Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
weller54

Everton (H)..pre match thread

By weller54, in Leicester City Forum

Recommended Posts

sacreblueits442

sacreblueits442

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, StriderHiryu said:

I've seen Brendan Rodgers make more changes to his footballing beliefs this season than in his previous 10+ years as a manager put together:

- Set up a team to concede possession and hit opponents on the break, and ended up winning 5-2 away from home.

- Switched a formation after 15 minutes. (Maybe he's done this before, but not at Leicester).

- Changed set piece routine massively to try something new after weeks of not clearing the first man.

 

I find it refreshing to see and bodes well for us. Obviously he's made plenty of mistakes too, but we have massively outperformed expectations so far this season in my eyes. 

 

Why he's suddenly changed I don't know, but I would imagine that the end of season collapse plus Covid might have given him a lot to think about. 

...pretty much explains the many difficulties posters are having with his decisions and belief that he lacks insight and understanding!!!

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, NaijaFox said:

 

Basic comprehension issues? lol

 

You do realize that 'shouldn't' and 'couldn't' (or 'can't) are NOT synonymous terms? My position is that if Castagne is not fully or match fit (or otherwise not 100% fit), he shouldn't play IN THIS PARTICULAR GAME because we are not desperate and it is simply not worth the risk, particularly in light of the congested fixture immediately ahead of us.  

 

Conversely, if fully fit but some would rather he not play a full 90 minutes (not altogether unreasonable given his long absence - even though he has apparently been training with the team for a while), then again my position would be that it substantively makes no difference whether he starts and is subbed-off or he doesn't and is subbed-in.  

 

No issues here but I appreciate your concern. You wrote that "he's either fit or not", which is fairly obviously not how fitness works because he might well be capable of 20-30 minutes off the bench but not to start and play a half or more. I don't disagree that we shouldn't risk him if he's not completely ready after a fairly long time out, but that's not what you wrote initially, is it? I can't comprehend things you don't say.

 

I would also advise easing up on the terminology condescension so soon after you were trying to convince people that 'set piece' and 'spot kick' were one and the same lol

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raw Dykes

Raw Dykes

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, NaijaFox said:

Basic comprehension issues? lol

 

You do realize that 'shouldn't' and 'couldn't' (or 'can't) are NOT synonymous terms? My position is that if Castagne is not fully or match fit (or otherwise not 100% fit), he shouldn't play IN THIS PARTICULAR GAME because we are not desperate and it is simply not worth the risk, particularly in light of the congested fixture immediately ahead of us.  

 

Conversely, if fully fit but some would rather he not play a full 90 minutes (not altogether unreasonable given his long absence - even though he has apparently been training with the team for a while), then again my position would be that it substantively makes no difference whether he starts and is subbed-off or he doesn't and is subbed-in. 

We're not stupid. I genuinely couldn't work out whether you really believe that a player is either fit to play a whole match, or not fit to play 5 mins, or if you were trying to be funny.

 

What's wrong with him playing 20 or 30 mins from the bench? If he's fit enough to play half an hour, why wouldn't you name him as a sub? The imminent congested fixture list is all the more reason to get him minutes sooner rather than later.

 

Of course it makes a difference whether you start him or have him as an option to sub on. If you put him in from the start, and know he won't last the 90, you already know you will have to sub him off at some point. One of your subs is already spoken for, which could bite you on the arse if you need it for someone else. If he's on the bench, you've got the option to give him minutes if all goes well, but you can always change your mind if you want or need to.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cadno'r Cymoedd

Cadno'r Cymoedd

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, Raw Dykes said:

I don't envy Brendan having to pick a side for this one. Shame Evans is suspended, but at least he gets rested.

 

Scrabbling around for centre-halves now. Anyone know how close Soyuncu or Amartey are to a return? Or whether there are plans to recall Knight or Benkovic in Jan?

 

I expect we'll start with 3 at the back, with Fofana, Ndidi and any one of: JJ, Fuchs or Morgan. Not sure if Big Wes can last a full 90. Would be a good option if Cags is fit enough to be on the bench, but I don't think that's likely just yet, and it could be a waste of a sub. Fuchs should probably be rested, but if JJ plays CB, then Sharky probably has to play wing back, and he could also use a rest after last night. Besides, JJ completely owned the right flank yesterday, and I want to see more of that.

 

I'd be tempted to play Fofana and Ndidi in a back 4, but I doubt we'll see this, at least to start with.

 

Good chance we will see Barnes and Under start this one.

 

We might see Castagne return in this. I'm guessing he'll be on the bench.

 

I'd like to see:

 

               Kasper

JJ    Fofana    Ndidi   Castagne

                Mendy

     Tielemans  Maddison

Under                      Barnes

                 Vardy

 

Bench: Ward, Morgan, Soyuncu, Thomas, Praet, Perez, Nacho

(I picked 2x CBs so that one can be used to get Ndidi into midfield)

 

Harsh on Perez, who is currently playing very well, but Barnes and Under are well rested and better out wide.

