Tactics Under Maresca

[Finnegan]

10 minutes ago, Lillehamring said:

As opposed to Hamza or ndidi? - neither of whom have much in the way of control or passing range. At least praet can control a ball, carry it forward and play a decent pass.  Fact is, we really don't have a plan B for winks until braybrooke is back, and seemingly nothing for ricardo other than hamza, who is incapable of turning with the ball.

 

Maresca hinted at this earlier which I quite liked actually. He said that Hamza and Wilf were the natural replacements to Winks bur acknowledged that they wouldn't play the same way as they're different types of players. 

 

In pre season we were putting a fair few square pegs in round holes to try and get the preferred choice of tactics to work. That makes sense as the most important thing is the team collectively getting used to the system. 

 

I'm pretty sure if Winks gets a knock we'll play a more conventional "defensive" midfielder instead, probably Wilf, and I'd guess in that situation Ricardo probably shoulders more of the responsibility for running the game and the likes of Casadei and KDH maybe drop a bit deeper to come collect than the otherwise would. 

 

[Lillehamring]

11 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

Maresca hinted at this earlier which I quite liked actually. He said that Hamza and Wilf were the natural replacements to Winks bur acknowledged that they wouldn't play the same way as they're different types of players. 

 

In pre season we were putting a fair few square pegs in round holes to try and get the preferred choice of tactics to work. That makes sense as the most important thing is the team collectively getting used to the system. 

 

I'm pretty sure if Winks gets a knock we'll play a more conventional "defensive" midfielder instead, probably Wilf, and I'd guess in that situation Ricardo probably shoulders more of the responsibility for running the game and the likes of Casadei and KDH maybe drop a bit deeper to come collect than the otherwise would. 

 

It's not ideal though and praet certainly seems to be the most creative out of the three; that said, i've not seen any opponent at this level that suggests a hamza/ricardo pivot wouldn't be good enough.

[Aleksz]

13 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

Maresca hinted at this earlier which I quite liked actually. He said that Hamza and Wilf were the natural replacements to Winks bur acknowledged that they wouldn't play the same way as they're different types of players. 

 

In pre season we were putting a fair few square pegs in round holes to try and get the preferred choice of tactics to work. That makes sense as the most important thing is the team collectively getting used to the system. 

 

I'm pretty sure if Winks gets a knock we'll play a more conventional "defensive" midfielder instead, probably Wilf, and I'd guess in that situation Ricardo probably shoulders more of the responsibility for running the game and the likes of Casadei and KDH maybe drop a bit deeper to come collect than the otherwise would. 

 

I think Hamza is the most likely, I think the whole purpose of shoe horning Ndidi into the position he has is because he wants Ndidi absolutely nowhere near that first phase of possession. Which to be fair is a fair observation.

 

And in anticipation of someone of someone saying here “Oh and Hamza should be?” I do actually think Hamza is better on the ball than Ndidi, yes. Although limited.

[Dames]

9 hours ago, Lillehamring said:

Mate - I said i don't buy that and explained extensively why it's just a cynical guess - if that's all you've got to suggest he's 'playing chess with the board' - then you don't really have even the slightest argument that that is the case. 

Okay you're dismissing it because it doesn't fit your narrative. That's fine but just say that. I just see any other reasonable explanation as to why a manager is picking an extra goalkeeper on the bench, a goalkeeper he doesn't want to keep over an attacking player he doesn't want to keep when we are very light on attacking options. It does not make sense. Either he's actually a bad manager (I don't think so) or he's trying to make a point to somebody. 

 

He's also been out in the press today hinting that there is a lack of movement on outgoing options which is limiting who he wants to bring in. Its not the first time he's hinted at frustration at the board in recent weeks. But I suppose since that isn't iron clad evidence you aren't going to be open to the opinion that the manager might be frustrated because he's not being delivered what he was promised when he signed up.

 

 

[CloudFox]

Really enjoying Enzo's press conferences. I feel like we learn a lot about his thinking.

