Guest Posted 27 September 2015 Posted 27 September 2015 To do that we need to stop leaking goals... Only Sunderland have conceded more than us... Was, Wes and Huth need to play as a back 3...it's not rocket science!.. Will it happen?... Doubt it! No we don't. we need to score more goals than we let in. There's always another way to look at football than your own.
foxinsox Posted 27 September 2015 Posted 27 September 2015 Embarrassing so many leaving early. I have never left before the final whistle and cannot understand it. Even when we are playing crap - stay to the end!
inckley fox Posted 27 September 2015 Posted 27 September 2015 To do that we need to stop leaking goals... Only Sunderland have conceded more than us... Was, Wes and Huth need to play as a back 3...it's not rocket science!.. Will it happen?... Doubt it! I prefer the back three too, but we've accumulated a lot of points with 4-4-2 / 4-4-1-1, and seeing as it's the best system for Fuchs and Benalouane (or at least I'd imagine it's the system they're most familiar with), and seeing as we haven't tinkered with personnel in our back four at all this year in spite of it being our most obvious weakness, I think it's worth doing that before ripping up the system and reverted to 3-5-2.
st albans fox Posted 27 September 2015 Posted 27 September 2015 Mustn't lose sight of why they carried on going forward and we conceded 5 rather than 3 or 4. They would probably have shut up shop 3-1 against most sides away. However, we have such a reputation for coming back from. 2 behind that teams will keep 'at it' against us - right till the end. That's going to mean letting more in than we might like to see but it also reflects the oppositions' respect for us.
inckley fox Posted 27 September 2015 Posted 27 September 2015 No we don't. we need to score more goals than we let in. There's always another way to look at football than your own. Sadly it was clear in the 3-2 and the 2-2 that, on another day, we wouldn't have been able to get anything out of those games - and yesterday was a further, rather than a solitary demonstration that our defence isn't Premier League standard. Normally when that's the case sides get relegated unless they stop conceding 2-3 goals per game, as I'm sure we will at some point in time. Yet there are flaws in that side which have been apparent for some time. It's a shame they couldn't have been acted on before we shipped five, but never mind. Yet those questions need answering - whether Kasper is a commanding and consistent enough a keeper, whether Jeff's defensive qualities are a price worth paying for his attacking qualities, whether De Laet is exposed by Mahrez on the right, whether Huth is exposed by De Laet himself bombing forward, whether Morgan can be an option in anything other than a three... let alone all the questions about the rest of the side (i.e. in a league where pace, strength, first touch and goalscoring prowess are the common attributes for a forward, what is it that Okazaki brings to the team?). It was always going to be the real test of Ranieri, and he's earned enough points early on to buy the time to find solutions. But they'll have to lie in either different personnel - do we have an alternative on the right / if we play Fuchs on the left will he do more to help those heavily exposed CBs? etc. - or in a change in personnel.
Happy Fox Posted 27 September 2015 Posted 27 September 2015 Sadly it was clear in the 3-2 and the 2-2 that, on another day, we wouldn't have been able to get anything out of those games - and yesterday was a further, rather than a solitary demonstration that our defence isn't Premier League standard. Normally when that's the case sides get relegated unless they stop conceding 2-3 goals per game, as I'm sure we will at some point in time. Yet there are flaws in that side which have been apparent for some time. It's a shame they couldn't have been acted on before we shipped five, but never mind. Yet those questions need answering - whether Kasper is a commanding and consistent enough a keeper, whether Jeff's defensive qualities are a price worth paying for his attacking qualities, whether De Laet is exposed by Mahrez on the right, whether Huth is exposed by De Laet himself bombing forward, whether Morgan can be an option in anything other than a three... let alone all the questions about the rest of the side (i.e. in a league where pace, strength, first touch and goalscoring prowess are the common attributes for a forward, what is it that Okazaki brings to the team?). It was always going to be the real test of Ranieri, and he's earned enough points early on to buy the time to find solutions. But they'll have to lie in either different personnel - do we have an alternative on the right / if we play Fuchs on the left will he do more to help those heavily exposed CBs? etc. - or in a change in personnel. I guess Chelsea's defence isn't prem standard either they have also conceded 14 goals...
