Are we missing

[Thracian]

So you didn't mind Martin Oneil's defensive tactics when we were winning things with them?

I'm giving Kelly to the end of the season before I give my opinion. But If he carries on the way things have gone he gets my vote.

O'Neill was the master of using what he had effectively. His charging army at set-pieces was a legendary example.

For 18 years, all the defensive football we could muster failed to give us a single League win at Portman Road.

We had lost our driving force and inspirational skipper/centre-back, Paddy McCarthy, we had an injured right-back, a defender (Gerrbrand) who hadn't been in the team for ages and a suspect goalkeeper.

And what did we do? With no logical chance at all of keeping a clean sheet (we've only kept one in the League since November 5) we adopted a defensive approach which amounted to 4-5-1 for much of the time and left attacking players like O'Grady, Hammond, the prsumably injured Ryan Smith and Gareth Williams on the sidelines.

Was that really playing to our strengths on the day? Was that really "all about what we're going to do" as Kelly would say.

Disagree with me all you like but please don't get Anish's idea that I somehow want Kelly to fail. I don't. One change of manager is quite enough for now, thanks.

But, I would like Kelly to reinforce our squad with some loan signings before we find ourselves back in trouble, I'd like him to stop overloading our side with defenders and I'd like him to be our manager for as long as he wishes.

But not if he's going to be another forever-cautious Craig.

[Thracian]

I've highlighted this comment because it shows that there is a world of difference between academy/reserve football and 1st team Championship standard.

It's all well and good playing attacking football with natural wingers at academy/reserve level, because there is nothing to play for. As far as I can see our reserve team results have been pretty disappointing on the whole - so it just shows that Beaglehole's stlye of football might be entertaining but it's not very successful.

Of course Beaglehole will instruct his team to attack and play nice football - if they lose it doesn't matter. Points count for nothing in the reserves. There's not the pressure of the fans or the financial repurcussions of losing to consider.

I'd rather have Kelly who's proved he can win a few games (albeit not Brazilesque) than have somebody going hell for leather and losing.

You don't truly believe that do you?. Beaglehole's team will always have variable results because it is forever getting messed around due to making sure various players get some time, players returning from injury, people getting experience from the Academy, occasional first teamers coming back from injury.

They are also invariably up against much older, stronger, more experienced opponents which is why we're getting so many through so fast.

Since the Reserve and Academy teams have become more settled (the Reserves often comprise the Academy players now) they have achieved some excellent results lately and the Academy (often with Beaglehole in charge) side has won four on the trot and is second in the table.

Your hell for leather comment suggests you don't actually watch these teams. They are well drilled, well disciplined and it would be interesting to hear you tell Beaglehole that winning doesn't matter.

Do you think Matt Gillies didn't have the pressure of fans (40,000 of them in those days) or financial aspects to consider? Or Arsene Wenger, Sir Alex Ferguson, Neil Warnock, Steve Coppell in modern day football?

It is a myth that safety first football is the way to success.

People don't really celebrate the achievements of George Graham. You celebrate the attacking teams of Matt Busby, Bill Shankly, Bill Nicholson, Bob Paisley, the great Ajax team of Johann Cruyff and the Real Madrid of Di Stefano and Gento. All those teams had natural wingers as I recall - and an attacking philosophy.

It's just the same lower down. Who dares wins, not who doesn't. Look at the teams who win most Championships at every level. They usually score stacks of goals. You don't score goals without attacking in numbers.

[Thracian]

Thrac

Your comment about Gilles and O'Neill l agree with but surely Bloomfield's teams 'went for it' and played some of the most stylish football seen at old Filbo (and elsewhere). In fact it could be argued that had they not been so cavalier we might have won something!

Quite right. I only caught a bit of the Bloomfield era cos I was working abroad. |Nor am I suggesting kamikazi attacking without discipline or system, quite the contrary). The great Liverpool sides were disciplined but lethal and had excellent wingers. Gillies "cavaliers" won more than our club has ever won before or since but although he always played two wide men, there was still strength and discipline.

