Iain Hume.

[davieG]

Well I'd say that Hughes and Johnson and Low certainly provide more of an aerial challenge for opponents than Weso and Porter and Gradel. Plus Williams adds height too.

I'm of the opinion that we play 4 centre halves across the back because of our inability to defend set pieces and so if Thrac picked the team we'd have 3 players over 6 foot I think.

Well I can't say I can recall Hughes or Williams actually heading the ball from set pieces and if you include Johnson certainly not with any positive effect.

[Dunc]

In fact I think we've conceded fewer goals from set pieces this season playing a smaller side and for one particular reason. Kelly has gold the team loud and clear not to concede silly free kicks in dangerous places and go giving corners away for nothing.

That, together with a generally solid back four aerially (while Kisnorbo's around) has meant for a pretty solid look.

My formation would remain 4-4-2 - Hume would play midfield behind the front two because we have no-one breaking through into the penalty area from midfield to help our forwards.

The big point about the players I choose is that they can retain the ball. Porter, Weso, O'Grady are probably the best players in the club at retaining possession.

It is ironic that when we had defensive formations at the start of the season we scored none and conceded three. It was only when we went defensive at West Brom we conceded two goals. The facts speak for themselves really.

No matter how good our back four, the best way to defend is at the other end.

Fair enough, I completely disagree with several points, and I know its not worthwhile arguing a point because you just repeat your own view as an answer.

I would agree that we lack someone breaking through from midfield and have considered Hume to be able to do that, but I really think a midfield of Porter, Weso, Hume and Gradel is so lightweight and short in experience, strength and height we would be turned over week in week out.

Its all very well keeping the ball, but you've also got to be able to get it back as well, and of those 4 only Weso (in his 5 game career) appears to have the ability to do that as a strength.

[Dunc]

Well I can't say I can recall Hughes or Williams actually heading the ball from set pieces and if you include Johnson certainly not with any positive effect.

Williams used to defend the near post around the edge of the 6 yard box so definately would have cleared many set pieces at games you have attended.

I can't imagine one of the dwarves being particularly useful there.

If we played that 4-4-2 team with Gradel, Weso, Hume and Porter we would concede 2/3 a game and no matter how good they are in Thracians eyes going forward, asking 4 unproven, inexperienced players to get us 4 goals a game is nigh on impossible.

[davieG]

Williams used to defend the near post around the edge of the 6 yard box so definately would have cleared many set pieces at games you have attended.

I can't imagine one of the dwarves being particularly useful there.

If we played that 4-4-2 team with Gradel, Weso, Hume and Porter we would concede 2/3 a game and no matter how good they are in Thracians eyes going forward, asking 4 unproven, inexperienced players to get us 4 goals a game is nigh on impossible.

As I said I wasn't particularly agreeing with Thracian but I really don't believe our current midfielders make a significant contribution with headers at set pieces, and we've often been caught out at the near post, not that was when Williams was playing necessarily.

[Ric Flair]

Williams used to defend the near post around the edge of the 6 yard box so definately would have cleared many set pieces at games you have attended.

I can't imagine one of the dwarves being particularly useful there.

If we played that 4-4-2 team with Gradel, Weso, Hume and Porter we would concede 2/3 a game and no matter how good they are in Thracians eyes going forward, asking 4 unproven, inexperienced players to get us 4 goals a game is nigh on impossible.

I do see what your saying. There is no way that midfield 4 could play together unless we had 2 large strikers and 4 large defenders because as you say, the opposition would invariably have atleast 6 tallish players and if your outnumbered size wise at set pieces then you have to rely on luck and the opposition being as crap as we are at taking them. Which is very unlikely.

Having said that, we have often seen Leicester play a team of:

Henderson

Stearman

McCarthy

Kisnorbo/Kenton

Johansson

Maybury

Williams

Johnson

Tiatto

Hume

Fryatt

Which looking at it, isn't a team full of lanky beans. But incidently that team did concede two set pieces in the opening 2 games this season and was changed luckily!

For me, Porter and Wesolowski have both got to play from recent performances. I'm unconvinced on Josh Low as a 90 minutes man and Johnson has under-achieved from what i've seen of him in previous years. Williams is inconsistent and so is Hughes. It's a piss poor midfield, but one that could work if the management can get the right blend and motivate them properly.

