Iain Hume.

[Ric Flair]

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.

You give examples of when Leicester have alledgedly played attacking football (Sheff U 4-2), (Tottenham 3-2), etc and you say it as if the manager and players had suddenly decided that they were going to play attacking football that game. In reality they are 2 games that for whatever reasons be known, Leicester attacked with purpose and converted their chances. Your examples of teams such as Man United, Arsenal and Newcastle in their relevant era's did play some delightful and exciting football but they will have also played some horrid and turgid football and they may well have played that with their supposed attacking mind set.

I'm all for attacking football, but it's not as easy as you make out. If it was why wouldn't all teams do it?. The teams that score alot of goals, score alot of goals because they are a good team and better than the majority of the others. There are no teams in this country that ever play with more than 3 strikers in an 11, most don't even play with 3. Would Leicester be any more effective if they played Gradel, Hume, Wesolowski, Porter, Fryatt and O'Grady? It's a good question, but I do remember in the premiership when Micky Adams sometimes played Paul Dickov and Les Ferdinand upfront with Scowcroft and Bent on the wing and we didn't ever do any better than when we had less obvious attacking players in our team. Infact we got nailed 3-1 against Man City at home in the FA Cup with these 4 playing I think?.

Attacking football isn't easy.

[Thracian]

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.

How do you know whether or not we can play committed but responsible attacking football against Championship sides?

Apart from Sheffield United at home last season we never, ever try to do it. We always hedge our bets.

We didn't play "gung-ho" against Hinckley anyway. We spent the first 25 minutes fighting for dominance. It was just that when we did get ahead we kept surging forward in numbers and eventually overwhelmed the opposition.

Our first team never tries to do that because we never field the personnel needed.

Nowadays there's nothing like the disagreement over potential team selection that there used to be. But will someone explain to me what it is that they see in Hughes as a wide midfield player?

He still gets selected in probably the majority of teams and I just like to know what I'm missing. Or is it that, consciously or subconsciously, the fans feel more comfortable hedging their bets as well.

It frustrates me so much because we are now two, perhaps three players away from being a decent side but, as yet, there is still no pattern emerging, still no statement being made. We are still too compromising, too uncertain of our own ability.

[Fez of Mahrez]

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.

I think that sums up my thoughts on the matter pretty neatly. Also to say, it's all very well setting standards and striving to improve at every available opportunity but as Manwell alludes to, I'd love to see a manager get a team with our resources to play anything like Arsenal or Manchester United.

[Thracian]

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.

Wenot playing the same opposition as Man Utd and Arsenal either and I see no reason to automatically change our approach to away games if we play well at home. To reiterate, we've tried the defensive path on our travels and it hasn't worked. Demonstrably of late as far as Championship football is concerned.

[Dr The Singh]

Wenot playing the same opposition as Man Utd and Arsenal either and I see no reason to automatically change our approach to away games if we play well at home. To reiterate, we've tried the defensive path on our travels and it hasn't worked. Demonstrably of late as far as Championship football is concerned.

Agreed, Thracian, the smash and grab and 1 point gained approach hasn't worked in our favour. If RK is serious about getting into the top 6 (now or in the near future), the apporach will have to change!!!

[Fez of Mahrez]

How do you know whether or not we can play committed but responsible attacking football against Championship sides?

Apart from Sheffield United at home last season we never, ever try to do it. We always hedge our bets.

Of course we try to do it. That Sheffield United game, Smith, Hume and Hammond were on form and that was the main reason we attacked so well. But this is just from our perspective. Sheffield United fans (given that they were promoted) would probably say that they had a major off day. Smith, Hume and Hammond aren't consistent enough to produce that sort of football week in week out, particularly Smith and Hammond as has been proven time and time again.

I agree that a team including players like Porter, Gradel, O'Grady, Hume and Fryatt could do better than a team involving the likes of Williams, Hughes and Low. I think there's every chance that they could form a decent team. I don't think they'd be the free-flowing attacking goalscoring behemoth that you envisage though. How many goals and assists have Porter and O'Grady come up with so far this season? Most of the players you mention are in the side already and we have scored 5 goals in 8 games - I don't think this would magically become 15 in the next 8 if Sheehan and Gradel were in the side and I think we would concede more.

As for Hughes, personally I like the work he gets through. We have a lot of players who have the potential to go missing for large periods of games and Hughes compares favourably with Williams in this respect. On recent form it's hard to keep defending Hughes but as a general rule, I'd include a player like Hughes as part of the midfield to help keep the burden off Wesolowski. Then the two attacking players in the midfield could be Porter on the left and Hume in the middle. Either that or Porter-Weso-Johnson-Gradel. I'd want two attacking players and two players more committed to the dirty work.

