No more sarcasm ....

[Steven]

I have been as guilty as anyone else one this one but let us stop the sarcastic threads. What we need is clear thinking, clear heads and a realistic plan of campaign to move the Club, the Team and the Fans forward. Sensible suggestions along these lines should be encouraged but the usual slagging off should be discouraged.

[Knighton Matt]

I have been as guilty as anyone else one this one but let us stop the sarcastic threads. What we need is clear thinking, clear heads and a realistic plan of campaign to move the Club, the Team and the Fans forward. Sensible suggestions along these lines should be encouraged but the usual slagging off should be discouraged.

I hate to be pedantic but isn't irony written and sarcastic spoken?

Or did I just have the world's worst English teacher?

[Steven]

I hate to be pedantic but isn't irony written and sarcastic spoken?

Or did I just have the world's worst English teacher?

This definition works for me - One main difference between irony and sarcasm is that irony is generally observed and sarcasm is generally created

[Knighton Matt]

This definition works for me - One main difference between irony and sarcasm is that irony is generally observed and sarcasm is generally created

Back to school for me

[Thracian]

I have been as guilty as anyone else one this one but let us stop the sarcastic threads. What we need is clear thinking, clear heads and a realistic plan of campaign to move the Club, the Team and the Fans forward. Sensible suggestions along these lines should be encouraged but the usual slagging off should be discouraged.

Are you serious? I sometimes thinks there are fans would rather go down than accept criticism of the team or the managerial Establishment. And his year they might just get their way.

[Guest]

There's accepting criticism and there's broken records. Especially when the record isn't the one likely to hit the number one spot.

[Thracian]

There's accepting criticism and there's broken records. Especially when the record isn't the one likely to hit the number one spot.

If there weren't so many people as inexplicably cautious as you, maybe the message would get through quicker. I don't want it getting through when it's too late. You would doubtless support your team in the Conference and so would I, against my will, but I'd rather it didn't happen and we just played some proper football with a properly balanced side of people who deserve to be chosen.

[Fez of Mahrez]

If there weren't so many people as inexplicably cautious as you, maybe the message would get through quicker. I don't want it getting through when it's too late. You would doubtless support your team in the Conference and so would I, against my will, but I'd rather it didn't happen and we just played some proper football with a properly balanced side of people who deserve to be chosen.

There is a happy medium between playing the same XI each week and Levi Porter being the answer to all our problems. Just because people argue against your remedies doesn't mean they are happy with the way the team is performing at the moment.

[Thracian]

There is a happy medium between playing the same XI each week and Levi Porter being the answer to all our problems. Just because people argue against your remedies doesn't mean they are happy with the way the team is performing at the moment.

Okay. I understand I'm fighting a losing battle - a bit like the team really - but will you take trouble to explain to me what is wrong with Levi Porter and what is so right about Maybury, Tiatto, Williams and Hughes?

For the second game running (this sason that is) we didn't actually prise the opposition defence apart as all and that's because there's no-one with the ability to thread a clever pass to feet.

Hughes I thought was excellent last night doing what he always does - and should probably win his place back - but he's no master passer in an attacking sense.

Williams too deserved some praise at times but not for doing what Porter does.

[Fez of Mahrez]

Okay. I understand I'm fighting a losing battle - a bit like the team really - but will you take trouble to explain to me what is wrong with Levi Porter and what is so right about Maybury, Tiatto, Williams and Hughes?

Ok to summarise my position and why I think we should play 3-5-2 - in theory at least;

