Match Ratings : Leicester 1-1 Tottenham - Vote Now!

[kingfox]

No. The instructions were quite clear. Let Spurs on, remain tight and tough to break down then press and counter where there was an opportunity. Ergo, we were always going to surrender a lot of possession by trying to spring counters. Drinkwater stuck to his assigned task manfully, as did King.

They did tire in the heat but there weren't many players on either side that didn't.

Playing those tactics is a bloody dangerous game.

There were a lot of hit & hope balls up to the forwards, when on the ball Drinkwater especially was negative, in the first two games he was looking forward & his tempo was quick, yesterday he kept slowing play down, he was getting slated for that last season.

Yes our play is based more on countering attacking & fast breaks; however where was that yesterday? Okazaki & Vardy huffed & puffed, Albrighton especially his crossing was lacklustre while Drinky & King were slow in attacking & defensive situations. Our best attacking outlet was Mahrez, who happened to have our two best chances & was the only one who made things happen.

[Guest Col city fan]

Playing those tactics is a bloody dangerous game.

There were a lot of hit & hope balls up to the forwards, when on the ball Drinkwater especially was negative, in the first two games he was looking forward & his tempo was quick, yesterday he kept slowing play down, he was getting slated for that last season.

Yes our play is based more on countering attacking & fast breaks; however where was that yesterday? Okazaki & Vardy huffed & puffed, Albrighton especially his crossing was lacklustre while Drinky & King were slow in attacking & defensive situations. Our best attacking outlet was Mahrez, who happened to have our two best chances & was the only one who made things happen.

You really do have a downer on Drinkwater don't you. Fortunately Ranieri doesn't and neither do most of our fans.

One...more.....time.....Drinkwater is not an orthodox playmaker. He will keep it simple usually, and you won't see him accurately play the type of passes that Cambiasso did.

But that is not his game. He is there to tidy up, to win back possession, to purposefully keep it simple, to scurry, to harass, to break down the oppositions game.

For this, he IS an effective player.

Other players are there to do the damage. Mahrez, Albrighton, King can pick a pass, can hit on the break and can steer the team going forward.

See Drinkwater for what he is and you'll start to understand him.

C-man has it spot on. The instructions WERE clear yesterday. The heat was a very telling factor and we came away with an important point and could have easily nicked it at the death.

[Wymsey]

Just think Hammond will go out on loan, even if some think we'll still short of midfield options, with a view to return back if needs be.

[kingfox]

You really do have a downer on Drinkwater don't you. Fortunately Ranieri doesn't and neither do most of our fans.

One...more.....time.....Drinkwater is not an orthodox playmaker. He will keep it simple usually, and you won't see him accurately play the type of passes that Cambiasso did.

But that is not his game. He is there to tidy up, to win back possession, to purposefully keep it simple, to scurry, to harass, to break down the oppositions game.

For this, he IS an effective player.

Other players are there to do the damage. Mahrez, Albrighton, King can pick a pass, can hit on the break and can steer the team going forward.

See Drinkwater for what he is and you'll start to understand him.

C-man has it spot on. The instructions WERE clear yesterday. The heat was a very telling factor and we came away with an important point and could have easily nicked it at the death.

Danny Drinkwater in our Championship winning season was a forward thinking midfielder, who played at a quick tempo & was capable of spraying the ball around the pitch. That was the Drinkwater we saw against Sunderland & West Ham(first half mostly), a player who was good at retaining possession, sharp in his link up play & passing, while most of all he was keen to look & drive forward.

Yesterday we saw the negative Drinkwater, turning backwards when in possession & slowing the game down, I can't be doing with that, that's why I'm not a fan of the guy. Albrighton, Okazaki & Vardy were hardly in the game because they had little service from Drinky & King.

As soon as Kante & Inler came on they were getting stuck in, retaining possession, driving forward, winning free kicks & set pieces. We had Spurs on the back foot in the last 10 minutes because our tempo was fast, that was helped with the substitutions of Kante & Inler.

[iancognito]

He wasn't better than any other player. Scored a goal which doesn't override the overall performance.

 

And hit the post. And should have had a pen and was probably a greater attacking threat than Vardy who just ran into blind alleys all afternoon.

 

Probably an 8 for Mahrez and 6's & 7s for the rest.