inckley fox Posted 27 September 2015 Posted 27 September 2015 Mustn't lose sight of why they carried on going forward and we conceded 5 rather than 3 or 4. They would probably have shut up shop 3-1 against most sides away. However, we have such a reputation for coming back from. 2 behind that teams will keep 'at it' against us - right till the end. That's going to mean letting more in than we might like to see but it also reflects the oppositions' respect for us. I'm sure you're right. They know that we can get goals even when we're two down, but whereas other sides have stumbled because they can't hit us effectively on the counter, Arsenal knew they could. This is why I'd prefer to see us tinkering with personnel before tinkering with the system, or at least trying out some of the alternatives for a 4-4-1-1. It would seem silly to go back to square one when we haven't tried the most internationally prestigious of our defensive options, Fuchs, in his natural position, or given last season's top scorer a start, and with the man signed to whip in crosses for him (Albrighton) on the field at the same time. If he does this, then it might still be last chance saloon for 4-4-2 (and personally I prefer 3-5-2, so if that's what we decide to do, so be it), and possibly even the likes of De Laet, who are hard to replace in a four man defence but have been repeatedly questioned, but at least we'd have properly exhausted the options before we moved on.
city187 Posted 27 September 2015 Posted 27 September 2015 Got to say I thought Arsenal were brilliant, but we were so unlucky to go in behind at half time... could have easily be winning at that point and then it becomes a different game. I thought we played well and shouldn't be too down or be calling for major changes. Our approach will win us more games than not and we should continue in this vain Well said. Couldn't agree more. No need to get carried away with changing to much. Arsenals quality just showed through at times. Not evey week will we come across a team that will happily play as open as they did
Trav Le Bleu Posted 27 September 2015 Posted 27 September 2015 It is amazing how almost everyone was worried about "The Tinkerman" coming. He makes very few changes, then as soon as we lose (against genuine title contenders) we need to make changes. The Tinkerfans?
Guest Posted 27 September 2015 Posted 27 September 2015 Sadly it was clear in the 3-2 and the 2-2 that, on another day, we wouldn't have been able to get anything out of those games - and yesterday was a further, rather than a solitary demonstration that our defence isn't Premier League standard. Normally when that's the case sides get relegated unless they stop conceding 2-3 goals per game, as I'm sure we will at some point in time. Yet there are flaws in that side which have been apparent for some time. It's a shame they couldn't have been acted on before we shipped five, but never mind. Yet those questions need answering - whether Kasper is a commanding and consistent enough a keeper, whether Jeff's defensive qualities are a price worth paying for his attacking qualities, whether De Laet is exposed by Mahrez on the right, whether Huth is exposed by De Laet himself bombing forward, whether Morgan can be an option in anything other than a three... let alone all the questions about the rest of the side (i.e. in a league where pace, strength, first touch and goalscoring prowess are the common attributes for a forward, what is it that Okazaki brings to the team?). It was always going to be the real test of Ranieri, and he's earned enough points early on to buy the time to find solutions. But they'll have to lie in either different personnel - do we have an alternative on the right / if we play Fuchs on the left will he do more to help those heavily exposed CBs? etc. - or in a change in personnel. Wouldn't it be nice if every top 20 player in the world wanted to play for Leicester City. Some of you need to understand that's not the case. We are sure to have weaknesses and we need to do what we can accepting those weaknesses. I'd be ecstatic with a top 12 finish but happy with avioding relegation. Teams like Arsenal are unhappy with a 5th place finish and need to have a Champion's league run.
Guest Posted 27 September 2015 Posted 27 September 2015 It is amazing how almost everyone was worried about "The Tinkerman" coming. He makes very few changes, then as soon as we lose (against genuine title contenders) we need to make changes. The Tinkerfans? Tinklefans. piss themselves when we don't win.
weller54 Posted 27 September 2015 Posted 27 September 2015 No we don't. we need to score more goals than we let in. There's always another way to look at football than your own. That's a dangerous philosophy though!
inckley fox Posted 27 September 2015 Posted 27 September 2015 I guess Chelsea's defence isn't prem standard either they have also conceded 14 goals... No, it isn't. Not if they want to win the league, which they do. In fact, were it not for them having ground out results at the other end of the pitch, it wouldn't even be good enough - on current form - for them to stay in the league either. Wigan in 2010 is the only example of a side to concede two or more goals per game over a season and stay up, so it's clear that neither our nor their defences are PL standard right now. So even if you ignore the fact that they had the PL's best defence last season, playing four at the back, whereas we had one of the worst from the games where we played four at the back - and were bottom as a result - our defence still isn't good enough. But the big difference is that their defence has been good enough over time, whereas ours hasn't. Except for when we've played a back three, of course.
