Kelechi Iheanacho

[volpeazzurro]

20 hours ago, lgfualol said:

I can only think his workrate may not be as good as Perez who despite his general ineffectiveness runs around a lot. What Kel lacks in workrate he makes up in his goal threat though, so now is a good chance to try it out while Perez is suspended.

Perez can run up and down all he like but Iheanacho can score a goal nearly every game, that's far more of a reason to play him for me. It's not as if he doesn't work hard anyway. He must question why he signed a new contract when he sees Rodgers playing such a dud in front of him. Daka and Soumare must be a bit bemused also. Imagine being a big part in winning the French title then sitting on the bench behind such a serial underperformer.

[Marutimon]

23 hours ago, adam said:

Have you forgotten how good Barnes was prior to his injury? 

Sure, he was good, but still I would could Iheanacho ahead of him.

Besides - Iheanacho doesn't need to bench three players, just one of the three.

[Jimmy]

22 minutes ago, Marutimon said:

Sure, he was good, but still I would could Iheanacho ahead of him.

Besides - Iheanacho doesn't need to bench three players, just one of the three.

no we just have to completely change our set up for him instead

[jmono84]

Purely because it’s last time I can remember us playing any good I want a 4141 with Tielemans and Maddison playing as 8’s

 

Schmeichel

Ricardo Soyuncu Amartey Bertrand

ndidi

Albrighton Tielemans Maddison Barnes

Nacho

Edited 26 August 2021 by jmono84

[StanSP]

10 minutes ago, jmono84 said:

Purely because it’s last time I can remember us playing any good I want a 4141 with Tielemans and Maddison playing as 8’s

 

Schmeichel

Ricardo Soyuncu Amartey Bertrand

ndidi

Albrighton Tielemans Maddison Barnes

Nacho

I can't remember the last time Iheanacho had a good game as a lone striker... 

[jmono84]

2 minutes ago, StanSP said:

I can't remember the last time Iheanacho had a good game as a lone striker... 

If he had another guy as good as Barnes on the right then he can come deep and link with them and Maddison.

 

Maybe against Norwich if they play a high line Vardy would be effective but Nacho is the best guy we have playing with his back to goal and linking up play. That’s why I’d rather see him there

[The boy Linacre]

I said it on another thread about giving Nach a go.

2 games 2 goals, one shot on Monday.

So far Maddison, Barnes & Perez have been quiet.

2 up front for 10-15 games last season was a real threat, he had 3 poor games at the end.  Perez hasn’t had a good game since Southampton 9-0, we need to be more of a threat especially against a defensively creaking Norwich.

He is not the brightest footballer, a bit lazy at times but he’s a finisher & a threat, unless we play Daka & Vardy up front get Nach up there wit Vards, give them the 3 games & let’s see how it goes, I also think he needs a run like last season.

Cmon Lestah let’s turn it around, 6pts from 3 will right the ship!!

[volpeazzurro]

On 25/08/2021 at 08:34, coolhandfox said:

Against Wolves Vardy had a good game, like everyone he was poor at West Ham.

 

We are going to play 50 odd games this year. Nacho will also miss most of January and February with AFCON.

 

We will need all 3 and all 3 will have lots of games and goals by the end of the season.

If we're going to lose Iheanacho and other African players then, it makes sense to include them now. No point in completely wearing Vardy and others out now only to rely on them then when they're knackered.

 

If I was Iheanacho or another of our eligible players languishing on the bench behind the hapless Perez, I'd be gagging to get away. They must think the manager's off his head! Rodgers only picked Iheanacho last year out of desperation because he'd been a long time out of favour. Iheanacho proved him wrong and made himself un-dropable because the media would have rightly questioned Rodger's judgment. Iheanacho must quite rightly be questioning Rodger's judgment now.

[Phil Bowman]

On 24/08/2021 at 22:18, Marutimon said:

How can anyone honestly justify benching him for Maddison, Barnes or especially Perez?

Well I’d honestly justify it by saying Barnes is one of the most exciting young players in the league and Maddison is our most likely player to create an opening.

[coolhandfox]

29 minutes ago, volpeazzurro said:

If we're going to lose Iheanacho and other African players then, it makes sense to include them now. No point in completely wearing Vardy and others out now only to rely on them then when they're knackered.

 

If I was Iheanacho or another of our eligible players languishing on the bench behind the hapless Perez, I'd be gagging to get away. They must think the manager's off his head! Rodgers only picked Iheanacho last year out of desperation because he'd been a long time out of favour. Iheanacho proved him wrong and made himself un-dropable because the media would have rightly questioned Rodger's judgment. Iheanacho must quite rightly be questioning Rodger's judgment now.

Rodgers has already said Vardy can't play 3 games a week so lot opportunities for Nacho and Daka in the coming weeks.

