Boring Boring Leicester

[Nods]

1 minute ago, cityfanlee23 said:

No, I'm suggesting attack quicker. Stop passing it sideways constantly and we will face less low blocks. The issue we faced under Enzo and now under Marti is that our possession is slow, opponents have too long to organise themselves and they will inevitably adopt a low block the longer we control the ball, they are happy for us to pass it sideways all game. As I've said, obviously with a team of our perceived quality at this level, and especially so under Enzo, we were likely to face a deep block more often than say Millwall or Norwich, however, our system of absolute ball control absolutely plays into how frequently teams adapt to our ball control with a low block. 

I did edit my previous comment just a moment ago but I assume you'd already started your response so would have missed it. 

The FIFA ran "Fifa Training Centre" talk in detail about the different playstyles and they cover the fact that possession based teams often face more defensive setups as a result. 
“Teams that seek to control possession tend to face opponents who defend deeper and prioritise compactness over regaining the ball high, forcing the in-possession side to break down organised defensive blocks.”
https://www.fifatrainingcentre.com/en/environment/fifa-research/high-performance/possession-analysis/part-2-1-possession-based-v-defensive-styles-of-play-new.php

 

Right, so you want quicker football. As I've said already, what you don't like is slow football. Not 'possession football'. 

 

If our full backs could pass (rather than having to turn to find the easiest pass), and if we had even one centre forward capable of running off the ball, maybe you'd have your wish. 

 

We have a playing staff problem. We'll be boring to watch under any manager until that changes.

[cityfanlee23]

1 minute ago, Nods said:

Right, so you want quicker football. As I've said already, what you don't like is slow football. Not 'possession football'. 

 

If our full backs could pass (rather than having to turn to find the easiest pass), and if we had even one centre forward capable of running off the ball, maybe you'd have your wish. 

 

We have a playing staff problem. We'll be boring to watch under any manager until that changes.

I'm not against possession football as a philosophy, I understand the style and it's interesting to watch when it works, my issue is most of the time, "possession" is more often than not "slow". There are some outliers, like Thiago Motta at Bologna for example who played exciting possession based football, but the vast majority of the time, it ends up being slow and predictable under most managers, and that makes it boring. 

We do have a playing staff problem, but we also have a tactical system problem, we have a manager who is determined to continue to play a system that you yourself admit the playing staff can't play. To be really broad about this, I think any possession based managers would continue to make us boring however there are plenty of non possession obsessed managers out there playing fun and exciting, attacking football. 
The possession based managers who play fun and exciting football are in a tiny minority. 

[jimsmallman]

36 minutes ago, Nods said:

Palace weren't direct though. They played fantastic football and won the game by being the better, more cohesive attacking outfit. Their passing and moving was electric. Did you watch the game, or are you just assuming that because it was a non big 6 team beating a big side, it had to have been done so deploying tactics you favour? 

 

Only 58 of their 396 passes were classed as long. And only 116 of their 396 passes were in the final third. Sounds pretty 'possession based' to me.

Yes, I did watch the game (my other half is a Liverpool supporter).  It was a lifetime removed from the sideways passing that we watch every week, and that I watch every time I sit through a Man City or Chelsea game.  So I'd class them as more direct than the drudgery that has become the norm recently.

[filthyfox]

20 hours ago, Winstonthedog said:

Oh for its return..... however its not on the happy clappers play list 

What???   Does noone have a loud enough voice for the first verse?

[pmcla26]

2 hours ago, cityfanlee23 said:

We faced a low block because of how we played, or atleast it plays a large role. 

No, we faced a low block most of the time because teams knew that if they tried to press us high they would get ripped to shreds, as Southampton found out twice in 23/24. 
 

We also had the quality at the back to be able to play through a high press, so teams would sit off. 

[smudgerfox]

20 hours ago, Nods said:

 

 

We could also be crap while lumping it forward, and people would be calling for our dinosaur brand of football to be modernised. 

 

Do I think we could play quicker? Absolutely. But that's a mental/attitude challenge more than it is a There's also nothing wrong with direct football if it's done with good delivery, physicality and intensity. 

 

We don't have the required players to be direct either. 

 

 

Why do the supporters of possession football characterise the only alternative as direct/lump it forward football? 
 

It really isn't. Before we had coaches and their football philosophies, we had..well football. 
 

Players would weigh up their options and pass, long, short, according to their assessment of what would most likely bring about a goal. 
 