Bloomfield might have falllen short (and I wasn't there to suggest why) but which was better to watch, almost successful entertainment under Bloomfield or negative dross under Levein?

All I am trying to get over is that the only way Leicester will be successful is not by trying to hold out and pinch things, it is by scoring lots of goals and that is what our work and our efforts should be centred around.

[Babylon]

O'Neill was the master of using what he had effectively. His charging army at set-pieces was a legendary example.

For 18 years, all the defensive football we could muster failed to give us a single League win at Portman Road.

We had lost our driving force and inspirational skipper/centre-back, Paddy McCarthy, we had an injured right-back, a defender (Gerrbrand) who hadn't been in the team for ages and a suspect goalkeeper.

And what did we do? With no logical chance at all of keeping a clean sheet (we've only kept one in the League since November 5) we adopted a defensive approach which amounted to 4-5-1 for much of the time and left attacking players like O'Grady, Hammond, Ryan Smith, Williams on the sidelines.

Was that really playing to our strengths on the day? Was that really "all about what we're going to do" as Kelly would say.

Disagree with me all you like but please don't get Anish's idea that I somehow want Kelly to fail. I don't. One change of manager is quite enough for now, thanks.

But, I would like Kelly to reinforce our squad with some loan signings before we find ourselves back in trouble, I'd like him to stop overloading our side with defenders and I'd like him to be our manager for as long as he wishes.

But not if he's going to be another forever-cautious Craig.

Is that a yes or a no to my question?

[Babylon]

Do you think Matt Gillies didn't have the pressure of fans (40,000 of them in those days) or financial aspects to consider? Or Arsene Wenger, Sir Alex Ferguson, Neil Warnock, Steve Coppell in modern day football?

It is a myth that safety first football is the way to success.

People don't really celebrate the achievements of George Graham. You celebrate the attacking teams of Matt Busby, Bill Shankly, Bill Nicholson, Bob Paisley, the great Ajax team of Johann Cruyff and the Real Madrid of Di Stefano and Gento. All those teams had natural wingers as I recall - and an attacking philosophy.

But we have played with williams, smith, and hammond in the team. It coincided with our worst league run for god knows how long.

[Thracian]

But we have played with williams, smith, and hammond in the team. It coincided with our worst league run for god knows how long.

Regarding the question about O'Neill he made the very best of what he had and I do not ever remember it as being boring or negative because the side had so many characters but as I recall O'Neill always tried to win the match.

Regarding the above our club's first team squad has been severely diminished and there are others who shouldn't be in the team anyway. We've had time and we've done nothing about getting replacements. Apart from the three you mentioned there were plenty of others who featured in that lousy run.

I seem to think Smith and Hammond were part of the Sheffield United home fixture but generally I have no idea why Kelly cannot make them play, especially Smith and Williams. But which attackers have thrived at Leicester in the last 12 months?

Hammond would never have been my choice as a signing, much less Sylla or Hamill but attackers won't thrive unless they are with other attackers. As I've said before, the more players we have in the side with attacking capabilities the better. It doesn't work with ones and twos.

What I wonder, however, is why so many Leicester fans seem so reluctant to embrace the idea of attacking when negative management has held the club back for so long?.

Perhaps you can explain that one to me because I really would like to understand.

[Babylon]

Regarding the question about O'Neill he made the very best of what he had and I do not ever remember it as being boring or negative because the side had so many characters but as I recall O'Neill always tried to win the match.

I think Juniniho would disagree and a few other would also.

Regarding the question about O'Neill he made the very best of what he had and I do not ever remember it as being boring or negative because the side had so many characters but as I recall O'Neill always tried to win the match.

Regarding the above our club's first team squad has been severely diminished and others who shouldn't be in the team anyway. We've had time and we've done nothing about getting replacements.

I seem to think Smith and Hammond were part of the Sheffield United fixture but generally I have no idea why Kelly cannot make them play. Which attackers have thrived at Leicester in the last 12 months?

