We are really missing the option of having a huge bully upfront.

[Captain...]

We don't need a big guy, we need to stop sticking crosses in to short arses when they have a bunch of sky scrapers in the box. Whip it in low and hard if you are out wide, Albrighton got lucky with one, Vardy and Gray narrowly missed out on one Mahrez put in like that. Or just don't play ourselves into the corners. Have confidence in our ability to pick apart a defence with quick passing, and stop trying to take on everyone when we have the ball. Pass it around, pass it backwards to go forwards, take short corners (I know we fvcked up a few short corners, but practice makes perfect). If we are trying to evolve as a team resorting to pumping the ball in to the box is not the way to do it. In games like Saturday Vardy needs to come deeper, they are an organised bunch and will not give him any space behind, so drop deep collect the ball drag the defence about. He was too predictable as was Gray, Mahrez had moments of genius but we were not quick enough to support him and didn't have the movement to give him quick options or create space by moving the defence about.

Edited 26 February 2018 by Captain...

[VLC86]

3 hours ago, Line-X said:

Ah, the online kangaroo court. There must be so many retired footballers from the early 90s and before thinking thank **** the internet wasn't in existence in my day.

Are you new to football forums? What do you really expect?

[Dan]

I do think we've lost a bit of a threat getting rid of both Slimani AND Ulloa as teams are now letting us stick cross after cross in knowing we won't get anywhere near scoring from them. Dislike our natural tendency to see the big forward and default to hoofball, but I definitely think it's an option we've gotten rid of and I'm not sure our all-round attacking is good enough to compensate for it.

 

I bet we draw at least two of Newcastle, West Ham, Bournemouth and Southampton at home too. Can totally see them all coming here trying and successfully frustrating. If a side as bad at the back as Stoke can manage it then it's a cause for concern.

[Guest MattP]

Have to agree, we now seem to have a Plan A and no Plan B to implement.

 

Stoke game was a bit similar to Sunderland at home last season, both are tall, strong but awful sides and we were struggling to break them down as well, we brought on Albrighton and Slimani in that gane and opened the scoring with the former putting the ball on the latters head.

 

We can only play one way now and if you can only do that you need to be really good at it ala Barcelona or Man City, we aren't those and never will be.

[lifted*fox]

Slimani showed on several occasions that he could hold the ball up well and lay it off to those around him - bringing others into play.

 

He also was the only player we had who stood a chance of heading in some of these high balls we insist on playing into the box. 

 

We had the tools for a plan B but unfortunately we didn't, at any point, have a manager who either knew how or wanted to implement it. 

 

We're now back to being lightweight and very one dimensional from an attacking perspective.

[NotTheMarketLeader]

2 hours ago, TheMightySystem said:

I don't think the problem is the striker. While it would have been good on Saturday to have a Slimani or Ulloa we are in the process of changing our style which when complete, Slimani and Ulloa wouldn't fit into. Our issue is the lack of technical players on the pitch yesterday. For Puels tactics to be a success there needs to be players in every possition that feel comfortable on the ball and are good passers, as well as having good off the ball movement. Against Stoke only Maguire and Mahrez fit those criteria. Vardy is close but he doesn't drop deep enough and people write it off as "he gets no service" but if thats the case then he should be presenting himself as a short option to link the play, not waiting on the defenders shoulder for a ball over the top that he can't even beat Zouma to. It works against top teams who leave gaps in the defense, not against bottom teams who are going to put every defender as close to the box as they can get away with.

I think if he plays this team we will be a much better squad in using the ball and linking play.

 

Schmeichel

 

Amartey (Both options here are pretty bad on the ball, Amartey is a bit better and has age on his side though so could grow into the role)

Dragovic

Maguire

Fuchs

 

Iborra

Silva

 

Mahrez

Diabate

Gray (I know people don't like him but he is more direct then Albrighton and Chilwell which is what we will need with inside fowards)

 

Iheanacho (From what I have seen he has no problem dropping a bit deeper and has shown good touches on the ball, just needs game time and confidence and we will see the best of him).

 

The team we played on Saturday is great against the top teams who attack us, teams that sit off will require us to pass and move more which I think this 11 will be better at.

I have posted elsewhere that to play out from the back neither Simpson or Morgan should be selected.

 

Yet Puel in his wisdom believes they are better than Amartey and Dragovic for the job based on Saturday, which everyone should know is totally nonsensical.

 

So far we pretty much agree.

 

However, we have one of the most clinical strikers in the PL, whose chance conversion is almost second to none, yet you advise dropping him is the answer?

