Is it time...

[Dunc]

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.

Sorry I think you've misunderstood what I meant about Smith, Sylla, Hammond and Kisnorbo. I was saying that in my opinion the team that played against Sheff Utd and for the next 5-6 games was an attacking team. My point was that we weren't able to put that into practice because those 4 players, in my opinion, were crap. That however, does not mean it wasn't an attacking line up, it was just not a successful one.

And you seem to have ignored the point that we had Maybury, Stearman, Gudjonnson, Sylla, Smith, Hammond, Hume all as offensive options. I fail to see how you can't describe them as attacking. Its not a case of how many goals/assists they get, thats down to ability but you can never convince me that any of the 5 listed above (excluding Stearman & Maybury as full backs) were picked on defensive merits. Therefore by process of elimination they were picked to be attacking. Even you have to admit that!

My overall point was that the team picked for that period was an attacking team (you can argue otherwise although I think if you re-read your comments about the Sheff Utd game you will be contradicting yourself if you do so) but the personel wasn't good enough.

For me, that remains the case, I'm yet to be convinced by Welsh but am willing to be swayed (incidentally has he ever scored 10 goals and provided 15 assists in a season?) but as I stated before, in my opinion, with hume and Fryatt up front, we don't necessarily need 2 traditional wingers because I believe they thrive on the ball fed to feet or in behind the back 4. What we need in this instance is accurate passers who can give them the service but also midfielders willing to make runs into the box or forward generally to support them.

With the personel playing at the moment, i don't think that wingers are the way forward. You can disagree, as is your want, but at least read the post correctly in the first place. I personally think you make some valid points at times and read your posts with a sense of dread, because I know more than likely I'll disagree but also with some respect because you genuinely believe what you say, even if you are wrong!

[Thracian]

I don't think I've suggested we have to play two traditional wingers. I might like us to be in that position but am realistic enough to realise that one would be a major step forward.

I've no argument with you over Welsh either. No-one who has simply watched him at Leicester can know for sure how good he is because he hasn't been used much.

Nor am I contesting your claim that people like Sylla, Hammond and Smith were selected as attackers. It is just that they are not, and have patently shown themselves not to be effective attackers and I have said all along and with emphasis that our team cannot afford to carry ineffective players.

You cannot judge the merits of an attacking system if you don't play effective attackers and construct the side to compliment attacking play.

If such a team were compiled and it failed when given a fair test then I would be perfectly happy to adjust my thinking. Do you truly believe that, after 50 years of supporting this club I want to see them lose?.

Your point about passers is spot on and it concerns me no end for the long term that too many members of our squad are poor or, at best, ordinary passers.

[Dunc]

I don't think I've suggested we have to play two traditional wingers. I might like us to be in that position but am realistic enough to realise that one would be a major step forward.

I've no argument with you over Welsh either. No-one who has simply watched him at Leicester can know for sure how good he is because he hasn't been used much.

Nor am I contesting your claim that people like Sylla, Hammond and Smith were selected as attackers. It is just that they are not, and have patently shown themselves not to be effective attackers and I have said all along and with emphasis that our team cannot afford to carry ineffective players.

You cannot judge the merits of an attacking system if you don't play effective attackers and construct the side to compliment attacking play.

If such a team were compiled and it failed when given a fair test then I would be perfectly happy to adjust my thinking. Do you truly believe that, after 50 years of supporting this club I want to see them lose?.

Your point about passers is spot on and it concerns me no end for the long term that too many members of our squad are poor or, at best, ordinary passers.

Well thanks for acknowledging some of my points!

I agree we can't carry ineffective players which is why I advocate keeping the same players who have gone 9 games with 1 defeat, indicating to me that they aren't ineffective at the moment. Our attacking players who could come in Sylla, Hammill, Welsh, O'Grady, Hammond aren't as good as what is in the 1st XI so lets leave it as it is. Glad you agree.

I'm assuming that you believe an effective attacking team (in your style of attacking) can be succesful with the players we have. I don't, no way. I would be interested in seeing your XI based on your belief though.

Obviously, if we had/getting a number of wingers who get 10 goals and 15 assists but are limited in defence then I would agree with you that it would be folly not to play them. I would say though that if that is the case then I would stick with a Johannson-type behind him as he is far more solid in defence to cover that limitation. However, I think that is optimistic because every club in the country wants such a player and if one was available I doubt if we could afford him, and if we could then competition would be fierce.