Neither Williams nor Hammond would have been my choices as signings, much less Sylla or Hamill but attackers won't thrive unless they are with other attackers. As I've said before, the more players we have in the side with attacking capabilities the better. It doesn't work with ones and twos.

What I wonder is why so many Leicester fans seem so reluctant to embrace the idea of attacking when negative management has held the club back for so long.

Nobody is against attacking football Thracian, it's the timing of your comments I find hard. We have just had the best run of results for over three years playing the same way. Why would he throw away the tactics that have got us out of the relegation zone. Only an insane person would have.

[Thracian]

I think Juniniho would disagree and a few other would also.

Nobody is against attacking football Thracian, it's the timing of your comments I find hard. We have just had the best run of results for over three years playing the same way. Why would he throw away the tactics that have got us out of the relegation zone. Only an insane person would have.

Many new managers have a good run of results but if you don't move the team forward the opposition will quickly figue out how you play and counter it (as Royle/Donachie did with panache yesterday). You have to be a step ahead.

I am as pleased about our improved results as you but three wins, two defeats and two draws is only a great run because the results were so bad previously (and Kelly, as I said, was a part of that).

I no longer have any doubts about us surviving (only because the bottom three are worse than bad) but I have seen nothing yet to suggest that Kelly is improving the balance and potential of our side.

What I do see is that he has improved the team spirit, improved the atmosphere around the ground and pulled a master stroke in playing Kisnorbo at centre-back.

Against that he has failed to strengthen our squad having had plenty of chance. I don't think it will matter for this season but it may and I would never have taken such a risk (I'd be too defensive that way!!!)

[leicesterChick]

Personally, i dont think you can place results all on one player, definitely the lad is missed and is a great influence, he has the ability to win or lose us a game. But i wouldn't say this ''relative dip'' is down to his absence.

I agree with you there. I think winning or losing is dependant upon the entire team, not just one player. Yeah, he is one of the strongest players, but he isn't what makes the team.

[Ric Flair]

Absolutely ludicrous posting from Thracian, have you been smoking the rastafarian hoburn?

I'll come back to that later, but first i'd like to talk about the loss of Wesolowski and the effect it's had on the team. Wesolowski si the type of player that might not be responsible for winning matches as he doesn't score the goals himself but the way he wins the midfield battle answers it's own questions. Since he hasn't played, our midfield has struggled to over power the opposition which means that Hume has had to drop alot deeper and that's isolated Fryatt up front on his own. Now this isn't the end of the world as we've still got enough talent, belief and team spirit to grind out results but we will have our off days if we don't win the battle in midfield and not let other teams settle.

Wesolowski is technically the best midfielder i've ever seen at Leicester. He's Izzet and Lennon rolled in to one, but with Wayne Rooney's physique. With him in our side i'd have no qualms over us pushing for a top 6 place next season, without him and we'll probably be a mid table outfit at best. It's very easy to not win matches at this level and i'm desperate to see how we'll get on against Hull on saturday. I've every faith we'll get the win and be pushing ourselves forward to win this battle we are in but we've seen how quickly the confidence and resolve of this team diminishes.

Back to the current issues we have, Wesolowski we can do nothing about until next season now. So the club has got to grind out the results in any way they can. We haven't won for 3 games and although we can say that we've been unlucky, I hate that. We were unlucky 90% of the time under Levein and it got us nowhere, we didn't eventually sort it out. Form is temporary, class is permanent or vice versa. I think the squad of players we have are more than good enough to be in the top 8/9 of this league over the course of the season. We have 10 games left and if we can get 5 wins then i'll be happy with that, more than happy. And if we do then Rob Kelly will have done a marvalous job, I am concerned about the lack of numbers we have now though. I'm concerned we might be de-void of variety if we do get in a rut, but the managers see's what's fit and that's his problem.

Back to Thracian's comments.