 

What I guess it will be:

 

                  Kasper

        Ndidi   Fofana   Fuchs

JJ       Tielemans    Mendy   Thomas

          Maddison     Barnes

                    Vardy

 

Bench: Ward, Morgan, Castagne, Hamza, Praet, Under, Perez

 

If we are going back 3/5, then it would be a good idea to pick a side that can switch to 4 atb without making a sub like we did v Brighton.

Benkovic can't even get in the Cardiff City team. Ryan Bennett is keeping him out it seems. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
NaijaFox

NaijaFox

Posted
Posted (edited)
37 minutes ago, Raw Dykes said:

Of course it makes a difference whether you start him or have him as an option to sub on. If you put him in from the start, and know he won't last the 90, you already know you will have to sub him off at some point. One of your subs is already spoken for, which could bite you on the arse if you need it for someone else. If he's on the bench, you've got the option to give him minutes if all goes well, but you can always change your mind if you want or need to.

You make it sound as if predetermining the subbing-off of players is some sort of aberration in football (or inherently ill-advised).

Yet (for example) we only just recently started Ricardo and Ndidi knowing beforehand that each would be subbed-off at some point. 

 

Of course, subs are ordinarily dictated by real game situations but deciding to start a player returning from injury but perhaps deemed unable or unwise to play the entire 90+ minutes with a predetermined plan to sub him off  is a regular and rather routine occurrence. Frankly, any substantive decision driver in these cases would be the strength of the team with such player starting (as opposed to not starting), since ordinarily managers would prefer to start with what they deem to be the "strongest" available lineup best suited to prosecute each particular game.

 

Btw, there's the real danger of subbing-in players returning from injury only for them to suffer a recurrence (a la Soyuncu) or otherwise pull-up lame (Ricardo) AFTER we have used (or worse, used up) our substitutions. Accordingly, better the player start and use 1 substitution (instead of 2).  

 

Edited by NaijaFox
at some point
Link to comment
Share on other sites
NaijaFox

NaijaFox

Posted
Posted
47 minutes ago, Guest said:

No issues here but I appreciate your concern. You wrote that "he's either fit or not", which is fairly obviously not how fitness works because he might well be capable of 20-30 minutes off the bench but not to start and play a half or more. I don't disagree that we shouldn't risk him if he's not completely ready after a fairly long time out, but that's not what you wrote initially, is it? I can't comprehend things you don't say.

 

I would also advise easing up on the terminology condescension so soon after you were trying to convince people that 'set piece' and 'spot kick' were one and the same lol

Duly appreciate your own concern about my usage of literal and colloquial terms lol. 

Nonetheless, my deliberate usage of "shouldn't" should have been clear enough without the need for a pedantic dissertation. :ph34r:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raw Dykes

Raw Dykes

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, NaijaFox said:

You make it sound as if predetermining the subbing-off of players is some sort of aberration in football (or inherently ill-advised).

Yet (for example) we only just recently started Ricardo and Ndidi knowing beforehand that each would be subbed-off at some point. 

 

Of course, subs are ordinarily dictated by real game situations but deciding to start a player returning from injury but perhaps deemed unable or unwise to play the entire 90+ minutes with a predetermined plan to sub him off  is a regular and rather routine occurrence. Frankly, any substantive decision driver in these cases would be the strength of the team with such player starting (as opposed to not starting), since ordinarily managers would prefer to start with what they deem to be the "strongest" available lineup best suited to prosecute each particular game.

 

Btw, there's the real danger of subbing-in players returning from injury only for them to suffer a recurrence (a la Soyuncu) or otherwise pull-up lame (Ricardo) AFTER we have used (or worse, used up) our substitutions. Accordingly, better the player start and use 1 substitution (instead of 2). 

I made no comment on how often predetermined subs happen whatsoever (and after you accused me of basic comprehension issues!).

 

I do think they are ill-advised, as I explained. You're deciding to use a probably avoidable sub, when you could need it in case of injury or a tactical switch. If you disagree, I'd be interested to know why.

 

(If we ignore the fact that I never commented on how often predetermined subs happen) I'd say there's a big difference between starting players returning from injury in a dead rubber game with 5 subs allowed and doing the same in a league match with only 3. Wouldn't you agree? Wouldn't the importance of the match or the number of subs made available by the competition's rules be important factors in deciding whether to start a player returning from injury?