 

Unfortunately our best formation results wise is 4-2-3-1, Nacho has prove more effective in the 3-4-1-2. 

 

Nacho was out of favour because he'd been average for the best part of 3 season, must City fans would have sold him. 

 

I don't think many City player are questioning a manager who has delivered two 5th places an FA Cup and a Community shield.

 

Nacho probably also realises BR is the only City manager who has got a tune out of him.

 

 

 

 

 

[Stadt]

7 minutes ago, coolhandfox said:

Rodgers has already said Vardy can't play 3 games a week so lot opportunities for Nacho and Daka in the coming weeks.

 

Unfortunately our best formation results wise is 4-2-3-1, Nacho has prove more effective in the 3-4-1-2. 

 

Nacho was out of favour because he'd been average for the best part of 3 season, must City fans would have sold him. 

 

I don't think many City player are questioning a manager who has delivered two 5th places an FA Cup and a Community shield.

 

Nacho probably also realises BR is the only City manager who has got a tune out of him.

 

 

 

 

 

Iheanacho hasn't played that often as the 10 but he's always been decent there. One of our last very good league performances was Villa away where Iheanacho was behind Vardy and Pereira on the wing. It's worth trying him there more often.

[coolhandfox]

2 hours ago, Stadt said:

Iheanacho hasn't played that often as the 10 but he's always been decent there. One of our last very good league performances was Villa away where Iheanacho was behind Vardy and Pereira on the wing. It's worth trying him there more often.

I think that the only place he fits in if we play a 4-2-3-1, I'd like to see him there more. I think he would have done better there against West Ham then Maddison as he is just more physical. 

[volpeazzurro]

9 hours ago, coolhandfox said:

Rodgers has already said Vardy can't play 3 games a week so lot opportunities for Nacho and Daka in the coming weeks.

 

Unfortunately our best formation results wise is 4-2-3-1, Nacho has prove more effective in the 3-4-1-2. 

 

Nacho was out of favour because he'd been average for the best part of 3 season, must City fans would have sold him. 

 

I don't think many City player are questioning a manager who has delivered two 5th places an FA Cup and a Community shield.

 

Nacho probably also realises BR is the only City manager who has got a tune out of him.

 

 

 

 

 

Arguably Nacho was never given a proper chance during that time,  particularly by Rodgers. How many appearances did he get compared with Perez for example, what were their goal and assist rates in comparison to appearances? Was Iheanacho ever given a run of games in a position supposedly in our best formation? 

 

Onto our best supposed formation of 4231, how well did that go against West Ham? It was the 3rd time on the trot our midfield got overrun by West Ham, lessons not learned?

 

Is there such a thing for us as a best formation that we should slavishly follow regardless of opponent or should we actually take them into consideration also.

 

Yes, 5th place two seasons running is fantastic for our club but that was achieved by the quality of the players in the squad and not the manager alone. Both times however, we went down hill badly towards the end. Equally, that is also down to the manager as well as the players but certainly last season, I'd put more emphasis of that personally down to the bizarre, at times, round pegs square holes team selections and poor formations and unambitious tactics of the manager. Would I swap him? No, because despite that he has some outstanding attributes, an excellent coach and man manager being two of them. Practically also, I don't currently see anyone better out there available and willing to come.

 

Leaving 40m of dynamic new talent and last seasons top scorer on the bench whilst persisting with serial underperformer Perez at best seemed strange.

 

Against West Ham, many could quite easily see what was going to happen as soon as they saw the team sheet and apparent tactics, they predicted the outcome beforehand and so did it unfold, it wasn't difficult. There were viable options. 

[Grebfromgrebland]

I bet regrets signing that new contract with us now.

[HighPeakFox]

9 minutes ago, Grebfromgrebland said:

I bet regrets signing that new contract with us now.

I doubt he does

 

[Jimmy]

35 minutes ago, volpeazzurro said:

Arguably Nacho was never given a proper chance during that time,  particularly by Rodgers. How many appearances did he get compared with Perez for example, what were their goal and assist rates in comparison to appearances? Was Iheanacho ever given a run of games in a position supposedly in our best formation? 

 

Onto our best supposed formation of 4231, how well did that go against West Ham? It was the 3rd time on the trot our midfield got overrun by West Ham, lessons not learned?

 

Is there such a thing for us as a best formation that we should slavishly follow regardless of opponent or should we actually take them into consideration also.

 

Yes, 5th place two seasons running is fantastic for our club but that was achieved by the quality of the players in the squad and not the manager alone. Both times however, we went down hill badly towards the end. Equally, that is also down to the manager as well as the players but certainly last season, I'd put more emphasis of that personally down to the bizarre, at times, round pegs square holes team selections and poor formations and unambitious tactics of the manager. Would I swap him? No, because despite that he has some outstanding attributes, an excellent coach and man manager being two of them. Practically also, I don't currently see anyone better out there available and willing to come.