 

I'm not sure how many more times Jeff can fall asleep at left back before someone realises he's not a left back, not at this level. He lost the winger early in the second half - and took a mouthful from Wes about it -  and was lucky he shot over and then he just stood with his arm up for the second. Liam Moore was dropped and never seen again for similar lapses last season.

 

Being a 'promising talent' doesn't mean you stay in the side regardless.

[The_77]

Tell me about it, far too generous imo.

If you're somehow being serious, I don't think you understand how egregious a player's mistakes must be to warrant a rating of 4. I'd also suggest re-watching that game and counting how many passes RDL cut out.

Also, here's a bit of perspective for anyone slating RDL:

[ScouseFox]

I thought Richie was quite good for most the game?

the mahrez-rdl right side defence will be our weak link through the season unless something changes though i reckon. just yesterday if Spurs used him better Davies could've got in behind about 20 times first half alone due to lack of concentration between riyad and rdl. not passing a man on or following a run and being drawn to the ball a bit. better teams will ruin that.

[BoyJones]

RDL played ok except that one time when he should have belted it out of defence.

I still can't understand why the penalty wasn't given. Clearly took Mayrez leg. If no penalty why didn't ref book for a dive, he didn't because he knew it was a foul, but bottled it totally.

[suffolk fox]

Rdl is an awful fullback his job is to defend he is not an attacker. Many times he wandered aimlessly into the middle of our defence leaving their winger exposed on the flank. They had an outball and passed it to their winger many times. It was the same against West ham last week.

De laat is our weak link and needs to be replaced. As the season goes on he will be targetted more and more.

What was that 40 yard back pass straight out for a corner for them towards the end of the first half?

Bloody awful he must go.

[VLC86]

If you're somehow being serious, I don't think you understand how egregious a player's mistakes must be to warrant a rating of 4. I'd also suggest re-watching that game and counting how many passes RDL cut out.

Also, here's a bit of perspective for anyone slating RDL:

Was a joke, he was better than last week but he is still a weak link and opposition know it.

And stats only ever tell half the story.

[Thracian]

Kasper 6 (One or two routine saves but his distribution has been less impressive so far this season and, again, he seemed a bit hesitant at times).       

RDL 6.5 (Did okay in general and mainly contained his opponent within what was a tactically disappointing set-up.

Hutt in our Italianised attempt to bolt the defensive door but not greatly overworked by less-than-ambitious opponents).    

Morgan 6.5 (One perhaps vital block near the edge of the area and might so easily have netted our winner but for a point-blank save).    

Schlupp 6.5 (Some good things but far too restricted by the system and not at his besttheir goal along with others).    

Albrighton 6.5 (Quite lively in the first half but faded)

King 7.25 (As ever against a more challenging  opponent showed himself one of the few who kept doing the simple things quickly and capably. One or two timely tackles and created at least one excellent chance. Star man but for the importance of Mahrez' goal

Drinkwater 5 (Overwhelmed by the tall, strong, Spurs midfield and perhaps inevitably so given our submissive formation which voluntarily conceded the space up to 30/40 yards out where we mustered our two banks of four. Even in possession wasted the ball too easily)  

Mahrez 7.5 (Didn't have an especially good game. Close control let him down on occasions, didn't make the best of a couple of opportunities and looked generally frustrating until coming up with a cracking equaliser to record his fourth goal of the season.the goal was vital in the context of the game of course, and earned his star rating but it he was never near his best 

Vardy 7.25 (Worked so hard to conjure something out of nothing and was rewarded with his part in the goal, a cracking run and cross past the face of goal almost criminally found no-one to take advantage and various other titbits. But he had so little backing partly because of the system, partly because we had so little commitment going forward and partly because Okazaki was as bad as he was good the previous week and offered next to no practical help whatsoever.    

Okazaki 5 (Tried hard but that was it because he got nowhere. He was simply overwhelmed by the giants of Tottenham and the limits of our ambition under Ranieri's system. There just wasn't the passing and movement from people around him to even help him get involved.  

Kante 7 (If he'd been on a little longer he'd have been man of the match because he did show some energy and enterprise and he did have some effect in everything he did in what was no more than a cameo.   

Inler 6 (Looked classy on the ball but might also have given a goal away with an underhit pass which demonstrated his rustiness. Looked a potential asset though without question).

Ranieri 6 (He can rightly refer to a point taken against opponents who won both league matches against us last season and might also mention how few chances we restricted a supposedly top 6 challenger to.

