LCFC 1-0 Sunderland - Post Match Thread

[whoareyaaa]

9 hours ago, Durnerz said:

Thought we played alright tonight, it was my first look at Enzoball in the flesh and I couldn’t decide at times wether I liked it or not. 
 

We seemed to come alive in flashes in the final third and should have wrapped the game up in the second half were it not for poor refereeing and a couple of wonder saves from Sunderland’s keeper. 
 

Love Winks, such a classy player and makes us tick. Lord knows what he’s doing in the championship. Iheanacho was garbage and lucky to stay on mocking the referee. 
 

Sunderland were a decent side and were unlucky not to come away with something. On we march!

Completely different style to any other game this season as Sunderland didn't stop pressing us all night so we couldn't control the ball how we have in every other game this season and they have some decent players although we created 4 clear chances that on another day go in.

 

I think it shows we can mix it up when required.

[James_lcfc]

9 hours ago, Durnerz said:

 
Love Winks, such a classy player and makes us tick. Lord knows what he’s doing in the championship.
 

 

I actually think last night was a little insight into why he's playing in the Championship at the moment.

 

He's phenomenal when you're in control, but when a team is really pressing and running at you, he can be pretty ineffective when you're trying to wrestle back that control.

 

It's the lack of dynamism that would have him struggle at PL level, and why a lot on here were a bit concerned with the signing initially.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm fully sold on him and think he's a great signing, but there are reasons why he wasn't picked up by a PL club in the Summer.

[Pliskin]

22 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

I honestly think they're being given a bit too much credit to be perfectly honest. 

 

They worked really hard and put us under pressure but their aggressiveness would have cost them if not for their keeper having a Football Manager 8.5+. We played through them and created more at will than we have against a bunch of more cautious sides. 

 

We literally had a mountain of extremely good chances, hit the post twice, forced some good saves. Yeah, we were a bit open at the back but they managed a lot of half chances from vaguely threatening areas and that's about it. 

 

These are exactly my thoughts….. other than disrupt the flow of our game did they actually produce any real meaningful chances? They didn’t really trouble us all that much. Their number 10 was able to find space on a few occasions, but did little to nothing with it, we defended everything they threw at us. 
 

It’s far more impressive on our behalf, because they threw everything they had at us and still couldn’t beat us. They worked their socks off and left with nothing to show for it.

 

Id say they are the only team this season that have prevented us from playing our way and gaining any momentum, that’s as much as I can say. 

[FrankieADZ]

was that foul on Fatawu in the second half inside or outside the area?

[Bert]

5 minutes ago, FrankieADZ said:

was that foul on Fatawu in the second half inside or outside the area?

Started outside 

[Scanchez]

3 minutes ago, FrankieADZ said:

was that foul on Fatawu in the second half inside or outside the area?

The foul (pull of the shirt) started outside the box.

Fatawu carried his run on in to the box then went down. Personally, I thought that would mean it was a penalty but I think the rules state it has to be given from where the foul started. I don't think that should be the case though.

[foxfanazer]

I still don't understand XG. So last night our XG was 1.39 compared to their 0.96. What are they scoring the likes of Nacho's chance and the 2 efforts by Casadei? And what does the goal itself count as? Just seems low for what I thought were massive chances

[GingerrrFox]

12 minutes ago, FrankieADZ said:

was that foul on Fatawu in the second half inside or outside the area?

Although the shirt pull started outside the rules of football meant it still should have been a penalty.

 

”If a defender starts holding an attacker outside the penalty area and continues holding inside the penalty area, the referee must award a penalty kick.

[GingerrrFox]

8 minutes ago, Scanchez said:

The foul (pull of the shirt) started outside the box.

Fatawu carried his run on in to the box then went down. Personally, I thought that would mean it was a penalty but I think the rules state it has to be given from where the foul started. I don't think that should be the case though.

You’re right the rule is if a shirt pull starts outside the box but carries on inside, the ref (who was a clown last night) should have awarded a pen.

