Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
Stuliasz

Match Ratings : Palace 2-0 City : Results & Man of the Match

By Stuliasz, in Leicester City Forum

Recommended Posts

Stuliasz

Stuliasz

Posted
Posted

Low Ratings All Round as City Defeated at Palace

http://lcfcratings.wordpress.com

 

Saturday 27 September, 15:00
Barclays Premier League
Selhurst Park, London

 

 

Crystal Palace 2
Campbell 51′, Jedinak 54′

 

Leicester City 0

 

 

Phil Neville described it as City's "welcome to the Premier League" on Match of the Day, but whether you want to call it a reality check, the bubble bursting or as there was no hiding from the stark contrast against City's performance from last weekend, or the resulting ratings given by the City fans. Esteban Cambiasso received the highest rating with a meagre 5.7 and will be credited with his first LCFC Ratings Man of the Match, but it was a game where nobody could hold their head up high with Crystal Palace winning individual battles all across the field.

 

Yannick Bolasie gave Ritchie de Laet a particularly torrid time resulting in the Belgian receiving the lowest rating of any starter, while the 30 minute cameo of Riyad Mahrez was voted the worst contribution on the day. Danny Simpson didn't rate particularly highly on his debut after Bolasie continued to shine even after the ex-QPR full-back replaced Ritchie de Laet at right back, while Dean Hammond clearly seemed to struggle in a game where he had more time on the ball than off it compared to previous fixtures. Matty James put his case forward to return to the team for Burnley next week after being voted the second best performer from the bench, and his inclusion may well be at the expense of Hammond who has probably had more game time already than many expected him to have this season.

 

Manager Nigel Pearson also fared particularly badly with a low rating that showed what the fans thought about his tactical and team choices against a different kind of opposition to that which City have faced so far. However whether this warrants a 7% drop in overall confidence is questionable. Crystal Palace came in as the second best opposition City have faced this season after Shrewsbury Town, while referee Keith Stroud received an average rating in his first top flight game for over five years.

 

 

Total Votes : 174

 

Man of the Match : Esteban Cambiasso*

  1. Esteban Cambiasso : 5.70
  2. (SUB) Matty James : 5.58
  3. Kasper Schmeichel : 5.57
  4. Liam Moore : 5.47
  5. Paul Konchesky : 5.39
  6. Wes Morgan : 5.33
  7. (SUB) Danny Simpson : 5.06
  8. Jamie Vardy : 4.80
  9. Leonardo Ulloa : 4.76
  10. Danny Drinkwater : 4.69
  11. David Nugent : 4.51
  12. Dean Hammond : 4.46
  13. Ritchie de Laet : 4.39
  14. (SUB) Riyad Mahrez : 4.34

* Man of the match selected using weighted average based on minutes played. Actual ratings as voted shown above.

 

Manager Performance : 4.78

 

Opposition Performance : 6.96

 

Officials Performance (Ref: Keith Stroud) : 5.55

 

Manager Confidence : 92.26% (-7.33%)
Stay: 143 | Go: 12

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Miquel The Work Geordie

Miquel The Work Geordie

Posted
Posted

12 People actually want Pearson gone....

 

I always thought the "stay or go" poll was based around how Pearson got on in that particular game ie - did NP get his tactics bang on or was it a bad day at the office?

 

I voted go because I don't think we were right on Saturday, doesn't mean I actually want him out! I'd have his bloody children if possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Carl the Llama

Carl the Llama

Posted
Posted

I always thought the "stay or go" poll was based around how Pearson got on in that particular game ie - did NP get his tactics bang on or was it a bad day at the office?

 

I voted go because I don't think we were right on Saturday, doesn't mean I actually want him out! I'd have his bloody children if possible.

That's what the manager performance rating's for you numpty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thracian

Thracian

Posted
Posted

12 People actually want Pearson gone....

 

 

I've never thought Pearson was above criticism for all the hero worship on here but overall the bloke has done an outstanding job and if pushed I'd back him to do even better because he does learn and he does seem to generate a decent team spirit which is a major factor in getting any kind of success.

 

Tactically I think he - and his staff just as likely - are not always convincing. Our League Cup match was an example. Okay we weren't ever going to field our strongest side but the opposition manager twigged our strengths and weaknesses after 15 minutes and re-organised to give us a good hiding on a scale not unlike the Burton Albion cup match not so long before.

 

Against Palace, again, Warnock took us to the cleaners tactically. We well knew their style and strengths yet we didn't combat either. Pearson is a progressive manager so if he's not sure tactically why not import a tactical mastermind in the same way as we've got a forwards coach and are hitting the target more accurately than most according to statistics. 

 

There  must be shrewd tacticians out there who aren't necessarily the most inspirational managers. The Palace game gave so many simple insights to what I mean. DeLaet was clearly under the kind of one-against-one pressure he was never going to cope with. As many full-backs might find against such a skillful and nippy opponent.

 

Fair enough. Accept it and do something about it. Either you double up on the guy as so many teams have done against Dyer in the past. Or you stop the supply of passes to the problem player. Or you employ a specialist man-for-man marker like the celebrated Alan Woollett who used to keep even the best players quiet by sticking to them like a limpet. 

 

The latter policy seems frowned on these days though I don't know why. But, there are three perfectly sensible choices yet we didn't seem to act decisively enough, thus highlighting the problem of not having enough cover for DeLaet and not being able to deal with a certain kind of threat.