 

Highlights off the top of my head:

 

- Sees Hamza and Wilf as options if Winks is injured, although he acknowledges they have different qualities (open to flexing the tactics based on personnel)

- Acknowledges that Kristiansen and Thomas are traditional full backs, so don't currently fit system ("they've played that position their whole lives")

- Doesn't think Kristiansen or Thomas can play the Ricardo role, but on the left (clearly rates Ricky P highly)

- Feels Kristiansen could be suited to the Doyle role (LB, dropping back to form a 3 in possession)

- Says he is "working" with Thomas to develop him and see if he can adapt his game (bit vague, maybe seemed a little less hopeful)

 

It's sad that he didn't seem that optimistic about Thomas, but hopefully Thomas can get his head down and develop the attributes Enzo is seeking. He is one of our own, after all, and by all accounts loves the club.

 

The comments on Kristiansen are interesting, considering he's linked with a move away. I'm guessing he could be one of those players whom Enzo is saying would need replacing if he went (given we have no other backup for Doyle).

[Dahnsouff]

1 hour ago, Dames said:

Okay you're dismissing it because it doesn't fit your narrative. That's fine but just say that. I just see any other reasonable explanation as to why a manager is picking an extra goalkeeper on the bench, a goalkeeper he doesn't want to keep over an attacking player he doesn't want to keep when we are very light on attacking options. It does not make sense. Either he's actually a bad manager (I don't think so) or he's trying to make a point to somebody. 

 

He's also been out in the press today hinting that there is a lack of movement on outgoing options which is limiting who he wants to bring in. Its not the first time he's hinted at frustration at the board in recent weeks. But I suppose since that isn't iron clad evidence you aren't going to be open to the opinion that the manager might be frustrated because he's not being delivered what he was promised when he signed up.

Every manager does this, it’s certainly not a Leicester only thing, and with this optimistic new dawn, not sure why you are so keen to hunt for issues. Of course he is frustrated, but that isn’t an unusual thing, Christ you even see Pep, Klopp with such comments, it’s a whole load of nothing. He clearly has been backed thus far and he rightly states we need to sell and there is no movement on sales, of course it’s frustrating for him, but he too has to be pragmatic about the players who aren’t/won’t be moving soon.

 

As much as Rudkin carries the can, and he certainly does, the players agents seem strangely inactive, but even then it is only from a point of ignorance that such a comment can be made, as with most comments about the club

[Dames]

2 hours ago, Dahnsouff said:

Every manager does this, it’s certainly not a Leicester only thing, and with this optimistic new dawn, not sure why you are so keen to hunt for issues. Of course he is frustrated, but that isn’t an unusual thing, Christ you even see Pep, Klopp with such comments, it’s a whole load of nothing. He clearly has been backed thus far and he rightly states we need to sell and there is no movement on sales, of course it’s frustrating for him, but he too has to be pragmatic about the players who aren’t/won’t be moving soon.

 

As much as Rudkin carries the can, and he certainly does, the players agents seem strangely inactive, but even then it is only from a point of ignorance that such a comment can be made, as with most comments about the club

I’m very optimistic about Maresca but i don’t want to see this relationship cut short because the board haven’t backed him as they said they would. 

 

As its the tactics thread my initial point was it was very strange to see two unwanted keepers on the bench as opposed to unwanted attacking players. The manager left us deliberately short tactically and my only conclusion is that he’s sending a message to someone, most likely the board but also the unwanted players. That being said theres only so much these players can do to engineer moves unless our board are willing to be flexible with valuations. 

 

Hopefully it was only a one off but if it happens again today i’ll start to be concerned. 

[coolhandfox]

10 minutes ago, Dames said:

I’m very optimistic about Maresca but i don’t want to see this relationship cut short because the board haven’t backed him as they said they would. 

 

As its the tactics thread my initial point was it was very strange to see two unwanted keepers on the bench as opposed to unwanted attacking players. The manager left us deliberately short tactically and my only conclusion is that he’s sending a message to someone, most likely the board but also the unwanted players. That being said theres only so much these players can do to engineer moves unless our board are willing to be flexible with valuations. 

 

Hopefully it was only a one off but if it happens again today i’ll start to be concerned. 

You have no idea what he was promised, its all guess work.

 

 

 

 

[Chelmofox]

14 minutes ago, Dames said:

I’m very optimistic about Maresca but i don’t want to see this relationship cut short because the board haven’t backed him as they said they would. 

