of got a point. Forget all about going to a top 7 team and controlling a game, we are so far off that it is unreal.

 

And it's all rubbish anyway, how many home games have we played 13? I reckon we most have had more or the same amount of possesion in at least six of them (not mentioning that of the remaining 7 you'll have games against City United and Arsenal) which for a team fighting relegation is a pretty decent return.

 

And he's been messing with the midfield all season, we've had a flat four, a flat five, a diamond, I think we've even had a three with forwards at one point. All about as ineffective as the last, we are going down because we are not good enough 1-11 and we don't control a lot of games because we aren't good enough 1-11 (it is ridiculous to lay lack of possesion solely on the door of the midfield two it's about movement passing and decision making up and down the field) our defence is shabby and our strikers wasteful. Our midfield with the likes of James Cambiasso Mahrez (Even your best friend Jeffrey at times) and Hammond has housed some of our better performers this season, I am quite confident that you could put some very good experienced premeir league midfielders into our engine room and we still wont control games, still will make defensive mistakes, and will still miss sitters and we'd still lose games.

 

If we go up again the whole team needs a to seriously looked at, no more sentimental well you got us up so you deserve your chance rubbish, and we need to build in all three areas.

[cc_star]

Some other stats published in the Guardian indicate Burnley have 3 players in the top 10 for 'distance covered'... and 3 players in the top 3 (yes all top 3 positions) for 'sprints per game'

 

We have no one in the top 10 in either category.

 

Now with a quality level somewhere below what's required to compete in the division, the only way you can make that up and give yourselves a chance is workrate.

 

Now for any fault Pearson has, his teams usually has a high workrate, so I'd have expected to see one or two of our players mentioned in these categories which give an indication of workrate

[cc_star]

It's a terrible example. Leicester City are never going to go to White Hart Lane and "control a game" against that Spurs side unless you invest about 100 million pounds + into the first team, we did well to run them as close as we did had it not been for a penalty that never was we'd of got a point. Forget all about going to a top 7 team and controlling a game, we are so far off that it is unreal.

 

And he's been messing with the midfield all season, we've had a flat four, a flat five, a diamond, I think we've even had a three with forwards at one point. All about as ineffective as the last, we are going down because we are not good enough 1-11 and we don't control a lot of games because we aren't good enough 1-11 (it is ridiculous to lay lack of possesion solely on the door of the midfield two it's about movement passing and decision making up and down the field) our defence is shabby and our strikers wasteful. Our midfield with the likes of James Cambiasso Mahrez (Even your best friend Jeffrey at times) and Hammond has housed some of our better performers this season, I am quite confident that you could put some very good experienced premeir league midfielders into our engine room and we still wont control games, still will make defensive mistakes, and will still miss sitters and we'd still lose games.

 

If we go up again the whole team needs a to seriously looked at, no more sentimental well you got us up so you deserve your chance rubbish, and we need to build in all three areas.

 

He has changed his 442 from a flat 4 to a diamond. He persisted with both for a fair amount of games. And yes we have played the odd game with 3 in the middle (Man City at home stands out as a game we finally weren't over-ran in the middle and opposition chances were kept to a reasonable number), but it's certainly been nothing like the number of games we've had 4 in the middle of whatever variation

 

Anyone would looking to survival would look to make yourself difficult to beat first & foremost and then build on that

 

To make yourself difficult to beat, you don't play an extra defender, you play the extra midfielder whether that's a 451 or 4231 it doesn't matter. This formation which is proven to work in top level has not been given a fair chance by Pearson. And this is one of the single biggest factors in us not being able turn defeats into draws and draws into the odd win seeing us in with a shout of staying up

[Col city fan]

It's a terrible example. Leicester City are never going to go to White Hart Lane and "control a game" against that Spurs side unless you invest about 100 million pounds + into the first team, we did well to run them as close as we did had it not been for a penalty that never was we'd of got a point. Forget all about going to a top 7 team and controlling a game, we are so far off that it is unreal.

And it's all rubbish anyway, how many home games have we played 13? I reckon we most have had more or the same amount of possesion in at least six of them (not mentioning that of the remaining 7 you'll have games against City United and Arsenal) which for a team fighting relegation is a pretty decent return.