[Dunc]

I'd stick with

Porter Weso Johnson Hughes.

No natural width on the right but Hughes has played his best football for us in that position as he has more time on the ball and has ability to beat a man and a decent cross on him.

Weso would help Johnson as they can spread the load of ball winning between them and Weso is quicker and snappier than Hughes.

That 4 should work pretty well, just hope Tiatto doesn't come in for Porter!

[Thracian]

Fair enough, I completely disagree with several points, and I know its not worthwhile arguing a point because you just repeat your own view as an answer.

I would agree that we lack someone breaking through from midfield and have considered Hume to be able to do that, but I really think a midfield of Porter, Weso, Hume and Gradel is so lightweight and short in experience, strength and height we would be turned over week in week out.

Its all very well keeping the ball, but you've also got to be able to get it back as well, and of those 4 only Weso (in his 5 game career) appears to have the ability to do that as a strength.

Hughes must be one of the worst tacklers in the club and Low is no better. He looks completely lost in defensive situations and much, much less competent than Porter. Tiatto gets stuck in but often wastes the ball or does something reckless.

Williams and Johnson are alright and good options for our central positions. I know nothing about Gradel defensively but by all accounts he's shot up no end.

Certainly three of the four I've named will get the ball back because they are the most suited to doing so in modern day football - that is by zonal marking and harrassing quickly.

But certainly Weso and Porter would take a lot longer giving it away than the alternatives and Hume is the only central midfielder who could provide the forward thrust. Gradel gets into the box and scores goals.Low doesn't in general.

[Ric Flair]

I'd stick with

Porter Weso Johnson Hughes.

No natural width on the right but Hughes has played his best football for us in that position as he has more time on the ball and has ability to beat a man and a decent cross on him.

Weso would help Johnson as they can spread the load of ball winning between them and Weso is quicker and snappier than Hughes.

That 4 should work pretty well, just hope Tiatto doesn't come in for Porter!

I'd go with that at the minute. They won the battle against Sunderland's midfield, which is as strong as almost anyone's in this league which proves our midfield can perform if they go about it the right way. Obviously it's only one game but Johnson must love having Weso alongside him as he's just the sort of midfielder who can take charge if need be. He also bails everyone out of the shit countless times aswell. If Johnson doesn't perform then Williams should get a chance and if he doesn't perform then I give up!!

[Thracian]

Williams used to defend the near post around the edge of the 6 yard box so definately would have cleared many set pieces at games you have attended.

I can't imagine one of the dwarves being particularly useful there.

If we played that 4-4-2 team with Gradel, Weso, Hume and Porter we would concede 2/3 a game and no matter how good they are in Thracians eyes going forward, asking 4 unproven, inexperienced players to get us 4 goals a game is nigh on impossible.

a) They are not inexperienced. They played as much football as veterans and against quite competent opposition these last few years, Weso excepted because of his injuries. Furthermore all haveperformed consistently well wherever they've played including our first team.

b) In practise the more players we commit to attack the better we've done goals wise. It is a well perpetrated myth that attacking responsibly results in more goals conceded than scored.

Had Manchester United taken that attitude I doubt they'd have won anything.

I've never seen City really attack yet in all the time I've watched these last 12 months except against Sheffield United last November - which ended 4-2 and Spurs second half (3-2).

In other attack-inclined games like Stoke (4-2), Hull last season (3-2), Wednesday at home (2-0), Crewe (2-2) and just one or two more we've been less than whole-hearted attack-wise.

But many's the time I've seen the Chosen Men - taller or not - frustrate themselves trying to pierce a packed defence with a lack of flair and lose by the odd goal or gain a bore draw.

[Thracian]

I'd stick with

Porter Weso Johnson Hughes.

No natural width on the right but Hughes has played his best football for us in that position as he has more time on the ball and has ability to beat a man and a decent cross on him.

Weso would help Johnson as they can spread the load of ball winning between them and Weso is quicker and snappier than Hughes.

That 4 should work pretty well, just hope Tiatto doesn't come in for Porter!