I don't agree with us playing four at the back. I don't think we have the players to do it. I don't agree with us playing four in midfield. I don't think we have the players to do it. The flanks are horrible. With Maybury and Tiatto we have no attacking threat down the flanks anyway in a 4-4-2 so we're not losing that aspect of our game by switching to 3-5-2. I think McCarthy is overrated and a place needs to be found in central defence for the pace of Kenton. I'd play Kisnorbo, Kenton and McCarthy at the back. Kenton as the spare man in the middle, not ideal in terms of heading the ball out from the absolute centre of the defence but his man-to-man marking looks a bit suspect. I think he looks like the only one who is willing to bring the ball out of central defence and distribute it to our midfield along the ground. Stearman at right wing-back because he has plenty of energy and commitment. The extra cover on the right hand side of central defence would give him a bit more freedom to go forward and the defensive midfielder (Weso or Johnson) can cover for him when he marauds forward. All our good play and most of the goals under Kelly at the end of last year came through the middle with Gudjonsson and Williams threading passes behind the defence for Fryatt and Hume to run onto. This year without Gudjonsson's energy and the outlet of Welsh on the left (although I don't rate Welsh that highly at least he appeared to pose an attacking threat), the midfield seems to be playing a lot deeper and neither Johnson nor Williams can get forward enough to support Fryatt and Hume. With three in central midfield there is an extra outlet for the centre-backs to use instead of hoofing the ball down the channels. Whether they use this is up to them. There's only so much a manager can do before it's the players responsibility to recognise the problem and change his approach to the game. I hope Kelly is drilling it into them. The reason I don't support Porter in midfield as part of a 4-4-2 or 4-3-3 is because I can't see him being up to it. Plain and simple. There's no place to hide when there are so few players around you in the most important position on the park. He might slot into a 3-5-2 as the more attacking central midfielder when there are four other players in the middle to do the dirty work for him. It's a big pressure though. The reason I don't agree with using the youth team so much is that we do have the first team players with quality, as you intimate with your assessments of Hughes and Williams last night, if used in the correct manner. Of course that's only my opinion - the same as yours regarding players like Porter, Sheehan and O'Grady - we'll never know I suppose. But it is fun to discuss, if not for others to read... Apologies for length of post.

[Thracian]

Ok to summarise my position and why I think we should play 3-5-2 - in theory at least;

I don't agree with us playing four at the back. I don't think we have the players to do it. I don't agree with us playing four in midfield. I don't think we have the players to do it. The flanks are horrible. With Maybury and Tiatto we have no attacking threat down the flanks anyway in a 4-4-2 so we're not losing that aspect of our game by switching to 3-5-2. I think McCarthy is overrated and a place needs to be found in central defence for the pace of Kenton. I'd play Kisnorbo, Kenton and McCarthy at the back. Kenton as the spare man in the middle, not ideal in terms of heading the ball out from the absolute centre of the defence but his man-to-man marking looks a bit suspect. I think he looks like the only one who is willing to bring the ball out of central defence and distribute it to our midfield along the ground. Stearman at right wing-back because he has plenty of energy and commitment. The extra cover on the right hand side of central defence would give him a bit more freedom to go forward and the defensive midfielder (Weso or Johnson) can cover for him when he marauds forward. All our good play and most of the goals under Kelly at the end of last year came through the middle with Gudjonsson and Williams threading passes behind the defence for Fryatt and Hume to run onto. This year without Gudjonsson's energy and the outlet of Welsh on the left (although I don't rate Welsh that highly at least he appeared to pose an attacking threat), the midfield seems to be playing a lot deeper and neither Johnson nor Williams can get forward enough to support Fryatt and Hume. With three in central midfield there is an extra outlet for the centre-backs to use instead of hoofing the ball down the channels. Whether they use this is up to them. There's only so much a manager can do before it's the players responsibility to recognise the problem and change his approach to the game. I hope Kelly is drilling it into them. The reason I don't support Porter in midfield as part of a 4-4-2 or 4-3-3 is because I can't see him being up to it. Plain and simple. There's no place to hide when there are so few players around you in the most important position on the park. He might slot into a 3-5-2 as the more attacking central midfielder when there are four other players in the middle to do the dirty work for him. It's a big pressure though. The reason I don't agree with using the youth team so much is that we do have the first team players with quality, as you intimate with your assessments of Hughes and Williams last night, if used in the correct manner. Of course that's only my opinion - the same as yours regarding players like Porter, Sheehan and O'Grady - we'll never know I suppose. But it is fun to discuss, if not for others to read... Apologies for length of post.

I honestly don't know how many times you've seen Levi play.

But one thing he doesn't do is hide or not give his all.

I saw him play what I think was his first game in midfield for the reserves last season and he had a shocker.