Edited 25 October 2023 by GingerrrFox

[TJB-fox]

5 minutes ago, GingerrrFox said:

Although the shirt pull started outside the rules of football meant it still should have been a penalty.

 

”If a defender starts holding an attacker outside the penalty area and continues holding inside the penalty area, the referee must award a penalty kick.

This is what I thought. 
 

also rather than giving a foul for when the offence started, surely it should be given for when the singular part of the offence actually brought down the player? 

[CloudFox]

10 hours ago, Lillehamring said:

But they don't. Which is why they're a slightly above average side, and nothing more.  Three of their 6 wins were against the bottom 3, they caught southampton when they were leaking goals, blackburn as they embarked on 4 straight loses and a watford team that had just lost two games.  They're built to punish poor teams, but lack the quality to break down a defence like ours.

 

We gave away a lot of sloppy possession that played into their hands and, along with a lot of buzz and energy, it made them look like a hungry, pacey team, but really they were lacking any players that knew what to do with the ball or without the technique to test our keeper..  

Good observations, and you're right about their results/form. Bit harsh with the bit in bold though—we weren't great, but part of that is because their game plan worked.

[LVFox]

Impressed with Sunderland, although they didn't really force too much from Hermansen.

Disappointed with how we played in last half hour, we seemed to lose our way of playing and didn't want to try and break their press, so just went long. Annoying as the first 15 of second half saw us break through numerous times and we could of scored 3 or 4 in that period alone.

 

That being said though, our winning habit just shows no sign of stopping. Sunderland as good as we've played this season and we still deserved the 3 points.

[Scanchez]

17 minutes ago, GingerrrFox said:

You’re right the rule is if a shirt pull starts outside the box but carries on inside, the ref (who was a clown last night) should have awarded a pen.

The ref was abysmal last night. 

[urban fox]

Good game. Credit to Sunderland,  they came here and tried to go toe to toe with us and created a few chances. But, we hit the post twice and their keeper was motm .  On another day that could have been 4-2 or 5-3.

[lanefox]

10 hours ago, foxes_rule1978 said:

Daka was barely on the pitch and obviously been left out for reasons, but when he came on he did look lively. Will we see more I don’t know, but I still feel he could be very useful 

I want to see him given a chance up top, with his pace and balls over the top from Nestagaard and Faes, he'd cause havoc

[StriderHiryu]

Leicester City 1 - 0 Sunderland

 

 

 

• Sunderland came to play. 4231 looking to hit us on the transition as expected. They had the most impressive high press seen at the King Power by an away team this season and they were successful in large period of the match at doing this.
• Even when they went behind, they stuck to their principles of playing this style.
  • The biggest difference between Sunderland and other teams that have tried to press high is that when they won the ball back, they were able to play between our lines. Slick passing and one two's, looking to find the opposite side winger if free, etc.
  • But they also dared play out from the back too. A few times this led to their own problems, Vestergaard winning the ball back high up in their half as a clear example, but it meant that overall the game was quite even, as reflected in the possession stats.
• From our point of view a few notable things stuck out:
  • Ricardo inverted from the other side with JJ playing RCB. This was pretty obviously done to marshal Jack Clarke who has been one of the best players in the division this season.
  • At times he played quite high up the pitch, the idea being that by attacking Sunderland we could pin Clarke back so that he wasn't an issue. 
  • Casadei was put into central midfield and we played longer more often than I've seen our team do in any match this season. The header he won to setup Nacho may well have been part of the tactical plan.
• The most notable thing for me in this game was that Hermansen played the ball long so often. To be honest I'm not entirely sure why, but here are some thoughts:
  • Winks and Ricardo were being followed by Sunderland players and given that their press was working early on, he didn't want to risk it. 
  • It was a deliberate game plan to try and draw Sunderland forwards and try to exploit them with the ball in behind. Defensively they were a bit naive so it's possible this was the idea.
  • It was an attempt to move our entire block further up the pitch so we could get our high press working. Not always the case when building from the back. 