I am astounded at some of your comments. The football we are playing under Rob Kelly is some of the best and effective football i've seen in a long while. What more do you want? Other than the cup game, Rob Kelly has got the players fighting for their lives. He's drilled it in to them that if there's a weakness in the opposition then go for it, that if the game isn't wide open to stamp their authority then the team must battle on and never give up because it's not always going to be a free flowing match and if you never give up then there's always a chance you can get your reward. We've seen that against Wolves, QPR and Brighton and even Leeds even though we didn't win.

I must be watching a different game to you, infact you must be watching a different game to the other 25,000 Leicester fans. If everything was as bad as you say it is then why has the atmosphere at The Walkers been the best it's ever been? You know fine well that us Leicester fans are hardly vocally loyal come what may at matches, we've literally had to be forced to make noise and sing at matches by incidents on the pitch.

Perhaps your right about Rob Kelly, but how you can gauge that inside a month is beyond me. Especially given he's took us on an unbeaten run and points total in that period that hadn't been done since Adams in the promotion season 3 years ago.

I'm fascinated by what you say, alot of it makes sense but i'm going to have to massively disagree with you on this.

[Ric Flair]

Many new managers have a good run of results but if you don't move the team forward the opposition will quickly figue out how you play and counter it (as Royle/Donachie did with panache yesterday). You have to be a step ahead.

I am as pleased about our improved results as you but three wins, two defeats and two draws is only a great run because the results were so bad previously (and Kelly, as I said, was a part of that).

I no longer have any doubts about us surviving (only because the bottom three are worse than bad) but I have seen nothing yet to suggest that Kelly is improving the balance and potential of our side.

What I do see is that he has improved the team spirit, improved the atmosphere around the ground and pulled a master stroke in playing Kisnorbo at centre-back.

Against that he has failed to strengthen our squad having had plenty of chance. I don't think it will matter for this season but it may and I would never have taken such a risk (I'd be too defensive that way!!!)

Why would you do that when your winning games. Now the real test comes after losing a match. This will show us how good Rob Kelly really is by stopping a rot that might set in. He might well go out and get a few loan signings in, but he didn't need to. If your a player and your winning matches and the whole club is in good spirits would you feel as good if the manager then went out and got in some more players? I know it shouldn't make a difference in the players morale as it's about competition for places but Rob Kelly seems to be very maticulous (spelling) in keeping his players happy, short term that's excellent but long term he needs to make sure the club is in good shape throughout a season and longer. But he's doing what's been asked of him, to keep us up.

[Ric Flair]

You don't truly believe that do you?. Beaglehole's team will always have variable results because it is forever getting messed around due to making sure various players get some time, players returning from injury, people getting experience from the Academy, occasional first teamers coming back from injury.

They are also invariably up against much older, stronger, more experienced opponents which is why we're getting so many through so fast.

Since the Reserve and Academy teams have become more settled (the Reserves often comprise the Academy players now) they have achieved some excellent results lately and the Academy (often with Beaglehole in charge) side has won four on the trot and is second in the table.

Your hell for leather comment suggests you don't actually watch these teams. They are well drilled, well disciplined and it would be interesting to hear you tell Beaglehole that winning doesn't matter.

Do you think Matt Gillies didn't have the pressure of fans (40,000 of them in those days) or financial aspects to consider? Or Arsene Wenger, Sir Alex Ferguson, Neil Warnock, Steve Coppell in modern day football?

It is a myth that safety first football is the way to success.

People don't really celebrate the achievements of George Graham. You celebrate the attacking teams of Matt Busby, Bill Shankly, Bill Nicholson, Bob Paisley, the great Ajax team of Johann Cruyff and the Real Madrid of Di Stefano and Gento. All those teams had natural wingers as I recall - and an attacking philosophy.

It's just the same lower down. Who dares wins, not who doesn't. Look at the teams who win most Championships at every level. They usually score stacks of goals. You don't score goals without attacking in numbers.