Just to pick up on your point about passing, I personally haven't felt Kisnorbo's passing in defence has been poor, I've often pointed out that if he passed the ball from defence with the same quality as when he was in midfield then he'd have been a decent holding player. But as a defender I think his passing is very good at this level. As for the others, i think Hughes passes sensibly if a little blandly and Maybury I think is a average passer/crosser (he isn't the best but is adequate), and Johannson has barely put a foot wrong since RK came in. Again i agree his passing is limited but, he is growing in confidence, and more than makes up for that side with his defensive acumen.

If you want a player who defends like Kisnorbo is at the moment and who can pass it like you hope, then i very much doubt that he would be at Leicester! He'd be at a far higher level!

We need to be realistic about the players that a Championship side can attract, and especially a bottom half team, and that (IMO) means we aren't going to get a Ryan Smith with an end product or a Kisnorbo who can pass it like Beckham.

We might be able to get a winger like Guppy, who isn't a complete footballer by any means, but makes up for a lack of pace with workrate and passing but that fits more into the player I'd prefer out wide than yours.

[Ric Flair]

Well thanks for acknowledging some of my points!

I agree we can't carry ineffective players which is why I advocate keeping the same players who have gone 9 games with 1 defeat, indicating to me that they aren't ineffective at the moment. Our attacking players who could come in Sylla, Hammill, Welsh, O'Grady, Hammond aren't as good as what is in the 1st XI so lets leave it as it is. Glad you agree.

I'm assuming that you believe an effective attacking team (in your style of attacking) can be succesful with the players we have. I don't, no way. I would be interested in seeing your XI based on your belief though.

Obviously, if we had/getting a number of wingers who get 10 goals and 15 assists but are limited in defence then I would agree with you that it would be folly not to play them. I would say though that if that is the case then I would stick with a Johannson-type behind him as he is far more solid in defence to cover that limitation. However, I think that is optimistic because every club in the country wants such a player and if one was available I doubt if we could afford him, and if we could then competition would be fierce.

Just to pick up on your point about passing, I personally haven't felt Kisnorbo's passing in defence has been poor, I've often pointed out that if he passed the ball from defence with the same quality as when he was in midfield then he'd have been a decent holding player. But as a defender I think his passing is very good at this level. As for the others, i think Hughes passes sensibly if a little blandly and Maybury I think is a average passer/crosser (he isn't the best but is adequate), and Johannson has barely put a foot wrong since RK came in. Again i agree his passing is limited but, he is growing in confidence, and more than makes up for that side with his defensive acumen.

If you want a player who defends like Kisnorbo is at the moment and who can pass it like you hope, then i very much doubt that he would be at Leicester! He'd be at a far higher level!

We need to be realistic about the players that a Championship side can attract, and especially a bottom half team, and that (IMO) means we aren't going to get a Ryan Smith with an end product or a Kisnorbo who can pass it like Beckham.

We might be able to get a winger like Guppy, who isn't a complete footballer by any means, but makes up for a lack of pace with workrate and passing but that fits more into the player I'd prefer out wide than yours.

I'm not sure whether i'm the only one but against Luton when Welsh came on he looked very much of similar ilk to Guppy. He changed the game along with O'Grady. He doesn't look that skillful or extremely pacey but the ability he does have he uses effectively and we look a stronger outfit when he plays, whether that's because the opposition is tiring and his direct style of play is more effective then, i'm not sure.

He looks to be an excellent crosser, something we've lacked at this club for a long while. Looking at Hume and Fryatt i'm not sure they've suffered because of it but both of them are adequate in the air and a player who can put plenty of crosses in might tap in to a strength we didn't know we had before.

I'm not fussed about having 2 wingers in our team, if it improved us as a team then i'd like it but I do think we need one comfortable wide player. Hughes and Maybury both do a job but when they both play together, the shape of the team could be stronger. That's in an ideal scenario though because we are still winning matches without wingers so who am I to complain. But next season I think it would be foolish not to look at how we could improve and playing a good wide player with excellent crossing and set piece attributes would benefit us i'm sure of it.

[Thracian]

You know and I know the team will not be changed until it starts to lose. Therefore it cannot develop until we start to lose. If that is the team you honestly think will take us onwards and upwards I can only hope that you are right and I am wrong. I will still buy my season ticket even if the football will make me cringe. I don't share you view on Johansson nor do I think you cannot find good passers and effective wingers other than in the list of most expensive players.