Come on Dunc...you make some interesting points but when does Hughes beat people or cross the ball especially well? He hasn't the pace to beat people - he's a marathon runner and he doesn't have enough natural ability to curl a ball to make him a potent crosser. He's bog standard. Tiatto's crosses, particularly from a still ball, are much more dangerous from certain areas but are largely inaccurate in open play.

[Fez of Mahrez]

I've never seen City really attack yet in all the time I've watched these last 12 months except against Sheffield United last November - which ended 4-2 and Spurs second half (3-2).

It's quite easy to pick out our two best results last season and proclaim that they were down to attacking football. The fact is that the players who played in these games were no different to usual (lest we forget Hammond, Hughes and de Vries scored the goals against Spurs). It's just that sometimes players play better than usual especially in the big occasion games.

What about when we attacked all game and couldn't score? i.e. Nottingham Forest at home the year before last. It's very easy to just proclaim a commitment to attack and say that it will cure all our ills but it's easier said than done.

[Thracian]

It's quite easy to pick out our two best results last season and proclaim that they were down to attacking football. The fact is that the players who played in these games were no different to usual (lest we forget Hammond, Hughes and de Vries scored the goals against Spurs). It's just that sometimes players play better than usual especially in the big occasion games.

What about when we attacked all game and couldn't score? i.e. Nottingham Forest at home the year before last. It's very easy to just proclaim a commitment to attack and say that it will cure all our ills but it's easier said than done.

I did say the last 12 months but if you want to go back I was well used to seeing us lose in the 60's too.

That was the time when City had its most attacking side and it's most successful side - by a long, long way - and crowds to do it justice.

I've saw how much fans enjoyed it and in recent years I've seen how fans enjoyed watching attacking sides like Bergkamp's Arsenal and the young Man United Championship team.

You choose your own way Fez but when I look at Logan, Stearman, Kisnorbo, McCarthy, Sheehan, Gradel, Weso, Porter, Hume, Fryatt, O'Grady, Dodds, Chambers, Odhiambo, King, Tejan-Sie, McKay and one or two more I know we're onto something good if we don't throw it away.

At least something far better than we've had here for a while.

And there's barely a couple of those players incapable of attack so to my mind we should play to our strengths.

[Fez of Mahrez]

I did say the last 12 months but if you want to go back I was well used to seeing us lose in the 60's too.

That was the time when City had its most attacking side and it's most successful side - by a long, long way - and crowds to do it justice.

I've saw how much fans enjoyed it and in recent years I've seen how fans enjoyed watching attacking sides like Bergkamp's Arsenal and the young Man United Championship team.

You choose your own way Fez but when I look at Logan, Stearman, Kisnorbo, McCarthy, Sheehan, Gradel, Weso, Porter, Hume, Fryatt, O'Grady, Dodds, Chambers, Odhiambo, King, Tejan-Sie, McKay and one or two more I know we're onto something good if we don't throw it away.

At least something far better than we've had here for a while.

And there's barely a couple of those players incapable of attack so to my mind we should play to our strengths.

Where have I said that I wouldn't use the youngsters? I actually started a poll saying we should play practically a whole team of them against Hereford and I'm all for players like Logan, Gradel and Dodds getting a chance in the league this season too. What I'm saying is that it's not as simple as loading your team with attacking players and winning games 4-2 each week.

[Thracian]

Where have I said that I wouldn't use the youngsters? I actually started a poll saying we should play practically a whole team of them against Hereford and I'm all for players like Logan, Gradel and Dodds getting a chance in the league this season too. What I'm saying is that it's not as simple as loading your team with attacking players and winning games 4-2 each week.

I'm underno no illusions about it being simple - or foolproof. As DavieG says, there's risk in everything.

What I cannot understand is our halfway house approach because, to my eyes, we get caught between two stools all the time.

Kelly doesn't score once and retreat but if we do go ahead, which isn't that often, he seems to focus more on protecting that lead than continuing to do what got us the advantage in the first place.

And he selects a team which enables him to do that which is why we draw or lose so many games that we could have won. Our selection is a form of attacking handicap.

Just as defending is not all about defenders, attacking is not just about the forwards - we have to attack as a group with full-backs using the flanks and midfielders bursting into the box.

We cannot have half a team uninvolved in that any more than you'd have half a team uninvolved in defence but that's what happens with Leicester and that's why changes will have to be made whether Kelly admits it or not.

