Vydra is a complex case, play to his strengths or don't play him. He can't fit into a system, it has to be built to suit him. Plus I hate when people can't form their own opinion, Dyche don't like him because he's not a big fat ugly lump so that now mean he can't finish despite what we all saw with our own eyes across two spells? THAT goal against Leicester, the Deeney one-two against Brighton, the goal against Brighton to get us promoted. 22 goals, 8 assists in 44 games. 16 goals, 6 assists in 42 games. 21 goals, 4 assists in 40 games. TWO Player of the Season awards in the Championship. That doesn't happen by accident.
Can you stop with the logic please? He's clearly **** as those super-coaches Tony Pulis and Sean Dyche can't get him to work.
Can someone correct me if I'm wrong but how come he kept giving fouls when our defenders jumped and their centre forwards stood still. I'm sure I've seen free kicks given against Deeney for that. I get that climbing is a foul but they made no effort to jump (in fact they ducked) which meant our players went right over them. Am I wrong?
Found this on Twitter and thought it worthy of posting. This is how I felt until the 72nd minute. https://twitter.com/i/status/1087075123553812480
Vydra would have scored the Deulofeu chance 10 times out of 10 but I would definitely not trade them! I love Vydra too.
I agree with all you say. But still he's not a regular in first teams. This problem of not fitting into pre-set squad systems has beset some very good players. My favourite example is Peter Crouch, who has a fantastic international scoring record, but he never has been a regular pick for England (42 appearances, 22 goals, and he has been available for a long time). And it is not a new problem, either: In the 1966 World Cup Ramsay dropped Jimmy Greaves after one game. Greaves was an early sixties version of Lineker and Owen. But Ramsay won the World Cup. Crouch's problem, I suppose, is that he's a one-off (Possible exception Ross Jenkins?!) and I guess coaches dare not build a system around one man because if he gets injured they are b* ggered. Frightful waste of a good player, though. You might well ask why Burnley took Vydra on if they don't want to use him. Seems pointless; and it is not as if Burnley are inundated with goal-scorers. Vydra scored some of the finest goals I've seen at Vic Rd, albeit in the Championship. Maybe he's done a Danny Graham and lost his touch. An on-form Vydra might well have shown Delefeou the way yesterday. I will say, though, I have always wondered if he fits in well at a club. Slim evidence, but I was not alone in thinking his demeanour at Watford was sometimes strange, even at the height of his success.
I agree we still need a striker (or maybe two) but I would just point out that in Success’s time at the club he has scored 2 league goals. In the same period Deeney has scored 15 and his hold-up and link play is way better, so your faith in him as our most effective striker is surely misplaced.
Games v Burnley are always horrible so no surprise there. I'd quite like us to sign a winger this window... I know we need a cb and everyone wants a world class striker. But all our right midfielders are really centre mids. And Pereyra always tucks in. A pacy right winger would be lovely. Currently our only player in this category is Deolefeu - and he is not playing wide
I'm not saying he's our most effective striker, I'm saying he's the striker most capable of playing as the lone striker in a one-up-top formation, as he has shown when deployed there this season; Spurs in the cup being the best example. Deeney, by comparison, has shown himself to be incapable of playing that role since moving up to the Prem; he just can't adapt his game to do it. Apart from that, I'm just responding to visible attributes on the pitch. In terms of hold up play, I disagree that Troy is better. Despite his reputation and size, Deeney is far worse at bringing down and shielding the ball than Success; he can't help but get in a fight instead of protecting the ball, and he wins a surprisingly small amount of headers. Those he does win are often the weird glancing kind that are supposedly designed for someone to run onto, but there's usually no one around to do so, so it's an odd choice. Indeed, as it stands, it is certainly true that his link-up play is far superior, though. This isn't designed to be a trash-Troy session, there are things he is capable of and he can have a positive impact still, but there are so many deficiencies in his game that we're being profligate relying on him as our main man. It's great that we have so many other talented players capable of scoring, but it shouldn't have to be the case, and it leaves us a bit light when it comes to varying tactics or switching formation.