[Ric Flair]

You know and I know the team will not be changed until it starts to lose. Therefore it cannot develop until we start to lose. If that is the team you honestly think we take us onwards and upwards I can only hope that you are right and I am wrong. I will still buy my season ticket even if the football will make me cringe. I don't share you view on Johansson nor do I think you cannot find good passers and effective wingers other than in the list of most expensive players.

I was watching highlights from our promotion season a few years ago and the team we used to pick scares me, just goes to show that it isn't really about quality in this league even though it should be.

Benjamin left wing?

Scowcroft right wing?

Alan Rogers left back?

Andy Impey right back/right midfield?

Grotesque.

[Dr The Singh]

I was watching highlights from our promotion season a few years ago and the team we used to pick scares me, just goes to show that it isn't really about quality in this league even though it should be.

Benjamin left wing?

Scowcroft right wing?

Alan Rogers left back?

Andy Impey right back/right midfield?

Grotesque.

But they got results though and I suppose that's what counts most, that team was tight at the back and the long ball technique got city alot of goals!! As a spectacle it was horrid, but I remember at the time that I wasn't complaining!!

[l444ry]

I was watching highlights from our promotion season a few years ago and the team we used to pick scares me, just goes to show that it isn't really about quality in this league even though it should be.

Benjamin left wing?

Scowcroft right wing?

Alan Rogers left back?

Andy Impey right back/right midfield?

Grotesque.

Good point Ric. A workman is only as good as his tools. Sums this thread up in a nutshell. Maybe a reassessment of Micky Adams is due by some.

[davieG]

Good point Ric. A workman is only as good as his tools. Sums this thread up in a nutshell. Maybe a reassessment of Micky Adams is due by some.

Is a second hand 30 year old Bosch, requiring constant, expensive maintenance a better investment than a brand new Black & Decker?

[TrickyTrev]

Tharacian your views on wingers are so out dated. Do you nto watch modern football? The "traditional" winger is all but surplus to requirments in todays game. Getting a player to run down the wing and take players on may look exciting and be your ideal of attacking football but its extremely ineffecitve. The success rate is extremrly low and even when a winger does manage to beat a full back there is so much to do to score a goal. Not only this, but having two wingers hugging the touch line leaves the centre of the piutch catastrophicly weak and it is difficult to hold down any sort of possesion.

Look at the best attacking teams in the top three leagues. That is Arsenal, Milan and Barcelona. There is not oen winger playing reguarly at any of these clubs. They use the whole width of their pitch but no one with their head down trying to beat the full back to whipa cross in. Attacking football is not all about two wingers!

Look at the best attacking players in the world and you'd be hard pushed to put a winger in the top 20. Robben is the best i can think of and he is still only potential. I get so annoyed with the press when they slag off Beckham for never beating the full back. As if being the best passer of the ball in the world doesn't make up for it and isn't far more effective a tool. The alternative is a Sean Wright Philkops type that creates little but excites many. It seems fairly obvious to me that it is a myth to say that good teams need a tricky winger.

Link dunc I think the key to good football is havin g plauers with suffcient passing ability and movement to unlock defences. I think that perhaps one more creative midfieler would not go a miss as a replacement for Maybury, so long as they can defend but in the last few matches Joey, Hughesy, Hume and Fryatt have been brilliant in the ctreative department.

[Ric Flair]

Tharacian your views on wingers are so out dated. Do you nto watch modern football? The "traditional" winger is all but surplus to requirments in todays game. Getting a player to run down the wing and take players on may look exciting and be your ideal of attacking football but its extremely ineffecitve. The success rate is extremrly low and even when a winger does manage to beat a full back there is so much to do to score a goal. Not only this, but having two wingers hugging the touch line leaves the centre of the piutch catastrophicly weak and it is difficult to hold down any sort of possesion.

Look at the best attacking teams in the top three leagues. That is Arsenal, Milan and Barcelona. There is not oen winger playing reguarly at any of these clubs. They use the whole width of their pitch but no one with their head down trying to beat the full back to whipa cross in. Attacking football is not all about two wingers!