The most glaring example of what I mean came at Hereford where Stearman continually demonstrated the job that Hughes and other support players should be doing in Championship, getting in where it counts.

Even at Hereford we eased the pressure when we went in front and although it's been said we were never in danger we were for a short spell.

They got an unlikely equaliser because of our change of emphasis and this gave them a belief for the start of the second half that would never have existed had we maintained pressure, kept some proper width, and killed the game off.

At that time only Logan's brilliance stopped us going behind but he might well have been off the field on another day and the consequences of our cautiousness might have been worse.

[Fez of Mahrez]

The most glaring example of what I mean came at Hereford where Stearman continually demonstrated the job that Hughes and other support players should be doing in Championship, getting in where it counts.

Don't you think that's mainly because it was Hereford, seeing as Stearman has been useless all season? In the same way that it's easier to play gung-ho football against Hinckley than it is against any Championship team.

[Ric Flair]

I'm underno no illusions about it being simple - or foolproof. As DavieG says, there's risk in everything.

What I cannot understand is our halfway house approach because, to my eyes, we get caught between two stools all the time.

Kelly doesn't score once and retreat but if we do go ahead, which isn't that often, he seems to focus more on protecting that lead than continuing to do what got us the advantage in the first place.

And he selects a team which enables him to do that which is why we draw or lose so many games that we could have won. Our selection is a form of attacking handicap.

Just as defending is not all about defenders, attacking is not just about the forwards - we have to attack as a group with full-backs using the flanks and midfielders bursting into the box.

We cannot have half a team uninvolved in that any more than you'd have half a team uninvolved in defence but that's what happens with Leicester and that's why changes will have to be made whether Kelly admits it or not.

The most glaring example of what I mean came at Hereford where Stearman continually demonstrated the job that Hughes and other support players should be doing in Championship, getting in where it counts.

Even at Hereford we eased the pressure when we went in front and although it's been said we were never in danger we were for a short spell.

They got an unlikely equaliser because of our change of emphasis and this gave them a belief for the start of the second half that would never have existed had we maintained pressure, kept some proper width, and killed the game off.

At that time only Logan's brilliance stopped us going behind but he might well have been off the field on another day and the consequences of our cautiousness might have been worse.

Might that be the case that it was Hereford who changed the way they were playing and it pegged us back. It is very hard to keep attacking when the opposition suddenly find some energy and positivity from somewhere and come at you. It takes a period of time to weather the storm and hit back. There are occasions when both teams go at it hammer and tongue but if you ask anybody involved in football, it's very hard for both teams to attack, attack, attack as there is obstacles in the way.

Also, did Leicester sit back when we went 1-0 up? I thought we kept pressing, missed several chances and went in to the break comfortable. 2nd half they instantly came at us and i'd have been very interested to see how Leicester could have provented Hereford coming at us by going gung ho themselves. There's a time and place for attacking football, mainly when you've got the upper hand in a game but I think you think it's all too easy to attack for 90 minutes. I wish we could do, it would make football a whole lot easier and more enjoyable.

[davieG]

Don't you think that's mainly because it was Hereford, seeing as Stearman has been useless all season? In the same way that it's easier to play gung-ho football against Hinckley than it is against any Championship team.

First of all we weren't playing gung ho football ( although i'm sure you didn't mean that literally) and secondly after we scored and eased off, there was a period, particularly in the first 20 minutes of the second half when we couldn't get out of our half and looked like the 4th division team. Ironically it was Stearman who was able to spring out of that particicular box and score.

On that particular night irrespective of the oppo Stearman looked his old self, in fact apart from the self inflicted pressure we put on Conrad would have been my MOM by a fair distance based on his defensive contribution (bar one sliced effort early on) and his more than significant contribution to the attack.

[davieG]

Might that be the case that it was Hereford who changed the way they were playing and it pegged us back. It is very hard to keep attacking when the opposition suddenly find some energy and positivity from somewhere and come at you. It takes a period of time to weather the storm and hit back. There are occasions when both teams go at it hammer and tongue but if you ask anybody involved in football, it's very hard for both teams to attack, attack, attack as there is obstacles in the way.

