Thracian Posted 29 October 2005 Posted 29 October 2005 Someone said Craig Levein made a reference to Sheehan today. Does anyone have idea what he said?
Blue Arrow Posted 29 October 2005 Posted 29 October 2005 Ok we should play him agaisnt plymouth Don't know what e said thogh
Sir JJ Wilcox Posted 29 October 2005 Posted 29 October 2005 He said he's not in his thoughts in the near future and he knows he's a fans favorite as he's progressed through the ranks at the club but there looking at the possibility of sending him out on loan
Thracian Posted 29 October 2005 Author Posted 29 October 2005 He said he's not in his thoughts in the near future and he knows he's a fans favorite as he's progressed through the ranks at the club but there looking at the possibility of sending him out on loan Idiotic. I'd sooner have Sheehan in than Levein, to be honest cos I'm sick of all the points he just wilfully throws away with his over cautious selections. We've got the basis of a decent side at Leicester now but he just doesn't seem able to make em play - except defensively. Where is the free-flowing football? We've got two perfectly reasonable players in Hume and Hammond who NEVER score - does Levein never ask himself why? I certainly do and I don't think it's cos the guys suddenly can't play. He persists with playing two supposed wingers (who act more as wide midfielders) who, again, very rarely score between them and, today, we had six defensive players who, between the lot of them, barely contributed in attack other than Joey's free kick which almost produced a goal. Sheehan should NOT go out on loan. He should be one of the first names on the teamsheet. Why? Because of all the reasons I mentioned and because he is one of very few cultured footballers that we have in the squad. Why doesn't Levein send Nils out on loan or Sylla or both?l
Sir JJ Wilcox Posted 29 October 2005 Posted 29 October 2005 He'll go on loan and never see first team action at the walkers again. No problem why does every one think the sun shines out of this lads rear end?
Thracian Posted 29 October 2005 Author Posted 29 October 2005 He'll go on loan and never see first team action at the walkers again. No problem why does every one think the sun shines out of this lads rear end? Because he's the best left-back we have got. Is there a better reason?
Gené and Tonic Posted 29 October 2005 Posted 29 October 2005 What I think Levein should do is never play Hammond as a striker again. He is far more effective on the right wing, and he showed that when he first came here, he isn't a striker in my book, as he doesn't seem to get enough of the ball, and has only scored one goal all season. Sheehan should stay, but he is in Leveins plans, he said that last season after the Plymouth game. He will come back and play. I think Levein knows a little more about the lad than you do Thracian, afterall, he is the man who brought through Stearman, Wesolowski, and gave Sheehan himself a chance. The main thing for Levein to do in January is bring in a striker, my suggestions as I've already mentioned are Matty Fryatt, Grant Holt, James Hayter, Billy Sharp, Rory Fallon and others that are scoring in leagues 1 + 2. These players might be a realistic target, along with loan deals for the likes of Pongolle. I feel that players such as Eastwood, Abbott, Trundle and Tyson are out of our price range. This should be the first team come February: --------------------Henderson--------------------- -Stearman----McCarthy-Gerrbrand----Sheehan- -Hammond----Hughes-Wesolowski-----Smith- ---------------Hume---MDV/New signing--------
Anish Posted 29 October 2005 Posted 29 October 2005 Idiotic. I'd sooner have Sheehan in than Levein, to be honest cos I'm sick of all the points he just wilfully throws away with his over cautious selections. We've got the basis of a decent side at Leicester now but he just doesn't seem able to make em play - except defensively. Where is the free-flowing football? We've got two perfectly reasonable players in Hume and Hammond who NEVER score - does Levein never ask himself why? I certainly do and I don't think it's cos the guys suddenly can't play. He persists with playing two supposed wingers (who act more as wide midfielders) who, again, very rarely score between them and, today, we had six defensive players who, between the lot of them, barely contributed in attack other than Joey's free kick which almost produced a goal. Sheehan should NOT go out on loan. He should be one of the first names on the teamsheet. Why? Because of all the reasons I mentioned and because he is one of very few cultured footballers that we have in the squad. Why doesn't Levein send Nils out on loan or Sylla or both?l Spot on Thrac. Today was Levein at his best. We got the point and the clean sheet, but that was all. We never looked like scoring until the last 20 minutes when Dublin came on (and Smith) and our football was so dire and boring. Nothing to get excited about, no urgency to attack or score. No wonder we went 10 months without a win away in the league.
