Stoke Post Match Thread 2-2....again

[Edingleyfox]

5 minutes ago, winteriscoming said:

I can see what puel is trying to do. We look good going foward but defensively we look poor and it's not just the full backs. The gap for there first goal was shocking and we still look weak from set pieces. I felt sorry for ndidi because as soon as king come on he seemed to be on his own in midfield. King just seems to have a knack of being somewhere else all of the time. I definately think we need a lb as fuchs looks so slow. Seeing dragovic in a 3 would be a solution but it might mean being less attacking which I don't think were capable of. Theres a fine balance but I think puel will get it right. 

Agree about set pieces has been a problem from the first game of the season.Need to think about options off the bench

 

However great to see Stoke looking worried to over commit.

 

With Vardy and Mahrez Gray and Okazaki we look a dangerous outfit with Iborra taking a captains role.

[justfoxes]

20 hours ago, pSinatra said:

A bit more clinical in front of goal & a touch better defensively........we'll give someone a hammering.

 

A couple of weeks ago, we didn't seem capable of playing any sort of possession football & already Puel has changed that.  A few more tweaks here & there, we'll be fine.

Totally agree with you a few tweaks here and there with 7 weeks and counting till we get Silva Playing alongside Iborra then the possibility of a new signing or two, we can certainly give a few teams a scare or two !!

[Dr The Singh]

1 hour ago, chris_lcfc_85 said:

Ridiculous post. I get people don't like him cos he's allegedly past it etc but when I read posts like this it's slightly embarrassing and very petty. I like many agree he shouldn't be involved as much as he is but he came on as iborra was injured and we've limited options in there currently due to injuries and poor management. He did OK when he was on as well.

 

People were moaning around me for him passing sideways etc but iborra did exactly the same for the opening 25 minutes yet when iborra does it, the blame moves to the player's around him for not giving him options. Sad really that king gets this much hatred

It's ok Andy, it will all be over soon, and then you can gurn to your delight in the directors box.

[HighPeakFox]

9 minutes ago, Dr The Singh said:

It's ok Andy, it will all be over soon, and then you can gurn to your delight in the directors box.

Wind up merchant 

[brucey]

58 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

@DB11 is but I'm 99% sure the answer is no, nor should they blow if the ball went out of play for a corner before it even reached four minutes. Imagine how open that would be to abuse, you could concede a penalty in the last minute of stoppage time, boot the ball into the stands and then it'd be full time before the opposition could take it if we went with your system.

I remember the terrible ref in Porto (H) screwing Porto out of their corner awarded before half time 

[Dr The Singh]

23 minutes ago, HighPeakFox said:

Wind up merchant 

I told you before Shaky, stop pestering me

[HighPeakFox]

8 minutes ago, Dr The Singh said:

I told you before Shaky, stop pestering me

Only if you stop abusing the word 'literally'. 

[Mint_Fox]

15 hours ago, Redouane said:

Nacho is still young. People are here are willing to be patient with the likes of Chillwell, Ndidi, Maguire and Gray.. why not Nacho? He's a good player for the future of the club, shame he has a buyback clause though. 

Couldn't agree more. We are asking a talented lad to hit the ground running but forgetting he's only ever been a super sub.

[ian_marshall]

Think Puel will be extremely frustrated with yesterday's performance. Having scored two away at a side who are happy to park the bus at home I'm sure he'd have expected us to come away with more than a point. 

 

There were plenty of positives from the game. We created more than enough chances to have secured the victory and restricted Stoke to a handful on their own patch. Furthermore, I got the impression from Puel's post match interview that our frailties yesterday highlighted a few issues to him and that he'll go away and focus on addressing these for the future. 

 

Without trying to state the obvious we simply weren't clinical enough in front of goal, and were too sloppy at the back. The Iborra injury was a massive loss and emphasises the lack of quality we have as backup in the squad at present. I must admit I felt Fuchs was very poor, and I'm concerned that he allowed Crouch a free header for their equaliser without really contesting the ball. I was also disappointed to see how both Fuchs and Maguire reacted immediately after the goal trying to point the blame at one another, and it certainly didn't look like they have the type of bond that solid back fours are built upon. I got the impression that their reactions didn't go unnoticed by the management team either. 

 

Finally, Vardy looks like he's lost a yard of pace this season. There were couple of instances yesterday day where he got himself one on one with the last man yet seemed to lack the explosive pace to exploit the space in behind. If that is the case then we're certainly going to need to be a bit more inventive in how we approach attacking opposition teams moving forward. 

 

Overall we played well, and whilst we didn't get the result that we wanted the performance will have certainly helped Puel in assessing the strengths and weaknesses within our team. 

[Guest ttfn]

3 hours ago, The Doctor said:

@DB11 is but I'm 99% sure the answer is no, nor should they blow if the ball went out of play for a corner before it even reached four minutes. Imagine how open that would be to abuse, you could concede a penalty in the last minute of stoppage time, boot the ball into the stands and then it'd be full time before the opposition could take it if we went with your system.

