Is it time...

[Babylon]

Thankfully, my memory of what Levein did is fading fast but I do remember being most critical of the fact that he was loathe to change anything not even in the face of the most compelling evidence (like Sylla's poor form, Kisnorbo's ineptitude in midfield etc, and I wasn't the only one, it was an avalanche of criticism).

You were also critical of never having a set line up with the team changing week to week. It may not have been the changes you wanted ie Kisnorbo but the cririsism was there from you and others (myself included).

As for Kelly, the circumstances have changed and we need to develop our side and far better to do so from a position of strength.

Exactly my point, you have formed strong opinions of his style of play. Over cautious etc etc. But with the circumstances changing we will see what his real style is. The circumstances we were in have somewhat dictated how he set up for each game. He has already shown his attacking ideas with his subs towards the end of games. Our last two managers never got fresh attackers onto the pitch if we were leading.

Without any prompting from me they were calling for the use of a winger and for the sort of football which will put another 3000-5,000 on our gates (and for revised season tickety prices next season).

No offence but playing a winger and attacking football does not guarantee 5000 extra bums on seats. What does is winning football. Fans come to see a winning team and that's a fact. Carry on our form and the ground will be full whether we have 2 wingers or no wingers.

Ask those people if they are willing to sacrifice our form to see a winger play and all out attacking football.

[Dr The Singh]

You were also critical of never having a set line up with the team changing week to week. It may not have been the changes you wanted ie Kisnorbo but the cririsism was there from you and others (myself included).

Exactly my point, you have formed strong opinions of his style of play. Over cautious etc etc. But with the circumstances changing we will see what his real style is. The circumstances we were in have somewhat dictated how he set up for each game. He has already shown his attacking ideas with his subs towards the end of games. Our last two managers never got fresh attackers onto the pitch if we were leading.

No offence but playing a winger and attacking football does not guarantee 5000 extra bums on seats. What does is winning football. Fans come to see a winning team and that's a fact. Carry on our form and the ground will be full whether we have 2 wingers or no wingers.

Ask those people if they are willing to sacrifice our form to see a winger play and all out attacking football.

Agreed, under MA we played dire football (the year we got promoted back into prem), generally long ball and not very attacking in my opinion but there were bums on seats thats because of the feel good factor winning brings about!!!!!

Just to add, we all would love to see attacking football, but at this moment i'm just glad to be winning!!!

[Guest]

To play attacking football, you need the right personnel. Similarly, if you want to defend well.

However most succesful teams manage to bring about a balance between the two.

[Thracian]

You were also critical of never having a set line up with the team changing week to week. It may not have been the changes you wanted ie Kisnorbo but the cririsism was there from you and others (myself included).

Exactly my point, you have formed strong opinions of his style of play. Over cautious etc etc. But with the circumstances changing we will see what his real style is. The circumstances we were in have somewhat dictated how he set up for each game. He has already shown his attacking ideas with his subs towards the end of games. Our last two managers never got fresh attackers onto the pitch if we were leading.

No offence but playing a winger and attacking football does not guarantee 5000 extra bums on seats. What does is winning football. Fans come to see a winning team and that's a fact. Carry on our form and the ground will be full whether we have 2 wingers or no wingers.

Ask those people if they are willing to sacrifice our form to see a winger play and all out attacking football.

As far as team changes are concerned let me make my view clear.

I am a firm believer in not making more changes than necessary. There may be special circumstances which might warrant a tactical change but generally a settled side is the foundation of success - but only once a team is in place that has no glaring weakness and therefore justifies remaining unchanged.

Sadly we do still have glaring weaknesses most of which cannot be immediately changed but at least one can, and especially in the circumstances as exist now. That is not suggesting the current team hasn't done us proud, only that the team can be better as regards to our long term aim.

I agree with your last paragraph but believe that, generally, attacking football offers greater chance of championship winning success than cautious football and therefore greater chance of increasing the gate.

