Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
Mort

Line-Up for Burnley Match.

By Mort, in Leicester City Forum

Recommended Posts

Stevosevic

Stevosevic

Posted
Posted

Without wanting to mention MoN again - the beauty of his teams was that everybody had a job and a simple one at that. The two full backs run up and down like fock the 3 centre halves to hoof it out and stop all and sundry, the midfield players to run and run and run and to pass and pass and pass and the front two to run and run and put the ball in the net.

Yeh OK it's not that simple but it seems to me that all this 4-3-3 4-4-2 3-5-2 business is only complicating things - nice and simple attack, attack attack as the old adage goes. Start with kicking the Burnly back into the Lancashire hills and the Tractor Boys back into the Suffolk field s and stop all this moaning on this site.

So for what it's worth:

Henderson

Nissa Kisnorbo McCarthy

Stearman Kenton

(has he got a left foot? if not Maybury)

Hughes Williams Low

Hume Fryatt

And to end on a positive note - we're going win and go on a 45 undefeated run and we are going up said we are going up :whistle:

why is everyone putting Low as a central midfield player? he is a RIGHT WINGER!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Foxhateram

Foxhateram

Posted
Posted

Without wanting to mention MoN again - the beauty of his teams was that everybody had a job and a simple one at that. The two full backs run up and down like fock the 3 centre halves to hoof it out and stop all and sundry, the midfield players to run and run and run and to pass and pass and pass and the front two to run and run and put the ball in the net.

Yeh OK it's not that simple but it seems to me that all this 4-3-3 4-4-2 3-5-2 business is only complicating things - nice and simple attack, attack attack as the old adage goes. Start with kicking the Burnly back into the Lancashire hills and the Tractor Boys back into the Suffolk field s and stop all this moaning on this site.

So for what it's worth:

Henderson

Nissa Kisnorbo McCarthy

Stearman Kenton

(has he got a left foot? if not Maybury)

Hughes Williams Low

Hume Fryatt

And to end on a positive note - we're going win and go on a 45 undefeated run and we are going up said we are going up :whistle:

not sur3e bout your line up mate but i deffo agree with what you said about complicating things. i managed a young side for some club charity month thingy, my side came second and that was because i simply said to them, this is your position this is where and what i want you to do, and get on with it!! rather than tying people into ok you have to do this this this and this and this. just your right back and i want you to push forward!! or richard i want you to do what you did against sociedad maybe be even more attacking!! keep it simple and make sure players have freedom not zones!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Manwell Pablo

Manwell Pablo

Posted
Posted

Why change it? If we're going to be successful we need continuality. Keep the team exactly the same.

I would understand that statement if the team that played on Saturday had anything about it. However I don't see Rob making the changes needed just yet, the sad thing is the one player who did give a fairly good account of himself on Saturday ( Kenton ) will probabley be the first one dropped on Kisnorbos return.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Foxhateram

Foxhateram

Posted
Posted

I would understand that statement if the team that played on Saturday had anything about it. However I don't see Rob making the changes needed just yet, the sad thing is the one player who did give a fairly good account of himself on Saturday ( Kenton ) will probabley be the first one dropped on Kisnorbos return.

i think if the players that we played on saturday were played again but given freedom to play more attacking roles i think theyl do well. i think our lack on saturday was first game nerves, and i think we should give players a chance, im sorry but every one turns on players after one lousy game! eg your all turning on stearman because of one game!!! he was the only solid block at the back last year and deserves his position, so i think we should stick with what we've got because 1) there is no one else who isnt likely to get injured again to play!! 2) because you cant judge a team on one game and 3) if we change everything around again then it will create confusion and the players will not have a chance to bond together. next game will be like the second serve for the same team as saturday i beleive then if we still dont perform thne RK will change it!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ultra

Ultra

Posted
Posted

I thought Fryatt was excellent first half. As excellent as you can expect him to be when the one tactic we had was thumping the ball up to him in the air. He had no support from Hume whatsoever and he had to fashion his own chances cos the midfield were 30 yards away. He did nothing second half but then he was probably knackered from having to do absolutely everything attacking-wise that we offered in the first. Would be ludicrous to drop him in my opinion. Who the hell is going to score the goals we so badly need if we take him out of the team?