This was 15 years ago but when I trained to be a ref the rules were that once time was "up" (which was at your discretion anyway) the only reason you play on is to allow a penalty to be taken. If somebody wins a free kick 25 yards out, dead centre and injury time runs out, technically it was game over, hard luck.

 

In practice obviously it doesn't work like that but I am surprised by how often referees seem to play on way past the indicated injury time just to allow a corner to be taken. Perhaps the guidance has changed. 

[DelBoy73]

57 minutes ago, ian_marshall said:

Finally, Vardy looks like he's lost a yard of pace this season. There were couple of instances yesterday day where he got himself one on one with the last man yet seemed to lack the explosive pace to exploit the space in behind. If that is the case then we're certainly going to need to be a bit more inventive in how we approach attacking opposition teams moving forward

Vards will turn 31 in 8 weeks.

He will gradually loose the most of his speed, explosiveness and endurance in the span of the next season, period.

If he wants to remain competitive at the highest level, he will have no other solutions but to adapt his game to match his fitness potential, the same way the likes of Christiano Ronaldo or Thierry Henry did when they lost their overpowering pace in their early 30s.

 

As for us, the time has come to switch from a team built around Vardy to a team capable of striking three passes together and creating chances from actual passing builds-up, not resorting to hoofs anymore.

 

[DB11]

5 hours ago, The Doctor said:

@DB11 is but I'm 99% sure the answer is no, nor should they blow if the ball went out of play for a corner before it even reached four minutes. Imagine how open that would be to abuse, you could concede a penalty in the last minute of stoppage time, boot the ball into the stands and then it'd be full time before the opposition could take it if we went with your system.

Of course you can blow full time when the ball is out of play. The referee is the sole time keeper - he can blow for full time just as the ball is going into the net if he wanted to. 

[The Doctor]

2 hours ago, DB11 said:

Of course you can blow full time when the ball is out of play. The referee is the sole time keeper - he can blow for full time just as the ball is going into the net if he wanted to. 

I cannot remember ever seeing a ref blow if there was an attacking move in full swing, it's always been cleared and immediately blown. Do they get given guidance to do that or is it just a preference? 

[dynamark]

Few good suggestions lads  It happened in one of the cup games earlier.Time was up but the ref allowed an attacking free kick to be taken -but the second it was headed clear he blew full time.I get the penalty thing seems entirely fair but what if it gets knocked in from a rebound .

[leicesterseddon]

(From being at the game) 

 

1. Iborra has improved the midfield but still gives the ball away a lot 

 

2. Gray still has work to do but I think game time is helping him 

 

3. We wouldn't have conceded the second goal if we'd left men on the posts at corners 

 

4. Mahrez quiet in first half; much better in the second 

 

5. Worried about Maguire 

 

6. Iheanacho is the new Musa - useless and did nothing but concede free kicks in dangerous areas 

[oxford blue]

21 minutes ago, leicesterseddon said:

We wouldn't have conceded the second goal if we'd left men on the posts at corners 

Probably could be a separate thread as controversial. Having defenders on posts means two less to attack the ball and mark other players.Could this lead to more goals being conceded over a season? Is it easier to stop a header/shot coming in with more men in active positions? Also, if the ball is half cleared it's harder to bring up the defensive line. Very few teams have players on posts - some on far post but the near post should be defenders/goalkeeper to stop (as Kasper did in last seconds). 

[st albans fox]

19 minutes ago, oxford blue said:

Probably could be a separate thread as controversial. Having defenders on posts means two less to attack the ball and mark other players.Could this lead to more goals being conceded over a season? Is it easier to stop a header/shot coming in with more men in active positions? Also, if the ball is half cleared it's harder to bring up the defensive line. Very few teams have players on posts - some on far post but the near post should be defenders/goalkeeper to stop (as Kasper did in last seconds). 

The man at the front of the six yard box  is there to either clear or, if he thinks the ball will clear him,  he drops back onto the post. Was a great example last week at Southampton where Davis cleared a last minute effort off the line having been in the ‘iborra’ front post position.  It’s a higher risk strategy than actually having someone holding the posts but as pointed out above, it gives extra men to compete for the cross.  We saw just how much of a higher risk it was yesterday!! 

[fuchsntf]

6 hours ago, ttfn said:

This was 15 years ago but when I trained to be a ref the rules were that once time was "up" (which was at your discretion anyway) the only reason you play on is to allow a penalty to be taken. If somebody wins a free kick 25 yards out, dead centre and injury time runs out, technically it was game over, hard luck.

 

In practice obviously it doesn't work like that but I am surprised by how often referees seem to play on way past the indicated injury time just to allow a corner to be taken. Perhaps the guidance has changed. 

The time added on law...I aint quoting long paragraphs.

So!!   just One thought .   Extra-time, is put down as the "minimum of minutes to be played"

So I suppose there is a flexability that refs  like to use...

[Dan]

Early days yet but I'm happy with Puel. There is undoubtedly room for improvement but when you look at the way we attack and the way Southampton are still losing at home to Burnley then the common denominator looks to be Southampton's squad and not necessarily Puel himself. I'm not saying it's as simple as that but the signs look favourable for him and us at the minute.