And he's been messing with the midfield all season, we've had a flat four, a flat five, a diamond, I think we've even had a three with forwards at one point. All about as ineffective as the last, we are going down because we are not good enough 1-11 and we don't control a lot of games because we aren't good enough 1-11 (it is ridiculous to lay lack of possesion solely on the door of the midfield two it's about movement passing and decision making up and down the field) our defence is shabby and our strikers wasteful. Our midfield with the likes of James Cambiasso Mahrez (Even your best friend Jeffrey at times) and Hammond has housed some of our better performers this season, I am quite confident that you could put some very good experienced premeir league midfielders into our engine room and we still wont control games, still will make defensive mistakes, and will still miss sitters and we'd still lose games.

If we go up again the whole team needs a to seriously looked at, no more sentimental well you got us up so you deserve your chance rubbish, and we need to build in all three areas.

You can go into just about any game and set-up to thwart the opposition. Sometimes it works, sometimes not.

Playing against Spurs at Spurs with a central midfield two was suicide. And so it proved. There is no point in playing five defenders if your midfield is so weak that they are subject to wave after wave of attack. Law of averages means they will concede.

I agree that the squad per se is not good enough. But for me Pearson has not helped this by playing a weak midfield in games where we could have taken more control than we have done.

And I reiterate. A defence under tons of pressure will crack..errors will be made. And so it has proven.

[Mike Oxlong]

Playing five defenders is cack. We pretty much always concede regardless. Fight the battle in the middle of the park rather than on the edge of our own box.

[Manwell Pablo]

You can go into just about any game and set-up to thwart the opposition. Sometimes it works, sometimes not.

Playing against Spurs at Spurs with a central midfield two was suicide. And so it proved. There is no point in playing five defenders if your midfield is so weak that they are subject to wave after wave of attack. Law of averages means they will concede.

I agree that the squad per se is not good enough. But for me Pearson has not helped this by playing a weak midfield in games where we could have taken more control than we have done.

And I reiterate. A defence under tons of pressure will crack..errors will be made. And so it has proven.

 

I'm not going to argue that five at the back is rather ridiculous as a defualt formation. As something to try and catch Arsenal off guard it was a good idea and proved quite fruitful, but then to continue using it is bizare, Hull at home was the most inexplicable use of it.

[Fox Ulike]

It's a terrible example. Leicester City are never going to go to White Hart Lane and "control a game" against that Spurs side unless you invest about 100 million pounds + into the first team, we did well to run them as close as we did had it not been for a penalty that never was we'd of got a point. Forget all about going to a top 7 team and controlling a game, we are so far off that it is unreal.

 

And it's all rubbish anyway, how many home games have we played 13? I reckon we most have had more or the same amount of possesion in at least six of them (not mentioning that of the remaining 7 you'll have games against City United and Arsenal) which for a team fighting relegation is a pretty decent return.

 

And he's been messing with the midfield all season, we've had a flat four, a flat five, a diamond, I think we've even had a three with forwards at one point. All about as ineffective as the last, we are going down because we are not good enough 1-11 and we don't control a lot of games because we aren't good enough 1-11 (it is ridiculous to lay lack of possesion solely on the door of the midfield two it's about movement passing and decision making up and down the field) our defence is shabby and our strikers wasteful. Our midfield with the likes of James Cambiasso Mahrez (Even your best friend Jeffrey at times) and Hammond has housed some of our better performers this season, I am quite confident that you could put some very good experienced premeir league midfielders into our engine room and we still wont control games, still will make defensive mistakes, and will still miss sitters and we'd still lose games.

 

If we go up again the whole team needs a to seriously looked at, no more sentimental well you got us up so you deserve your chance rubbish, and we need to build in all three areas.

 

Fair point but most teams rely mainly on their midfield to keep possession. That's why the vast majority of teams play 3 in midfield. Passing the ball between your 3 centre-backs gives you possession but ultimately is pretty pointless.

 

I honestly believe our players are good enough – or at least are much better than our woeful league position suggests.