Add to that the fact of our regaining unbeaten and top of the league again by Saturday evening and he might have gone home feeling quite content with his day's work.

Me, I thought our approach helped Spurs in some ways and rarely even asked if we could take their defence apart. We never put the numbers forward to stretch those defenders and exploit the holes even one or two attackers managed to create while almost always outnumbered.

It was more like a chess game than a football match and the wonderful atmosphere created pre-kick-off was all but wasted by the limits of our tactical ambition. Yes, it was a valuable point and one that was doggedly earned.

But, apart from when Morgan so nearly grabbed the winner after Spurs had been close to doing the same, there was little to stir the emotions and I don't see why we limited ourselves so dramatically.   

[Thracian]

Kasper 6 (One or two routine saves but his distribution has been less impressive so far this season and, again, he seemed a bit hesitant at times).       

RDL 6.5 (Did okay in general and mainly contained his opponent within what was a tactically disappointing set-up.

Hutt in our Italianised attempt to bolt the defensive door but not greatly overworked by less-than-ambitious opponents).    

Morgan 6.5 (One perhaps vital block near the edge of the area and might so easily have netted our winner but for a point-blank save).    

Schlupp 6.5 (Some good things but far too restricted by the system and not at his besttheir goal along with others).    

Albrighton 6.5 (Quite lively in the first half but faded)

King 7.25 (As ever against a more challenging  opponent showed himself one of the few who kept doing the simple things quickly and capably. One or two timely tackles and created at least one excellent chance. Star man but for the importance of Mahrez' goal

Drinkwater 5 (Overwhelmed by the tall, strong, Spurs midfield and perhaps inevitably so given our submissive formation which voluntarily conceded the space up to 30/40 yards out where we mustered our two banks of four. Even in possession wasted the ball too easily)  

Mahrez 7.5 (Didn't have an especially good game. Close control let him down on occasions, didn't make the best of a couple of opportunities and looked generally frustrating until coming up with a cracking equaliser to record his fourth goal of the season.the goal was vital in the context of the game of course, and earned his star rating but it he was never near his best 

Vardy 7.25 (Worked so hard to conjure something out of nothing and was rewarded with his part in the goal, a cracking run and cross past the face of goal almost criminally found no-one to take advantage and various other titbits. But he had so little backing partly because of the system, partly because we had so little commitment going forward and partly because Okazaki was as bad as he was good the previous week and offered next to no practical help whatsoever.    

Okazaki 5 (Tried hard but that was it because he got nowhere. He was simply overwhelmed by the giants of Tottenham and the limits of our ambition under Ranieri's system. There just wasn't the passing and movement from people around him to even help him get involved.  

Kante 7 (If he'd been on a little longer he'd have been man of the match because he did show some energy and enterprise and he did have some effect in everything he did in what was no more than a cameo.   

Inler 6 (Looked classy on the ball but might also have given a goal away with an underhit pass which demonstrated his rustiness. Looked a potential asset though without question).

Ranieri 6 (He can rightly refer to a point taken against opponents who won both league matches against us last season and might also mention how few chances we restricted a supposedly top 6 challenger to.

Add to that the fact of our remaining unbeaten and top of the league again by Saturday evening and he might have gone home feeling quite content with his day's work.

Me, I thought our approach helped Spurs in some ways and it rarely even asked if we could take their defence apart. We didn't put the numbers forward to stretch those defenders and exploit the holes even one or two attackers managed to create while almost always outnumbered.

It was more like a chess game than a football match and the wonderful atmosphere created pre-kick-off was all but wasted by the limits of our tactical ambition. Yes, it was a valuable point and one that was doggedly earned.

But, apart from when Morgan so nearly grabbed the winner after Spurs had been close to doing the same, there was little to stir the emotions and I don't see why we limited ourselves so dramatically.   

[Guest ttfn]

If you're somehow being serious, I don't think you understand how egregious a player's mistakes must be to warrant a rating of 4. I'd also suggest re-watching that game and counting how many passes RDL cut out.

Also, here's a bit of perspective for anyone slating RDL:

People have different views of what the ratings mean, which is why Stuliasz has tried to homogenise it by having words next to them when you come to submit them for the poll.

4 is "poor". Putting aside whether or not you thought de Laet was poor (I did, you didn't) his mistakes don't have to be "egregious" to warrant a 4. In fact a 4 is as close to the median score available of 5.5 as 7 and people give them out as a matter of course.