[l444ry]

As far as team changes are concerned let me make my view clear.

I am a firm believer in not making more changes than necessary. There may be special circumstances which might warrant a tactical change but generally a settled side is the foundation of success - but only once a team is in place that has no glaring weakness and therefore justifies remaining unchanged.

Sadly we do still have glaring weaknesses most of which cannot be immediately changed but at least one can, and especially in the circumstances as exist now. That is not suggesting the current team hasn't done us proud, only that the team can be better as regards to our long term aim.

I agree with your last paragraph but believe that, generally, attacking football offers greater chance of championship winning success than cautious football and therefore greater chance of increasing the gate.

Thracian, you continually ramble on about wingers and attacking play. That's like saying you agree with motherhood and apple pie. The reality, in this modern world of football and money, is that winning is the be all and end all. If you ain't got money you'll struggle even to survive, let alone win trophies. And fans will only turn up to see a winning side....period. At this moment in the history of Leicester City let's rejoice that we rid ourselves of the worst manager the club has ever had, and let Rob Kelly build on his achievements his way.... he deserves time from all of us.

[Thracian]

Thracian, you continually ramble on about wingers and attacking play. That's like saying you agree with motherhood and apple pie. The reality, in this modern world of football and money, is that winning is the be all and end all. If you ain't got money you'll struggle even to survive, let alone win trophies. And fans will only turn up to see a winning side....period. At this moment in the history of Leicester City let's rejoice that we rid ourselves of the worst manager the club has ever had, and let Rob Kelly build on his achievements his way.... he deserves time from all of us.

If you are happy with any sort of football so long as we win that's fine. Don't expect me to advocate the same approach because I don't.

[Jimmy]

If you are happy with any sort of football so long as we win that's fine. Don't expect me to advocate the same approach because I don't.

same here, i think with 2 quality wingers we'd score alot more and therefore win more games making promotion more likely

[coale39]

let's rejoice that we rid ourselves of the worst manager the club has ever had

I dont think Levein was the worst manager this club has ever had. It been said before but he brought in decent young players from which this recent success has been based on.

[l444ry]

If you are happy with any sort of football so long as we win that's fine. Don't expect me to advocate the same approach because I don't.

Guilty as charged, your Honour.....I guess it takes all sorts. As I said, we'd all like pretty, attractive trophy winning football but I contend it is unrealistic for nigh on 99% of teams in the world, let alone England. I don't remember the Leicester public rushing for seats when Pleat gave us his brand of attractive, winger laden football. Many pundits on here suggest that if only Kelly did this or that, they would perform better. It's the old, we won 2-1 but if he'd taken notice of my wisdom it would have been 4-1. A fact usually ignored is that as their teams never play, so they never win either......

[Nationwider]

I would change very little, barring injuries and suspensions. I'd like to see Welsh get a full game, but realistically, if he was brought in as cover only, then ultimately who cares?

Next season is, well, next season.

[Thracian]

Guilty as charged, your Honour.....I guess it takes all sorts. As I said, we'd all like pretty, attractive trophy winning football but I contend it is unrealistic for nigh on 99% of teams in the world, let alone England. I don't remember the Leicester public rushing for seats when Pleat gave us his brand of attractive, winger laden football. Many pundits on here suggest that if only Kelly did this or that, they would perform better. It's the old, we won 2-1 but if he'd taken notice of my wisdom it would have been 4-1. A fact usually ignored is that as their teams never play, so they never win either......

They might not have rushed to watch Pleat but their sure piled in to watch Matt Gillies' team.

Filbert Street then was packed to way beyond the Walkers capacity to watch scintillating football which was good enough to steer us into four major finals in one decade.

We didn't have money to burn in those days either. I suppose where you set your target depends on what you were brought up on and what you most enjoyed watched.

Believe me thrashing Best, Law and Charlton's Manchester United 6-0 and adding further wins over them for good measure, several wins over one of the best Liverpool team that ever played and an 8-4 win over Manchester City in the top flight were matches to savour.

