West Brom on saturday

[Fez of Mahrez]

Granted - I'll take your word for his attacking prowess as I've not seen it myself, unlike yourself. (Living thousands of miles away is a real bitch sometimes.)

I was just wondering if he was ready to return - has his form picked up lately, or is he still all at sea out on the football pitch?

Only one way to find out. (He looked pretty good when he came on against Southend.)

As for Newms.. if those two or three balls in for goals provided by Tiatto merit selection ahead of Porter in your opinion then that is crazy. If Hughes or Hume had put their boots on the right feet then Porter would have matched Tiatto's assists in 45 minutes.

[Thracian]

Your midfield would get found out at the Hawthorns, your going to need Wesolowski or Johnson in there or we are going to concead a hat full.

Whether Kisnorbo is playing or not is a big question because I believe he is scheduled to arrive back in Leicester on Friday? We should be worried about him being Jet lagged not Hume.

Of course I'd play Weso if there's any sign he's fully fit, which there hasn't been all season so far.

And why Johnson? So he can enjoy a reunion?. Weso Brom didn't want him and I think they know why as well as we should. He's off the pace. Plain and simple.

Of course he might lift his game for West Brom but he's not the way forward.

[Thracian]

So you'd completely drop Hume and Tiatto from the squad for a guy who couldnt hit a cows arse with a banjo and another who has yet to play. Good one

No, I'd play Hume, and in midfield because it is a relatively safe chance to see how we get on with three strikers, one of which drops off into the hole, and two wingers.

As Manwell says, our midfield is vulnerable anyway. We all know that and I reckon half the people on this forum would take a point anyway. So let's be positive and play in a way that might teach us something.

Hume has played in midfield before, no-one has earned a midfield shirt by rights so far, and Hume is one player in midfield who might break into the penalty box and score.

Hammond represents the one thing we haven't got and that's pace, something that might be needed to unsettle West Brom.

As for Gradel, where better to play him than when he'll be under relatively little personal pressure. If he gets the chance to come on it will probably be because we're losing so what's wrong with being positive?

He may be raw and inexperienced but if you want a goal I cannot think of anyone at our club who would be more likely to create or score one than Gradel in a last 20 minutes burst.

None of this is foolproof - we don't have a foolproof option - but nor is it lay-back-and-do-a-Luton either.

[Fez of Mahrez]

No, I'd play Hume, and in midfield because it is a relatively safe chance to see how we get on with three strikers, one of which drops off into the hole, and two wingers.

As Manwell says, our midfield is vulnerable anyway. We all know that and I reckon half the people on this forum would take a point anyway. So let's be positive and play in a way that might teach us something.

Hume has played in midfield before, no-one has earned a midfield shirt by rights so far, and Hume is one player in midfield who might break into the penalty box and score.

Hammond represents the one thing we haven't got and that's pace, something that might be needed to unsettle West Brom.

As for Gradel, where better to play him than when he'll be under relatively little personal pressure. If he gets the chance to come on it will probably be because we're losing so what's wrong with being positive?

He may be raw and inexperienced but if you want a goal I cannot think of anyone at our club who would be more likely to create or score one than Gradel in a last 20 minutes burst.

None of this is foolproof - we don't have a foolproof option - but nor is it lay-back-and-do-a-Luton either.

1) How is an away game against a team relegated last season with a bunch of quality players "a safe chance" or providing "relatively little pressure"?? As opposed to when we're a couple of goals up against Colchester at home? Or do you mean we're expected to lose so we might as well try out anything?

2) Hammond represents the one thing we don't want, a footballer who has no touch, no shooting ability, can't pass, cross or tackle and is generally rubbish.

[Thracian]

Only one way to find out. (He looked pretty good when he came on against Southend.)

As for Newms.. if those two or three balls in for goals provided by Tiatto merit selection ahead of Porter in your opinion then that is crazy. If Hughes or Hume had put their boots on the right feet then Porter would have matched Tiatto's assists in 45 minutes.

Come on. That whole idea is just another variation on the Stearman/Maybury theme and another way of simply making sure both Stearman and Kenton are accommodated.

Stearman can attack but he's no right winger. Thee's a world of difference in doing a 10-minute cameo and doing 90 minutes against defenders who are noting your every trick and manoeuvre.

Besides, we need Stearman/Kenton as full-backs, and ones who are prepared to attack too.