 

Contrary to that train of thought, I suggest that the manager plays the best quality players at his disposal is terms of the passing game, which would include the two defenders mentioned above who seem to have been dropped in favour of the ‘old clique’; plus a creative midfielder (I don’t know maybe Silva ?) instead of two defensive midfielders that were employed. 

 

Make no mistake Puel is now playing a very negative style of football big on possession; low on creativity, low on intensity, low on chances created.

 

I repeat from a previous post; the sum of the team is now less than the sum of the parts. That can only mean that there is bad management.

 

Some say we’ve progressed and we are evolving; to me we are boring as shit, with a manager picking the wrong players, using the wrong tactics.

 

The whole system should be based on having an intensity, an attacking threat and chance creation to win games; it should be based around our best striker Vardy.

 

Negative tactics are starting one up front with two defensive midfielders at home against a club placed 19th in the league. 

 

Carrying on like that that will not be successful, and it’s not the type of football the paying public want to see or can get excited about.

Edited 26 February 2018 by NotTheMarketLeader

[Captain...]

38 minutes ago, NotTheMarketLeader said:

Negative tactics are starting one up front with two defensive midfielders at home against a club placed 19th in the league. 

Positive tactics are starting with Vardy, Mahrez, Gray and Chilwell.

 

It's a standard 4231 formation, the problem wasn't the starting line up it was the ineffectual performance from Gray, mainly, and the other attacking players and Simpson dropping anchor at right back. The other problem was not changing it sooner.

 

You look at the stats we limited Stoke to 6 shots, all outside the area, we had 20 shots in total, 13 corners, 57% possession, we limited Stoke all game, it was one mistake coupled to a bit of brilliance that cost us a goal. We created enough chances and good chances to score but we failed to. It wasn't negative tactics that cost us, it was a lack of composure in front of goal, plus some great defending and goalkeeping by Stoke (ignoring Butland's error).

Edited 26 February 2018 by Captain...

[Samilktray]

Do fans of clubs in other countries hold big lumps up front in such high regard like we do over here?

[FoxInTheBirstallBox]

Big bully up front.... 

People suggest slimani....

 

Have people already forgot how many times he has shit out of tackles and never actually "Bullies" the players

 

If we want a bully up front, might aswell slap Maguire or iborra up front. At least they actually charge into people 

[Fox92]

We need two up front. That's an issue first of all. Or at the very least someone who links play better - a lot of people criticize Okazaki but we miss him when he's not playingl

[Jaspa]

6 minutes ago, Samilktray said:

Do fans of clubs in other countries hold big lumps up front in such high regard like we do over here?

 

Big man little man combo upfront has been a go to all over the world for generations.

 

Mentioned this topic subject a couple of times post match on here, they sat back and allowed us to loft it up high to Vardy, Mahrez, Gray and so dominated in the air, anytime we'd break through they'd foul us and we'd have a freekick 50 yards out or so to loft into their lumps again; not that it beat the first man often it looked as if the balls were flat.

 

And Okaka in the Wat-Eve match changed it when he came on, strong and confident, held the ball up, fought and made a goal. Looked like Leo of 14-16 without the slight kicks and feigning.

 

Without a big man we have to become very adept in opening teams up, or as someone else said put Maguire up there.

[Winchesterfox]

It's always good to have options, but I'm not convinced the lack of a tall forward is the main problem at the moment.  Even if we'd had one on Saturday, he would still have been outnumbered by the several tall defenders, and we'd still have the problem of the poor accuracy of the high crosses lumped over.  We're so much more of a threat when we get behind their full backs and whip in hard, low crosses between the keeper and defenders.  If the defenders get a touch we stand a good chance of at least a corner.  And if it gets anywhere near Vardy we have a great chance of a goal. 

[KFS]

Reckon Steve Howard would fancy it? Fvcking love that bloke 

[Sol thewall Bamba]

4 hours ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

There does seem to be a disconnect between the club's buying stratégy and how the team is managed.

Since NP left, absolutely. 

[Dan]

46 minutes ago, Samilktray said:

Do fans of clubs in other countries hold big lumps up front in such high regard like we do over here?

I saw someone make this point but have you ever noticed that "Plan B" is literally always a big man?

[Guest Col city fan]

Letting both Slim AND Ulloa leave was a bit strange. I can only conclude that Puel just doesn’t like a target man, even as plan B?

I’m not so sure about Puel at the moment. I think we can just as easily maintain our league position as we could plummet like a stone.

Jury’s out. I was really happy with how we were playing but at the moment the squad looks imbalanced.

[HybridFox]

I can see why we were in for Troy Deeney at the time because it would have given us something else. Too late now of course but there are others

[m4DD0gg]

Puel is never going to go for a player like that.