Look at the best attacking players in the world and you'd be hard pushed to put a winger in the top 20. Robben is the best i can think of and he is still only potential. I get so annoyed with the press when they slag off Beckham for never beating the full back. As if being the best passer of the ball in the world doesn't make up for it and isn't far more effective a tool. The alternative is a Sean Wright Philkops type that creates little but excites many. It seems fairly obvious to me that it is a myth to say that good teams need a tricky winger.

Link dunc I think the key to good football is havin g plauers with suffcient passing ability and movement to unlock defences. I think that perhaps one more creative midfieler would not go a miss as a replacement for Maybury, so long as they can defend but in the last few matches Joey, Hughesy, Hume and Fryatt have been brilliant in the ctreative department.

Some good points there and I agree you don't need 2 wingers to be successful but I still think we need atleast one player who is comfortable playing on the wing that gives us width on atleast one side and doesn't encourage the rest of the team to play straight through the middle. Hughes and Maybury together don't offer us any ammunition from the wing when we have the ball out there, how many times do we have the ball on the flanks and waste it? Purely because we don't have anyone out there capable of either beating a man and getting a cross in or making a telling pass to unlock defences.

[Thracian]

Tharacian your views on wingers are so out dated. Do you nto watch modern football? The "traditional" winger is all but surplus to requirments in todays game. Getting a player to run down the wing and take players on may look exciting and be your ideal of attacking football but its extremely ineffecitve. The success rate is extremrly low and even when a winger does manage to beat a full back there is so much to do to score a goal. Not only this, but having two wingers hugging the touch line leaves the centre of the piutch catastrophicly weak and it is difficult to hold down any sort of possesion.

Look at the best attacking teams in the top three leagues. That is Arsenal, Milan and Barcelona. There is not oen winger playing reguarly at any of these clubs. They use the whole width of their pitch but no one with their head down trying to beat the full back to whipa cross in. Attacking football is not all about two wingers!

Look at the best attacking players in the world and you'd be hard pushed to put a winger in the top 20. Robben is the best i can think of and he is still only potential. I get so annoyed with the press when they slag off Beckham for never beating the full back. As if being the best passer of the ball in the world doesn't make up for it and isn't far more effective a tool. The alternative is a Sean Wright Philkops type that creates little but excites many. It seems fairly obvious to me that it is a myth to say that good teams need a tricky winger.

Link dunc I think the key to good football is havin g plauers with suffcient passing ability and movement to unlock defences. I think that perhaps one more creative midfieler would not go a miss as a replacement for Maybury, so long as they can defend but in the last few matches Joey, Hughesy, Hume and Fryatt have been brilliant in the ctreative department.

You do like to label people. And it is funny how words like "tricky" and "two wingers" are put into arguments that were never mentioned or implied in the text you comment on.

But to help you, first let me say I'm a big fan of Beckham (goals and assists) and one of my favourite wingers was Alan Hinton (goals and assists) I cannot remember him ever bothering to beat anyone.

If the key to good football is passing ability and movement to unlock defences, we have very few good passers in City's team and the movement off the ball is dire, so bad that I think I twice suggested the club engage a specialist coach to work on it...and he could do the dead ball situations while he's about it because we don't score anything like enough from our free kicks/corners.

I imagine you think of anyone my age as being old fashioned and old thinking but at least I am old enough to have seen some proper top division attacking football from a City team and I sometimes think you youngsters only aspire to a certain level from Leicester because you've never seen any better from them.

I'm sure I watch as much football as you but to give a true insight into my attitutes instead of your made-up version let me say, for instance, that a lot of times I feel two touches is one too many, and that strikers should become obsessed not with hitting spectacular shots but with hitting the target (one reason I like Chambers is because he can pass the ball so early, hit the target so frequently and his movement is so exceptional).

Yet people like Hammond, Sylla, De Vries and Dublin were preferred to him in attack this season, people who hardly fulfil any of those supposedly modern criteria.

And how long did Hume take to find the favour of a regular place, another with movement, the ability to pass quickly and as good as most in our club at shooting.

And you call me old fashioned.

I am with you on the idea of modern footballers who can pass and move quickly and accurately.

It's just a pity we don't have many in our current first team squad because I'd like about 18 such players.

PS. And two questions (repeated cos I've heard no answer from anyone yet). a) Why is it could expect all the forwards to defend but you and others are quite happy to have defensders who cannot attack?. Why the compromise. There is nothing more old fashioned that pedestrian, stopper defenders who cannot pass and move and who cannot support attacks. b) Why sign, pay and retain wingers you don't have any use for?