Low does a solid job but if he struggles, Gradel is also a genuine right winger - and a real headache for any left-back.

[Thracian]

1) How is an away game against a team relegated last season with a bunch of quality players "a safe chance" or providing "relatively little pressure"?? As opposed to when we're a couple of goals up against Colchester at home? Or do you mean we're expected to lose so we might as well try out anything?

2) Hammond represents the one thing we don't want, a footballer who has no touch, no shooting ability, can't pass, cross or tackle and is generally rubbish.

I've already said lots of posters would consider a draw to be an achievement so, far from just trying anything, we might as well try to be positive. One point lost or three unlikely point gained? Hammond might be all you say - but he can unsettle tiring defenders with his pace. Who else do we have who can do that?

[newms]

As for Newms.. if those two or three balls in for goals provided by Tiatto merit selection ahead of Porter in your opinion then that is crazy. If Hughes or Hume had put their boots on the right feet then Porter would have matched Tiatto's assists in 45 minutes.

whatever way you look at in the last few games Tiatto has provided the assists for our most important goals that have won us games. Madness to drop him and only based on the fact that most people have a blinkered view and are unable to see his merits and give him a chance

[Fez of Mahrez]

whatever way you look at in the last few games Tiatto has provided the assists for our most important goals that have won us games. Madness to drop him and only based on the fact that most people have a blinkered view and are unable to see his merits and give him a chance

His merits being? Other than the assists you have already mentioned, of course.

[dandannieldanok]

I hate to say it but I think he will go 4-5-1 with Fryatt on his own. Hopefully I am wrong!

[Fez of Mahrez]

Come on. That whole idea is just another variation on the Stearman/Maybury theme and another way of simply making sure both Stearman and Kenton are accommodated.

Stearman can attack but he's no right winger. Thee's a world of difference in doing a 10-minute cameo and doing 90 minutes against defenders who are noting your every trick and manoeuvre.

Besides, we need Stearman/Kenton as full-backs, and ones who are prepared to attack too.

Low does a solid job but if he struggles, Gradel is also a genuine right winger - and a real headache for any left-back.

I'd rather accommodate two good players than play one shit player just because he happens to play in a certain position. Before I get started on all this (which I won't anyway as I'm going home as soon as I finish this post), I would like to point out that my preferred lineup doesn't include Stearman on the right wing. But I would prefer him to Low and I think we are both realistic enough to see that if Kelly doesn't want to include Gradel on the bench at home to Southend (or indeed anyone else home or away so far) then he won't pick him in the first team away to West Brom. You have to have an ounce of realism sometimes else people would be picking Mattock at left-back and Chambers up front. And probably Stowell in goal.

Gradel being a "genuine right-winger" is in danger of adopting the same status as Porter "having the ability to pick out a cleverly-weighted pass."

I agree we need Stearman and Kenton as full-backs and I stated as such that I would only pick Stearman on the right side of midfield if we had a decent option at left-back. Stearman has shown in the past his usefulness scoring goals. He'd score more if he was further up the pitch.

I'm orf. We'll see.

[Thracian]

His merits being? Other than the assists you have already mentioned, of course.

Tiatto's record over the last 12 months has been abyssmal and it hasn't been helped - even this season - by the fact that he seems to be perpetually injured.

He's had one goodish game in the period I've mentioned a few other games when he's been okay and lots of games where he's been ineffective/injured/booked and therefore been substituted.

It remains his doubtful record that Leicester didn't win one Leaguie game he started last season.

This season he's looked a better bet but over a very short period before he got injured again.

On what basis can he be touted for a place in the team apart from two dead ball assists which, while welcome, hardly represents an earth shattering achievement or one on which to base a judgement?.

After all I got no sympathy at all for defending Sheehan's first team record which - although probably as good as anyone's - was hardly long enough to be convincing.

[lookwhaticando]

I hate to say it but I think he will go 4-5-1 with Fryatt on his own. Hopefully I am wrong!

You are wrong. 4-4-2 is what we play, and that won't change unless we lose 3 or 4 strikers to injury/suspension.

[lcfc_jme]

You are wrong. 4-4-2 is what we play, and that won't change unless we lose 3 or 4 strikers to injury/suspension.

Or RK has premonitions of us scoring a bagful playing 4-5-1. Lets face it, he won't change the system whilst we aren't losing, so you can expect a 4-4-2, with Kisnorbo being the only major doubt and possible change from the team that beat Southend.