People get 5s and 6s in newspapers when they've played poorly not because 4 (which, again, is as far away from the average as 7) is a horrendous insult but because the journalists can't be arsed a) watching all 22 players properly and b) trying to have to explain that a rating of 4 doesn't mean that they scored 10 deliberate own goals, it means they were a bit below the standard expected, much as a 7 would mean that they were a bit above the standard expected.

[ScouseFox]

People have different views of what the ratings mean, which is why Stuliasz has tried to homogenise it by having words next to them when you come to submit them for the poll.

4 is "poor". Putting aside whether or not you thought de Laet was poor (I did, you didn't) his mistakes don't have to be "egregious" to warrant a 4. In fact a 4 is as close to the median score available of 5.5 as 7 and people give them out as a matter of course.

People get 5s and 6s in newspapers when they've played poorly not because 4 (which, again, is as far away from the average as 7) is a horrendous insult but because the journalists can't be arsed a) watching all 22 players properly and b) trying to have to explain that a rating of 4 doesn't mean that they scored 10 deliberate own goals, it means they were a bit below the standard expected, much as a 7 would mean that they were a bit above the standard expected.

this is why you're one of my fav posters

[NewquayFox]

Always going to be a tough game, Spurs did their homework on us and stopped City playing our attacking style. Kasper looked a bit hesitant today, 3 of the back 4 were steady but Schlupp again looked out of position a few times and got caught flat footed for the Spurs goal, centre mid got overran quite a bit by a tougher Spurs set up, our attacking quartet looked a bit tired today but another moment of magic from Mahrez saved the day. Kante looks class and should start against Bournemouth as did Inler but I think he will have to wait for his chance to start....

Up the City....

[Ian S]

Rdl is an awful fullback his job is to defend he is not an attacker. Many times he wandered aimlessly into the middle of our defence leaving their winger exposed on the flank. They had an outball and passed it to their winger many times. It was the same against West ham last week.

De laat is our weak link and needs to be replaced. As the season goes on he will be targetted more and more.

What was that 40 yard back pass straight out for a corner for them towards the end of the first half?

Bloody awful he must go.

Nothing like over exaggerating,we always have to have a scapegoat regardless of whether we are winning or losing.He diid a lot of good things yesterday cutting out many crossfield balls and whoever plays right back for us will look isolated because Mahrez is not a natural at tracking back and supporting the full back.

Some of the comments on here make me laugh,De Laet is terrible but Inler has a cameo performance and everyone bigs him up,no mention of him giving possession away well in our own half right towards the end putting us under pressure.

[Ian S]

Kasper 6 (One or two routine saves but his distribution has been less impressive so far this season and, again, he seemed a bit hesitant at times).       

RDL 6.5 (Did okay in general and mainly contained his opponent within what was a tactically disappointing set-up.

Hutt in our Italianised attempt to bolt the defensive door but not greatly overworked by less-than-ambitious opponents).    

Morgan 6.5 (One perhaps vital block near the edge of the area and might so easily have netted our winner but for a point-blank save).    

Schlupp 6.5 (Some good things but far too restricted by the system and not at his besttheir goal along with others).    

Albrighton 6.5 (Quite lively in the first half but faded)

King 7.25 (As ever against a more challenging  opponent showed himself one of the few who kept doing the simple things quickly and capably. One or two timely tackles and created at least one excellent chance. Star man but for the importance of Mahrez' goal

Drinkwater 5 (Overwhelmed by the tall, strong, Spurs midfield and perhaps inevitably so given our submissive formation which voluntarily conceded the space up to 30/40 yards out where we mustered our two banks of four. Even in possession wasted the ball too easily)  

Mahrez 7.5 (Didn't have an especially good game. Close control let him down on occasions, didn't make the best of a couple of opportunities and looked generally frustrating until coming up with a cracking equaliser to record his fourth goal of the season.the goal was vital in the context of the game of course, and earned his star rating but it he was never near his best 

Vardy 7.25 (Worked so hard to conjure something out of nothing and was rewarded with his part in the goal, a cracking run and cross past the face of goal almost criminally found no-one to take advantage and various other titbits. But he had so little backing partly because of the system, partly because we had so little commitment going forward and partly because Okazaki was as bad as he was good the previous week and offered next to no practical help whatsoever.    