We had ball winners then, I promise you. But once we got the ball we also had players who could pass it, players who could take people on and players who could smash the ball in the net.

Of course the game has changed and I understand we're not going to rush back to that standard but sure as hell we could try to make a start.

[l444ry]

They might not have rushed to watch Pleat but their sure piled in to watch Matt Gillies' team.

Filbert Street then was packed to way beyond the Walkers capacity to watch scintillating football which was good enough to steer us into four major finals in one decade.

We didn't have money to burn in those days either. I suppose where you set your target depends on what you were brought up on and what you most enjoyed watched.

Believe me thrashing Best, Law and Charlton's Manchester United 6-0 and adding further wins over them for good measure, several wins over one of the best Liverpool team that ever played and an 8-4 win over Manchester City in the top flight were matches to savour.

We had ball winners then, I promise you. But once we got the ball we also had players who could pass it, players who could take people on and players who could smash the ball in the net.

Of course the game has changed and I understand we're not going to rush back to that standard but sure as hell we could try to make a start.

Appreciate what you say Thracian. I remember those days as well, but we weren't entirely the skint club you seem to indicate. Allan Clarke was an English record transfer fee in 1968 if I remember correctly. As for attendances, nearly all games were packed out. Back in those halcyon days football, in general, was more open and attacking. The only point we might disagree on is that I don't think we can put the "professional win at all costs" genie back in it's bottle. I fear we have to operate in the "today".

[Guest]

They might not have rushed to watch Pleat but their sure piled in to watch Matt Gillies' team.......

*Edited to reduce quote size*

You're lucky to have been around to witness those days, but as l444ry says, more people watched football in those days, and the way the game was played was different. If you're going to go that far back to justify your argument for all out attacking football, then at least have the decency to lay the blame of it's deterioration at the feet of Jimmy Hill and the Covscum.

[Thracian]

Appreciate what you say Thracian. I remember those days as well, but we weren't entirely the skint club you seem to indicate. Allan Clarke was an English record transfer fee in 1968 if I remember correctly. As for attendances, nearly all games were packed out. Back in those halcyon days football, in general, was more open and attacking. The only point we might disagree on is that I don't think we can put the "professional win at all costs" genie back in it's bottle. I fear we have to operate in the "today".

I don't mean to imply that we were skint but we headed the top division with guys like Davie Gibson and Mike Stringfellow who cost £25,000 apicece or thereabouts and we were never close to being a "Bank of England" outfit as I recall.

We did well because we had a manager who had an eye for talent and who sent them out to use it.

I don't think we disagree even about your last paragraph. Thankfully, "today" is a shifting situation and hopefully the powers that be will act to prompt a change of emphasis once again. There are some serious problems in football which need addressing but that is for another thread.

[Ric Flair]

I don't mean to imply that we were skint but we headed the top division with guys like Davie Gibson and Mike Stringfellow who cost £25,000 apicece or thereabouts and we were never close to being a "Bank of England" outfit as I recall.

We did well because we had a manager who had an eye for talent and who sent them out to use it.

I don't think we disagree even about your last paragraph. Thankfully, "today" is a shifting situation and hopefully the powers that be will act to prompt a change of emphasis once again. There are some serious problems in football which need addressing but that is for another thread.

Your right there, but I doubt we'll ever see the days of frequent high scoring matches. It's history, even if it is hard to take. Football players have improved their fitness and technique so much that they are cancelling each other out more regularly which is leading to the style of football we are witnessing. There are ways around it to make it more easier on the eye, but results are what matter and managers live and die by them.

[Dunc]

They might not have rushed to watch Pleat but their sure piled in to watch Matt Gillies' team.

Didn't see an influx of fans paying to see "Goal-Smith" as I think you christened him grace us with his silky skills, pace and assists.

i did see an influx over the past 9 games when we have been winning.