Explain to me this safety first attitude that you think Rob Kelly has? Up until saturday, Rob Kelly had a record in the league of 3 wins and 2 draws scoring 9 goals. 9 goals in 5 games is hardly the trait of a defensive manager. We didn't line up defensively against Ipswich either. Smith was injured and hasn't been playing well when he's played anyway, Elvis is an embarassment to professional football as is Momo Sylla. The line-up he picked has had a huge part in the above form described and we don't have alot of other options anyway. Something I wouldn't be happy about over the course of a season but Kelly has only been asked to manage us until the summer so he's only thinking short term.

[Head Honcho]

My main concern is whether or not the we can put the defeat behind us and take the 3 points on Saturday, something that never looked like happening under Levein!

I think we'll beat Hull easily on Saturday and Kelly must make sure the players are up for this one, because if we get beat, it could be the beginning of another slump that was synonymous with CL's time in charge!

Wesolowski is missed, but to tell you the truth I wasn't expecting anymore then 3-5 points from our last 3 games anyway so it's not been too bad has it?

[Thracian]

Explain to me this safety first attitude that you think Rob Kelly has? Up until saturday, Rob Kelly had a record in the league of 3 wins and 2 draws scoring 9 goals. 9 goals in 5 games is hardly the trait of a defensive manager. We didn't line up defensively against Ipswich either. Smith was injured and hasn't been playing well when he's played anyway, Elvis is an embarassment to professional football as is Momo Sylla. The line-up he picked has had a huge part in the above form described and we don't have alot of other options anyway. Something I wouldn't be happy about over the course of a season but Kelly has only been asked to manage us until the summer so he's only thinking short term.

We have consistently fielded four harrying players in midfield rather than wingers or anyone genuinely creative.

As for your referring to our wingers not being good enough whose fault is that? The people who signed em and the people who have not replaced em when the opportunity was there.

We've just signed a supposedly attacking left-back. How long have we needed one of those because you cannot sustain attacks with a team two thirds full of defensive players as we have got?. How ironic that we've signed a 36-year-old who cannot get in Plymouth's team as an attacking left-back after all I said.

Pathetic.

Leicester have gone 175 minutes without scoring. I understand you saying our options are limited but the club should have been far more decisive in responding to such obvious shortcomings during January...

as many of us expected according to the posts.

Furthermore it concerns me no-end that none of our creative first teamers, and there aren't many, are doing particularly well nor have done all season. Why is that do you think?

Ryan Smith (how you waxed lyrical about him), Gareth Williams, Alan Sheehan, Hughesie and, if you count them as creative, Hammond and Sylla have all disappointed this year, Chambers has been put on the backburner (despite being lots better than anyone we've got on the bench as a striker), Hume has only recently stirred and Fryatt has started to realise how hard it is to shine as an attacker at City with the singular lack of creative support (no goals in the last four).

Basically we have so many smothering players in the side at any one time there's no creativity left. The reality is that our squad of players have scored 38 League goals this season in 36 games this season. If you think that is positive enough I don't.

And in Kelly's seven games in charge six of them have produced six goals so there's been no real change at all. QPR was a three goal flourish but we had our moments under Levein like that with four against Sheffield and three against Stoke.

[Babylon]

Leicester have gone 175 minutes without scoring.

Don't twist the facts too much Thracian... 85 minutes of that is with 10 men against the team in 3rd.

But i'm sure had Sheehan played we'd of scored 4.

[Thracian]

Don't twist the facts too much Thracian... 85 minutes of that is with 10 men against the team in 3rd.

But i'm sure had Sheehan played we'd of scored 4.

Where have the facts been twisted? You can apply circumstances to any event, but I stated the facts and I didn't conveniently forget one of Kelly's matches to help the argument.

You obviously disagree that it is ironic we should turn to a 36-year-old who hasn't played since October as our attacking left-back when we've had one who created goals for fun in the reserves. What a pity we've not got a successful side which might encourage me to change my opinion. I'd have been a lot happier.

Not that it matters. He's injured now and he wasn't used anyway.

[Ric Flair]

We have consistently fielded four harrying players in midfield rather than wingers or anyone genuinely creative.

As for your referring to our wingers not being good enough whose fault is that? The people who signed em and the people who have not replaced em when the opportunity was there.

