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
 Share
Ian Nacho

Is Shakespeare the right man for the job?

By Ian Nacho, in Leicester City Forum

Recommended Posts

Nick

Nick

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, Col city fan said:

Ive had exactly the same thoughts mate.

It's mirrored in all forms of industry. Does the lad on the factory floor necessarily make the best foreman at the same factory?

Does the nurse who has worked all his or her life on the same ward necessarily make the best ward manager on that ward?

I think it's always difficult when people have seen you in one way, to them expect those SAME people to see you in another way.

With Shakey, it might be fine. I dunno. But it has made me wonder.

Agree entirely.

 

Stepping up to manage your peers is one of the the hardest things one can do in their career - it may well have been easier for him to step up and be a manager at an entirely different club to ours - it depends how well he can assert his authority and retain the balance of existing relationships. 

 

It will likely take time... sadly the one thing this industry doesn't allow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mozartfox

mozartfox

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

Agree entirely.

 

Stepping up to manage your peers is one of the the hardest things one can do in their career - it may well have been easier for him to step up and be a manager at an entirely different club to ours - it depends how well he can assert his authority and retain the balance of existing relationships. 

 

It will likely take time... sadly the one thing this industry doesn't allow.

It does need help though from 'above' to give him the tools to work with.  Currently we have the 'tools' above him.  Needs sorting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wymsey

Wymsey

Posted
Posted (edited)

Reckon this week will give a better indication whether he'll be right for the job long-term.

Yes, Liverpool are a big club obviously, but they're inconsistent; but they also have ambitions of which we want to achieve as well.

Edited by Wymeswold fox
Link to comment
Share on other sites
volpeazzurro

volpeazzurro

Posted
Posted
18 hours ago, vanity said:

So who? You aren't providing the players. Who would you have started?

Hi. All subjective I know. Just trying to remember who wasn't available say against Man United but I think the following weren't : Iheanacho, Drinkwater , Iborra, Huth .

My 352 would have been :

Schmeichel 

Morgan . Maguire . Fuchs

Albrighton . Ndidi . Armarty  . James . Chilwell

Slimani.  Vardy

 

Subs: Marhez. Gray. King. Simpson. Hamer. 

Cotroversial in the first instance re Marhez and possibly Simpson on the bench to start.

 

My reasoning being that Albrighton would be reliable in defensive cover but is on his favoured side for crosses into the box for Slimani to exploit. Chilwell though perhaps a little nieve as an out and out left back showed great promise as a wing back against Madrid. Armarty to be employed just in front of and shielding the back 3, he's not fluid enough for me in a midfield 2 but very capable of that role. His cover would allow Ndidi and James to be a little more productive slightly higher. James has great passing skills and an eye for a through ball but is kept too busy and deep in a two. Ndidi is dynamic albeit due to age a little inconsistent but nevertheless would be a real pain given a little freedom. Slimani is not at his best as a number 10 but would be further forward and more comfortable and dangerous from crosses. Vardy at present is frustrated and feeding on scraps, even against Huddersfield in fairness. I just feel that extra man in midfield would make a lot of difference. 

 

Marhez and Gray have the potential to be game changers. It's a negative set up for some perhaps but ambitious in other ways. Simpson also has the caberbility to play the right sided man of three with Fuchs dropping out also. For me our 442 with the players available then was tired and predictable without the right players there for the roles. They worked so hard on the day but it was all so predictable and united should of had 6.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Col city fan

Col city fan

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, Swan Lesta said:

Agree entirely.

 

Stepping up to manage your peers is one of the the hardest things one can do in their career - it may well have been easier for him to step up and be a manager at an entirely different club to ours - it depends how well he can assert his authority and retain the balance of existing relationships. 

 

It will likely take time... sadly the one thing this industry doesn't allow.

Agree entirely! 

What!

:o

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Buce

Buce

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, Swan Lesta said:

Agree entirely.

 

Stepping up to manage your peers is one of the the hardest things one can do in their career - it may well have been easier for him to step up and be a manager at an entirely different club to ours - it depends how well he can assert his authority and retain the balance of existing relationships. 