 

The way we have Gray and Mahrez in the team without a second thought makes you look back and wonder what the hell we were pissing around at for so long. Having those two in the sides gives us the initiative as teams are going to be worried about throwing too many forward.

 

Iborra also I think looks like a very decent signing. I think Puel definitely wants to change the way we play and it'll only suit Iborra - who looks streets ahead of the rest of our midfielders. Guilty of the odd bit of reckless passing, but generally a very composed player on the ball and has great awareness of what's around him. He helps us control things. We were noticeably worse without him.

 

The defending however is a massive cause for concern. Maguire I think has looked dodgy in both games under Puel and Fuchs has been wank all season. Simpson I think will be phased out of the side as it's quite obvious that Puel wants better footballing players. Simpson doesn't really offer that quality on the ball.

 

Some massively questionable organisation, but it's early days yet and I thought we definitely ought to have won it - it's one hell of an improvement from the Huddersfield and Bournemouth performances put it that way.

Optimistic going forward. I like this bloke.

[brucey]

1 hour ago, Dan LCFC said:

Some massively questionable organisation, but it's early days yet and I thought we definitely ought to have won it - it's one hell of an improvement from the Huddersfield and Bournemouth performances put it that way.

We played Huddersfield with King + Ndidi the entire game.

We played Bournemouth with King + Ndidi first half and a semi-fit Iborra + Ndidi second half.

Were those two performances worse than how we played vs Stoke with King + Ndidi after Iborra went off injured?

 

Genuinely not convinced I've seen a definite post-Shakey improvement given the personnel available and the opposition.

It may well turn out to be the case, but I think the suggestions that Puel definitely >>>> Shakey are a bit premature.

[Koke]

2 hours ago, Dan LCFC said:

The way we have Gray and Mahrez in the team without a second thought makes you look back and wonder what the hell we were pissing around at for so long. Having those two in the sides gives us the initiative as teams are going to be worried about throwing too many forward

 

Hopefully this myth that Gray and Mahrez can't play together is finally put to bed. 

[Dan]

3 hours ago, brucey said:

We played Huddersfield with King + Ndidi the entire game.

We played Bournemouth with King + Ndidi first half and a semi-fit Iborra + Ndidi second half.

Were those two performances worse than how we played vs Stoke with King + Ndidi after Iborra went off injured?

 

Genuinely not convinced I've seen a definite post-Shakey improvement given the personnel available and the opposition.

It may well turn out to be the case, but I think the suggestions that Puel definitely >>>> Shakey are a bit premature.

I think even despite that there was no excuse for quite how badly we played. Two absolutely disgraceful performances where we stole a point both times. Unimaginative, unambitious football and not even close to what we produced at Stoke - which wasn't perfect but it was a significant improvement.

 

Shakespeare was unlucky with the timing of a lot of events but I think the improvement is noticeable. Even that Liverpool cup game where we had Iborra and Gray both in the side we were awful and it was absolutely laughable that we kept a clean sheet in a win.

 

I wanted it to work out for Shakey big time but it wasn't working. The performances didn't match what he said in the summer and it was obvious we were regressing.

 

3 hours ago, Koke said:

 

Hopefully this myth that Gray and Mahrez can't play together is finally put to bed. 

It was a myth borne out of our complete lack of imagination under Shakespeare. Our one dimensional play and our seeming refusal to keep the ball.

[vanity]

On 11/4/2017 at 07:47, peterborofox said:

Should have buried them first half end of story. Butland kept them in it at the end of first half. Iborra should have had another chance on target and I don't know what Mahrez was doing when he should have passed to Vardy. 

 

Our set piece defending is absolutely abominable. It's a joke. It's been shite for several seasons now. Crouch didn't even have to work hard for his goal. All he did was jog to the near post for a free header. Maguire started marking him and just was no where near him. It's disgraceful defending really. Everyone knows Crouch is the target man yet we let him just breeze through unmarked. Can't blame tactics for that or management. It's just poor decisions from the players.

 

And that happened again at the end when Kasper saved us with a good save. 

 

Let's not beat around the bush...that was two points thrown away. So disappointing it really is. 

 

Thought Fuchs was very poor again. Seems to play gambling with defending all the time now and he's getting caught out a lot. Haven't seen it again but where was he for the first goal?? I'd defo play a fully fit Chillwell over him asap. 

 

Iborra was class until the injury. Kasper takes the motm though with great saves

Tough to put that first goal Fuchs I thought. Maguire made a poor decision to close on the ball. It might've been the right move if he'd made it earlier, but at the time he went, he needed to leave that space to slow down the attack for help to arrive, and to deny the passing angle. Instead he gambled and lost.

 

As for where Fuchs was, if the FBs come fwd to join the attack at times, prob fwd? In which case our CBs almost certainly are charged with keeping a tight periphery around the goal on the counter, to use spacing to slow the attack so as to allow for help to arrive and to prevent any one-on-one from occurring. Which made Maguire's decision indefensible.

[Lovejoy]

Anyone else see Alan Pardew on the platform at Stoke station after the game? Decent fella, didn't have an issue speaking with people. A lot shorter than I expected though.

[Shanghai]

Best game since leicester  Athletico Madrid