We've just signed a supposedly attacking left-back. How long have we needed one of those because you cannot sustain attacks with a team two thirds full of defensive players as we have got?. How ironic that we've signed a 36-year-old who cannot get in Plymouth's team as an attacking left-back after all I said.

Pathetic.

Leicester have gone 175 minutes without scoring. I understand you saying our options are limited but the club should have been far more decisive in responding to such obvious shortcomings during January...

as many of us expected according to the posts.

Furthermore it concerns me no-end that none of our creative first teamers, and there aren't many, are doing particularly well nor have done all season. Why is that do you think?

Ryan Smith (how you waxed lyrical about him), Gareth Williams, Alan Sheehan, Hughesie and, if you count them as creative, Hammond and Sylla have all disappointed this year, Chambers has been put on the backburner (despite being lots better than anyone we've got on the bench as a striker), Hume has only recently stirred and Fryatt has started to realise how hard it is to shine as an attacker at City with the singular lack of creative support (no goals in the last four).

Basically we have so many smothering players in the side at any one time there's no creativity left. The reality is that our squad of players have scored 38 League goals this season in 36 games this season. If you think that is positive enough I don't.

And in Kelly's seven games in charge six of them have produced six goals so there's been no real change at all. QPR was a three goal flourish but we had our moments under Levein like that with four against Sheffield and three against Stoke.

I understand what you are saying, but Rob Kelly has been asked to do a job short term. Alot of what you are saying are shortcomings that haven't really been Rob Kelly's fault since he's been a manager. Now we are all aware of the slip up we had with Levein but that cannot be eradicated over night. Kelly has a moto of trying to keep things simple, whether that's his long term goal or just a short term thing i'm not sure. But going out and signing 6 players on loan doesn't fit in with his plan to get us out of this mess.

I echo alot of your concerns long term, but that isn't the issue at the minute. We've lost 1 league game in 6, now comes the real test. How Rob Kelly reacts to this and how he gets the players back winning again. It's very easy to look for faults and solutions when we've lost, just as it's easy to forget any underlying problems when we're winning.

If come the start of pre-season we still have Rob Kelly as manager then I would be keen to see some long term plans being put down, but for now i'm only concerned with each game that comes up and picking the best team we have to win a match.

Thracian with regard to us scoring 38 goals in 36 matches your again going back to the pre-kelly era. What can the man do to change that, it's been and gone. Before saturday's game we'd scored 9 goals in 5 games, a record that's not that shabby.

All the creativity you talk about that we are lacking cannot be the case there. Our most creative players on paper aren't playing because they haven't been good enough when they've played. It's a new ear, they'll get their chance and if they do well they'll play. Your argument stems from a different regime.

[Babylon]

I understand what you are saying, but Rob Kelly has been asked to do a job short term. Alot of what you are saying are shortcomings that haven't really been Rob Kelly's fault since he's been a manager. Now we are all aware of the slip up we had with Levein but that cannot be eradicated over night. Kelly has a moto of trying to keep things simple, whether that's his long term goal or just a short term thing i'm not sure. But going out and signing 6 players on loan doesn't fit in with his plan to get us out of this mess.

I echo alot of your concerns long term, but that isn't the issue at the minute. We've lost 1 league game in 6, now comes the real test. How Rob Kelly reacts to this and how he gets the players back winning again. It's very easy to look for faults and solutions when we've lost, just as it's easy to forget any underlying problems when we're winning.

If come the start of pre-season we still have Rob Kelly as manager then I would be keen to see some long term plans being put down, but for now i'm only concerned with each game that comes up and picking the best team we have to win a match.

Thracian with regard to us scoring 38 goals in 36 matches your again going back to the pre-kelly era. What can the man do to change that, it's been and gone. Before saturday's game we'd scored 9 goals in 5 games, a record that's not that shabby.

All the creativity you talk about that we are lacking cannot be the case there. Our most creative players on paper aren't playing because they haven't been good enough when they've played. It's a new ear, they'll get their chance and if they do well they'll play. Your argument stems from a different regime.