Untrue. Greaves played every game until missing the quarter final following injury in the France game that required 14 stitches. He was fit for the final. But Ramsay kept faith with Hurst who played in the quarter and semi final for the unavailable Greaves.
I broadly agree about Oliver, but he did allow Burnley to be too physical at times. I am thinking about their handling of Success. It wasn't until they had almost ripped the shirt from his back at the 4th or 5th attempt did we get a free kick. Then they resorted to that other CB tactic...don 't just fail to jump or challenge for a high ball. This just makes the attacker look like the aggressor. Happy enough with the point. I thought Foster and the defence were collectively sound. Cleverly was very rusty and constantly gave the ball away in the first half and they had Deeney in the back pocket. We have to cope with attritional physical play sometimes so no great complaints. Two seasons ago we would have been much more grateful for such a point.
Success doesn't help himself by throwing himself on the ground as soon as somebody farts near him. All it does is makes it harder for him to be awarded a genuine free kick because ref's think he is trying to con them. I'd hoped that the shame of being booked for diving at Woking may have helped him try and cut out the diving but it hasn't. He is his own worst enemy.
If Watford a such a clean, fair team and Burnley such a bunch of dirty so-and-sos, why of all the Premier League teams, do Watford have the most sendings off in 5 seasons, and Burnley the least? Incidentally, long ball count from Saturday = Burnley 83, Watford 83.
Because we perpetually get dragged down to this level as we do not quite have the quality to pass it quickly and open teams up who come with two banks of four. Doesn’t mean we build our team around playing this week in, week out. I guess Gracia thought it was a tactic worth exploring. Unfortunately Deeney did not hold the ball up very well. Actually, now I have calmed down a bit and feel I can articulate my thoughts on the game and our performance in a mature manner. We and the game were ******* ****.
Watford were forced into long balls because of burnleys good work reducing space for our silky flowing football. Burnley choose to hoof it as a preference. We have a number of players who have a bad temper when cloggers like burnley or anthony knockeart come to town.
Well, it's opinion, of course, but they were up against less na*ve defences and they did on occasion head the ball. I don't really want to take anything away from Greaves, who was a boyhood hero of mine.
I have a big problem with comparing Burnley with GT's Watford but there are one or two similarities: They don't play in a way that the mainstream media and supporters think is the 'right way'. Although they are a physical team, they are not a dirty one. They tend to impose their game on the opposition. However, they are limited in ability and play rigidly to a laborious pattern (no Blissett or Callaghan or Barnes in their side). On Saturday the game was the worst I've watched since Stoke (Stoke were, additionally, dirty and cheating). But Watford fell apart and were left failing to impose their game and must take their share of the blame for lack of entertainment. Although they are not frequently penalised, Burnley play right to the edge and neither Watford nor Michael Oliver could cope with it. They also were wasting time from early on. There are times when we are desperate for the final whistle because we are hanging on. For the first time in I don't know how long I was glad Oliver short-changed us on added time because I couldn't stand any more and couldn't wait to get away. Incidentally, the disallowed 'goal' was onside, but should never have happened anyway because Woods had fouled Holevas in the build-up.
You misread it. I'm a human being like Katie Hopkins but shes a rancid streak of piss. Burnley play percentage football like GT did but....
I don't understand how anyone can think Ashley Barnes, Chris Woods and Sam Vokes are better footballers than MV. Either he has regressed dramatically, or Dyche is a one-dimensional dinosaur!
Indeed, and he wasn't in the officials ear all match either. Nor did he have a voice like a gruff rapist.
Our physical assaults on other teams' players are honest, well intentioned, 'he isn't that type of martial arts expert' nudges, unlike the other teams whose players are cynical cheats looking to hand out career ending injuries in every game. Re: long balls, Burnley's long balls were clueless, desperate, neanderthal hoofs upfield while ours were elegant, perfectly weighted, 'continental' wonder passes. Hope that clears up any doubts in your mind.