The problems started with the defence yesterday. Stearman and McCarthy in particular hoofing balls down the channels. Tiatto and Maybury are too slow/defensive to get to them and Fryatt and Hume need proper service and support instead of this aimless hoofing. The answer is not to drop Fryatt, it's to play the ball out of defence properly instead of hoofing it and get more bodies in midfield with one or two players pushing up to give the front men some assistance.

Well said. :thumbup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ric Flair

Ric Flair

Posted
Posted

I thought Fryatt was excellent first half. As excellent as you can expect him to be when the one tactic we had was thumping the ball up to him in the air. He had no support from Hume whatsoever and he had to fashion his own chances cos the midfield were 30 yards away. He did nothing second half but then he was probably knackered from having to do absolutely everything attacking-wise that we offered in the first. Would be ludicrous to drop him in my opinion. Who the hell is going to score the goals we so badly need if we take him out of the team?

The problems started with the defence yesterday. Stearman and McCarthy in particular hoofing balls down the channels. Tiatto and Maybury are too slow/defensive to get to them and Fryatt and Hume need proper service and support instead of this aimless hoofing. The answer is not to drop Fryatt, it's to play the ball out of defence properly instead of hoofing it and get more bodies in midfield with one or two players pushing up to give the front men some assistance.

I completely agree with that. Fryatt will still show his class even when the other 10 around him let him down, it's just so frustrating that we aren't playing to his and Hume's strengths. My biggest gripe with Kelly and one that I simply will not continue to accept is that he doesn't do something about our defenders hoofing the ball up to our strikers constantly. It's getting to the stage where he needs to use scare mongering tactics and i'd say that there should be a fine of £100 per hoof the players do unless they are an emergency hoof and that can be looked at using t.v. evidence after the match. If Kelly is happy to let the defenders keep hoofing it then i'm quite happy to start the KELLY OUT bandwagon.

He's got until Southend at home to drastically make things better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Manwell Pablo

Manwell Pablo

Posted
Posted

I completely agree with that. Fryatt will still show his class even when the other 10 around him let him down, it's just so frustrating that we aren't playing to his and Hume's strengths. My biggest gripe with Kelly and one that I simply will not continue to accept is that he doesn't do something about our defenders hoofing the ball up to our strikers constantly. It's getting to the stage where he needs to use scare mongering tactics and i'd say that there should be a fine of £100 per hoof the players do unless they are an emergency hoof and that can be looked at using t.v. evidence after the match. If Kelly is happy to let the defenders keep hoofing it then i'm quite happy to start the KELLY OUT bandwagon.

He's got until Southend at home to drastically make things better.

It's not just that, its also the fact that on the odd occasion the defense do decide to give the midfield the ball they rush the through ball often resulting in it being poor and us giving the ball away. The whole team looks panicey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ric Flair

Ric Flair

Posted
Posted

It's not just that, its also the fact that on the odd occasion the defense do decide to give the midfield the ball they rush the through ball often resulting in it being poor and us giving the ball away. The whole team looks panicey.

That's probably because they aren't used to getting the ball. There's no movement and they are devoid of ideas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ric Flair

Ric Flair

Posted
Posted

The team I would pick would be:

Henderson

Kenton

McCarthy

Kisnorbo

Nissa

O'Grady

Williams

Johnson

Hughes

Fryatt

Hume

Subs: Tiatto, Weso, Logan, Hammond, Low

Plenty of players out of position again but more creative than Tiatto and Maybury

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fez of Mahrez

Fez of Mahrez

Posted
Posted

The team I would pick would be:

Henderson

Kenton

McCarthy

Kisnorbo

Nissa

O'Grady

Williams

Johnson

Hughes

Fryatt

Hume

Subs: Tiatto, Weso, Logan, Hammond, Low

Plenty of players out of position again but more creative than Tiatto and Maybury

That's probably the team I agree with, within the confines of 4-4-2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark

Mark

Posted
Posted

If Weso is ready to come back then I'd play him on the right side of midfield. It's sickening to see Maybury carry on there again this season. I'd rather not go with Johnson in the middle with Weso as thats a whole back 8 of defensive players, but would probably suit Kelly down to the ground.