This was definitely a good result and overall the stats show we did edge the game. But I think this was at best an indifferent performance. For me what was lacking was our usual composure in building with Winks and Ricardo and playing around the corner. When we did it, we opened up the game and made chances, but we were hesitant to do it. After an impressive first half, I felt like Sunderland tired between minutes 45-60 where we had 3 big chances to tie up the game with Casadei and Iheanacho. This was our best spell of the game, and here it felt like their press stopped working and we got hold of the game. However, Mowbray made 3 subs at around 60 minutes and this restored their press and made life difficult for us again. Then Hermansen kept smashing the ball long from goal kicks which just turned the ball over and over again! Enzo said he was happy with the game, so perhaps he wanted to see if we could dig in and protect a lead? I think we went long way too often and it allowed them back into the game and meant we lost control. We spent more time in this one in our 433 shape than the 3241, which is massive credit to Sunderland, who were hugely impressive.

 

Some of our players look tired in this game, and games every 3 days will do that to you. So that I think that was a factor, and will mean rotation is needed. I expect a lot of changes for QPR given the following game is high-flying Leeds.

 

 

Edited 25 October 2023 by StriderHiryu

[Ian Nacho]

What was with the increased police presence after the game last night? There was a helicopter which is unusual and there were a number of police officers on Upperton Road (around the Lidl) which you never see. 

[John rayner]

28 minutes ago, Scanchez said:

The ref was abysmal last night. 

Shocking performance by the ref 

[FOXSE]

57 minutes ago, GingerrrFox said:

You’re right the rule is if a shirt pull starts outside the box but carries on inside, the ref (who was a clown last night) should have awarded a pen.

'Must' award a penalty. That's what makes it so bad!

[LVFox]

Not going to quote the whole post but couldn't agree more with @StriderHiryu. Great analysis as usual.

 

We went long way too much last night. I like it as a surprise option but we completely lost our way with it.

[BluethroughtheMiddle]

First team to properly take it to us all game and this is a good reflection of what life in the prem will be like but more punishing.

Hoping we learn from this and also have teams come at us like this again this season to prepare us for the future.

 

We have shown some weakness for the first time since the Hull game. 

 

Bring it on.

[jerry]

11 minutes ago, FOXSE said:

'Must' award a penalty. That's what makes it so bad!

 

11 minutes ago, FOXSE said:

'Must' award a penalty. That's what makes it so bad!

Evens up I suppose with the blatant non penalty award to Sunderland . Faes fought out again. Good going forward but can be a liability defending.

[st albans fox]

41 minutes ago, StriderHiryu said:

Leicester City 1 - 0 Sunderland

 

 

 

• Sunderland came to play. 4231 looking to hit us on the transition as expected. They had the most impressive high press seen at the King Power by an away team this season and they were successful in large period of the match at doing this.
• Even when they went behind, they stuck to their principles of playing this style.
  • The biggest difference between Sunderland and other teams that have tried to press high is that when they won the ball back, they were able to play between our lines. Slick passing and one two's, looking to find the opposite side winger if free, etc.
  • But they also dared play out from the back too. A few times this led to their own problems, Vestergaard winning the ball back high up in their half as a clear example, but it meant that overall the game was quite even, as reflected in the possession stats.
• From our point of view a few notable things stuck out:
  • Ricardo inverted from the other side with JJ playing RCB. This was pretty obviously done to marshal Jack Clarke who has been one of the best players in the division this season.
  • At times he played quite high up the pitch, the idea being that by attacking Sunderland we could pin Clarke back so that he wasn't an issue. 
  • Casadei was put into central midfield and we played longer more often than I've seen our team do in any match this season. The header he won to setup Nacho may well have been part of the tactical plan.
• The most notable thing for me in this game was that Hermansen played the ball long so often. To be honest I'm not entirely sure why, but here are some thoughts:
  • Winks and Ricardo were being followed by Sunderland players and given that their press was working early on, he didn't want to risk it. 
  • It was a deliberate game plan to try and draw Sunderland forwards and try to exploit them with the ball in behind. Defensively they were a bit naive so it's possible this was the idea.
  • It was an attempt to move our entire block further up the pitch so we could get our high press working. Not always the case when building from the back. 

