Nebdingo Posted 15 August 2006 Share Posted 15 August 2006 Chris O`Grady seems to have gone from making a strong claim for a starting place at the beginning of the season to not even being able to make the substitute`s bench against Burnley and Ipswich. The young striker pushed himself into the starting eleven towards the end of last season and offered something different up front compared to Hume and Fryatt. He also had a good pre-season where he was one of the most consistent strikers; he linked up well with all three other strikers and managed to score a few goals as well. Come the first game against Luton and Rob Kelly decided to start with Hume and Fryatt which wouldn`t have surprised most fans after their performances at the end of last season. With 15 minutes to go and Leicester losing Kelly turned to O`Grady in the hope he would offer something different up front. Unfortunately Leicester ended up losing 2-0 and since that brief sub appearance he has failed to even make the substitute bench for the last two games. With rumours from within the club suggesting that O`Grady has been give an internal 4 match ban, due to improper conduct. Fans will be hoping that there will be no rift between O`Grady and Kelly if the rumour is true. One thing is for sure, Leicester cannot afford to approach the rest of the season with only 3 strikers available. Source Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamesino_LCFC Posted 15 August 2006 Share Posted 15 August 2006 Yes it is very interesting and mystifying at the same time. I'm really unsure, and I hope that this ban or whatever doesnt continue for long. I like to see managers sometimes 'wield the axe' or show their displine by dropping players but I do truly hope that in the long run Chris will stay at the club as I do believe he has something to offer in our squad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 15 August 2006 Share Posted 15 August 2006 He played today for the Reserves and scored which seems to confirm what I said previously that he's not been banned. He had a training tiff with RK and has now got his head down again, at least that's as I understand it. And he's a bit frustrated as will anyone be who's on the fringe of the team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez of Mahrez Posted 15 August 2006 Share Posted 15 August 2006 As long as we don't hoof it we don't need him. Not that you can trust our mob not to hoof it for too long but Ipswich sounded promising. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bert Posted 15 August 2006 Share Posted 15 August 2006 Yes, clearly forgetten as he hasn't been in the last two squads. People have to realise that Fryatt and Hume are our first choice strikers with Elvis as primary back up. If the case was any different, O'Grady would've made the bench at a minimum, regardless of what anyone says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommeh Posted 15 August 2006 Share Posted 15 August 2006 When me and Jonbluefox9 visited the training ground last week we saw Rk having a right go at COG in a training match maybe they've fallen out. Hope not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 15 August 2006 Share Posted 15 August 2006 Yes, clearly forgetten as he hasn't been in the last two squads. People have to realise that Fryatt and Hume are our first choice strikers with Elvis as primary back up. If the case was any different, O'Grady would've made the bench at a [/]minimum[/i], regardless of what anyone says. How do you justify that comment, One thing Kelly has to do with an extended squad of potential firsty teamers is keep as many players involved as possible. That's why he might change his bench line-up - absolutely nothing to do with Hammond being ahead of COG or vice-versa. There might also be tactical reasons for certain selections or, more likely in COG's case, disciplinary reasons. On your basis you could argue Fryatt/Hammond are the first choice strikers seeing Hume was introduced from the bench. But that's not true either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bert Posted 15 August 2006 Share Posted 15 August 2006 Yes, clearly forgetten as he hasn't been in the last two squads. People have to realise that Fryatt and Hume are our first choice strikers with Elvis as primary back up. If the case was any different, O'Grady would've made the bench at a minimum, regardless of what anyone says. How do you justify that comment, One thing Kelly has to do with an extended squad of potential firsty teamers is keep as many players involved as possible. That's why he might change his bench line-up - absolutely nothing to do with Hammond being ahead of COG or vice-versa. There might also be tactical reasons for certain selections or, more likely in COG's case, disciplinary reasons. On your basis you could argue Fryatt/Hammond are the first choice strikers seeing Hume was introduced from the bench. But that's not true either. If your question is to what i think your referring to, my answers are in my orignal post in bold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinwpratt Posted 16 August 2006 Share Posted 16 August 2006 Another day another O'grady link...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