[ithuriel]

we should do what sunderland did , get stuck in to them straight away and not give them a chance to play , keep them on the back foot.

a 4-4-2 with two wingers , low and porter.

start with o,grady and fryatt up front with hume on the bench.

[lcfc_jme]

we should do what sunderland did , get stuck in to them straight away and not give them a chance to play , keep them on the back foot.

a 4-4-2 with two wingers , low and porter.

start with o,grady and fryatt up front with hume on the bench.

I'd start O'Grady and Hume with Fryatt sitting this one out on the bench. Maybe a spell on the sidelines watching the others do what he (Fryatt) wants to and should be doing will work as well for him as it did Huuuuuuuuume

[Simon]

If Weso is fit, he must start. If Kisnorbo is unavailable, move Kenton to centre-back and Stearman to right-back.

Hendo

Kenton

Kisnorbo

Paddy Mac

Nils

Low

Williams

Weso

Porter

Fryatt

Hume

Bench: Logan, Stearman, Hughes, McCauley, O'Grady

[Manwell Pablo]

Stearmen right wing....now I have herd it all. We all go off at the deep end because RK insists on playing one right back at right wing and our solution is to play another right back at right wing. I suppose because he is originally from Leicester that makes him more suited for the role.

To the point. The fact that someone actually thinks 4-5-1 is a possibility distress's me, and not because it's a defence retaining possession style formation, or because its a f.....g insult to the game as foxestalk's answer to General Custer has pointed out.

This whole idea behind this thread, despite the half decent debate it has created, is pointless. Football tactics are sometimes hard to work out, but the idea of this Leicester City side playing 4-5-1 is a joke, we lack to very major aspects, a strong striker who can hold the ball up and get the midfield involved in play, a Sam Parkin, Jamie Scowcroft type player. We also lack a midfielder who actually may entertain the idea of breaking forward at pace and get into the box often enough to create the odd problem for the opposition. A Matty Spring, John Spicer, or more famously Frank Lampard, Jason Eull type player.

Had a few beers watching the England game and I the above doesn't sound as convincing as I wanted it to, and the players I've used as examples are both random and quite possibly inaccurate but you get the point. 4-5-1 didn't work for us last season and that’s because we had no goal scoring midfielders ( Gudjohnson aside but he's gone, and he isn't exactly a box to box midfielder any way) and we had Lumpus De Vries as a loan striker to whack it up to, now we don't even have that . Any one who would attempt a 4-5-1 with our squad deserves a P45 issuing on the spot.

Thinking about there is one way you could do it. Use Hume as a midfielder with O'Grady up top.

:pinch:

[lookwhaticando]

Thinking about there is one way you could do it. Use Hume as a midfielder with O'Grady up top.

:pinch:

I've seen that suggestion somewhere before in this topic.

Are you feeling alright, Manwell?

[eaststandtom]

If Weso is fit, he must start. If Kisnorbo is unavailable, move Kenton to centre-back and Stearman to right-back.

Hendo

Kenton

Kisnorbo

Paddy Mac

Nils

Low

Williams

Weso

Porter

Fryatt

Hume

Bench: Logan, Stearman, Hughes, McCauley, O'Grady

surely the point of signing johnson was for him to display that 'experience' that we need in midfield.

in the midfield above gareth williams would be the most experienced at this level and that wouldnt sit comfortably with me. i think johnson should play with williams particularly if porter is selected. so the blend is right.

[DannyLCFC1]

I would play

Hendo

Stearman

Kisnorbo

Macarthy

Kenton

Low

Williams

Wesolowski

Porter

Fryatt

Hume

Bench: Nils, Hughes, Johnson, O'Grady, Gradel

[Thracian]

Stearmen right wing....now I have herd it all. We all go off at the deep end because RK insists on playing one right back at right wing and our solution is to play another right back at right wing. I suppose because he is originally from Leicester that makes him more suited for the role.

To the point. The fact that someone actually thinks 4-5-1 is a possibility distress's me, and not because it's a defence retaining possession style formation, or because its a f.....g insult to the game as foxestalk's answer to General Custer has pointed out.