I've never seen him play anything like that badly before or since.

But that lad still kept covering the ground, demanding the ball and being seen to play badly. He never copped out for one minute.

Since then he's done all of that but played smashing.

And if I were a winger or striker I cannot imagine anyone in Leicester's entire squad who I'd soon have giving back-up.

There was NO back up last night until we were dead and buried.

[Fez of Mahrez]

I haven't seen him play as often as you. We will always disagree on one thing though; I would never pitch a youngster like Porter into a team like this, with so many deficiencies. He's not going to be able to change things on his own. Hughes was playing clever little passes the season before last but he's not lived up to the billing when the going has got tough. If he was an aggressive, tough player like Wesolowski then I'd be more willing to pitch him straight in as part of a 4-4-2 but with the defenders hoofing it upfield and the strikers getting no support, putting him in this team is too much pressure for my liking. Like I say, as part of a 3-5-2 then maybe. Surely you can see what happened with Sheehan and understand why I think it'd be better to introduce him gradually or as part of a five-man midfield than pitching him into a losing team playing badly and asking him to perform the most important role on the pitch? It's not that I don't rate him as a footballer. The little I've seen of him, he's looked pretty good. But we don't want to ruin him by pinning every hope on his saving our season. The pros have got to step up to the plate.

[Thracian]

I haven't seen him play as often as you. We will always disagree on one thing though; I would never pitch a youngster like Porter into a team like this, with so many deficiencies. He's not going to be able to change things on his own. Hughes was playing clever little passes the season before last but he's not lived up to the billing when the going has got tough. If he was an aggressive, tough player like Wesolowski then I'd be more willing to pitch him straight in as part of a 4-4-2 but with the defenders hoofing it upfield and the strikers getting no support, putting him in this team is too much pressure for my liking. Like I say, as part of a 3-5-2 then maybe. Surely you can see what happened with Sheehan and understand why I think it'd be better to introduce him gradually or as part of a five-man midfield than pitching him into a losing team playing badly and asking him to perform the most important role on the pitch? It's not that I don't rate him as a footballer. The little I've seen of him, he's looked pretty good. But we don't want to ruin him by pinning every hope on his saving our season. The pros have got to step up to the plate.

What I think happened with Sheehan was that he was inexplicably dropped, lost his confidence and then, because he thought what he was doing wasn't good enough, he tried too hard, got tetchy and forgot what it was that set him apart.

I may be wrong but I'd have him back in our team tomorrow but I happily agree he should come in gradually. He results record is excellent.

Porter is not quick, nor big enough to win headers, but he's tough enough, every bit as tough as Hughes, for instance who's hardly a noted tackler.

And, unlike perhaps Sheehan and Gradel, he (and Dodds) aren't temperamentally affected by anything that I've seen. They just get on with it and cope. And Porter's energy is limitless.

[Guest]

If there weren't so many people as inexplicably cautious as you, maybe the message would get through quicker. I don't want it getting through when it's too late. You would doubtless support your team in the Conference and so would I, against my will, but I'd rather it didn't happen and we just played some proper football with a properly balanced side of people who deserve to be chosen.

When will you learn?

You love to think you know how my little brain works, yet you couldn't be further from the truth.

I have pointed this out several times, but as is always the case, you only want to read what you want to. You have no interest in the rest.

Do you honestly think that I am happy to watch my team capitulate and drop like a stone through the divisions?

You haven't got a clue.

[Thracian]

No I don't think you want to watch your team drop like a stone but you never seem keen to take the sometimes important steps that are needed to prevent that. Like blooding the players we'll be needing in the future in good time for any crises that subsequently occur - like now.

As for how your brain works, in my experience you rarely expand on your thoughts so that's hardly likely, is it?.

[golden gordon]

I hate to be pedantic but isn't irony written and sarcastic spoken?

Or did I just have the world's worst English teacher?

was your english teacher on about libel and slander as well that day?

[Knighton Matt]

was your english teacher on about libel and slander as well that day?

Strangely enough yes

You didn't go to my school did you? Or heaven forbid you were my English teacher? The MacBeth reference you see it's all starting to make sense now!