[Babylon]

same here, i think with 2 quality wingers we'd score alot more and therefore win more games making promotion more likely

Or we'd get completely overrun in midfeild and ship 2 goals more a game than we are.

If you have the players who can defend and attack with wing play (giggs, beckham) then great. We have bloody Sylla and Hamill. Welsh would probably start had we not been in the form we are, but as a good man manager how could Kelly even think of dropping players who have performed minor miracles for him so far??

[Thracian]

Didn't see an influx of fans paying to see "Goal-Smith" as I think you christened him grace us with his silky skills, pace and assists.

i did see an influx over the past 9 games when we have been winning.

I don't remember us having a run of nine attacking games, let alone successful attacking games to test your theory.

As for Smith. Wrong player, wrong club. Or are you of the opinion that the skills he showed against teams like Derby (second half), Sheffield United, Spurs and others were imaginary and not likely to be effective long term?

I thought he started to struggle when the opposition started double banking their covering defenders to cope with him and Leicester never had the attackers in their side to exploit that. Nothing new in that. I have said we need a team with attacking potential throughout the side from day one.

You cannot put four or five attackers with four or five outright defenders and call that an attacking side or a commitment to attack.

We have a strange imbalance these days. All attackers are expected to defend but not all defenders are expected to attack. It makes for flawed teams.

[securedfox]

You cannot put four or five attackers with four or five outright defenders and call that an attacking side or a commitment to attack.

We have a strange imbalance these days. All attackers are expected to defend but not all defenders are expected to attack. It makes for flawed teams.

Aka Micky Adams

[Thracian]

Or we'd get completely overrun in midfeild and ship 2 goals more a game than we are.

If you have the players who can defend and attack with wing play (giggs, beckham) then great. We have bloody Sylla and Hamill. Welsh would probably start had we not been in the form we are, but as a good man manager how could Kelly even think of dropping players who have performed minor miracles for him so far??

Lots of people did want those players dropping when they were getting us in the mire in the first place!

So here's a thought.

If Kelly can make many of the players who took us into the relegation zone play so well, what would he do if he got a full team of really good players together...?

It is not the fans fault we have Sylla and Hamill. Or one or two more I could mention. And, of course, if we had sorted those problems sooner then the remaining, generally competent players, wouldn't have had to fight a relegation battle in the first place.

[Dunc]

I don't remember us having a run of nine attacking games, let alone successful attacking games to test your theory.

As for Smith. Wrong player, wrong club. Or are you of the opinion that the skills he showed against teams like Derby (second half), Sheffield United, Spurs and others were imaginary and not likely to be effective long term?

I thought he started to struggle when the opposition started double banking their covering defenders to cope with him and Leicester never had the attackers in their side to exploit that. Nothing new in that. I have said we need a team with attacking potential throughout the side from day one.

You cannot put four or five attackers with four or five outright defenders and call that an attacking side or a commitment to attack.

We have a strange imbalance these days. All attackers are expected to defend but not all defenders are expected to attack. It makes for flawed teams.

I don't think you can say that a front 4 of Smith, Hume, Hammond, Sylla isn't attacking especially with Maybury as an attacking fullback and Gudjonnson attacking from midfield and that was the personell that played from Sheff Utd and for the next 5-6 matches.

You can say that Smith, Sylla, Hammond and Kisnorbo in midfield were crap but that is an attacking line up. 2 strikers, 2 wingers an attacking full back and an attacking midfielder as he was in those games. I forget if Stearman was in there as well, but if so then thats another attacking full back.

I think the point you are missing is that you can pick attacking teams as i believe that was, however its not any good if you can't get the ball off the opposition to start attacking in the first place. The best teams (as Babylon states) have wingers/midfielders that can do both eg Cole, Duff, Robben, Giggs even Pires, Reyes, Hleb have had to adapt and work back and try and win the ball.

As for "Goal-Smith" (and i will ridicule you for that nickname) you championed him as a world beater and as far as I could see he was similar to Franz Carr and IMO (and I have said this in other threads) performance-wise no worse than Sylla, apart from against Sheff Utd and Derby. I personally don't think he was that good against Spurs and said so at the time.

