Leicester 3-0 Crystal Palace Post match

[Chrysalis]

8 hours ago, Beechey said:

I don't get it, he did absolutely nothing wrong in that game, got into good positions, defended well. Nothing wrong.

He didnt do anything badly wrong, but things went better after he was off,.

[Chrysalis]

8 hours ago, Bourbon Fox said:

Sky Sports puts highlights on YouTube straight after the match nowadays which is great, but I don't think you'll find a replay of the whole game? Best you'll get is Match of the Day, unless there's something I don't know about? 

 

 

probably get extended highlights on lcfc tv.

[Beechey]

3 minutes ago, Chrysalis said:

He didnt do anything badly wrong, but things went better after he was off,.

Not a surprise that performances improved after half time...

[inckley fox]

4 hours ago, Chrysalis said:

He didnt do anything badly wrong, but things went better after he was off,.

No, he was fine. Not one of the best first half performers, but not the worst.

 

I maintain that the part he plays in our build-up play doesn't work for us. This isn't the same thing as him not being good enough, in fact it might be a case of the function he serves - the things he's being asked to do - not working, rather than Chilwell himself. However it's hard to see how we're currently improved by him. Our p.p.g. is significantly higher in games he hasn't started this season (W4 D2 L1 in the League; 100% record in the Cups), and if you look at this period of time in which our goalscoring record has been questioned (the eight games since early Feb), he's played 6.5 games in which we scored 2 goals, whereas we've bagged 7 in the remaining 1.5. There's also a lot of evidence accumulating that Barnes is a more effective player when he's not combining with Chilwell.

 

Once again, this isn't all down to Chilwell, and it certainly doesn't mean he's been one of our worst performers since the restart, nor that we should prefer Justin, Fuchs or Marc down the left. It just means that we're going through a phase in which, when he plays, a lot of our build-up simply doesn't work as well as when he doesn't. Perhaps sides are targeting this aspect of our play, and have managed to nullify it in much the same way they've nullified Maddison's game recently (in fact, if this formation clicks for us and Perez can reproduce his performance for us yesterday, I'd suggest that we don't rush Maddison back in).

 

Of course, the dumbest thing on earth would be to consider Chilwell's presence on the pitch to be the game's defining feature yesterday. Vardy should have buried a chance with him on the pitch, Justin very nearly did. And, as I said before, he did fine, and showed a good attitude to play on with an injury. On top of that, everyone was much-improved second half, with Justin looking more comfortable in the wing back role, Bennett shoring up the back three, and the front three really clicking, so he may well have thrived if he'd stayed on. But there's still that nagging sense that, when he plays, something isn't quite happening.

[Ric Flair]

13 hours ago, Beechey said:

I don't get it, he did absolutely nothing wrong in that game, got into good positions, defended well. Nothing wrong.

Haven't won with him in the team since January.

[StanSP]

1 hour ago, Ric Flair said:

Haven't won with him in the team since January.

In the league, yes.

 

[Beechey]

1 hour ago, Ric Flair said:

Haven't won with him in the team since January.

Okay. We have won 15 games with him in the team, though...

[Heymister2015]

Of subject from the game itself! I always thought Jeff Schlupp looked really good at left back for Leicester and impressed a couple of times coming back playing for Crystal Palace

[Guest Fktf]

14 hours ago, Ceirboy said:

Was it? It was an observation which I’d made on watching his last 3 appearances. Particularly the last minutes of the Everton game. 

 

For me, the interesting question is - if we continue with 352 - who do people want to see as the left wingback; 1. Chilwell, 2. Albrighton, or 3 Fuchs. Based on ability to create within the team, I'd take option 2 or 3 over 1. 

[Steve Earle]

By the way, has anyone ever seen such an insipid performance from Zaha? I'd forgotten he was on until he skied that effort in stoppage time...

[Cecchini1976]

16 hours ago, Fktf said:

For me, the interesting question is - if we continue with 352 - who do people want to see as the left wingback; 1. Chilwell, 2. Albrighton, or 3 Fuchs. Based on ability to create within the team, I'd take option 2 or 3 over 1. 

Option 1 by a country mile 

[fuchsntf]

19 hours ago, inckley fox said:

No, he was fine. Not one of the best first half performers, but not the worst.

 

I maintain that the part he plays in our build-up play doesn't work for us. This isn't the same thing as him not being good enough, in fact it might be a case of the function he serves - the things he's being asked to do - not working, rather than Chilwell himself. However it's hard to see how we're currently improved by him. Our p.p.g. is significantly higher in games he hasn't started this season (W4 D2 L1 in the League; 100% record in the Cups), and if you look at this period of time in which our goalscoring record has been questioned (the eight games since early Feb), he's played 6.5 games in which we scored 2 goals, whereas we've bagged 7 in the remaining 1.5. There's also a lot of evidence accumulating that Barnes is a more effective player when he's not combining with Chilwell.