Like I said earlier in the thread it's the timing of the comments and not the actual comments I disagree with.

[Ric Flair]

I understand what you are saying, but Rob Kelly has been asked to do a job short term. Alot of what you are saying are shortcomings that haven't really been Rob Kelly's fault since he's been a manager. Now we are all aware of the slip up we had with Levein but that cannot be eradicated over night. Kelly has a moto of trying to keep things simple, whether that's his long term goal or just a short term thing i'm not sure. But going out and signing 6 players on loan doesn't fit in with his plan to get us out of this mess.

I echo alot of your concerns long term, but that isn't the issue at the minute. We've lost 1 league game in 6, now comes the real test. How Rob Kelly reacts to this and how he gets the players back winning again. It's very easy to look for faults and solutions when we've lost, just as it's easy to forget any underlying problems when we're winning.

If come the start of pre-season we still have Rob Kelly as manager then I would be keen to see some long term plans being put down, but for now i'm only concerned with each game that comes up and picking the best team we have to win a match.

Thracian with regard to us scoring 38 goals in 36 matches your again going back to the pre-kelly era. What can the man do to change that, it's been and gone. Before saturday's game we'd scored 9 goals in 5 games, a record that's not that shabby.

All the creativity you talk about that we are lacking cannot be the case there. Our most creative players on paper aren't playing because they haven't been good enough when they've played. It's a new ear, they'll get their chance and if they do well they'll play. Your argument stems from a different regime.

[Thracian]

I understand what you are saying, but Rob Kelly has been asked to do a job short term. Alot of what you are saying are shortcomings that haven't really been Rob Kelly's fault since he's been a manager. Now we are all aware of the slip up we had with Levein but that cannot be eradicated over night. Kelly has a moto of trying to keep things simple, whether that's his long term goal or just a short term thing i'm not sure. But going out and signing 6 players on loan doesn't fit in with his plan to get us out of this mess.

I echo alot of your concerns long term, but that isn't the issue at the minute. We've lost 1 league game in 6, now comes the real test. How Rob Kelly reacts to this and how he gets the players back winning again. It's very easy to look for faults and solutions when we've lost, just as it's easy to forget any underlying problems when we're winning.

If come the start of pre-season we still have Rob Kelly as manager then I would be keen to see some long term plans being put down, but for now i'm only concerned with each game that comes up and picking the best team we have to win a match.

Thracian with regard to us scoring 38 goals in 36 matches your again going back to the pre-kelly era. What can the man do to change that, it's been and gone. Before saturday's game we'd scored 9 goals in 5 games, a record that's not that shabby.

All the creativity you talk about that we are lacking cannot be the case there. Our most creative players on paper aren't playing because they haven't been good enough when they've played. It's a new ear, they'll get their chance and if they do well they'll play. Your argument stems from a different regime.

Kelly's had his input with most of these players all along but I likewise see your point.

The thing I wanted your opinion on is why all of our creative players are all underperforming?.

I have my own view but that may be as flawed as many people think my opinions on Sheehan and Chambers are flawed.

[Ric Flair]

Kelly's had his input with most of these players all along but I likewise see your point.

The thing I wanted your opinion on is why all of our creative players are all underperforming?.

I have my own view but that may be as flawed as many people think my opinions on Sheehan and Chambers are flawed.

It's a good question but I also think what needs to be taken in to consideration is that they under-performed under Levein and haven't actually played much under Kelly. It's hard to gauge exactly why at the minute, if they get another chance this season and still look crap then i'm clueless for answers.

Ryan Smith is an excellent player, there's no question about that. But he's in-experienced and has faults defensively which when your in a relegation battle might not be a wise move to rely on him regularly.

Stephen Hughes again is inconsistent, he's starting to find his form again but i've always preferred him on the right side of midfield as I don't think he's strong enough to play in the centre when the battles on.

