We won, but it was terrible wasn't it?

Nearly an hour against 10 men, and we still persisted with the back 5 and the 2 defensive midfielders for far too long. 5-2-1-2 formation really doesn't cut it for me, no width, nothing up front. Harewood was terrible. Dagnall worked hard but he couldn't score in a brothel.

There were positives too though. Dawson was immense again and thoroughly deserved the MOTM award. Both full backs did well, although Golbourne needs to learn how to cross the ball. Enjoyed seeing Rose score, looked sharp and hungry.

And isn't Shackell a massive lovely person.

 

It's difficult when the opposition are happy just to punt it into space behind our back four, 50 yards away from any Burnley player. We were all over them just before and just after half time but we did soon run out of ideas and it looked like there was no hope of getting a goal.

I almost despaired when we had a free kick in a dangerous position and O'Brien squared it to Cywka, he took a touch and then got charged down and they countered.

 

I think you assessment is a tad unfair, if we'd gone out all attack and got caught on the counter and lost what would have said then???

 

Maybe so, but it just felt like Groundhog Day, watching the same slow, methodical build up for every attack.

Just frustration I guess.

 

I've said before its funny really how differently people can see the same game. We played well I thought, as I put in another thread I thought playing 3 centre halves effectively solved the problem of us not having the players to do it as a 2. If Golbourne had scored that dolly at the end of the first half they couldn't have just sat back and played for a replay second half and we'd have probably scored one or two more.