inckley fox Posted 27 September 2015 Posted 27 September 2015 Wouldn't it be nice if every top 20 player in the world wanted to play for Leicester City. Some of you need to understand that's not the case. We are sure to have weaknesses and we need to do what we can accepting those weaknesses. I'd be ecstatic with a top 12 finish but happy with avioding relegation. Teams like Arsenal are unhappy with a 5th place finish and need to have a Champion's league run. I think it's pretty clear I do accept that! But conceding two goals per game will almost certainly get you relegated over a season so, without panicking, we need to try to improve on that. If our only alternative for Jeff Schlupp on the left was Konchesky, and not Austria's captain, who has an experience of top level football over the past decade and who looked far better than Schlupp, for us, just a few days ago, then we might be stuck. Similarly, if we'd tried every formation under the sun over the past year or two and found it impossible to shore up at the back, we'd be stuck. Fortunately even little old Leicester City have alternatives. And, clearly, we need to try one or two of them out.
Bayfox Posted 27 September 2015 Posted 27 September 2015 I think it's pretty clear I do accept that! But conceding two goals per game will almost certainly get you relegated over a season so, without panicking, we need to try to improve on that. If our only alternative for Jeff Schlupp on the left was Konchesky, and not Austria's captain, who has an experience of top level football over the past decade and who looked far better than Schlupp, for us, just a few days ago, then we might be stuck. Similarly, if we'd tried every formation under the sun over the past year or two and found it impossible to shore up at the back, we'd be stuck. Fortunately even little old Leicester City have alternatives. And, clearly, we need to try one or two of them out. Someone should have told keegans Newcastle that instead of finishing runner up. They were meant to go down
Guest Posted 27 September 2015 Posted 27 September 2015 That's a dangerous philosophy though! Better than losing.
Guest Posted 27 September 2015 Posted 27 September 2015 Someone should have told keegans Newcastle that instead of finishing runner up. They were meant to go down As I said earlier there's always another way to look at the game.
ferry67 Posted 27 September 2015 Posted 27 September 2015 Not an expert but thought de laet looked our best defender yesterday
inckley fox Posted 27 September 2015 Posted 27 September 2015 Someone should have told keegans Newcastle that instead of finishing runner up. They were meant to go down Are you sure you've checked your facts here? They conceded an average of less than a goal per game, as opposed to two per game. There's a fair old difference.
inckley fox Posted 27 September 2015 Posted 27 September 2015 As I said earlier there's always another way to look at the game. Still factually wrong, though.
Corky Posted 27 September 2015 Posted 27 September 2015 Someone should have told keegans Newcastle that instead of finishing runner up. They were meant to go down Keegan's defensive record is actually pretty good with Newcastle. The most they conceded in a season was 47 and that was in a 42-game season. People just remember the 4-3 at Anfield and think it was the norm.
Bayfox Posted 27 September 2015 Posted 27 September 2015 Keegan's defensive record is actually pretty good with Newcastle. The most they conceded in a season was 47 and that was in a 42-game season. People just remember the 4-3 at Anfield and think it was the norm. Clearly. Must be the mind getting old . Just remebering the gung ho approach, such as the hammering they dished out to united, the 4-3 at anfield etc. If they only conceded 1 a game then fair play. Still think I would prefer to watch yesterdays game over last seasons showings at newcastle, swansea, southampton etc.
NotTheMarketLeader Posted 27 September 2015 Posted 27 September 2015 There's nothing positive to be taken from this result. Awful You dumb t**t
Suffolk exile Posted 27 September 2015 Posted 27 September 2015 Says a lot about the change in expectations really. We were outplayed and beaten by the better team - we were just far too open. We will learn more from that yesterday than any of our good results this season.
Ian S Posted 27 September 2015 Posted 27 September 2015 Not an expert but thought de laet looked our best defender yesterday Wash your mouth out, you are not allowed to say anything positive about De Laet on this forum.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.