Williams is his own worst enemy, suspect motivation. Something a good manager might be able to sort out but in Kelly's little time as manager it's hard to work out whether Williams would fulfill his undoubted potential.

Sylla isn't good enough or if he is then just like Williams he hides it very well and I hate to see people wasting their talent.

Hume is playing his best football for the club and Fryatt has looke ddangerous in every game i've seen him. He's a natural finisher but i've been a little disappointed in his finishing in the past few games, might have been unlucky but class always prevails and he is class so he'll perform.

Other than that we haven't got much creativity that's playing or not playing.

[The Don]

Kelly's had his input with most of these players all along but I likewise see your point.

The thing I wanted your opinion on is why all of our creative players are all underperforming?.

I have my own view but that may be as flawed as many people think my opinions on Sheehan and Chambers are flawed.

IMO I think we only have 4 creative players, Smith, Wesolowski,Williams and Stearman. Weso is injured, Smith and Williams aren't getting a look in at the mo. The only time we seem to create if Stearman is bombing up from RB. We look more dangerous when opposition teams have the ball and Fryatt is closing them down. If hume picks the ball up deep, there is no-one supporting him except fryatt and it sizzles out far too quickly! The forwards are playing off scraps. Its all very good passing it around 10 yards in their half, going from the left to the right to the left again, but no-one seems able to find that defence splitting ball or able to take a man on and create space. Gudjonson I believe should be able to do that but he just shoots from 30 yards out each time. And how many times have hughes and Joey had the ball and pass it 5 yards to each other, then pass it again. Eventualy we lose it and puts the pressure back on defence.

[Ric Flair]

IMO I think we only have 4 creative players, Smith, Wesolowski,Williams and Stearman. Weso is injured, Smith and Williams aren't getting a look in at the mo. The only time we seem to create if Stearman is bombing up from RB. We look more dangerous when opposition teams have the ball and Fryatt is closing them down. If hume picks the ball up deep, there is no-one supporting him except fryatt and it sizzles out far too quickly! The forwards are playing off scraps. Its all very good passing it around 10 yards in their half, going from the left to the right to the left again, but no-one seems able to find that defence splitting ball or able to take a man on and create space. Gudjonson I believe should be able to do that but he just shoots from 30 yards out each time. And how many times have hughes and Joey had the ball and pass it 5 yards to each other, then pass it again. Eventualy we lose it and puts the pressure back on defence.

Forwards living off scraps? Hume and Fryatt have both missed over hald a dozen goal scoring opportunities in the last few games, it's all about taking your chances. The striking partnership has looked bright, just because Hume drops deep doesn't mean Fryatt gets isolated that only happens if the midfield don't win the battle beforehand.

[The Don]

Forwards living off scraps? Hume and Fryatt have both missed over hald a dozen goal scoring opportunities in the last few games, it's all about taking your chances. The striking partnership has looked bright, just because Hume drops deep doesn't mean Fryatt gets isolated that only happens if the midfield don't win the battle beforehand.

It is all about taking chances, I just don't believe that with the team we have, and the amount of possesion we have, we're not creating enough chances. The more we get the more we'll score. As for Fryatt, he's been great, we have a centre forward in the box when the ball goes in there - With DV, elvis and hume playing earlier in the season, it was not happening. But when hume does get the ball deep, I'd love for him to have more options, they have linked up really well, but there is only so much 2 lads can do when they have 4 men around them.

[Ric Flair]

It is all about taking chances, I just don't believe that with the team we have, and the amount of possesion we have, we're not creating enough chances. The more we get the more we'll score. As for Fryatt, he's been great, we have a centre forward in the box when the ball goes in there - With DV, elvis and hume playing earlier in the season, it was not happening. But when hume does get the ball deep, I'd love for him to have more options, they have linked up really well, but there is only so much 2 lads can do when they have 4 men around them.

That's why it's essential the midfield support them. For instance when Wesolowski was playing he would literally win the midfield battle and release the ball forward then allowing either himself, Gudjonsson or one of the wide players to support Hume and Fryatt. On the counter attack that could be devastating.