Fez of Mahrez Posted 11 September 2006 Posted 11 September 2006 Fez's Leicester City Forum Poll of the Day.
Fez of Mahrez Posted 11 September 2006 Author Posted 11 September 2006 I want him in central midfield. I think he has the energy and commitment to play the position from an aggressive and defensive point of view while possessing all the attributes needed for a first-rate attacking midfielder. I know it's easy to come up with all these alternatives as if they are bound to work but it just seems obvious to me. We need more energetic and attacking players in midfield and basing the whole team around Hume's qualities in both these fields could make us a hell of a lot more effective going forward.
Thracian Posted 11 September 2006 Posted 11 September 2006 At best we play a fluid system with much temporary interchange of position so "in the hole" or "central midfield" will be flexible in any case. The thing is he'd be replacing Hughes. What does Hughes do on a good day?. He's an energetic harrier who closes people down quite well and quite consistently then tries to give the ball to someone else who might do something purposeful with it. Hume has energy. He can close people down. But he can also get by people, play a telling pass, he will win a few headers, and, above all, make runs into the box on occasions to support the strikers. Porter can cover for him when he does this - he's a far better midfield player than Hughes in any case. The weakest player in a covering sense would be Low. He's willing enough but hardly looks a natural defensively and I doubt that Gradel would be any better in doing that job. Whoever plays right back has therefore to be prepared to fill the right midfield role when Hume goes forward and attacks develop, allowing Low/Gradel to go forward and support their strikers which is where they need to be. We cannot have big gaps between attack and defence as happened at West Brom. This is the cohesion, the fluidity I've mentioned and it will only come about by having players who pass and move instead of players who hoof and stand or who, like Hughes on Saturday, pass simply to avoid responsibility and then stay clear of the hot spots. It is Hume's ability and willingness to move when he's passed that most appeals to me because he will always represent a threat and can make that threat count in a way that Hughes never will.
OBO Posted 11 September 2006 Posted 11 September 2006 Definitely not on the bench, I think he's been consistently good enough whenever he's played (a few quiet days aside) to deserve a place in the starting line-up. I went for central midfield, not wanting to jump on any bandwagons here, but I just think it'd be interesting to see him in a different role. Am I right in thinking he played there for Tranmere (actually it might have been on the wing )? Regardless it would be nice to see him using some of that enthusiasm and tireless running and closing down somewhere else on the pitch - and we definitely need that kind of effort in midfield at the moment.
De Vries The King Posted 11 September 2006 Posted 11 September 2006 If I had to put him somewhere out of those options it would have to be on the bench because yeah he puts effort in but I don't see him as a team player and I'm opening myself up for a hell of a lot of disagreement I know.
filbertway Posted 11 September 2006 Posted 11 September 2006 In the hole behind fryatt and COG, with weso coming up from behind
lcfc_jme Posted 11 September 2006 Posted 11 September 2006 Iain Huuuuuuuuuuume needs to play upfront with COG. Rest Fryatt!!! Why do you people not listen to it?!?!?!?!
filbertway Posted 11 September 2006 Posted 11 September 2006 Iain Huuuuuuuuuuume needs to play upfront with COG. Rest Fryatt!!! Why do you people not listen to it?!?!?!?! Anyone think hume should be upfront with O grady and drop fryatt?
lcfc_jme Posted 11 September 2006 Posted 11 September 2006 ermmm nope, every1 thinks Hume should play in the hold and leave Fryatt and COG up front.
filbertway Posted 11 September 2006 Posted 11 September 2006 ermmm nope, every1 thinks Hume should play in the hold and leave Fryatt and COG up front. Why not play like that? Imagine 3 strikers in the team
lookwhaticando Posted 11 September 2006 Posted 11 September 2006 I think we should play 4-2-4. Our midfield is pretty absent at times, so why not drop half of them? Henderson Stearman, Paddy M, Paddy K, Kenton Wesolowski, Williams Fryatt, O'Grady, Dodds, Hume
Simon Posted 11 September 2006 Posted 11 September 2006 Definitely not on the bench, I think he's been consistently good enough whenever he's played (a few quiet days aside) to deserve a place in the starting line-up. I went for central midfield, not wanting to jump on any bandwagons here, but I just think it'd be interesting to see him in a different role. Am I right in thinking he played there for Tranmere (actually it might have been on the wing )? Regardless it would be nice to see him using some of that enthusiasm and tireless running and closing down somewhere else on the pitch - and we definitely need that kind of effort in midfield at the moment. For the most part he played 'in the hole' or centre mid for Tranmere. He did score a lot of goals from the position as well. He did also play as a striker for them and scored goals from there too! I'd love to see him play in a similar in the hole role here, and I think Weso could be the key covering him on his forays forward and providing a link between the back line and the midfield.
filbertway Posted 11 September 2006 Posted 11 September 2006 I think we should play 4-2-4. Our midfield is pretty absent at times, so why not drop half of them? Henderson Stearman, Paddy M, Paddy K, Kenton Wesolowski, Williams Fryatt, O'Grady, Dodds, Hume Kenton ahead of Mattock?
lcfc_jme Posted 11 September 2006 Posted 11 September 2006 For the time being I'd have to say yes, but slowly, I'd bring Mattock into the side. These things can't be rushed.
lookwhaticando Posted 11 September 2006 Posted 11 September 2006 Kenton ahead of Mattock? I've given up hope on having Mattock in the side. I advocated Smedley for the starting 11, and it didn't turn out. I'm beginning to think being an advocate of Mattock's will only hinder him. But I'll have him on the bench, just incase Kenton's hamstring tightens up again. Once he's made a sub's appearance, the LB position will be his. Oh, and if Sheehan hadn't gone out on loan - he'd have been ahead of Kenton, with Mattock on the bench alongside Kenton (he's useful as a sub as he can play everywhere across the back) But Sheehan's only ahead of Mattock because he already has first team experience. Sheehan will get a run, set the league alight and be picked up by Newcastle for 5 million quid - they desperately need a left back, theirs is crap.
Tommeh Posted 11 September 2006 Posted 11 September 2006 we should defenatly try him in the hole. If it works great if it don't at least we know we've tried it.
lcfc_jme Posted 11 September 2006 Posted 11 September 2006 I suppose so, but if that's the attitude, there are so many more things we could try to see if they work, just to know if they do or not. We won't though.
The Don Posted 12 September 2006 Posted 12 September 2006 I think we should play 4-2-4. Our midfield is pretty absent at times, so why not drop half of them? Henderson Stearman, Paddy M, Paddy K, Kenton Wesolowski, Williams Fryatt, O'Grady, Dodds, Hume I quite like this. Stick Fryatt and Dodds up front, Hume on the left and O'Grady on the right, and we'd have plenty of options.
.png.0e7438f54a80a2f2566907f77fd7a32a.thumb.png.0ea5e31693d284629c473304eabd4568.png)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.