 

Ultimately, there’s only two explanations as to why we are so poor:

 

1. The players aren’t good enough
2. The players aren’t being used correctly.

 

Of course, it’s a combination of the two, but I think that our performances against the better teams in the league indicates that the players are OK. The way we have lined up this season, and the way we have played players out of position is the biggest factor for us being on course to be one of the worst teams in Premiership history.

[Dan LCFC]

You prat. You contradict your post all the way through. If we had (a) a solid defense, (b) a creative midfield, © strikers who could finish without bottling OR (d) an effective manager the few reffing decisions which have beef dodgy would be immaterial.

Horrific luck all season? Do you actually go to Games?

 

All bar two. Only an idiot could say there hasn't been any influence from referees, regardless of how true your other points are (which they are).

 

Not quite seeing the contradiction?

[Dan LCFC]

Why is it that certain members of this forum keep bringing up "luck" and try to make out that anyone who dares to mention it thinks we're in the position we're in because of it. I've not seen a single person who has said it's all down to luck, what I have seen a lot of people saying we'd probably still be struggling but had we not had so many poor decisions we might still be in with a fighting chance, rather than cut adrift.

 

Gives them their five seconds of fame. Laughable how many on here have to see one small point and post up a load of drivel to rip into it despite avoiding every other part of the post.

[Dan LCFC]

what most of you belittling fleckney's point is that teams near the bottom have all had similar 'luck'.

the impression given is, we have an ok team, not great, but reffing decisions or luck for other teams has put paid to us.

that's horse manure. Luck evens itself out over a season.

I saw burnley denied a cast iron penalty agauinst soton, who then went ahead not more than 2 minutes later.

it's just that you don't see other teams games and so can't make that connection.

The whole point of stats is they take luck out of the equation.

 

 

How do people STILL fall for this?

[lgfualol]

Some other stats published in the Guardian indicate Burnley have 3 players in the top 10 for 'distance covered'... and 3 players in the top 3 (yes all top 3 positions) for 'sprints per game'

We have no one in the top 10 in either category.

Now with a quality level somewhere below what's required to compete in the division, the only way you can make that up and give yourselves a chance is workrate.

Now for any fault Pearson has, his teams usually has a high workrate, so I'd have expected to see one or two of our players mentioned in these categories which give an indication of workrate

I think this may be something to do with Burnley not changing the starting lineups much. I imagine we could be up there if Nuge or Vardy started each game.

[shailen]

If we go down it won't be because of luck. But maybe if a few more decisions had gone our way then we could have gone on a winning streak. But nevertheless this is all a game about what could have happened. We have had a lot of decisions gone against us, but for me we have had the chances in so many games to put this right and we haven't. We go down because fundamentally we haven't been good enough. The league table doesn't lie at the season end. It's why the same teams win the league and the worst teams get relegated.

 

I don't think we are the worst team in the way we play anyway. We look a decent side and better than at least 4/5 sides I've seen this season. What we lack is the resilience in defence at crucial times and the quality in attacking play. Other teams score goals out of nothing. We have to put together a great team move to score a goal. When was the last time we got an unexpected goal, or a scrappy goal out of nowhere. We don't have that individual brilliance, to take us up a gear

[Swiss_tony]

 

How do people STILL fall for this?

so is our ground on some ancient roman burial  ground and we're cursed? is that  why  we have 'bad luck'.

This just  smells like everyone is against us including the refs, which of course is nonsense, it just looks like that. every small thing is magnified.

our team isn't good enough, nor is qpr's and one other team, have we had bad refereeing decisions,  yes,  have they, yes, have we had things go in our favor sometimes, yes, have they, yes. end of story.

it's almost as funny as the guy who thinks RL deliberately picked an anti pearson journalist for the moan in just to make nige look bad. i would say his performance week to week has done that.

absolute drivel.

[UpTheLeagueFox]

Not good enough in both boxes, simple as that.

[Bettsj2]

Not good enough in both boxes, simple as that.

Or in the middle.

[cityfanlee23]

Anyone that consistently goes on about how "unlucky" we are needs a serious reality check.

Every team this season down our end has had their fair share of misfortune, but the same old people keep using that same old phrase "we were unlucky today"

We aren't good enough anywhere on the field, individually or as a unit.

