A couple of Burns related stats

League Games only:</p>

Pre Burns departure: P34 W16 D10 L8 Average points per game:1.71 Clean sheets: 16 Clean sheet %: 47%</p>

Post Burns departure: P6 W0 D2 L4 Average PPG: 0.33 Clean sheets:1 Clean sheet %: 17%</p>



Not making any point, just quoting the stats</p>

 

And he wasn't even the best passer at the club.

 

To be fair.........

....and as much as I think it was stupid to let him go, you have to factor in Hassell being injured around the same time.

 

Reasons why we havent won in last 6 games

A- We're missing Hassell</p>

B - We're not scoring enough</p>

 

Howard and Macca are playing really well as a partnership.

Which would you drop to accommodate Burns?

 

Devaney. Play Howard on the left and Burns at the side of McPhail.</p>



So we aren't missing Burns then ?</p>

 

You'll disagree, but I'll give you my opinion anyway:

The short answer is Howard.</p>

Although I think Howard is probably better in possession than Burns (although I think Burns played the simple ball and retained possession more than you gave him credit for) - i think the system of playing two out and out wingers demands a ball winner who gets round the pitch in central midfield</p>

Given that McPhail is rightly an automatic choice, and we've chosen to play with attcking wide players, Burns fits the role of ball winner and midfield general better than Howard, who is perhaps more attack minded and possibly more creative, but doesn't get through half as many tackles as Burns, or close down the space as much.</p>

It's the role we miss as much as the individual. Again, only my opinion.</p>

 

Just to use Saturday as an example.

Huddersfield Knuckle Scapers - 1 chance 1 goal</p>

Barnsley FC. - 5 guilt edge chances which should have resulted in at least 3 goals.</p>

I understand the stats since Burns left do point to him leaving being an issue but during the game on Saturday there wasn't one point in the game I thought the back 4 and midfield would have been better with Burns there. In fact I think that there was times when Burns invited pressure with his negative passing.</p>

How many times I saw him pass it to either Shuker or Austin which left them with nowhere to go.</p>

We should have signed somebody else though and that it is the reason we have dropped points recently. Another clinical striker would have got us promoted. </p>

A few moaned about us signing a 36 year old but in my eyes it would have been the best bit of business we possibly could have made and the money spent on Wright and the money we received for Burns should have gone towards Windass. If we did we wouldn't be sat here now having to win more than the rest to get in the playoffs but sitting pretty in the top 2.</p>

 

If we'd have signed Windass would he still have been banned.

 

spot on tez, but Burns loss means no reasonable cover too.

Goal scorer required.</p>

Nardismello not the solution, nowhere near.</p>

 

Yes he would but we would have had him on Saturday and for the last 6 matches.</p>

He would have had enough chances on Saturday to make it worthwhile in that game alone!!</p>

Also Windass is an excellent target man and like Booth for the knuckle scrapers wins everything in the air which uneases any back 4 in this god damn league. The only difference between the 2 is that Windass is a 20+ goal a season man and Booth isn't.</p>

 

You are right on that one as well.....

Horlock anyone......</p>

Added to Windass we would have been in the top two in my eyes.</p>

With cover in every position and that doesn't mean Anthony Kay as it does now!!</p>

 

I've just sat for close on 20 minutes

mesmerised by your Avatar

Great Breasts

 

Bradford didnt want to sell Windass. Not our fauly.

Is Horlock more creative than Macca and Howard?

I think not.

 

Does Horlock play up front?

 

RE: Does Horlock play up front?

Donny since Horlock signed:
P11 W5 D5 L1

us since Burns left:
P6 W0 D4 L2

we've scored 5 and conceded 8 in those 6 games.

 

If you read the thread you'll see what it meant.....

As competition for the midfielders we have and also to create a back up to the 4 midfielders we have.

 

Bradford would have sold Windass if we'd have gone up to 200K or there abouts

And the on the Horlock front it would have created competition for places and given us options. Do Chelsea only have 2 central midfielders to choose from?</p>

What about Man Utd?</p>

I also see England are travelling to the world cup with 11 players.</p>

 

RE: Bradford would have sold Windass if we'd have gone up to 200K or there abouts nt

At which point the ex pros and England-managers-in-waiting on here would have spontaneously combusted.

 

Like it was their own money!!!

</p>



A whole new meaning for that emotion that had no meaning before!!!</p>