 

Once again, this isn't all down to Chilwell, and it certainly doesn't mean he's been one of our worst performers since the restart, nor that we should prefer Justin, Fuchs or Marc down the left. It just means that we're going through a phase in which, when he plays, a lot of our build-up simply doesn't work as well as when he doesn't. Perhaps sides are targeting this aspect of our play, and have managed to nullify it in much the same way they've nullified Maddison's game recently (in fact, if this formation clicks for us and Perez can reproduce his performance for us yesterday, I'd suggest that we don't rush Maddison back in).

 

Of course, the dumbest thing on earth would be to consider Chilwell's presence on the pitch to be the game's defining feature yesterday. Vardy should have buried a chance with him on the pitch, Justin very nearly did. And, as I said before, he did fine, and showed a good attitude to play on with an injury. On top of that, everyone was much-improved second half, with Justin looking more comfortable in the wing back role, Bennett shoring up the back three, and the front three really clicking, so he may well have thrived if he'd stayed on. But there's still that nagging sense that, when he plays, something isn't quite happening.

The midfield should be the tact makers,and the responsible playmakers,Not any FB,their forward contributions is only Gravy,Not the center...

 

[inckley fox]

1 hour ago, fuchsntf said:

The midfield should be the tact makers,and the responsible playmakers,Not any FB,their forward contributions is only Gravy,Not the center...

 

Traditionally, yes, the two CMs were the playmakers. But if that were entirely the case nowadays you wouldn't see teams buying goalkeepers and CBs for their playmaking qualities, and we'd have no cause to worry that our attacking threat is blunted by the absence of our other full back either. FBs these days are often teams' primary wide threat, and absolutely central to their building from the back.

 

I also believe, by the way, that during our barren patch the CMs were looking immobile off the ball and conservative on it. Like I said, Chilwell has only been one of many factors. But he is a factor, and the evidence strongly supports the fact that he's a factor.

[fuchsntf]

6 minutes ago, inckley fox said:

Traditionally, yes, the two CMs were the playmakers. But if that were entirely the case nowadays you wouldn't see teams buying goalkeepers and CBs for their playmaking qualities, and we'd have no cause to worry that our attacking threat is blunted by the absence of our other full back either. FBs these days are often teams' primary wide threat, and absolutely central to their building from the back.

 

I also believe, by the way, that during our barren patch the CMs were looking immobile off the ball and conservative on it. Like I said, Chilwell has only been one of many factors. But he is a factor, and the evidence strongly supports the fact that he's a factor.

Gut für last you should Jump on,when the front six are misfiring. The front six continual missing their beat,put the back four,With attacking FBs in nomans land,

with nowhere to go

[inckley fox]

16 minutes ago, fuchsntf said:

Gut für last you should Jump on,when the front six are misfiring. The front six continual missing their beat,put the back four,With attacking FBs in nomans land,

with nowhere to go

Okay, but surely we can agree that the keeper and the back 4/5 also have a bearing on a team's attacking play, no? Especially if they have a largely attacking function, and in the positional map for an average game are among the five most advanced players.

[fuchsntf]

22 minutes ago, inckley fox said:

Okay, but surely we can agree that the keeper and the back 4/5 also have a bearing on a team's attacking play, no? Especially if they have a largely attacking function, and in the positional map for an average game are among the five most advanced players.

Ok..but only because your from hinckley and Drop your H's..

[Ian Nacho]

Didn’t realise we played 3 at the back from the start until I listened to Rodgers after the game. Justin was way up the pitch in the first half to be a centre back?

[Hollyfox]

3 hours ago, Steve Earle said:

By the way, has anyone ever seen such an insipid performance from Zaha? I'd forgotten he was on until he skied that effort in stoppage time...

I've a good friend of over 40 years that's a Palace fan, and we've always gone to our games over the years, together. 

He text me before the game, with a Come On You Eagles message, and I said we've got a chance, if we can keep Saha quiet. 

He replied that it wouldn't be a problem as he's been awful since the restart. 

 

Maybe he's saving a bit of magic for Chelsea tomorrow 🙏🤞🤞

[Aus Fox]

18 hours ago, Hollyfox said:

I've a good friend of over 40 years that's a Palace fan, and we've always gone to our games over the years, together. 

He text me before the game, with a Come On You Eagles message, and I said we've got a chance, if we can keep Saha quiet. 

He replied that it wouldn't be a problem as he's been awful since the restart. 

 

Maybe he's saving a bit of magic for Chelsea tomorrow 🙏🤞🤞

Should be easily done as the bloke retired about 10 years ago.

[Steve Earle]

A last thought - Albrighton had his best game for ages, all season probably. He looks a much better player with two up top doesn't he?

[Hollyfox]

1 hour ago, Aus Fox said:

Should be easily done as the bloke retired about 10 years ago.

Oops, my bad😕

[teblin]

6 minutes ago, Steve Earle said:

A last thought - Albrighton had his best game for ages, all season probably. He looks a much better player with two up top doesn't he?

I think wingback suits him too.

[Steve Earle]

3 minutes ago, teblin said:

I think wingback suits him too.

TBH he's had some shockers there, but last Saturday he was able to play the role with good defenders behind him...