| Burns v. Thompson 18:48 - Mar 28 with 1503 views | jayessess |
Various people saying we need "another Burns" for LWB next year, but anyone else think Thompson and Burns' different roles/attributes are complimentary rather than better or worse?
Burns plays very high. His defending is decent, but he doesn't do a lot of it. His link passing and movement is great but he does it in very specific areas (the final third). Thompson in contrast does a lot of defending for us, helps our shape out of possession so it's 4 rather than 3 when it needs to be. He also hangs deeper to make himself an simpler out ball.
Reflected in the stats too:
Burns makes 25.5 passes per 90 minutes
Thompson 47.8 (6th best in the squad)
Burns 0.8 tackles and 0.7 interceptions/90
Thompson 1.9 and 2.5 (3rd and 1st)
Thompson does all that and still ranks 2nd in the squad for chances created.
For sure Wes does things Dom can't but we do need someone doing Thompson's bit, just as much as Burns. [Post edited 28 Mar 2022 18:54]
|  |
| |  |
| Burns v. Thompson on 18:50 - Mar 28 with 1469 views | noggin |
Thompson will become a very good player, imho. |  |
| |
| Burns v. Thompson on 18:55 - Mar 28 with 1426 views | Swansea_Blue |
You can play this system with 2 flying wingbacks or you can be lopsided (you need one or you’ve got a boring back 5!).
With Celina used to operating from out on the left, Thompson is a perfectly good option imo. Burns doesn’t have the same support on the right. So with our current personnel Thompson suits very well. |  |
| |
| Burns v. Thompson on 19:18 - Mar 28 with 1338 views | Scuzzer |
| Burns v. Thompson on 18:50 - Mar 28 by noggin |
Thompson will become a very good player, imho. |
He has certainly got better with each game.
And I dont mind if when defending we are lopsided...Donacien simply covers for Burns and we become a back four again.
If we can i think we ought to get him in. |  |
| |
| Burns v. Thompson on 20:20 - Mar 28 with 1210 views | ArnieM |
Nice OP.
All I’d say is we are prone to being one dimensional in our attacking hectare mist of our penetrating attacks come down Burns side. Mark him out if the game were a bit hamstrung. We’re lopsided therefore. Hence why we ideally could do with a similar style of attacking threat down the left . This is my gripe about Thompson . He doesn’t offer the same as Donacian / Burns….. Thompson doesn’t have the same partnership with whoever is ahead of him . I realise the left side is not as settled as the right , but whoever is ahead of Thompson, there’s not the same threat in my view because Thompson doesn’t get forward enough ( although he does appear to be improving in this aspect of his game ). |  |
| |
| Burns v. Thompson on 22:10 - Mar 28 with 1083 views | jayessess |
| Burns v. Thompson on 20:20 - Mar 28 by ArnieM |
Nice OP.
All I’d say is we are prone to being one dimensional in our attacking hectare mist of our penetrating attacks come down Burns side. Mark him out if the game were a bit hamstrung. We’re lopsided therefore. Hence why we ideally could do with a similar style of attacking threat down the left . This is my gripe about Thompson . He doesn’t offer the same as Donacian / Burns….. Thompson doesn’t have the same partnership with whoever is ahead of him . I realise the left side is not as settled as the right , but whoever is ahead of Thompson, there’s not the same threat in my view because Thompson doesn’t get forward enough ( although he does appear to be improving in this aspect of his game ). |
Thanks!
We certainly are lopsided, but perhaps quite a productive lopsidedness? I do wonder if we could get away with 2 wing backs doing comparatively little defensive work and playing so high up the pitch. Or if you'd have to find a left wing back who offers both the threat *and* that additional combativeness (probably beyond a L1 budget that). | |
| |
| Burns v. Thompson on 22:22 - Mar 28 with 1057 views | pointofblue |
| Burns v. Thompson on 20:20 - Mar 28 by ArnieM |
Nice OP.