Henderson

Kenton McCarthy Kisnorbo Sheehan

Weso Williams Johnson Hughes

Fryatt Hume

That'll do nicely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
12FRYATT

12FRYATT

Posted
Posted

in my opionion this would be mine

Hendo

Stearman McCarthy Kisnorbo Kenton*

Low Williams Johnson Hughes

Hume Fryatt

* I believe Kenton can play anywhere across the back line and also after his ggod performance against luton i dont think he should be dropped

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DannyLCFC1

DannyLCFC1

Posted
Posted

I'd rather not pick him, unless he has drastically improved from the end of last season! :thumbup:

Apparently he had a good pre season played well against lincoln and has worked hard it would be his last chance thou maybe low should be given a run

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thracian

Thracian

Posted
Posted

Look at those teams. No balance. People out of position. All anyone's done is play musical chairs without addressing the fundamental problems.

It's strange really because much of the debate is spot on.

But one important point touched on by Ric Flair is the lack of movement. I mentioned it last year. Our running off the ball is abyssmal and part of the reason is the imbalance.

For example Hughes in left midfield. He couldn't play right midfield, what earthly chance has he got on the left?

Nils at left back. His passing from defence is aimless and invariably inaccurate. So his selection simply exaggerates the problem about distribution from the back.

Can someone come up with a side which does enourage passing from defence, which does have left side/ right side balance, which has enough attackers ass well as enough defenders, which has a bit of pace and someone with the ability to pick out a proper pass to the forwards?. And also some genuine movement off and around the ball.

If you have wingers you don't necessarily need attacking full-backs but if you don't there's no getting round it.

I've tried and it's not easy, especially working a 4-4-2 because that is all Kelly will contemplate. Too often there's uneasy compromise.

Counting Weso as still unfit I get something like:

Henderson

Stearman or Maybury, McCarthy, Kisnorbo, Sheehan;

Hammond, Johnson, Porter, Tiatto;

O'Grady, Fryatt.

That, I think fulfills every criteria I've mentioned and is also a flexible system.

There's no point playing this way for just one week though. I would be happy if that were the new norm and we simply tinkered bit by bit if it broke down or failed to show a marked improvement in our balance and effect. Gradel or Low for Hammond perhaps; Hughes instead of Johnson, that sort of thing. But always with the same intent in terms of how our overall approach.

We'd effectively have five and three halves in terms of attackers, making 6.5 in all and six and a half defenders. Hammond, O'Grady and Porter give movement, Tiatto, Hammond and the full-backsgive width, there's scoring potential, genuine creativity and enough passing to give us a chance.

Tiatto can help Sheehan, Porter's played well with the likes of Hammond, O'Grady and Sheehan and has all the energy of Hughes but with far more passing ability.

That's my starter for 10. Question is can anyone fulfill the requirements in any better way but without playing square pegs in round holes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BartonFox

BartonFox

Posted
Posted

Look at those teams. No balance. People out of position. All anyone's done is play musical chairs without addressing the fundamental problems.

It's strange really because much of the debate is spot on.

But one important point touched on by Ric Flair is the lack of movement. I mentioned it last year. Our running off the ball is abyssmal and part of the reason is the imbalance.

For example Hughes in left midfield. He couldn't play right midfield, what earthly chance has he got on the left?

Nils at left back. His passing from defence is aimless and invariably inaccurate. So his selection simply exaggerates the problem about distribution from the back.

Can someone come up with a side which does enourage passing from defence, which does have left side/ right side balance, which has enough attackers ass well as enough defenders, which has a bit of pace and someone with the ability to pick out a proper pass to the forwards?. And also some genuine movement off and around the ball.

If you have wingers you don't necessarily need attacking full-backs but if you don't there's no getting round it.

I've tried and it's not easy, especially working a 4-4-2 because that is all Kelly will contemplate. Too often there's uneasy compromise.

Counting Weso as still unfit I get something like:

Henderson

Stearman or Maybury, McCarthy, Kisnorbo, Sheehan;

Hammond, Johnson, Porter, Tiatto;

O'Grady, Fryatt.

That, I think fulfills every criteria I've mentioned and is also a flexible system.