The People's Hero Posted 29 October 2005 Posted 29 October 2005 We might go another 10 months before the next one.
The People's Hero Posted 29 October 2005 Posted 29 October 2005 We might go another 10 months before the next one. And that is me back to my antagonistic, cynical best.
Fez of Mahrez Posted 29 October 2005 Posted 29 October 2005 Any chance you can restrict your rants about Sheehan to this thread from now on? I don't want to cause any offence but I can't seem to read a thing on this forum anymore without you pointing out that he should be in the team. Fair enough and of course it's good to have a strong viewpoint etc but there's nothing anyone on here can do about it! For what it's worth, I think if anyone needs to go out on loan it's Gilbert. Sheehan looks like more of an immediate first-teamer than he does.
Louise Posted 29 October 2005 Posted 29 October 2005 Someone is winding you up Thracian, all he said was that we've got a young side and noted that Stearman and Sheehan are part of that. He was going through the back four saying that McCarthy, Gerrbrand, Maybury and Nissa are all young players, and then he mentioned that we also have Stearman and Sheehan coming through. He didn't say anything else about him.
Thracian Posted 29 October 2005 Author Posted 29 October 2005 Someone is winding you up Thracian, all he said was that we've got a young side and noted that Stearman and Sheehan are part of that. He was going through the back four saying that McCarthy, Gerrbrand, Maybury and Nissa are all young players, and then he mentioned that we also have Stearman and Sheehan coming through. He didn't say anything else about him. That's a relief.l
Thracian Posted 29 October 2005 Author Posted 29 October 2005 Any chance you can restrict your rants about Sheehan to this thread from now on? I don't want to cause any offence but I can't seem to read a thing on this forum anymore without you pointing out that he should be in the team. Fair enough and of course it's good to have a strong viewpoint etc but there's nothing anyone on here can do about it! For what it's worth, I think if anyone needs to go out on loan it's Gilbert. Sheehan looks like more of an immediate first-teamer than he does. I'll do my best cos I take your point. It's just that I just get so frustrated listening to us playing such laboured football - especially when it is totally. And playing Smith for half a match was just as bad. I just want us to repair the weaknesses that we carry in our side every week and play 11 decent, positive, effective players instead of nine.
Thracian Posted 29 October 2005 Author Posted 29 October 2005 He said he's not in his thoughts in the near future and he knows he's a fans favorite as he's progressed through the ranks at the club but there looking at the possibility of sending him out on loan Walked into that one then Trouble is nothing would surprise me about Levein's decisions regarding players.
Foxes_Wizard_Striker Posted 29 October 2005 Posted 29 October 2005 I'll do my best cos I take your point. It's just that I just get so frustrated listening to us playing such laboured football - especially when it is totally. And playing Smith for half a match was just as bad. I just want us to repair the weaknesses that we carry in our side every week and play 11 decent, positive, effective players instead of nine. nine? who was ineffective,negative,undecent two???
Thracian Posted 29 October 2005 Author Posted 29 October 2005 nine? who was ineffective,negative,undecent two??? Don't start me down that road. I shall take the positive line and celebrate a wonderful 0-0 draw against a terrific Preston side who've been so unlucky not to win a single game at home all season and who needed to be respected because they've got such a fast, powerful and forever threatening attack, all-action midfielders and a defence that is more solid than Bradgate granite.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.