 

As its the tactics thread my initial point was it was very strange to see two unwanted keepers on the bench as opposed to unwanted attacking players. The manager left us deliberately short tactically and my only conclusion is that he’s sending a message to someone, most likely the board but also the unwanted players. That being said theres only so much these players can do to engineer moves unless our board are willing to be flexible with valuations. 

 

Hopefully it was only a one off but if it happens again today i’ll start to be concerned. 

He would have had to be realistic about what was possible in the first window following relegation. He will undoubtably be (quite rightly) pushing for everything he can but if he has his head screwed on he will know we don't have the pulling power of top flight clubs and will be having to play a game of balancing the books. 

[Dames]

50 minutes ago, coolhandfox said:

You have no idea what he was promised, its all guess work.

 

 

 

 

With how committed he is to his vision you have to imagine he was promised a fair bit.  Especially when he is ostracising 250k per weeks worth of talent in the Championship. 
 

48 minutes ago, Chelmofox said:

He would have had to be realistic about what was possible in the first window following relegation. He will undoubtably be (quite rightly) pushing for everything he can but if he has his head screwed on he will know we don't have the pulling power of top flight clubs and will be having to play a game of balancing the books. 

He’s right to be pushing but i’m concerned he’s gone too public with it too early. 

[Dames]

2 keepers on the bench again today despite making a signing this week. Clear as day what he's doing now.

[Muzzy_no7]

With Praet now also seemingly looking like he’s departing we are still 4 signings short of the following are all leaving:

 

Soumare, Praet, Daka, Castagne, Iverson, Ward, VK and Souttar.

 

How long is Mcateer out for?

 

Braybrooke, Alves? 

[Lillehamring]

6 hours ago, Dames said:

Okay you're dismissing it because it doesn't fit your narrative. That's fine but just say that. I just see any other reasonable explanation as to why a manager is picking an extra goalkeeper on the bench, a goalkeeper he doesn't want to keep over an attacking player he doesn't want to keep when we are very light on attacking options. It does not make sense. Either he's actually a bad manager (I don't think so) or he's trying to make a point to somebody. 

 

He's also been out in the press today hinting that there is a lack of movement on outgoing options which is limiting who he wants to bring in. Its not the first time he's hinted at frustration at the board in recent weeks. But I suppose since that isn't iron clad evidence you aren't going to be open to the opinion that the manager might be frustrated because he's not being delivered what he was promised when he signed up.

 

 

No, like everyone else who has pointed this out, i'm dismissing it because there are many more plausible reasons for him naming two keepers on the bench than what you are suggesting.  And also because there is, as far as i can see, nothing else to suggest that Maresca is playing games, and at loggerheads with the board - in fact he seems very positive and content with the recruitment so far, for example from yesterday's presser:

 

Quote

“Finally! Cesare, he’s from Italy and I’m from Italy so I know him very well. He’s the kind of player who can give us something different. He’s more box to box, and less of a pocket player. At the end now with four attacking midfielders, it’s enough now to have some different solutions.

Show me a manager that isn't frustrated with transfer dealings!  But that doesn't mean to say he's already started making obscure public protests - i'm sure he speaks with the recruitment team everyday - why make some ambiguous point using his bench?  It's illogical.  You're right, though, i can't accept that being him being frustrated with outgoings is directly suggestive that he has been promised something and is now sufficiently angry with the situation that he has made this gesture of the bench (which many people have suggested is not something he could have manipulated on an away trip) - it's too vague, too peurile and too contradictory to everything else we are seeing and hearing.  And, again, that quote, suggests he has certainly got what he wanted in the AM positions, so your argument just falls completely flat - based on what he has actually said.

 

I can't say any more than this, if you want to believe that maresca has already fallen out with the board (which handily fits your own 'the board are incompetent' narrative) - then fill your boots, the rest of us will go on enjoying this exciting time at the club.

[coolhandfox]

1 hour ago, Dames said:

With how committed he is to his vision you have to imagine he was promised a fair bit.  Especially when he is ostracising 250k per weeks worth of talent in the Championship. 
 

He’s right to be pushing but i’m concerned he’s gone too public with it too early. 

There will be no issue if his winning.

 

The club allowed Rodgers to chat shit for months.