Also, did Leicester sit back when we went 1-0 up? I thought we kept pressing, missed several chances and went in to the break comfortable. 2nd half they instantly came at us and i'd have been very interested to see how Leicester could have provented Hereford coming at us by going gung ho themselves. There's a time and place for attacking football, mainly when you've got the upper hand in a game but I think you think it's all too easy to attack for 90 minutes. I wish we could do, it would make football a whole lot easier and more enjoyable.

I think the easing off was in the sub-conscious but led to a period of sloopyness, this was noticeable to me so I'm sure Turner would've noticed and used that to gee up his players at half time.

Also it was entirely predictable, yet we came out with the same apparent casual, we've got this game wrapped up attitude. We did not seem prepared for this possibility, it's not as if we actually tightened things up they cut through us as if we were not there and we contributed to that with our shocked troops giving the ball away, McAuley, not the only culprit made the same mistake in a 5 minute spell the second leading to their penalty.

To me it's all about intelligence and all the time I've watched football it never ceases to amaze me how thick the football world seems to be some times. I think intelligence was one of MON's greatest assets.

[Ric Flair]

First of all we weren't playing gung ho football ( although i'm sure you didn't mean that literally) and secondly after we scored and eased off, there was a period, particularly in the first 20 minutes of the second half when we couldn't get out of our half and looked like the 4th division team. Ironically it was Stearman who was able to spring out of that particicular box and score.

On that particular night irrespective of the oppo Stearman looked his old self, in fact apart from the self inflicted pressure we put on Conrad would have been my MOM by a fair distance based on his defensive contribution (bar one sliced effort early on) and his more than significant contribution to the attack.

Your right, but what i'm trying to say is that it's hard to play attacking football when another team is coming at you all of a sudden. It also doesn't mean we've eased off because a team has come back in to the game, it's just one of those things sometimes. But don't get me wrong, there have and will be plenty of occasions where we sit back after taking the iniative and invite teams to get back in to the game. Something that frustrates me, but something that is inevitable in all sports.

[Manwell Pablo]

Might that be the case that it was Hereford who changed the way they were playing and it pegged us back. It is very hard to keep attacking when the opposition suddenly find some energy and positivity from somewhere and come at you. It takes a period of time to weather the storm and hit back. There are occasions when both teams go at it hammer and tongue but if you ask anybody involved in football, it's very hard for both teams to attack, attack, attack as there is obstacles in the way.

Also, did Leicester sit back when we went 1-0 up? I thought we kept pressing, missed several chances and went in to the break comfortable. 2nd half they instantly came at us and i'd have been very interested to see how Leicester could have provented Hereford coming at us by going gung ho themselves. There's a time and place for attacking football, mainly when you've got the upper hand in a game but I think you think it's all too easy to attack for 90 minutes. I wish we could do, it would make football a whole lot easier and more enjoyable.

It wouldn't suprise me, he does seem to have difficulty telling the differnce between wanting to defend and being forced to defend.

[Fez of Mahrez]

First of all we weren't playing gung ho football ( although i'm sure you didn't mean that literally) and secondly after we scored and eased off, there was a period, particularly in the first 20 minutes of the second half when we couldn't get out of our half and looked like the 4th division team. Ironically it was Stearman who was able to spring out of that particicular box and score.

On that particular night irrespective of the oppo Stearman looked his old self, in fact apart from the self inflicted pressure we put on Conrad would have been my MOM by a fair distance based on his defensive contribution (bar one sliced effort early on) and his more than significant contribution to the attack.

1) Gung-ho football against Hinckley, not Hereford.

2) Teams don't ease off on purpose. They are inevitably going to get pegged back at some stage of any given game, as Ric and Manwell are trying to explain to Thracian.

3) You can't say players are having good games "irrespective of the opposition". As a general rule, it's easier to play at a higher level against weaker opponents, else Hereford's players would be playing for better teams. Stearman has played consistently badly all season against Championship teams so it's obvious to think that this good game had a lot to do with the quality of the opponents.

[Thracian]

It wouldn't suprise me, he does seem to have difficulty telling the differnce between wanting to defend and being forced to defend.

Not at all. When we scored the wingers started narrowing the game and this led to defenders/midfielders having difficulty finding an outlet ball and to Hereford suddenly finding it easier to gain possession.