Okazaki 5 (Tried hard but that was it because he got nowhere. He was simply overwhelmed by the giants of Tottenham and the limits of our ambition under Ranieri's system. There just wasn't the passing and movement from people around him to even help him get involved.  

Kante 7 (If he'd been on a little longer he'd have been man of the match because he did show some energy and enterprise and he did have some effect in everything he did in what was no more than a cameo.   

Inler 6 (Looked classy on the ball but might also have given a goal away with an underhit pass which demonstrated his rustiness. Looked a potential asset though without question).

Ranieri 6 (He can rightly refer to a point taken against opponents who won both league matches against us last season and might also mention how few chances we restricted a supposedly top 6 challenger to.

Add to that the fact of our remaining unbeaten and top of the league again by Saturday evening and he might have gone home feeling quite content with his day's work.

Me, I thought our approach helped Spurs in some ways and it rarely even asked if we could take their defence apart. We didn't put the numbers forward to stretch those defenders and exploit the holes even one or two attackers managed to create while almost always outnumbered.

It was more like a chess game than a football match and the wonderful atmosphere created pre-kick-off was all but wasted by the limits of our tactical ambition. Yes, it was a valuable point and one that was doggedly earned.

But, apart from when Morgan so nearly grabbed the winner after Spurs had been close to doing the same, there was little to stir the emotions and I don't see why we limited ourselves so dramatically.

King 7.25 and Drinkwater 5. .

[Thracian]

I think it's a really difficult situation with King and Drinky. Both have performed very well in the past three games but I felt when Kante and Inler came on that they were just a different class. Inler looked composed with a great range of passing and vision (as well as having a cheeky longshot in him) and Kante looked full of energy and incredibly tenacious. Love Kingy and Drinks so it would be hard to drop either of them

 

Yes, they did look capable. Kante was excellent but Inler nearly gave a goal away with one careless pass ofr all his obvious class. Both are certain to become first choice midfielders but I wouldn't write anyone off just yet.

 

It is a squad game anyway nowadays and I'm quite sure King's reliability and passing speed under pressure plus Drinkwater's energy and vision will continue to be of value to us for a long time yet...even without injuries.

 

As ever with an improving club though, it will become harder and harder for everyone as standards rise. Some will keep stepping up while others will move on - like Nugent. Useful player without a doubt, but the move was probably well timed for both parties and a sign of our ambition.   

 

[TheUltimateWinner]

8 - Mahrez

7 - Drinkwater, Albrighton, Vardy

6 - all else

[Thracian]

No. The instructions were quite clear. Let Spurs on, remain tight and tough to break down then press and counter where there was an opportunity. Ergo, we were always going to surrender a lot of possession by trying to spring counters. Drinkwater stuck to his assigned task manfully, as did King.

They did tire in the heat but there weren't many players on either side that didn't.

 

 

That's entirely fair comment. The system as much as Tottenham accounted for some of the performances. Our tactics seemed rigid as a concrete lamp-post leaving Tottenham to overwhelm the area roughly 20 yards either side of the halfway line, both numerically and with their superior height.  

 

We didn't even have the option of playing the ball consistently on the floor because the system didn't allow for sufficient runners and therefore sufficient passing options.

 

Our banks of four seemed to have very little latitude making it hard for the likes of Drinkwater to actually make their mark on the game. But Ranieri can point to the result as justification for the outcome and I'm quite sure many of our fans will be equally pleased.

 

Others have mentioned that Ranieri took too long to make changes and their point is strengthened by so many tired-looking legs even after an hour or so.

 

However, the other argument is that the system was working.  Spurs were allowed very few chances, posed only a limited threat and it was only when changes were made that the visitors scored.

 

I didn't much like our Italianate  4-4-2 and much preferred the excitement of 3-5-2 with attitude! But maybe the result justified the means in most people's eyes. 

[Corky]

Schmeichel- 6

 

De Laet- 5

Huth- 6

Morgan- 7

Schlupp- 6

 

Mahrez- 8

King- 7

Drinkwater- 6

Albrighton- 7

 

Vardy- 6

Okazaki- 6

[Countesthorpe Fox 1884]

Ulloa - 10 didn't put a foot wrong

[Dan]

Literally no-one stood out as being particularly good or bad. 6's and 7's across the board although I will bump Mahrez up to 8 for his goal.

 

Jeff Schlupp got star man on dream team. Thought he had a decent game but watching the highlights he was asleep for their goal.