This whole idea behind this thread, despite the half decent debate it has created, is pointless. Football tactics are sometimes hard to work out, but the idea of this Leicester City side playing 4-5-1 is a joke, we lack to very major aspects, a strong striker who can hold the ball up and get the midfield involved in play, a Sam Parkin, Jamie Scowcroft type player. We also lack a midfielder who actually may entertain the idea of breaking forward at pace and get into the box often enough to create the odd problem for the opposition. A Matty Spring, John Spicer, or more famously Frank Lampard, Jason Eull type player.

Had a few beers watching the England game and I the above doesn't sound as convincing as I wanted it to, and the players I've used as examples are both random and quite possibly inaccurate but you get the point. 4-5-1 didn't work for us last season and that’s because we had no goal scoring midfielders ( Gudjohnson aside but he's gone, and he isn't exactly a box to box midfielder any way) and we had Lumpus De Vries as a loan striker to whack it up to, now we don't even have that . Any one who would attempt a 4-5-1 with our squad deserves a P45 issuing on the spot.

Thinking about there is one way you could do it. Use Hume as a midfielder with O'Grady up top.

:pinch:

Keep having the beers!.

[Simon]

surely the point of signing johnson was for him to display that 'experience' that we need in midfield.

in the midfield above gareth williams would be the most experienced at this level and that wouldnt sit comfortably with me. i think johnson should play with williams particularly if porter is selected. so the blend is right.

Why? Johnson has yet to prove himself worthy of a place in the team. When he's played he's been well off the pace. Why should we persist- just because he's 'experienced'? Absolute piffle. If he's fit then Weso should play. He was excellent (when not injured) last season. I had thought that Hughes and Weso might be the best answer but the more I think about it the more I think he would be better with Williams. He is the perfect foil for Williams- it might actually allow him the time to pick out the killer passes and to get forwards more to support the front two.

[Thracian]

Why? Johnson has yet to prove himself worthy of a place in the team. When he's played he's been well off the pace. Why should we persist- just because he's 'experienced'? Absolute piffle. If he's fit then Weso should play. He was excellent (when not injured) last season. I had thought that Hughes and Weso might be the best answer but the more I think about it the more I think he would be better with Williams. He is the perfect foil for Williams- it might actually allow him the time to pick out the killer passes and to get forwards more to support the front two.

Nice thought if it works but as always with Williams there are lingering doubts. I'd honestly like to try Hume there first. He's faster on the turn, more of a harrier, has bundles of energy and can get forward to score.

He also seemed to link well with O'Grady against Macclesfield. There are other benefits as well which can keep.

[Simon]

Nice thought if it works but as always with Williams there are lingering doubts. I'd honestly like to try Hume there first. He's faster on the turn, more of a harrier, has bundles of energy and can get forward to score.

He also seemed to link well with O'Grady against Macclesfield. There are other benefits as well which can keep.

I agree when you say that there are lingering doubts with Williams, the talent is there though and we need to get it out- somehow! I still think this is the best way forwards. However, I have always been interested in seeing Hume in an attacking midfield role for us (after all that is where he played for the most part at Tranmere), whether or not he will be given the opportunity remains to be seen. Would you play him there alongside Weso then Thrac?

[Thracian]

I agree when you say that there are lingering doubts with Williams, the talent is there though and we need to get it out- somehow! I still think this is the best way forwards. However, I have always been interested in seeing Hume in an attacking midfield role for us (after all that is where he played for the most part at Tranmere), whether or not he will be given the opportunity remains to be seen. Would you play him there alongside Weso then Thrac?

Yes.

a) I think O'Grady, Fryatt, Hume are three of our best players and they could all be accommodated if Hume was used successfully in attacking midfield.

b) It would replace the largely ineffective Hughes with a much more potent player.

c) Although continuing to play with two wingers, Porter is a natural midfield player and can supplement that area when and if necessary.

d) We increase our goalscoring potential by one player, while retaining our energy.

e) The team should have greater fluidity because Hume can interchange with O'Grady and probably Low much more easily and effectively than Hughes and even for a period of time if necessary.

f) COG holds the ball extremely well and Hume is far better suited to taking advantage of the lay-offs than Hughes, especially having operated as a striker.

g) It will enable us to put Dodds on the bench as a direct potential substitute for one of our strikers instead of having such a prolific striker remaining uninvolved.

h) If it didn't work would losing at West Brom when so few expect more than a draw be the worst disaster of our history considering what we might learn and the chance that it might even enable us to win ?