Now players move in pre-set patterns as though training ground routines exactly replicate match conditions...

 

What you end up with is a team that occasionally scores the perfect team goal but most of the time struggles to score at all. Indeed they struggle to create chances to score. 
 

It's not just us, loads of possession teams have reached this point...Man City included 

 

 

 

 

[kingfox]

3 hours ago, Nods said:

Palace weren't direct though. They played fantastic football and won the game by being the better, more cohesive attacking outfit. Their passing and moving was electric. Did you watch the game, or are you just assuming that because it was a non big 6 team beating a big side, it had to have been done so deploying tactics you favour? 

 

Only 58 of their 396 passes were classed as long. And only 116 of their 396 passes were in the final third. Sounds pretty 'possession based' to me.

Depends how you define “direct” nowadays. When people think direct, they instantly think long balls. What Crystal Palace are extremely good at is being fast and direct with their ball movement, they rank 1st in the Premier League for direct speed. 
 

Coventry have been very similar in the Championship, and it’s a big reason why they’ve been so successful so far this season. 
 

There’s definitely a shift in terms of how teams are operating, whether that’s through direct speed, or being direct through long balls. 
 

Leicester are still stuck in the pedestrian phase and it’s hindering us imo. 

[Nods]

1 hour ago, smudgerfox said:

Why do the supporters of possession football characterise the only alternative as direct/lump it forward football? 
 

It really isn't. Before we had coaches and their football philosophies, we had..well football. 
 

Players would weigh up their options and pass, long, short, according to their assessment of what would most likely bring about a goal. 
 

Now players move in pre-set patterns as though training ground routines exactly replicate match conditions...

 

What you end up with is a team that occasionally scores the perfect team goal but most of the time struggles to score at all. Indeed they struggle to create chances to score. 
 

It's not just us, loads of possession teams have reached this point...Man City included 

 

 

 

 

Your argument here is essentially the inverse of what I've been trying to say.

 

Too many styles are being blanket named possession when they're just football. Man City and Chelsea might be the slower end of that spectrum, but to say that it's all boring is flawed and generalist. 

 

Problem is, we can't really play more direct because teams aren't going to attack us in numbers, we'd be silly to invite pressure on our weak defence, and we don't have the strikers to punish teams on the counter.

[Nods]

43 minutes ago, kingfox said:

Depends how you define “direct” nowadays. When people think direct, they instantly think long balls. What Crystal Palace are extremely good at is being fast and direct with their ball movement, they rank 1st in the Premier League for direct speed. 
 

Coventry have been very similar in the Championship, and it’s a big reason why they’ve been so successful so far this season. 
 

There’s definitely a shift in terms of how teams are operating, whether that’s through direct speed, or being direct through long balls. 
 

Leicester are still stuck in the pedestrian phase and it’s hindering us imo. 

Yeah, totally. 

 

It's just fast play. It isn't the the counter attacking football that our fans have craved since 15/16. It's not the style being called for in here.

 

I just don't think fans that are bored our play have a nuanced enough view of the issue. We can't just click our fingers and start counter attacking again. Nor is counter attack the answer or what some of the most successful teams at the moment are doing. 

 

Our players are slow and cumbersome, and so, therefore, is our play.

 

It's not a stylistic choice, it's a symptom of our recruitment. I'm sure Marti would his team to play like Palace. Issue is he's got Luke Thomas, Vestergaard, Ayew etc etc. to implement it. Always going to look slow, isn't it?

[cityfanlee23]

2 hours ago, pmcla26 said:

No, we faced a low block most of the time because teams knew that if they tried to press us high they would get ripped to shreds, as Southampton found out twice in 23/24. 
 

We also had the quality at the back to be able to play through a high press, so teams would sit off. 

Quality plays a role. As does tactical approach. I’ve already provided multiple sources which discuss this subject at length, if you think that possession based football doesn’t lead to an increase in low block oppositions then I’m not sure what else to say on the subject. 
 

[kingfox]

57 minutes ago, Nods said:

Yeah, totally. 

 

It's just fast play. It isn't the the counter attacking football that our fans have craved since 15/16. It's not the style being called for in here.

 

I just don't think fans that are bored our play have a nuanced enough view of the issue. We can't just click our fingers and start counter attacking again. Nor is counter attack the answer or what some of the most successful teams at the moment are doing. 

 

Our players are slow and cumbersome, and so, therefore, is our play.