IMO The key to being attacking isn't just to be a tricky wing wizard with blistering pace, its the ability to pass the ball accurately and with creativity. You can argue that we don't have that either but in the absence of both then RK is doing the correct thing and narrowing the midfield and making us hard to beat.

And if you want to get wingers who can actually excite fans and have an end product then you are talking about £millions becuase they are the rarest of species, rightly or wrongly. I would say that at this level, its better to have an accurate crosser than a tricky winger that produces nothing and to that extent a Maybury and a Hughes can do it satisfactorily.

[Babylon]

I would say that at this level, its better to have an accurate crosser than a tricky winger that produces nothing and to that extent a Maybury and a Hughes can do it satisfactorily.

[Manwell Pablo]

I don't think you can say that a front 4 of Smith, Hume, Hammond, Sylla isn't attacking especially with Maybury as an attacking fullback and Gudjonnson attacking from midfield and that was the personell that played from Sheff Utd and for the next 5-6 matches.

You can say that Smith, Sylla, Hammond and Kisnorbo in midfield were crap but that is an attacking line up. 2 strikers, 2 wingers an attacking full back and an attacking midfielder as he was in those games. I forget if Stearman was in there as well, but if so then thats another attacking full back.

I think the point you are missing is that you can pick attacking teams as i believe that was, however its not any good if you can't get the ball off the opposition to start attacking in the first place. The best teams (as Babylon states) have wingers/midfielders that can do both eg Cole, Duff, Robben, Giggs even Pires, Reyes, Hleb have had to adapt and work back and try and win the ball.

As for "Goal-Smith" (and i will ridicule you for that nickname) you championed him as a world beater and as far as I could see he was similar to Franz Carr and IMO (and I have said this in other threads) performance-wise no worse than Sylla, apart from against Sheff Utd and Derby. I personally don't think he was that good against Spurs and said so at the time.

IMO The key to being attacking isn't just to be a tricky wing wizard with blistering pace, its the ability to pass the ball accurately and with creativity. You can argue that we don't have that either but in the absence of both then RK is doing the correct thing and narrowing the midfield and making us hard to beat.

And if you want to get wingers who can actually excite fans and have an end product then you are talking about £millions becuase they are the rarest of species, rightly or wrongly. I would say that at this level, its better to have an accurate crosser than a tricky winger that produces nothing and to that extent a Maybury and a Hughes can do it satisfactorily.

It was GoldSmith you muppit. you see what hes done there? play on words?

Smith did trail off towards the end but I wouldnt have him down as a Sylla, who has impressed me twice, showing he has what it takes to excite crowds, but he just doesnt bother most of the time. Smith will pop up again and impress somewhere else soon im sure, he has what it takes to play in the prem one day I think. Not quite the world beater some people thought he was though.

Your point about the wingers is spot on though, Mr Thracian should note how many goals Hughes has scored from the wing.

[Ric Flair]

I don't think you can say that a front 4 of Smith, Hume, Hammond, Sylla isn't attacking especially with Maybury as an attacking fullback and Gudjonnson attacking from midfield and that was the personell that played from Sheff Utd and for the next 5-6 matches.

You can say that Smith, Sylla, Hammond and Kisnorbo in midfield were crap but that is an attacking line up. 2 strikers, 2 wingers an attacking full back and an attacking midfielder as he was in those games. I forget if Stearman was in there as well, but if so then thats another attacking full back.

I think the point you are missing is that you can pick attacking teams as i believe that was, however its not any good if you can't get the ball off the opposition to start attacking in the first place. The best teams (as Babylon states) have wingers/midfielders that can do both eg Cole, Duff, Robben, Giggs even Pires, Reyes, Hleb have had to adapt and work back and try and win the ball.