 

I like that fact he seems a strong character, you can send a message with calling the club out like Rodgers did.

Edited 19 August 2023 by coolhandfox

[Lillehamring]

2 hours ago, Dames said:

I’m very optimistic about Maresca but i don’t want to see this relationship cut short because the board haven’t backed him as they said they would. 

 

As its the tactics thread my initial point was it was very strange to see two unwanted keepers on the bench as opposed to unwanted attacking players. The manager left us deliberately short tactically and my only conclusion is that he’s sending a message to someone, most likely the board but also the unwanted players. That being said theres only so much these players can do to engineer moves unless our board are willing to be flexible with valuations. 

 

Hopefully it was only a one off but if it happens again today i’ll start to be concerned. 

And yet he made 4 substitutes and we went on to win?

[Dames]

9 minutes ago, coolhandfox said:

There will be no issue if his winning.

 

The club allowed Rodgers to chat shit for months.

 

I like that fact he seems a strong character, you can send a message with calling the club out like Rodgers did.

I agree everythings fine until we lose and then we've lost and the manager hasn't given us the best chance of winning because he wasted a space on the bench with Danny Ward. 

 

8 minutes ago, Lillehamring said:

And yet he made 4 substitutes and we went on to win?

So if we get any injuries in attack we are relying on Albrighton and Vardy because the manager has used a spot on the bench for Danny Ward when he has another keeper on it. Its fine when we are winning but if we don't win it bites him on the arse. I'd rather he just not put himself in the position. 

 

12 minutes ago, Lillehamring said:

No, like everyone else who has pointed this out, i'm dismissing it because there are many more plausible reasons for him naming two keepers on the bench than what you are suggesting.  And also because there is, as far as i can see, nothing else to suggest that Maresca is playing games, and at loggerheads with the board - in fact he seems very positive and content with the recruitment so far, for example from yesterday's presser:

 

Show me a manager that isn't frustrated with transfer dealings!  But that doesn't mean to say he's already started making obscure public protests - i'm sure he speaks with the recruitment team everyday - why make some ambiguous point using his bench?  It's illogical.  You're right, though, i can't accept that being him being frustrated with outgoings is directly suggestive that he has been promised something and is now sufficiently angry with the situation that he has made this gesture of the bench (which many people have suggested is not something he could have manipulated on an away trip) - it's too vague, too peurile and too contradictory to everything else we are seeing and hearing.  And, again, that quote, suggests he has certainly got what he wanted in the AM positions, so your argument just falls completely flat - based on what he has actually said.

 

I can't say any more than this, if you want to believe that maresca has already fallen out with the board (which handily fits your own 'the board are incompetent' narrative) - then fill your boots, the rest of us will go on enjoying this exciting time at the club.

What other plausible reasons are there for naming 2 keepers on the bench 2 games in a row when deliberately leaving out 250 grands per week of talent? The travelling excuse someone came out with was valid until today but not so much anymore. 

[ClaphamFox]

21 minutes ago, Lillehamring said:

No, like everyone else who has pointed this out, i'm dismissing it because there are many more plausible reasons for him naming two keepers on the bench than what you are suggesting.  And also because there is, as far as i can see, nothing else to suggest that Maresca is playing games, and at loggerheads with the board - in fact he seems very positive and content with the recruitment so far, for example from yesterday's presser:

 

Show me a manager that isn't frustrated with transfer dealings!  But that doesn't mean to say he's already started making obscure public protests - i'm sure he speaks with the recruitment team everyday - why make some ambiguous point using his bench?  It's illogical.  You're right, though, i can't accept that being him being frustrated with outgoings is directly suggestive that he has been promised something and is now sufficiently angry with the situation that he has made this gesture of the bench (which many people have suggested is not something he could have manipulated on an away trip) - it's too vague, too peurile and too contradictory to everything else we are seeing and hearing.  And, again, that quote, suggests he has certainly got what he wanted in the AM positions, so your argument just falls completely flat - based on what he has actually said.

 

I can't say any more than this, if you want to believe that maresca has already fallen out with the board (which handily fits your own 'the board are incompetent' narrative) - then fill your boots, the rest of us will go on enjoying this exciting time at the club.

He’s basically admitted that picking two keepers on the bench is a message to the board. 