 

It will likely take time... sadly the one thing this industry doesn't allow.

 

6 minutes ago, Col city fan said:

Agree entirely! 

What!

:o

 

friends.jpg.ba19a03b5aca744125f771785a6d8210.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
vanity

vanity

Posted
Posted
43 minutes ago, volpeazzurro said:

Hi. All subjective I know. Just trying to remember who wasn't available say against Man United but I think the following weren't : Iheanacho, Drinkwater , Iborra, Huth .

My 352 would have been :

Schmeichel 

Morgan . Maguire . Fuchs

Albrighton . Ndidi . Armarty  . James . Chilwell

Slimani.  Vardy

 

Subs: Marhez. Gray. King. Simpson. Hamer. 

Cotroversial in the first instance re Marhez and possibly Simpson on the bench to start.

 

My reasoning being that Albrighton would be reliable in defensive cover but is on his favoured side for crosses into the box for Slimani to exploit. Chilwell though perhaps a little nieve as an out and out left back showed great promise as a wing back against Madrid. Armarty to be employed just in front of and shielding the back 3, he's not fluid enough for me in a midfield 2 but very capable of that role. His cover would allow Ndidi and James to be a little more productive slightly higher. James has great passing skills and an eye for a through ball but is kept too busy and deep in a two. Ndidi is dynamic albeit due to age a little inconsistent but nevertheless would be a real pain given a little freedom. Slimani is not at his best as a number 10 but would be further forward and more comfortable and dangerous from crosses. Vardy at present is frustrated and feeding on scraps, even against Huddersfield in fairness. I just feel that extra man in midfield would make a lot of difference. 

 

Marhez and Gray have the potential to be game changers. It's a negative set up for some perhaps but ambitious in other ways. Simpson also has the caberbility to play the right sided man of three with Fuchs dropping out also. For me our 442 with the players available then was tired and predictable without the right players there for the roles. They worked so hard on the day but it was all so predictable and united should of had 6.

Mahrez was coming off two excellent games, he was particularly dominant against Brighton, benching him at that point would'be been a surprising reaction to a 2-1 start that quite easily could've been 3-0 (if we count the Sheffield United game, which we should, as it is a data point for our tactics). That is what you are saying here -- that the unexpectedly strong showing against Arsenal, plus wins over Brighton and Sheff U. were cause for a formation change that removed two of our four most talented attacking players, and not for one game, but indefinitely.

 

That seems an overreaction.

 

In any event, if I look at your suggestions honestly, rather than simply attacking them, I see this line-up as shifting our midfield problems to other areas. Namely, we would lose a great deal of our attacking ability, as we would lose two of our four best attacking players, and we would struggle with our linkage play. For all his faults -- and I see many -- Mahrez demands extra attention, even from Man. U., and that allows players elsewhere on the pitch more freedom of movement. Removing him and Gray from the wings leaves us with a midfield impotent in the attack, and mostly unable to get the ball to our forwards other than by the old lump it forward and hope for the best strategy.

 

I think part of my reaction comes from our differing views of Matty James -- I don't see great passing skills, and other than that through ball to Slimani in the preseason, I am struggling to recall a time I was struck with by his vision (I hope I am wrong and you are right, obviously, I simply haven't seen it yet). Ndidi hasn't shown much passing ability, has in fact regressed by the numbers I believe, and freeing him to play a bit further fwd would just mean he would lose the ball a bit further up the pitch. You are much more hopeful as to what James and Ndidi could do further up the pitch, while I haven't seen anything to suggest they'd be capable in that respect. Further, I don't think they'd get forward as much as you do, I think they'd be stuck in the same position as the Man. U. game, defending in their own third. 

 

Which is not to say I dismiss that formation or line-up out of hand, but the fact of the matter is this is the great problem with Leicester's line-up as presently constituted: Mahrez and Gray are talented players, but we would be better off with one young elite wingback and some cash rather than two elite wings. They drastically limit our formation options. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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