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
moore_94

Ademola Lookman signs on loan

By moore_94, in Leicester City Forum

Recommended Posts

Phil Bowman

Phil Bowman

Posted
Posted
On 22/09/2021 at 08:59, Stadt said:

Perez isn’t creative enough. If we’re playing a 10 it has to be Iheanacho or Maddison.

Neither Perez nor Iheanacho are creative enough for that job, which is presumably why Maddison has to play despite being out of form and/or injured.

Strokes

Strokes

Posted
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, Phil Bowman said:

Neither Perez nor Iheanacho are creative enough for that job, which is presumably why Maddison has to play despite being out of form and/or injured.

Hmmm,

Kelechi has 48 goal contributions from 148 Premier League matches.

Maddison 36 from 103.

Arguably Kel has performed his best for us in that 10 role? 
I couldn’t and wouldn’t say he is not creative enough, he plays it differently but the output is marginally better if you consider how many of those appearances are from the bench.

Edited by Strokes
  • Like 4
Foxxed

Foxxed

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Hmmm,

Kelechi has 48 goal contributions from 148 Premier League matches.

Maddison 36 from 103.

Arguably Kel has performed his best for us in that 10 role? 
I couldn’t and wouldn’t say he is not creative enough, he plays it differently but the output is marginally better if you consider how many of those appearances are from the bench.

He has 48 contributions. But he doesn’t have 48 contributions from the 10 role.

 

I can’t agree Iheanacho has even played as a number 10. As an attacking midfielder, perhaps, but as a number 10?

 

Aside from Perez, I’m not sure who else can successfully play the number 10 role. I guess that’s why we’ve registered interested in Lingard.

  • Popular Post
Strokes

Strokes

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
9 minutes ago, Foxxed said:

He has 48 contributions. But he doesn’t have 48 contributions from the 10 role.

 

I can’t agree Iheanacho has even played as a number 10. As an attacking midfielder, perhaps, but as a number 10?

 

Aside from Perez, I’m not sure who else can successfully play the number 10 role. I guess that’s why we’ve registered interested in Lingard.

I have to disagree, how Iheanacho plays is more like the traditional 10 role, whereas Maddison is more of an advanced 8. 
However I get your point that it probably is a different position and was certainly in a different system.

I do think we can afford to try him in the withdrawn striker role, as currently Maddison’s involvement in play is so minimal, that I can’t see how we would even miss it.

  • Like 6
Strokes

Strokes

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, Foxxed said:

He has 48 contributions. But he doesn’t have 48 contributions from the 10 role.

 

I can’t agree Iheanacho has even played as a number 10. As an attacking midfielder, perhaps, but as a number 10?

 

Aside from Perez, I’m not sure who else can successfully play the number 10 role. I guess that’s why we’ve registered interested in Lingard.

https://www.squawka.com/en/comparison-matrix/?compare=ThCJdM9MsX3y0amh77f6V

fuchsntf

fuchsntf

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, Jimmy said:

It’s not FIFA, that team would get ripped apart

This was more tong-in-cheek, With the thought of our present difficulties of lumbering around the park...

This side would have to attack, because it couldnt Bloody afford to muck around at the back....

Sort of attack & be dammed...:scarf:

fuchsntf

fuchsntf

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Nicolo Barella said:

Three at the back with no wingbacks is a guaranteed loss, would have to swap out the AM for a left back in this formation

Barnes & Lookman are the Wingbacks...

its an attack and be damned selection...

Not a boring Play safe...

sacreblueits442

sacreblueits442

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Foxxed said:

He has 48 contributions. But he doesn’t have 48 contributions from the 10 role.

 

I can’t agree Iheanacho has even played as a number 10. As an attacking midfielder, perhaps, but as a number 10?

 

Aside from Perez, I’m not sure who else can successfully play the number 10 role. I guess that’s why we’ve registered interested in Lingard.

....if we sell Maddison and insist on playing the #10 role then we should be looking at Jean Pyerre!!!

  Lingard would probably cost us more and with little resale value.

Pyerre is 23 and is going to be well sought after, if not already. Looks like Fofana's twin brother and if he had the same outlook as Fofana, it should be a no brainer to pick him up. 

moore_94

moore_94

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Just now, sacreblueits442 said:

....if we sell Maddison and insist on playing the #10 role then we should be looking at Jean Pyerre!!!

  Lingard would probably cost us more and with little resale value.

Pyerre is 23 and is going to be well sought after, if not already. Looks like Fofana's twin brother and if he had the same outlook as Fofana, it should be a no brainer to pick him up. 

Contract runs out next summer so there would be no transfer fee for Lingard, not all signings need to focus on resale value either, need to have experienced players as well

 

At 23, not too sure I would want a number 10 who has an unimpressive goal contribution record so far in his career either

Phil Bowman

Phil Bowman

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Strokes said:

Hmmm,

Kelechi has 48 goal contributions from 148 Premier League matches.

Maddison 36 from 103.

Arguably Kel has performed his best for us in that 10 role? 
I couldn’t and wouldn’t say he is not creative enough, he plays it differently but the output is marginally better if you consider how many of those appearances are from the bench.