This was definitely a good result and overall the stats show we did edge the game. But I think this was at best an indifferent performance. For me what was lacking was our usual composure in building with Winks and Ricardo and playing around the corner. When we did it, we opened up the game and made chances, but we were hesitant to do it. After an impressive first half, I felt like Sunderland tired between minutes 45-60 where we had 3 big chances to tie up the game with Casadei and Iheanacho. This was our best spell of the game, and here it felt like their press stopped working and we got hold of the game. However, Mowbray made 3 subs at around 60 minutes and this restored their press and made life difficult for us again. Then Hermansen kept smashing the ball long from goal kicks which just turned the ball over and over again! Enzo said he was happy with the game, so perhaps he wanted to see if we could dig in and protect a lead? I think we went long way too often and it allowed them back into the game and meant we lost control. We spent more time in this one in our 433 shape than the 3241, which is massive credit to Sunderland, who were hugely impressive.

 

Some of our players look tired in this game, and games every 3 days will do that to you. So that I think that was a factor, and will mean rotation is needed. I expect a lot of changes for QPR given the following game is high-flying Leeds.

 

 

They pressed high and went man for man 

so it was tough to play out 

the space was wide where the wingers were left isolated one for one which is pretty brave by Mowbray 

 

with a one goal lead we didn’t look comfortable playing out against that kind of high press and clearly didn’t want to risk it - so the tactic second half became playing it long to casadei who had the beating of his marker in the air and for nacho or vards to pick up the flick on or to win a throw. Clearly not the kind of control we usually have but enzo will work on it because there are solutions with movement from the wingers and the eights 

[StriderHiryu]

10 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

They pressed high and went man for man 

so it was tough to play out 

the space was wide where the wingers were left isolated one for one which is pretty brave by Mowbray 

 

with a one goal lead we didn’t look comfortable playing out against that kind of high press and clearly didn’t want to risk it - so the tactic second half became playing it long to casadei who had the beating of his marker in the air and for nacho or vards to pick up the flick on or to win a throw. Clearly not the kind of control we usually have but enzo will work on it because there are solutions with movement from the wingers and the eights 

Agree with you.

 

My concern is this is fast becoming the blueprint to playing against us, and Daniel Farke at Leeds will be seeing this game and looking to replicate it. I've no issue with us going long, but in this game it meant we lost control and the game became more 50/50. If teams play man-to-man, one way to beat it is with bounce passes and playing it round the corner, which we know how to do. But we didn't do it enough yesterday! Our striker does drop deep too, often to make a 3rd midfielder, so the 8's can move into the space the striker leaves. But teams are starting to get wise to our movements and patterns.

[fuchsntf]

3 hours ago, trooky said:

Casadei had a good game, probably his best in a Leicester shirt and should have scored at least 2. Nacho should have also bagged a couple of goals.

 

But worried with the number of games JJ, Ricky and Winks are playing though.

JJ ,Ricky..IMO we have alternatives within & around squad,to deliver points & performances.

Winks.long outage worries me a bit….Maybe just maybe  Enzo finds another natural slot in , from his magic top hat..

Plus I have got this whiff of enthusiasm. ( could be my Medis, fking 28 tablets) ,that there is going to be a storm of a payback,that those / our earlier missed chances,will comeback to haunt the opposition…

Nacho is our failsafe, we don’t get too cocky,

but he will still reach that Valhalla  of conversions this season. He for me has proved

with his own skillsets,  if not scoring he can turn in sublime movement.

His score ratio with Vardy & those 2 pesky wingers will climb….

Cannon,Coady, Doyle ,Mcateer,Braybrooke ,Alves, returnees,will be coming back falling onto a softencushioned atmosphere.

No stress, time to smoothly interact/interface with this team´s  hard earnt security..

 

I don’t know if I will be around for completion & conclusion towards yet unknown aspirations achievements…but I feel the journey will be welcoming…and not needing to demand on St.Peter,but I still have unfinished business..

The grim reeper,will have to go missing in his toolshed for awhile > again<