 

Even if he wanted to Rudkin wouldnt let it happen.

 

Can see us getting Thorgan Hazzard and ruining his career.

Edited 26 February 2018 by m4DD0gg

[Guest MattP]

2 hours ago, Samilktray said:

Do fans of clubs in other countries hold big lumps up front in such high regard like we do over here?

Not lumps, but a quality player with strength, height and aerial ability has the potential to threaten in a totally different way and with seven subs available there is no reason not to give ourselves the option. 

 

Even the great Spain team took Llorente in the squad, Italy had Luca Toni, Argentina Martin Palermo, Brazil Fred, Germany Jancker etc....

 

Anyone who saw the second half at home to Atletico would have seen the difference when Ulloa came on, it gave them something totally different to think about and for a while we had them on the ropes.

[MPH]

6 hours ago, Line-X said:

Ah, the online kangaroo court. There must be so many retired footballers from the early 90s and before thinking thank **** the internet wasn't in existence in my day.

 

 

 

Thats a bit of an odd comment to make.... do you understand what kangeroo court means?

 

 

 

Edited 26 February 2018 by MPH

[NotTheMarketLeader]

2 hours ago, Captain... said:

Positive tactics are starting with Vardy, Mahrez, Gray and Chilwell.

 

It's a standard 4231 formation, the problem wasn't the starting line up it was the ineffectual performance from Gray, mainly, and the other attacking players and Simpson dropping anchor at right back. The other problem was not changing it sooner.

 

You look at the stats we limited Stoke to 6 shots, all outside the area, we had 20 shots in total, 13 corners, 57% possession, we limited Stoke all game, it was one mistake coupled to a bit of brilliance that cost us a goal. We created enough chances and good chances to score but we failed to. It wasn't negative tactics that cost us, it was a lack of composure in front of goal, plus some great defending and goalkeeping by Stoke (ignoring Butland's error).

 

In the first half we were totally passive, content to pass the ball around.

 

There was no urgency, no intensity, no intent.

 

You are basically saying apart from not making subs sooner the manager got it right? 

 

Not on your nelly! 

 

NB. Chilwell is a right back for starters, and a shit one at that. That’s a big negative.

Mahrez and Vardy always play;

so how is that such a postitive move.

 

One up front with nobody getting in to the box is negative, and until we went behind there seemed very little interest in forcing the issue.

 

Edited 26 February 2018 by NotTheMarketLeader

[TheUltimateWinner]

2 hours ago, KFS said:

Reckon Steve Howard would fancy it? Fvcking love that bloke 

Don't think so, but I heard Roman Bednar is jumping at the chance to put on the blue and white once again 

[lgfualol]

2 hours ago, m4DD0gg said:

Puel is never going to go for a player like that.

 

Even if he wanted to Rudkin wouldnt let it happen.

 

Can see us getting Thorgan Hazzard and ruining his career.

We'll buy him and he'll sit on the bench with Silva, while we have Okazaki, King and James on the park.

Edited 26 February 2018 by lgfualol

[Captain...]

3 minutes ago, NotTheMarketLeader said:

 

In the first half we were totally passive, content to pass the ball around.

 

There was no urgency, no intensity, no intent.

 

You are basically saying apart from not making subs sooner the manager got it right? 

 

Not on you nelly! 

No, I'm saying that picking 2 defensive midfielders is not negative when you pack the rest of the team with pace and attacking threat. I'm not saying what is right or wrong, there is no right and wrong when picking a team, only in execution. Our execution was poor but not because of our midfield, they did their job, limit Stoke to very little and let our attacking players play in the opposition third.  We controlled the ball and largely controlled the game, but for one slip it should have easily been a victory. We were in control in our half at all times, apart from 2, the goal and Schmeichel's scramble across the line. Other than that Maguire, Morgan, Ndidi and James did their job.

 

Vardy, Mahrez, Gray, Albrighton, Chilwell are all attacking options, but they didn't do their job, not enough movement, not enough guile, too many poor decisions and wasteful balls. We also suffer from Simpson being so defensive minded. Playing 4231 with 2 defensive midfielders works well with attacking full backs, the DMs and CBs also cover the space left and the FBs give extra width. I said in a different thread that we were the better team against Chelsea with James and Ndidi, but they had Amartey giving width and Okazaki dropping deep.

 

In this formation the it is not the midfielders role to drive forwards with the ball, they provide the platform for the rest of the team to attack, the negative selection was Simpson and if anything we were too attacking up front and missed the link up play of Shinji.

[UPinCarolina]

Hasn't Iborra played up-front as a striker on occasion? If I recall he's not bad in the air, either...

Come on Claude, give it a go.