As for "Goal-Smith" (and i will ridicule you for that nickname) you championed him as a world beater and as far as I could see he was similar to Franz Carr and IMO (and I have said this in other threads) performance-wise no worse than Sylla, apart from against Sheff Utd and Derby. I personally don't think he was that good against Spurs and said so at the time.

IMO The key to being attacking isn't just to be a tricky wing wizard with blistering pace, its the ability to pass the ball accurately and with creativity. You can argue that we don't have that either but in the absence of both then RK is doing the correct thing and narrowing the midfield and making us hard to beat.

And if you want to get wingers who can actually excite fans and have an end product then you are talking about £millions becuase they are the rarest of species, rightly or wrongly. I would say that at this level, its better to have an accurate crosser than a tricky winger that produces nothing and to that extent a Maybury and a Hughes can do it satisfactorily.

That's not strictly true, when we needed a goalscorer lots of people on here said they cost millions. Fryatt didn't and neither did Hume. You can still find wingers or wide midfielders that are effective enough for what we need. Basically this team needs width, whether that's by employing 2 out and out wingers or one or two wide midfielders who give the team the right shape and provide end product. We are a shocking team when it comes to crosses both from open play and corners, free-kicks, etc.

Welsh looks good enough for me, if we can get him. His contract expires in the summer and perhaps we could tempt him away? He might not be explosive but he completely changed the game against Luton and I like the look of him. He wouldn't cost millions.

[Thracian]

I don't think you can say that a front 4 of Smith, Hume, Hammond, Sylla isn't attacking especially with Maybury as an attacking fullback and Gudjonnson attacking from midfield and that was the personell that played from Sheff Utd and for the next 5-6 matches.

You can say that Smith, Sylla, Hammond and Kisnorbo in midfield were crap but that is an attacking line up. 2 strikers, 2 wingers an attacking full back and an attacking midfielder as he was in those games. I forget if Stearman was in there as well, but if so then thats another attacking full back.

I think the point you are missing is that you can pick attacking teams as i believe that was, however its not any good if you can't get the ball off the opposition to start attacking in the first place. The best teams (as Babylon states) have wingers/midfielders that can do both eg Cole, Duff, Robben, Giggs even Pires, Reyes, Hleb have had to adapt and work back and try and win the ball.

As for "Goal-Smith" (and i will ridicule you for that nickname) you championed him as a world beater and as far as I could see he was similar to Franz Carr and IMO (and I have said this in other threads) performance-wise no worse than Sylla, apart from against Sheff Utd and Derby. I personally don't think he was that good against Spurs and said so at the time.

IMO The key to being attacking isn't just to be a tricky wing wizard with blistering pace, its the ability to pass the ball accurately and with creativity. You can argue that we don't have that either but in the absence of both then RK is doing the correct thing and narrowing the midfield and making us hard to beat.

And if you want to get wingers who can actually excite fans and have an end product then you are talking about £millions becuase they are the rarest of species, rightly or wrongly. I would say that at this level, its better to have an accurate crosser than a tricky winger that produces nothing and to that extent a Maybury and a Hughes can do it satisfactorily.

Sorry but I wouldn't describe the front four of Smith, Hume, Hammond and Sylla as attacking. Although I quite like Hammond in some ways he has never been a striker, nor was Hume without a proper partner and enough has been said about Sylla's inadequacies from day one to fill a book.

Attacking? Sylla has yet to score a goal and has made four. As RicFlair says, there are plenty of people around like Welsh who can do a wingman's job which is 10 goals a season and 15 assists.

I would also say Smith, Sylla, Hammond and Kisnorbo would be awful. As I said earlier you cannot demand defending off attackers without demanding attacking off defenders in modern football you need to have footballers who are capable of both.

As for Smith, I've explained my views on him elsewhere but they are connected to my last paragraph and to the fact he was double banked with defenders later in his time at Leicester and this should have been anticipated and countered.

Smith was known not to be the finished product but Leicester did nothing to improve him and their system never backed his style of play. I wonder whether Welsh will fare any better or is he no good too?