 

Similarly when it comes to free headers in the box I've already mentioned that one way to limit that is to avoid giving away free-kicks and corners.

 

Another is to make sure you have markers who stick to their task. Which means making your presence felt with the attacker. No, a 5 feet 10 inch opponent isn't likely to outjump Peter Crouch but they can make life dreadfully uncomfortable for them by jumping with them in a determined fashion, by holding their ground so the attacker can't get clean contact and by generally being an irritant.

 

We didn't do that because we weren't near the attacker yet someone like Kingy - although never really an aggressive  player - would always be around and was often the man to clear danger in the past.                     

 

You only have to look at our personnel against Palace to see we didn't have enough aerial presence. After Moore and Morgan we're not the best in the air as a back four and certainly we had nothing to offer from central midfield...glaring indication of how much King was missed and will inevitably be missed given the current first choices.

 

Next you've got the Ulloa situation. Apart from Vardy against United he's been our only dangerman up front. The guy clearly thrives on crosses but we hardly gave him any.

 

Why? Because DeLaet was never going to get the chance having quite enough to cope with and Schlupp wasn't playing either. We just snookered outselves.

 

Pearson's problem of course is that he can't play all our theoretically best players and properly balance the team. But they're the decisions he's paid to make and paid to get right - he of his lieutenants. 

 

He could of course play three at the front and a three man attack of Ulloa, Vardy and either King or Nugent would always pose a threat.

 

But not without supply and that would mean playing three at the back and four in midfield which is quite possibly beyond us unless Nugent was the third striker and King the supplementary centre-back when we're under pressure. 

 

The last paragraph is thinking aloud - as if i were facing the problem - but mostly just trying to indicate how you have to balance the various requirements rather than just picking the best paid or most seemingly talented players.

 

I'm not anti-Cambiasso because the guy has some super qualities. But you can't be leaving runners on the edge of our box. I've criticised Kingy for it in the past and the same applies to the Argentinian. You have to track the runners in your segment.     

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Col city fan

Col city fan

Posted
Posted

I've never thought Pearson was above criticism for all the hero worship on here but overall the bloke has done an outstanding job and if pushed I'd back him to do even better because he does learn and he does seem to generate a decent team spirit which is a major factor in getting any kind of success.

Tactically I think he - and his staff just as likely - are not always convincing. Our League Cup match was an example. Okay we weren't ever going to field our strongest side but the opposition manager twigged our strengths and weaknesses after 15 minutes and re-organised to give us a good hiding on a scale not unlike the Burton Albion cup match not so long before.

Against Palace, again, Warnock took us to the cleaners tactically. We well knew their style and strengths yet we didn't combat either. Pearson is a progressive manager so if he's not sure tactically why not import a tactical mastermind in the same way as we've got a forwards coach and are hitting the target more accurately than most according to statistics.

There must be shrewd tacticians out there who aren't necessarily the most inspirational managers. The Palace game gave so many simple insights to what I mean. DeLaet was clearly under the kind of one-against-one pressure he was never going to cope with. As many full-backs might find against such a skillful and nippy opponent.

Fair enough. Accept it and do something about it. Either you double up on the guy as so many teams have done against Dyer in the past. Or you stop the supply of passes to the problem player. Or you employ a specialist man-for-man marker like the celebrated Alan Woollett who used to keep even the best players quiet by sticking to them like a limpet.

The latter policy seems frowned on these days though I don't know why. But, there are three perfectly sensible choices yet we didn't seem to act decisively enough, thus highlighting the problem of not having enough cover for DeLaet and not being able to deal with a certain kind of threat.

Similarly when it comes to free headers in the box I've already mentioned that one way to limit that is to avoid giving away free-kicks and corners.

Another is to make sure you have markers who stick to their task. Which means making your presence felt with the attacker. No, a 5 feet 10 inch opponent isn't likely to outjump Peter Crouch but they can make life dreadfully uncomfortable for them by jumping with them in a determined fashion, by holding their ground so the attacker can't get clean contact and by generally being an irritant.

We didn't do that because we weren't near the attacker yet someone like Kingy - although never really an aggressive player - would always be around and was often the man to clear danger in the past.

You only have to look at our personnel against Palace to see we didn't have enough aerial presence. After Moore and Morgan we're not the best in the air as a back four and certainly we had nothing to offer from central midfield...glaring indication of how much King was missed and will inevitably be missed given the current first choices.

Next you've got the Ulloa situation. Apart from Vardy against United he's been our only dangerman up front. The guy clearly thrives on crosses but we hardly gave him any.

Why? Because DeLaet was never going to get the chance having quite enough to cope with and Schlupp wasn't playing either. We just snookered outselves.

Pearson's problem of course is that he can't play all our theoretically best players and properly balance the team. But they're the decisions he's paid to make and paid to get right - he of his lieutenants.

He could of course play three at the front and a three man attack of Ulloa, Vardy and either King or Nugent would always pose a threat.

But not without supply and that would mean playing three at the back and four in midfield which is quite possibly beyond us unless Nugent was the third striker and King the supplementary centre-back when we're under pressure.

The last paragraph is thinking aloud - as if i were facing the problem - but mostly just trying to indicate how you have to balance the various requirements rather than just picking the best paid or most seemingly talented players.

I'm not anti-Cambiasso because the guy has some super qualities. But you can't be leaving runners on the edge of our box. I've criticised Kingy for it in the past and the same applies to the Argentinian. You have to track the runners in your segment.

Another great post..

:appl:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...