Full frontal

[Thracian]

I sometimes wonder if Craig Levein fully understands the concept of attack.

Seriously, does he see an attacking team as having a couple of strikers, one or two wide men, a creative midfield player and deem that attacking?

By committing to an attacking strategy I mean that EVERY player should be capable of an attacking contribution, much like in the Martin O'Neil days,

You have a selection problem, say, at right back. You consider the options and you weigh up the merits of each contender.

You may have three options and all three are quality defenders but one of them overlaps with gusto, can pass high or low and can shoot (from free kicks or open play). That is the one you choose.

Same with centre-backs. Whichever of your best defensive "stoppers" is the most dangerous in attack, and the most willing/able to shoulder the additional work, that's the one to go for.

The aim should be to fill the team with people who are not only competent in their specialist job but capable in an attacking sense. How often did MON win or rescue a game because of his defence-based assault squad.

Total football if you like. A threat from every department so it would be a bad day indeed if no-one turned up something tangible (ie a goal).

Looking through the squad Leicester are almost in a position to select a team full of attacking/goalscoring contributors:

Henderson (no);

Stearman (yes), Dion (yes), Nils (no), Sheehan (yes);

Sylla (no, but can create)) Hughes (yes), Joey (just about), Smith (yes)

Hume (yes), Hammond (yes)

Alternatives: MDV (yes), Hammill (yes), Kisnorbo (no), Williams (no but creative), Gerrbrand (don't know).

That only leaves Tiatto, Gilbert, McCarthy (out anyway), Maybury (out anyway) from our main squad and of these only probably Maybury carries any genuine attacking threat.

The first 11 names offer eight genuine attacking contributors plus Sylla. But if you used MDV instead of Sylla and dropped Hume into the hole you would have nine out of the 11 having attacking threat, or 9/10 if you don't count the goalkeeper.

The latter team playing a fluid 4-3-3 with Hume/Hughes/Stearman offering right side width, might even be safer away from home (yet would theoretically have the greater attack threat) and still we would be reasonably strong defensively.

Why on earth we would fail to score with either of these line-ups I cannot imagine. Just for once Craig, have a go. Play attackers and defenders/midfielders who can also attack.

Press sensibly and keep pressing. Pass predominently to feet even from the flanks (cos we don't have great attacking headers of the ball) and believe in it. Don't stop pressing if we go ahead.

.

[lookwhaticando]

A fully attack capable squad would be good.

Problem is we have a terrible habit of waiting to get into a game.

How many times this season have we waited until we've had a few close shots against us? How about Crewe - we were asleep for 20 minutes.

If we had an all out attack capable squad, they'd have to be under instruction to get out there and get a goal as fast as possible and just keep pushing until we get some more. As you said - Don't Stop pressing ahead!

A lot would have to be said to the squad - go for goal right away, and once you get one keep trying - 1 goal is not a comfortable margin for much more than a few minutes, if at all. This is not something we see too much, we sit on a one goal lead once we get one - that surely breeds nervousness among the players if we come under a strong attack.

[Hoof Fox]

Your right Thracian, we have been guilty on too many occasions, of not attacking teams enough, early in the season we did see this, but on occasions it was when we were chasing a game to win a point like at Crewe, but in this matches we looked a far better side once we got at teams and started putting pressure on them and they struggled to contain us.

I have seen most of the games this season, and IMO we seem to line up in the 1st half to contain, if we nick a goal then so be it, but in the main the intention appears to be to get to half time without conceding, then in the 2nd half we will step it up and look for a winner. Too often though this results in handing the initiative to the opposition, as we end up playing deep and invite pressure, hence why we keep conceding first then having to attack to salvage a point.

We need to have a go at teams from the start, surely it would be better to get to half time 1-0 or even 2-0 up, this would then force the opposition to come out and chase goals leaving more space for our attackers to exploit and the opportunities to extend our lead and kill off the game. IMO that is why our home form has been so poor over the past season and a half in the championship, we are waiting for things to happen and then reacting, we are not stamping our authority on matches often enough. Also look at our away form no wins in 10 / 11 months not good enough, again it is because we lack the mentality to attack, our instincts are too sit deep and defend, therefore we lack the necessary guile to pick up wins away from home.

Even Brighton, who should be delighted with a point at the Walkers, will have been disappointed as they actually created the better, more clear cut chances, they looked to attack whenever possible and could quite easily gone away with the points. When was the last time we looked like we could win an away league match, IMO Crewe, and coincidently that was probably the last game I witnessed us having a real go at a team, could be coincidence but I doubt it.

[Thracian]

Your right Thracian, we have been guilty on too many occasions, of not attacking teams enough, early in the season we did see this, but on occasions it was when we were chasing a game to win a point like at Crewe, but in this matches we looked a far better side once we got at teams and started putting pressure on them and they struggled to contain us.

I have seen most of the games this season, and IMO we seem to line up in the 1st half to contain, if we nick a goal then so be it, but in the main the intention appears to be to get to half time without conceding, then in the 2nd half we will step it up and look for a winner. Too often though this results in handing the initiative to the opposition, as we end up playing deep and invite pressure, hence why we keep conceding first then having to attack to salvage a point.

We need to have a go at teams from the start, surely it would be better to get to half time 1-0 or even 2-0 up, this would then force the opposition to come out and chase goals leaving more space for our attackers to exploit and the opportunities to extend our lead and kill off the game. IMO that is why our home form has been so poor over the past season and a half in the championship, we are waiting for things to happen and then reacting, we are not stamping our authority on matches often enough. Also look at our away form no wins in 10 / 11 months not good enough, again it is because we lack the mentality to attack, our instincts are too sit deep and defend, therefore we lack the necessary guile to pick up wins away from home.

Even Brighton, who should be delighted with a point at the Walkers, will have been disappointed as they actually created the better, more clear cut chances, they looked to attack whenever possible and could quite easily gone away with the points. When was the last time we looked like we could win an away league match, IMO Crewe, and coincidently that was probably the last game I witnessed us having a real go at a team, could be coincidence but I doubt it.

You and I hope a few more are catching on.

Our away record over the last 11 months is so bad - appalling in fact - that it should have dawned on the poowers that be that the strategy is wrong. Sure, we might get bounced once or twice by attacking but we'd also win a good few and that would certainly be better than the present situation.

And eminently better for the fans than the shit served against Wolves.