I twice pointed it out at the match how every single player was cramped into a small space on the far side of the pitch leaving us no width whatsoever.

Why would a better quality team deny itself width against a weaker one?. At Sunderland, as a special situation, I could at least understand it because they were perceived as likely to be stronger.

Another consequence of this crowding of space at Hereford was the number of times two people were each leaving the same ball to the other, a factor which almost cost us dearly on a couple of occasions.

Because we won 3-1 it doesn't matter but we've already paid for tactical misjudgements this season and I'd far be making a point on the back of a win than a defeat even if it's probably harder to accept.

[Manwell Pablo]

Not at all. When we scored the wingers started narrowing the game and this led to defenders/midfielders having difficulty finding an outlet ball and to Hereford suddenly finding it easier to gain possession.

I twice pointed it out at the match how every single player was cramped into a small space on the far side of the pitch leaving us no width whatsoever.

Why would a better quality team deny itself width against a weaker one?. At Sunderland, as a special situation, I could at least understand it because they were perceived as likely to be stronger.

Another consequence of this crowding of space at Hereford was the number of times two people were each leaving the same ball to the other, a factor which almost cost us dearly on a couple of occasions.

Because we won 3-1 it doesn't matter but we've already paid for tactical misjudgements this season and I'd far be making a point on the back of a win than a defeat even if it's probably harder to accept.

I didn't go so I can't argue with you on much of that, except that maybe Hereford may of infleunced our apparent narrowing, and maybe the wingers came inside to recieve the ball as they are not used to playing on such a big pitch.

[Thracian]

1) Gung-ho football against Hinckley, not Hereford.

2) Teams don't ease off on purpose. They are inevitably going to get pegged back at some stage of any given game, as Ric and Manwell are trying to explain to Thracian.

3) You can't say players are having good games "irrespective of the opposition". As a general rule, it's easier to play at a higher level against weaker opponents, else Hereford's players would be playing for better teams. Stearman has played consistently badly all season against Championship teams so it's obvious to think that this good game had a lot to do with the quality of the opponents.

It is not so much easing off as changing their focus, their priority and this can and does have the effect of conceding the initiative.

I concede that opposition teams invariably get chances and have better spells but getting "pegged back" as in a sustained change of event, is not at all inevitable as Manchester United's great attacking teams, the Arsenal of Bergkamp and the Newcastle of Keegan demonstrated in technicolour on numerous occasions.

As for Stearman the idea he won't shine as an attacking full-back against Championship opposition is flawed. He demonstrated as much on many occasions last season.

Clearly he started this season in the wrong frame of mind for whatever reason.

But, he played well against Hereford because he returned to doing what he'd been good at last season, supporting the attack, maintaining his concentration plus thinking about and varying his passes instead of just floating the ball nowhere in particular.

He showed signs of the same approach against Macclesfield and I definitely think he seems much happier when the team are going at the opposition than trying to fit into one of Kelly's containing spells when he's effectively shackled to defensive duties.

[Manwell Pablo]

It is not so much easing off as changing their focus, their priority and this can and does have the effect of conceding the initiative.

I concede that opposition teams invariably get chances and have better spells but getting "pegged back" as in a sustained change of event, is not at all inevitable as Manchester United's great attacking teams, the Arsenal of Bergkamp and the Newcastle of Keegan demonstrated in technicolour on numerous occasions.

As for Stearman the idea he won't shine as an attacking full-back against Championship opposition is flawed. He demonstrated as much on many occasions last season.

Clearly he started this season in the wrong frame of mind for whatever reason.

But, he played well against Hereford because he returned to doing what he'd been good at last season, supporting the attack, maintaining his concentration plus thinking about and varying his passes instead of just floating the ball nowhere in particular.

He showed signs of the same approach against Macclesfield and I definitely think he seems much happier when the team are going at the opposition than trying to fit into one of Kelly's containing spells when he's effectively shackled to defensive duties.

Right o.......

Unfortuantely we don't quite have the players that Arsenal and Man u had back in the day so we may have to except that we may get pegged back every now and again.

EDIT: The Macclesfield game was at HOME....this was AWAY....Differnt approaches are expected.