 

I'm suggesting we have Castagne on the bench if he's fit enough to play the last 20 or 30 minutes. I think we should bring him on if things are going well. I don't think you can worry about players you deem fit breaking down the minute you bring them on. They'd never get on the pitch again if you did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest SO1

Guest SO1

Posted
Posted
12 hours ago, StriderHiryu said:

I've seen Brendan Rodgers make more changes to his footballing beliefs this season than in his previous 10+ years as a manager put together:

- Set up a team to concede possession and hit opponents on the break, and ended up winning 5-2 away from home.

- Switched a formation after 15 minutes. (Maybe he's done this before, but not at Leicester).

- Changed set piece routine massively to try something new after weeks of not clearing the first man.

 

I find it refreshing to see and bodes well for us. Obviously he's made plenty of mistakes too, but we have massively outperformed expectations so far this season in my eyes. 

 

Why he's suddenly changed I don't know, but I would imagine that the end of season collapse plus Covid might have given him a lot to think about. 

I definitely remember him changing both shape and players(very rare) before half time at Liverpool. The rest you have right. Condensing our season(covid), additional matches in Europe and injuries. I won't talk about the changes he had to make at Liverpool because of losing 55 goals from the year before with Champions league on top of that.

Don't want to encourage the haters and the moaners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NaijaFox

NaijaFox

Posted
Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, Raw Dykes said:

I made no comment on how often predetermined subs happen whatsoever (and after you accused me of basic comprehension issues!).

 

I do think they are ill-advised, as I explained. You're deciding to use a probably avoidable sub, when you could need it in case of injury or a tactical switch. If you disagree, I'd be interested to know why.

 

(If we ignore the fact that I never commented on how often predetermined subs happen) I'd say there's a big difference between starting players returning from injury in a dead rubber game with 5 subs allowed and doing the same in a league match with only 3. Wouldn't you agree? Wouldn't the importance of the match or the number of subs made available by the competition's rules be important factors in deciding whether to start a player returning from injury?

 

I'm suggesting we have Castagne on the bench if he's fit enough to play the last 20 or 30 minutes. I think we should bring him on if things are going well. I don't think you can worry about players you deem fit breaking down the minute you bring them on. They'd never get on the pitch again if you did.

I disagree because it could very well be the difference between being ahead and chasing the game.

 

As I said in my previous post, generally substitutions (including the order thereof) depends on the circumstances of each game (and that accounts for the referenced Europa League game as well). Nevertheless, if you have a returning "better" player physically fit and available to play, but unwillingly/unwise to play him for 90+ minutes, the tendency would be to start said player to give you the best chance at getting ahead before making (or taking a decision to make) a substitution. 

 

Edited by NaijaFox
Link to comment
Share on other sites
NaijaFox

NaijaFox

Posted
Posted (edited)
35 minutes ago, Raw Dykes said:

I'm suggesting we have Castagne on the bench if he's fit enough to play the last 20 or 30 minutes. I think we should bring him on if things are going well. I don't think you can worry about players you deem fit breaking down the minute you bring them on. They'd never get on the pitch again if you did.

Again, we can agree to disagree, but if Timmy is only fit enough to play the last 20 or 30 minutes, then I would not risk him at all in this game. We are not desperate. Furthermore, doing that would effectively restrict our options on the bench "if things are NOT going well". I would only risk suiting Timmy up if he is fully physically fit to play, but the staff merely believe it would be unwise to play him for a full 90+ minutes. However, in the latter case (and this is where we appear to fundamentally disagree), I would start him.

 

Edited by NaijaFox
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raw Dykes

Raw Dykes

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, NaijaFox said:

I disagree because it could very well be the difference between being ahead and chasing the game.

 

As I said in my previous post, generally substitutions (including the order thereof) depends on the circumstances of each game (and that accounts for the referenced Europa League game as well). Nevertheless, if you have a returning "better" player physically fit and available to play, but unwillingly/unwise to play him for 90+ minutes, the tendency would be to start said player to give you the best chance at getting ahead before making (or taking a decision to make) a substitution.

But if you know said player can only play 30 minutes, would you still do that?

 

6 minutes ago, NaijaFox said:

Again, we can agree to disagree, but if Timmy is only fit enough to play the last 20 or 30 minutes, then I would not risk him at all in this game. We are not desperate. Furthermore, it restricts our options on the bench "if things are NOT going well". I would only risk suiting him up if he is fully physically fit, but the staff merely believes it would be unwise to play him for a full 90+ minutes. But in the latter case (and this is where we appear to fundamentally disagree), I would start him.

Not desperate, no, but we do need the injured players back asap. We've got a hectic schedule ahead, and need to give the players returning from injury minutes as soon as we can, so that they can be involved as much and as soon as possible.

 

It restricts our options from the bench barely. There's still 6 other subs you can pick from.

 

If it was up to you, he'd be out a lot longer, wouldn't he? How do you expect him to get fit enough to play 90 mins if you never give him the minutes he needs to get that fit?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...