All I’d say is we are prone to being one dimensional in our attacking hectare mist of our penetrating attacks come down Burns side. Mark him out if the game were a bit hamstrung. We’re lopsided therefore. Hence why we ideally could do with a similar style of attacking threat down the left . This is my gripe about Thompson . He doesn’t offer the same as Donacian / Burns….. Thompson doesn’t have the same partnership with whoever is ahead of him . I realise the left side is not as settled as the right , but whoever is ahead of Thompson, there’s not the same threat in my view because Thompson doesn’t get forward enough ( although he does appear to be improving in this aspect of his game ). |
I understand what you're saying but if you're pointing out that Thompson and the left sided centre back don't have the same relationship as Burns and Donacien then that's more an issue with the LCB position than Thompson himself. Being trained at full back means Donacien is used to being an attacking outlet out wide; Edmundson and Burgess, in comparison, are centre backs first and foremost. |  |
| |
| Burns v. Thompson on 22:29 - Mar 28 with 1040 views | Rozz |
| Burns v. Thompson on 22:22 - Mar 28 by pointofblue |
I understand what you're saying but if you're pointing out that Thompson and the left sided centre back don't have the same relationship as Burns and Donacien then that's more an issue with the LCB position than Thompson himself. Being trained at full back means Donacien is used to being an attacking outlet out wide; Edmundson and Burgess, in comparison, are centre backs first and foremost. |
Have made the point about LCB in the other thread. Actually a set up with Thompson at LCB and Penney in LWB would be the most balanced / symmetrical in terms of attributes for me. Not sure it'd work though! |  | | |
| Burns v. Thompson on 22:41 - Mar 28 with 1011 views | itfcsuth |
Have said for weeks now, I don’t think a permanent deal will be struck, but a season long loan for Thompson is quite important for me. However seeing he only has 12 months to run on his deal at Brentford makes me think a permanent deal could well be done.
He adds great balance to the defensive setup, has been an integral part of our defensive unit and would love to see that continuity going in to next season. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Burns v. Thompson on 23:09 - Mar 28 with 973 views | ArnieM |
| Burns v. Thompson on 22:22 - Mar 28 by pointofblue |
I understand what you're saying but if you're pointing out that Thompson and the left sided centre back don't have the same relationship as Burns and Donacien then that's more an issue with the LCB position than Thompson himself. Being trained at full back means Donacien is used to being an attacking outlet out wide; Edmundson and Burgess, in comparison, are centre backs first and foremost. |
Isn’t that exactly what Mills alluded to in a post match comment a couple of weeks ago? Whereby he said Edmundson is an out and out CB (as is Burgess), and that neither of them are as comfortable “on the ball” or happy to push forward over that half way line like Donacian and Woolfie do . He has a point I think . But what would McKenna do with Edmundson/ Burgess if they don’t ideally fit with his vision of the team going into next season ? | |
| |
| Burns v. Thompson on 00:58 - Mar 29 with 868 views | OsborneOneNil |
| Burns v. Thompson on 20:20 - Mar 28 by ArnieM |
Nice OP.
All I’d say is we are prone to being one dimensional in our attacking hectare mist of our penetrating attacks come down Burns side. Mark him out if the game were a bit hamstrung. We’re lopsided therefore. Hence why we ideally could do with a similar style of attacking threat down the left . This is my gripe about Thompson . He doesn’t offer the same as Donacian / Burns….. Thompson doesn’t have the same partnership with whoever is ahead of him . I realise the left side is not as settled as the right , but whoever is ahead of Thompson, there’s not the same threat in my view because Thompson doesn’t get forward enough ( although he does appear to be improving in this aspect of his game ). |
Marking Burns out of the game, easier said than done. Karl Robinson said on Quest this weekend that he was unplayable for 45 mins (second half) in our game last week. They couldn’t handle him. |  | | |
| Burns v. Thompson on 06:55 - Mar 29 with 735 views | Veggie |
McKenna has mentioned in a recent interview about Thompson developing a more attacking side to his game. Our one weakness as a side at the moment is not scoring enough goals. Burns is invaluable down the right hand side and we really need to be creating more chances down the left flank too. Liverpool have two marauding, attacking wing backs. I imagine McKenna would like the same one day. |  | | |
| Burns v. Thompson on 08:49 - Mar 29 with 598 views | Sparky85 |
100% agree and Karl Robinson mentioned this the other day. Our imbalance is actually what works so well for us.
When in possession and attacking, Burns is so high to add an extra man, so Thompson becomes the left back, 2 central defenders and Janoi becomes the right back, also pressing up the pitch to get involved in attacks.
KR even went as far as to say they couldn't cope with it.
Great to see us adapting tactics to cause others problems, rather than setting up to nullify the opposition. | | | |
| Burns v. Thompson on 08:56 - Mar 29 with 573 views | Steve_M |
| Burns v. Thompson on 00:58 - Mar 29 by OsborneOneNil |
Marking Burns out of the game, easier said than done. Karl Robinson said on Quest this weekend that he was unplayable for 45 mins (second half) in our game last week. They couldn’t handle him. |
The only tactic Oxford seemed to have against Burns was kicking him. |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