[Manwell Pablo]

We lose and draw alot of away games because we aren't that good, away games are hard to win ! If we were playing 4-5-1 I could understand the moaning but we've just won 3-1 away from home playing 4-4-2 and peoplare are moaning because we had a bit if a dodgy spell in the first half.

[Thracian]

Of course we try to do it. That Sheffield United game, Smith, Hume and Hammond were on form and that was the main reason we attacked so well. But this is just from our perspective. Sheffield United fans (given that they were promoted) would probably say that they had a major off day. Smith, Hume and Hammond aren't consistent enough to produce that sort of football week in week out, particularly Smith and Hammond as has been proven time and time again.

I agree that a team including players like Porter, Gradel, O'Grady, Hume and Fryatt could do better than a team involving the likes of Williams, Hughes and Low. I think there's every chance that they could form a decent team. I don't think they'd be the free-flowing attacking goalscoring behemoth that you envisage though. How many goals and assists have Porter and O'Grady come up with so far this season? Most of the players you mention are in the side already and we have scored 5 goals in 8 games - I don't think this would magically become 15 in the next 8 if Sheehan and Gradel were in the side and I think we would concede more.

As for Hughes, personally I like the work he gets through. We have a lot of players who have the potential to go missing for large periods of games and Hughes compares favourably with Williams in this respect. On recent form it's hard to keep defending Hughes but as a general rule, I'd include a player like Hughes as part of the midfield to help keep the burden off Wesolowski. Then the two attacking players in the midfield could be Porter on the left and Hume in the middle. Either that or Porter-Weso-Johnson-Gradel. I'd want two attacking players and two players more committed to the dirty work.

Some constructive points there Fez.

Porter should have had about nine assists so far if people had taken the simple chances he's provided and O'Grady will greatly benefit from having Gradel outside him and runners (Hume) homing in on the penalty box (the two linked well against Macclesfield).

We're not far apart really and I've felt exactly as you do about Hughes at times but the more I watch the more I feel, especially with Weso returning to fitness, that's he is denying us another proper attacker that we desperately need.

I'm happy with any of Porter, Weso, Hume, Johnson, Gradel in midfield but just feel Hume is the only one who can support into the box.

I don't know if he'll do the midfield bit though and that's what I wish the manager would find out cos Weso does need support and if Gradel played Johnson might be as good a choice as Hume because Gradel would be an extra potential scorer and Hume could simply revert to competing as a striker.

If I were the manager I'd like to see both options in action.

[Thracian]

You give examples of when Leicester have alledgedly played attacking football (Sheff U 4-2), (Tottenham 3-2), etc and you say it as if the manager and players had suddenly decided that they were going to play attacking football that game. In reality they are 2 games that for whatever reasons be known, Leicester attacked with purpose and converted their chances. Your examples of teams such as Man United, Arsenal and Newcastle in their relevant era's did play some delightful and exciting football but they will have also played some horrid and turgid football and they may well have played that with their supposed attacking mind set.

I'm all for attacking football, but it's not as easy as you make out. If it was why wouldn't all teams do it?. The teams that score alot of goals, score alot of goals because they are a good team and better than the majority of the others. There are no teams in this country that ever play with more than 3 strikers in an 11, most don't even play with 3. Would Leicester be any more effective if they played Gradel, Hume, Wesolowski, Porter, Fryatt and O'Grady? It's a good question, but I do remember in the premiership when Micky Adams sometimes played Paul Dickov and Les Ferdinand upfront with Scowcroft and Bent on the wing and we didn't ever do any better than when we had less obvious attacking players in our team. Infact we got nailed 3-1 against Man City at home in the FA Cup with these 4 playing I think?.

Attacking football isn't easy.

Your 100% right that sometimes even attempts to attack get thwarted and made to look ineffective.

But some managers won't commit to genuine attack because of the misguided fear that they are more vulnerable doing that than defending the point the start with and hoping things improve from there.

I say misguided, certainly in City's case, because it hasn't worked and will not work with a defence who are bound to keep conceding at a goal a game or just over according to long term statistics.

I basically advocate attack because we need to move forward and that's where our strength lies. Everything carries risks.

[Smudge]

As I live 3763 miles away, give or take, it's a long schlep to the Walker's so I have to listen on my computer. I do this lovingly every matchday; my wife goes out and the dog finds somewhere to hide.

During the progression of the game, nervousness abounds, you can read and almost smell the fear from others in the game threads in this forum. I can never get comfortable that we can secure the game. Adapting a more attacking game is an option that we should try since the current format isn't working despite the recent results.

For the sake of my nervous disposition, my marriage and my dogs well being, Mr Kelly please try something different!