There's no point playing this way for just one week though. I would be happy if that were the new norm and we simply tinkered bit by bit if it broke down or failed to show a marked improvement in our balance and effect. Gradel or Low for Hammond perhaps; Hughes instead of Johnson, that sort of thing. But always with the same intent in terms of how our overall approach.

We'd effectively have five and three halves in terms of attackers, making 6.5 in all and six and a half defenders. Hammond, O'Grady and Porter give movement, Tiatto, Hammond and the full-backsgive width, there's scoring potential, genuine creativity and enough passing to give us a chance.

Tiatto can help Sheehan, Porter's played well with the likes of Hammond, O'Grady and Sheehan and has all the energy of Hughes but with far more passing ability.

That's my starter for 10. Question is can anyone fulfill the requirements in any better way but without playing square pegs in round holes?

Spot on and you haven't once metioned Hinckley :P

You know the best way to be hard to beat? Stick the ball in the opposition net, and sadly we are unfit, slow and cumbersome. People want us to play out of the back, kind of ironic when we just freed our best ball playing centre half.

For what it is worth I would play the following.

-------------------------------------------GK (doesn't matter there all shite)--------

Maybury------------------Stearman-------------Kisnorbo-----------------Johansson

------------------Hughes-------------Weslowski-------------Williams-----------------

------------------------------Hume---------------------Hammond---------------------

-------------------------------------------Fryatt-----------------------------------------

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Collymore

Collymore

Posted
Posted
Look at those teams. No balance. People out of position. All anyone's done is play musical chairs without addressing the fundamental problems.

It's strange really because much of the debate is spot on.

But one important point touched on by Ric Flair is the lack of movement. I mentioned it last year. Our running off the ball is abyssmal and part of the reason is the imbalance.

For example Hughes in left midfield. He couldn't play right midfield, what earthly chance has he got on the left?

Nils at left back. His passing from defence is aimless and invariably inaccurate. So his selection simply exaggerates the problem about distribution from the back.

Can someone come up with a side which does enourage passing from defence, which does have left side/ right side balance, which has enough attackers ass well as enough defenders, which has a bit of pace and someone with the ability to pick out a proper pass to the forwards?. And also some genuine movement off and around the ball.

If you have wingers you don't necessarily need attacking full-backs but if you don't there's no getting round it.

I've tried and it's not easy, especially working a 4-4-2 because that is all Kelly will contemplate. Too often there's uneasy compromise.

Counting Weso as still unfit I get something like:

Henderson

Stearman or Maybury, McCarthy, Kisnorbo, Sheehan;

Hammond, Johnson, Porter, Tiatto;

O'Grady, Fryatt.

That, I think fulfills every criteria I've mentioned and is also a flexible system.

There's no point playing this way for just one week though. I would be happy if that were the new norm and we simply tinkered bit by bit if it broke down or failed to show a marked improvement in our balance and effect. Gradel or Low for Hammond perhaps; Hughes instead of Johnson, that sort of thing. But always with the same intent in terms of how our overall approach.

We'd effectively have five and three halves in terms of attackers, making 6.5 in all and six and a half defenders. Hammond, O'Grady and Porter give movement, Tiatto, Hammond and the full-backsgive width, there's scoring potential, genuine creativity and enough passing to give us a chance.

Tiatto can help Sheehan, Porter's played well with the likes of Hammond, O'Grady and Sheehan and has all the energy of Hughes but with far more passing ability.

That's my starter for 10. Question is can anyone fulfill the requirements in any better way but without playing square pegs in round holes?

I don't think we should be trying to play with width in the sense of 4-4-2, we've obviously not got any personal who can play in the wing positions so there's no point trying to play Hammond or Tiatto there. That in sense is trying to fit square pegs in round holes.

Flat back 4 with 3 midfielders, 1 holding. Hume playing just behind Fryatt and COG.. Fryatt and Cog can move wide allowing Hume to come through the middle along with an inqusitive midfielder.

At least this way we can keep opposition guessing.It can easily be changed to 3 upfront or maybe dropping COG behind with hume and leaving Fryatt upfront on his own.

If we are going to play with any width, then i believe this has got to come in a random sense with the attacking players providing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...