We wouldn't get "unlucky" if we just stopped the bloody problems before they got to a position where a bad decision could cost us.

If we were better positioned half our issues wouldn't be half as bad.

The buck stops with the team.

Not the ref or any other excuse you can concuct up in anger.

We have been terrible for the majority of the season. That is why we are bottom.

If we took away every single piece of bad "luck" away from every team that's had it.

We'd still be rock bottom.

End of.

[Dan LCFC]

so is our ground on some ancient roman burial  ground and we're cursed? is that  why  we have 'bad luck'.

This just  smells like everyone is against us including the refs, which of course is nonsense, it just looks like that. every small thing is magnified.

our team isn't good enough, nor is qpr's and one other team, have we had bad refereeing decisions,  yes,  have they, yes, have we had things go in our favor sometimes, yes, have they, yes. end of story.

it's almost as funny as the guy who thinks RL deliberately picked an anti pearson journalist for the moan in just to make nige look bad. i would say his performance week to week has done that.

absolute drivel.

 

Yeah, but you're wrong.

 

No-one's claiming we're 'cursed', but anyone who claims we've had anything other than a rough ride off officials this season is plain wrong. It's as simple as that. For the seventieth time, no-one has claimed they are the sole reason we are bottom. Our awful taking of chances, poor defending, crap formations, substitutions and tactics are very well documented on here. We're talking about something else here which for some reason your crystal ball tells you isn't happening.

 

That last bit isn't laughable either. Pearson deserves a lot of criticism for this season but you seriously think it's a co-incidence that slimeball Stringer's got someone who's written a strong anti-Pearson article very recently on his show? You don't genuinely believe that was by chance do you?

 

You're making assumptions and they're wrong.

[fleckneymike]

Yeah, but you're wrong.

 

No-one's claiming we're 'cursed', but anyone who claims we've had anything other than a rough ride off officials this season is plain wrong. It's as simple as that. For the seventieth time, no-one has claimed they are the sole reason we are bottom. Our awful taking of chances, poor defending, crap formations, substitutions and tactics are very well documented on here. We're talking about something else here which for some reason your crystal ball tells you isn't happening.

 

That last bit isn't laughable either. Pearson deserves a lot of criticism for this season but you seriously think it's a co-incidence that slimeball Stringer's got someone who's written a strong anti-Pearson article very recently on his show? You don't genuinely believe that was by chance do you?

 

You're making assumptions and they're wrong.

 

I wouldn't say we've had a rough ride, we've experienced some questionable decisions but the Wes handball aside most were justifiable (if not appreciated).

 

Stringer tried to get the chap on the week he published his piece, he was unable so he had to wait till this week. Stringer regularly contacts journalists from other clubs/stations as part of the build up to the match, it just so happens that this chap had written an article which suggested we may well be better off without Pearson. For the sake of balance he could have asked a journalist with a positive view of his tenure this campaign onto the show but I think we'd all agree they are somewhat thin on the ground.

[Babylon]

I wouldn't say we've had a rough ride, we've experienced some questionable decisions but the Wes handball aside most were justifiable (if not appreciated).

 

Stringer tried to get the chap on the week he published his piece, he was unable so he had to wait till this week. Stringer regularly contacts journalists from other clubs/stations as part of the build up to the match, it just so happens that this chap had written an article which suggested we may well be better off without Pearson. For the sake of balance he could have asked a journalist with a positive view of his tenure this campaign onto the show but I think we'd all agree they are somewhat thin on the ground.

 

How about contacting someone who hadn't just written an assassination piece.

 

Radio Leicester are only interested in controversy and click bait, not all Stringers fault. Whilst that maybe his natural style, the whole style of the sports reporting has changed. All of them involved in the sports side of it now follow Stringers lead with regards how they conduct themselves on twitter and on air. I think that comes from above and they are all now slaves to stats.

[Swiss_tony]

You know if you take a step back you're all beginning to  look a little silly now.

RL are owned by  the beeb, not Top and his family.

They can broadcast whatever the heck  they  like.

Maybe next week if they  can find a journalist that thinks the man running the club bottom of the PL is doing a good job, they  can speak.

There's no  conspiracy here to undermine him, he does that all on his lonesome week in  week out.