 

Leaving 40m of dynamic new talent and last seasons top scorer on the bench whilst persisting with serial underperformer Perez at best seemed strange.

 

Against West Ham, many could quite easily see what was going to happen as soon as they saw the team sheet and apparent tactics, they predicted the outcome beforehand and so did it unfold, it wasn't difficult. There were viable options. 

we have ended the last 2 seasons playing 3412, how did they finish? 4231 suits the most players the best, if we changed system and Nacho didn't score people would go mad because we did

[volpeazzurro]

44 minutes ago, Jimmy said:

we have ended the last 2 seasons playing 3412, how did they finish? 4231 suits the most players the best, if we changed system and Nacho didn't score people would go mad because we did

I'm not saying don't play it, I'm saying evaluate the opposition first to see if it's appropriate with the players you have available to you. Do you think it was a wise choice in the circumstances against West Ham, given previous lessons, their physicality and how they overran our midfield previously?

 

There was little choice for Rodgers defensively in fairness but 2 in midfield,  Ndidi very capable, Tielemans not known for his tackling but in front of them, the lightweight Perez and Maddison? Were there not obvious better alternatives for that particular match both tactically and player choice wise to both protect a perceived vulnerable defence, stop midfield overrun and give West Ham something to think about in attack. It's one game at a time surely and Norwich is a different proposition altogether surely. 

[Clt1900]

1 hour ago, Jimmy said:

we have ended the last 2 seasons playing 3412, how did they finish? 4231 suits the most players the best, if we changed system and Nacho didn't score people would go mad because we did

I don’t remember ending the season before last playing a 3412.

[Marutimon]

BTW Iheanacho on the double vs Liberia.

 

Two nice goals, but the first touch and turn on the second was sublime.

 

 

[Sly]

34 minutes ago, Marutimon said:

BTW Iheanacho on the double vs Liberia.

 

Two nice goals, but the first touch and turn on the second was sublime.

 

 

My take from that game, was how awful the pitch was. 

[cruzFOX]

On 26/08/2021 at 15:42, volpeazzurro said:

Arguably Nacho was never given a proper chance during that time,  particularly by Rodgers. How many appearances did he get compared with Perez for example, what were their goal and assist rates in comparison to appearances? Was Iheanacho ever given a run of games in a position supposedly in our best formation? 

 

Onto our best supposed formation of 4231, how well did that go against West Ham? It was the 3rd time on the trot our midfield got overrun by West Ham, lessons not learned?

 

Is there such a thing for us as a best formation that we should slavishly follow regardless of opponent or should we actually take them into consideration also.

 

Yes, 5th place two seasons running is fantastic for our club but that was achieved by the quality of the players in the squad and not the manager alone. Both times however, we went down hill badly towards the end. Equally, that is also down to the manager as well as the players but certainly last season, I'd put more emphasis of that personally down to the bizarre, at times, round pegs square holes team selections and poor formations and unambitious tactics of the manager. Would I swap him? No, because despite that he has some outstanding attributes, an excellent coach and man manager being two of them. Practically also, I don't currently see anyone better out there available and willing to come.

 

Leaving 40m of dynamic new talent and last seasons top scorer on the bench whilst persisting with serial underperformer Perez at best seemed strange.

 

Against West Ham, many could quite easily see what was going to happen as soon as they saw the team sheet and apparent tactics, they predicted the outcome beforehand and so did it unfold, it wasn't difficult. There were viable options. 

Great analysis. Given we were dealt an unlucky had with not having our best defensive lineup Rogers should have atleast set the team up not to lose. None of us fans would have grumbled. Martin O'neil was a master at doing the best with what he had. If anything west ham are a very transparent team all around. When they come to KP it will be the same again. Will Rogers finally have an answer for them? Time will tell but I really do hope so as this groundhog day is getting rediculous

[whoareyaaa]

Needs to be starting for us one way or the other you don't leave a goalscorer out the side.

[baldeagle]

8 hours ago, Sly said:

My take from that game, was how awful the pitch was. 

Same …Filbert Street of old + a little more mud 

[Muzzy_Larsson]

On 04/09/2021 at 19:15, whoareyaaa said:

Needs to be starting for us one way or the other you don't leave a goalscorer out the side.

Agree with this. I may be wrong but I get the sense Rodgers doesn't really fancy him at all. Even when he was on fire he seemed to go out his way to to highlight his shortcomings in interviews last season.

[filbertway]

One goal cutting inside against an extremely poor team and all of a sudden Kel is the answer to our right wing prayers haha