[BKLFox]

1 hour ago, Muzzy_no7 said:

With Praet now also seemingly looking like he’s departing we are still 4 signings short of the following are all leaving:

 

Soumare, Praet, Daka, Castagne, Iverson, Ward, VK and Souttar.

 

How long is Mcateer out for?

 

Braybrooke, Alves? 

Praet out with a knock

We're hearing that Praet may have picked up a knock, hence his absence from the side. We're waiting to hear more, but it certainly shouldn't be construed that he is heading for the exit. He's one that Maresca wants to keep.
 

 

[Dames]

1 hour ago, ClaphamFox said:

He’s basically admitted that picking two keepers on the bench is a message to the board. 

Unless Maresca explicitly states it then it doesn’t count…  

[Lillehamring]

2 hours ago, ClaphamFox said:

He’s basically admitted that picking two keepers on the bench is a message to the board. 

[The_Rorab]

I've got to be honest, I can't really conceive of any way that 2 GKs on the bench isn't a signal of at least some level of discontent on Maresca's behalf about the state of the squad - and I'm not trying to say he's fed up with the club or anything fearmongering like that - simply that in my opinion that seems like the only plausible reason a manager would ever put 2 GKs on the bench in that circumstance.

 

Again I might be wrong but the fact, disregarding that he could put any of the highly paid players that are missing out onto the bench, that he could put for example Booth from the U21 side who just scored a brace last game for the U21s, to reward good performance and maybe bolster the lad's confidence and show that there's a pathway into the first team with good training and performance - and with it being a 2nd GK chosen ahead of ALL other players at the club at his disposal demonstrates in my opinion that the reason for it cannot be tactical - there is basically no tactical reason to ever have 2 GKs on the bench.

 

I think it's likely that it is Maresca trying to highlight that he doesn't have the squad he needs before the deadline, as well as serving to excise players he doesn't want or that don't want to be here from the squad in the hopes that that expediates their departures. I find it a bit of a frustrating move, because I'd always much rather see a place on the bench go to an academy player over a basically superfluous extra keeper, but if it helps get players out and therefore players in, I definitely can't complain.

 

Plus I mean, we HAVE won 3 from 3 regardless, so it's hard to be particularly mad right now - but still I don't think it's anywhere near invalid to suggest that the double keeper on the bench move might stem from squad composition frustration - otherwise that extra bench slot surely should be filled by an academy player in a more useful position imo.

 

tl;dr: dropping the wantaway or players we want away from the squad makes logical sense to me as a move, putting a second GK on the bench over literally any other outfield player does not, therefore I think there's likely an ulterior motive behind it - though obviously that's just my assumption, but I feel its fairly logical.

Edited 19 August 2023 by The_Rorab

[Dahnsouff]

1 minute ago, The_Rorab said:

I've got to be honest, I can't really conceive of any way that 2 GKs on the bench isn't a signal of at least some level of discontent on Maresca's behalf about the state of the squad - and I'm not trying to say he's fed up with the club or anything fearmongering like that - simply that in my opinion that seems like the only plausible reason a manager would ever put 2 GKs on the bench in that circumstance.

…

Because the rest of the available players are moving on, or trying too?

[The_Rorab]

Just now, Dahnsouff said:

Because the rest of the available players are moving on, or trying too?

Yeah, I do understand that perspective - though surely we're trying to move Ward on one would hope, so why would he be exempt from the squad removal?

 

Again though, I gave an example, you could put any of the academy players on the bench who presumably aren't all trying to move on from the club and are available, no?

[egg_fried_rice]

We pretty much steamrollered them in the first half today (minus the final chance creation) but I was too busy faffing about getting a stream to take in how we were using the space to overload them.

 

Anyone got any clips/screenshots/analysis to share?

[Dahnsouff]

1 minute ago, The_Rorab said:

Yeah, I do understand that perspective - though surely we're trying to move Ward on one would hope, so why would he be exempt from the squad removal?

 

Again though, I gave an example, you could put any of the academy players on the bench who presumably aren't all trying to move on from the club and are available, no?

Not saying I understand but there may be a reason beyond the nefarious. Imagine it would be different if Braybrooke or Alves were available. (Hope so anyway)