 

It's not a stylistic choice, it's a symptom of our recruitment. I'm sure Marti would his team to play like Palace. Issue is he's got Luke Thomas, Vestergaard, Ayew etc etc. to implement it. Always going to look slow, isn't it?

In the Premier League last season, Counter Attacks and Fast Breaks played a huge part, unfortunately in Leicester’s case last season, we were one of the worst teams in the league in both categories. The talk this season though seems to have shifted to long balls, set pieces and long throws, but being direct in some way or other is seeing success. 
 

Coventry and Bristol City have started well by using direct speed. Charlton and Millwall have started well by getting the ball forward. 
 

I think what we’re seeing now is a mixture of a style choice and a symptom of our recruitment. We’ve seen a possession based pattern since the Puel days. Take the Maresca days for example with the signing of Harry Winks, he was a match made in heaven for what Maresca wanted to implement. 
 

The fanbase have become numb to a pedestrian possession based system, I can understand the calls for wanting to deviate away, and the way the style of play seems to be shifting in the past two season’s, as I’ve said many times on here…

 

We need to get with the trends! 

[NotTheMarketLeader]

23 hours ago, Dr The Singh said:

If it werent for my son, who still wants to go to the games, i would rather remove my pubes with tweezers.

Good luck with that 

[smudgerfox]

9 hours ago, Nods said:

Your argument here is essentially the inverse of what I've been trying to say.

 

Too many styles are being blanket named possession when they're just football. Man City and Chelsea might be the slower end of that spectrum, but to say that it's all boring is flawed and generalist. 

 

Problem is, we can't really play more direct because teams aren't going to attack us in numbers, we'd be silly to invite pressure on our weak defence, and we don't have the strikers to punish teams on the counter.

Respectfully, I disagree. Coaches do believe they can control the game through possession. It's a widespread belief which underpins much of what we see - playing out from the back, one striker, high pressing, defensive high line, tip-tap passing. 

 

As Maresca explained while with us, you wear down the opposition by making them chase the ball, and strike when their guard slips. And attacks are repeatable formulaic exercises which are endlessly rehearsed.   But less pretentious opponents anticipate the attacking drills, conserve their energy while you pass the ball harmlessly along the backline, press selectively, and win the ball in dangerous counter attack areas.

 

Ever since late-stage Brendan, we have seen games in which we've controlled possession for the first 30 minutes, no goal has come, and our opponents have scored with their first attack. It is an utterly flawed approach which is being found out and only survives because of the success Manchester City have had. Plus it's boring. Anti-football. Look at what Pep did to Grealish. 

 

[Nods]

4 hours ago, smudgerfox said:

Respectfully, I disagree. Coaches do believe they can control the game through possession. It's a widespread belief which underpins much of what we see - playing out from the back, one striker, high pressing, defensive high line, tip-tap passing. 

 

As Maresca explained while with us, you wear down the opposition by making them chase the ball, and strike when their guard slips. And attacks are repeatable formulaic exercises which are endlessly rehearsed.   But less pretentious opponents anticipate the attacking drills, conserve their energy while you pass the ball harmlessly along the backline, press selectively, and win the ball in dangerous counter attack areas.

 

Ever since late-stage Brendan, we have seen games in which we've controlled possession for the first 30 minutes, no goal has come, and our opponents have scored with their first attack. It is an utterly flawed approach which is being found out and only survives because of the success Manchester City have had. Plus it's boring. Anti-football. Look at what Pep did to Grealish. 

 

You're taking something you don't like (the slow and patient football to come out of Man City via Pep and Enzo), and applying it to most of football. 

 

We've been poor since Rodgers because we have poor, unmotivated footballers. What would you call the early Brendan style of play? That was possession, too, obviously. It was just better. And it was great to watch. 

 

That's not to say we'd be wise to play any form of 'possession football' if we got promoted. We'd be a weaker side so we'd be more effective trying to take our chances on the break.

 

And it would suit our inferiority complex ravaged fanbase down to the ground.

[Corky]

The 15/16 style was great at the start but we had plenty of fairly dull matches where we struggled to break down or just beat average teams- 0-0 v Bournemouth, 1-1 with Villa and the litany of 1-0 wins. Obviously it got the job done but relied on clinical finishing, a strong defence and luck along the way. I am not denigrating that achievement by the way, before anyone says it.

 

Currently we are hampered by the striking options which slows the plays down and puts too much on the wingers to do virtually everything. We lack numbers in the box and swift interplay.