[Thracian]

Well thanks for acknowledging some of my points!

I agree we can't carry ineffective players which is why I advocate keeping the same players who have gone 9 games with 1 defeat, indicating to me that they aren't ineffective at the moment. Our attacking players who could come in Sylla, Hammill, Welsh, O'Grady, Hammond aren't as good as what is in the 1st XI so lets leave it as it is. Glad you agree.

I'm assuming that you believe an effective attacking team (in your style of attacking) can be succesful with the players we have. I don't, no way. I would be interested in seeing your XI based on your belief though.

Obviously, if we had/getting a number of wingers who get 10 goals and 15 assists but are limited in defence then I would agree with you that it would be folly not to play them. I would say though that if that is the case then I would stick with a Johannson-type behind him as he is far more solid in defence to cover that limitation. However, I think that is optimistic because every club in the country wants such a player and if one was available I doubt if we could afford him, and if we could then competition would be fierce.

Just to pick up on your point about passing, I personally haven't felt Kisnorbo's passing in defence has been poor, I've often pointed out that if he passed the ball from defence with the same quality as when he was in midfield then he'd have been a decent holding player. But as a defender I think his passing is very good at this level. As for the others, i think Hughes passes sensibly if a little blandly and Maybury I think is a average passer/crosser (he isn't the best but is adequate), and Johannson has barely put a foot wrong since RK came in. Again i agree his passing is limited but, he is growing in confidence, and more than makes up for that side with his defensive acumen.

If you want a player who defends like Kisnorbo is at the moment and who can pass it like you hope, then i very much doubt that he would be at Leicester! He'd be at a far higher level!

We need to be realistic about the players that a Championship side can attract, and especially a bottom half team, and that (IMO) means we aren't going to get a Ryan Smith with an end product or a Kisnorbo who can pass it like Beckham.

We might be able to get a winger like Guppy, who isn't a complete footballer by any means, but makes up for a lack of pace with workrate and passing but that fits more into the player I'd prefer out wide than yours.

Regarding your paragraph three I certainly don't believe we have the means of playing the attacking style I would like with the surrent squad.

The only thing I would do differently now, with the players available is to include Welsh more and to add Ashley Chambers to the bench (assuming he's fit).

I would wish to start developing the side as soon as possible.

[l444ry]

Is a second hand 30 year old Bosch, requiring constant, expensive maintenance a better investment than a brand new Black & Decker?

As Bosch is a quality product and Black and Decker (DeWalt) only DIY, your supposition is flawed and I think you've therefore answered your own question DavieG.

[Babylon]

Good point Ric. A workman is only as good as his tools. Sums this thread up in a nutshell. Maybe a reassessment of Micky Adams is due by some.

I think what he has done with cov should already have made them do that... or I would hope anyway.

[Jimmy]

I think what he has done with cov should already have made them do that... or I would hope anyway.

i think mickey went stale here, he wasn't a bad manager, he just ran out of ideas to get us going

[Babylon]

i think mickey went stale here, he wasn't a bad manager, he just ran out of ideas to get us going

I think he probably had... but IMO we were still too hasty in getting rid.

[Thracian]

What fuels this hankering after Adams?. He was an expert at contriving poor results out of good ones and presided over a team of depreciating non-assets. Can we not go forward?. He's like Heskey and Muzzy and ex-husbands/wives, he's not coming back. Tomorrow's another day, thankfully.

[Jimmy]

What fuels this hankering after Adams?. He was an expert at contriving poor results out of good ones and presided over a team of depreciating non-assets. Can we not go forward?. He's like Heskey and Muzzy and ex-husbands/wives, he's not coming back. Tomorrow's another day, thankfully.

hey dont get me wrong i dont want him back, i was just saying he became stale, he didnt become a poor manager

[Thracian]

hey dont get me wrong i dont want him back, i was just saying he became stale, he didnt become a poor manager

Yhat's a relief. You had me worried for a minute

[Babylon]

What fuels this hankering after Adams?. He was an expert at contriving poor results out of good ones and presided over a team of depreciating non-assets. Can we not go forward?. He's like Heskey and Muzzy and ex-husbands/wives, he's not coming back. Tomorrow's another day, thankfully.

I don't think anyone wants him back.... except for the usual 2 or 3 suspects. Aka M.A Love children.