golden gordon Posted 16 August 2006 Share Posted 16 August 2006 who are we talking about Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Surreal Madrid Posted 16 August 2006 Share Posted 16 August 2006 He got a ban for four first team games, hopefully he'll learn from it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 16 August 2006 Share Posted 16 August 2006 He played today for the Reserves and scored which seems to confirm what I said previously that he's not been banned. He got a ban for four first team games, hopefully he'll learn from it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bert Posted 16 August 2006 Share Posted 16 August 2006 I wonder where Thrach is? I'm guessing RK gave him this ban? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 16 August 2006 Share Posted 16 August 2006 Thrac is alive and well and just back from the England match. Nice to see Chris Kirkland in action again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Surreal Madrid Posted 17 August 2006 Share Posted 17 August 2006 I wonder where Thrach is? I'm guessing RK gave him this ban? Yes, was originally two games, but apparently O'Grady argued the toss, and it was doubled. He is still being paid, tho'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 17 August 2006 Share Posted 17 August 2006 Well that ban sounds very strange in view of what I was told. Maybe my contact will confirm the truth once more. What could COG do to get a whacking four-week ban. Wrap a chair leg round the boss or something?. I cannot believe it would be for anything verbal. The bloke would be frustrated that's all and if his frustration caused him to say something he shouldn't I cannot believe the harsh response is anything more than a poor excuse to make selection easier. Wait til RK gets with the Roy Keane types of this world. He'll never have any players left if he gets all headmasterish after a bit of verbals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bert Posted 17 August 2006 Share Posted 17 August 2006 Maybe RK just wanted to have a little bit of respect shown to him by his players? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manwell Pablo Posted 17 August 2006 Share Posted 17 August 2006 Maybe RK just wanted to have a little bit of respect shown to him by his players? Don't be stupid. The best way forward any football club is allow the more "talented" ( Translation: Local...prefferable young...probabley played in a team that has beaten Barwell Sports 7-0) get away with what they want, talk to the gaffer how they want and through hissy fits whenever they can't get in the sixteen. Although if you ask me this is all just crap, he's not in the team because he has three players infront of him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 17 August 2006 Share Posted 17 August 2006 And that's the only way he could do it?. I imagine a bit of straight talking would have sorted it and the whole business would have been forgotten by now instead of leaving a nasty taste for a month - IF the ban exists. It all sounds so petty and unnecessarily protracted. Footballers, like racehorses, are highly strung. A bit of understanding doesn't go amiss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 17 August 2006 Share Posted 17 August 2006 Don't be stupid. The best way forward any football club is allow the more "talented" ( Translation: Local...prefferable young...probabley played in a team that has beaten Barwell Sports 7-0) get away with what they want, talk to the gaffer how they want and through hissy fits whenever they can't get in the sixteen. Although if you ask me this is all just crap, he's not in the team because he has three players infront of him. We've already had that one out once. But four weeks ... would you expect your boss to discipline you four weeks for a bit of verbal? I remember a deputy editor once giving me every word of verbal abuse he could dream up one Monday morning but after the briefest of reactions, I forgave him completely! Never go to sleep on an argument my old mum used to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bert Posted 17 August 2006 Share Posted 17 August 2006 People have to realise that Fryatt and Hume are our first choice strikers with Elvis as primary back up. If the case was any different, O'Grady would've made the bench at a minimum, Although if you ask me this is all just crap, he's not in the team because he has three players infront of him. Exactly what i said in a previous post Manwell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manwell Pablo Posted 17 August 2006 Share Posted 17 August 2006 You don't know that he has been baned, and if he has you don't know the circumstances. So I'd say neither you or any one else on this board has any room to comment on the matter. Although just to add some fuel to the fire I do remember someone posting about a fight between Alan Maybury and Momo Sylla shortly before the dissaperance of Chris O'Grady, and someone coming on here confirming a fight had taken place but they couldn't name names. I'd like to reiterate I think this is all crap, I think he's just got too many players in front of him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 17 August 2006 Share Posted 17 August 2006 You don't know that he has been baned, and if he has you don't know the circumstances. So I'd say neither you or any one else on this board has any room to comment on the matter. Although just to add some fuel to the fire I do remember someone posting about a fight between Alan Maybury and Momo Sylla shortly before the dissaperance of Chris O'Grady, and someone coming on here confirming a fight had taken place but they couldn't name names. I'd like to reiterate I think this is all crap, I think he's just got too many players in front of him I've been told catogorically he hasn't been banned but a contrary opinion persists nevertheless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manwell Pablo Posted 17 August 2006 Share Posted 17 August 2006 I've been told catogorically he hasn't been banned but a contrary opinion persists nevertheless. Right....... well you've confused me now, not that I am paticularly bothered either way. I'm sure he will be back playing for Leicester sooner or later when his chance arrives. If your that bothered, why Instead of sitting on here speculating about it why don't you do some something useful like phone Hetty Wainthropp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.