But surely most of Iheanacho’s are from playing up front?

And I’d wager that a higher proportion of Maddison’s are ones that he created.

murphy

murphy

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, Foxxed said:

He has 48 contributions. But he doesn’t have 48 contributions from the 10 role.

 

I can’t agree Iheanacho has even played as a number 10. As an attacking midfielder, perhaps, but as a number 10?

 

Aside from Perez, I’m not sure who else can successfully play the number 10 role. I guess that’s why we’ve registered interested in Lingard.

I've said this before and it was met with deafening silence but what about and ageing Vardy at 10?

 

Hear me out before it is poo poo-ed, I think that Vardy is a better all round footballer than he is perhaps given credit for.  He is, after all, not only our record PL goal-scorer but also our record PL assister.  I think he could be a creative force at 10 with Patson or Kelechi at 9.   Vardy could play them in and I think that JV running from deep to receive a return ball could be terrifying for defenders.

 

This is going to be poo poo-ed isn't it?  I can definitely smell poo.

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
PhillippaT

PhillippaT

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, murphy said:

I've said this before and it was met with deafening silence but what about and ageing Vardy at 10?

 

Hear me out before it is poo poo-ed, I think that Vardy is a better all round footballer than he is perhaps given credit for.  He is, after all, not only our record PL goal-scorer but also our record PL assister.  I think he could be a creative force at 10 with Patson or Kelechi at 9.   Vardy could play them in and I think that JV running from deep to receive a return ball could be terrifying for defenders.

 

This is going to be poo poo-ed isn't it?  I can definitely smell poo.

[No pictures of Winnie the pooh found in the LCFC shirt :( ]

sacreblueits442

sacreblueits442

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, murphy said:

I've said this before and it was met with deafening silence but what about and ageing Vardy at 10?

 

Hear me out before it is poo poo-ed, I think that Vardy is a better all round footballer than he is perhaps given credit for.  He is, after all, not only our record PL goal-scorer but also our record PL assister.  I think he could be a creative force at 10 with Patson or Kelechi at 9.   Vardy could play them in and I think that JV running from deep to receive a return ball could be terrifying for defenders.

 

This is going to be poo poo-ed isn't it?  I can definitely smell poo.

....Vardy has always been a player than can support his partner upfront or the team as a whole!!!

Playing Nacho as a #9 as the lead, is not a good option but playing Vardy as a#10 will not be the be the best use of his talents. Let us not start to create formats just to accommodate players,

if we need a #10, let us go out and get someone proficient in the role.

Plastik Man

Plastik Man

Posted
Posted

I thought Rodgers historically preferred not to play with a 10, favouring 433 with two 8s?

 

When our best 10 is chronically out of form and his fitness is questionable surely we should be looking at an alternative formation?

 

Rodgers tried the 433 v Napoli but had problems with Iheanacho and Daka's roles. However surely the 4231 formation with Iheanacho in  the "10" role is preferable, allowing him to play behind a 9, even if it's a slightly different type of 10 to Maddison.

 

I think the issue with the 4231 has been our 2 in midfield being outnumbered,  and that's with Maddison in the 10 role.  I don’t think we have much to lose playing Iheanacho there.

 

Or, there is Perez :ph34r:

 

And seeing as this thread is about Lookman, he'd be playing on the right!

 

 

 

 

Strokes

Strokes

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Phil Bowman said:

But surely most of Iheanacho’s are from playing up front?

And I’d wager that a higher proportion of Maddison’s are ones that he created.

Well it’s irrelevant whether it’s was either scored or assisted in the same role. Creating a goal for yourself reaps the same rewards.  A goal is a goal after all.

last season, arguably they played in similar positions but in different systems.

Maddison played 42. (2684 minutes), goal involvement 21.

Iheanacho (2258 minutes) played 39, goal involvement 26.

HighPeakFox

HighPeakFox

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, murphy said:

I've said this before and it was met with deafening silence but what about and ageing Vardy at 10?

 

Hear me out before it is poo poo-ed, I think that Vardy is a better all round footballer than he is perhaps given credit for.  He is, after all, not only our record PL goal-scorer but also our record PL assister.  I think he could be a creative force at 10 with Patson or Kelechi at 9.   Vardy could play them in and I think that JV running from deep to receive a return ball could be terrifying for defenders.

 

This is going to be poo poo-ed isn't it?  I can definitely smell poo.

https://youtu.be/QeF1JO7Ki8E

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
moore_94

moore_94

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 minute ago, Vindaloo FOX said:

His contract ends on Jun 30, 2022 so I feel we could get him on the cheap.

 

That is when his loan ends, his contract with Leipzig is until 2024

  • Thanks 1
moore_94

moore_94

Posted
  • Author
Posted
2 minutes ago, Vindaloo FOX said:

Ah true my bad, do you know if we have already agreed a price for him ?

I think SkySports mentioned an option to buy, but everywhere else when the deal was announced had no mention of it, including both club statements for the loan

 

So not too sure to be honest

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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