Thracian Posted 1 October 2006 Posted 1 October 2006 You mean when he stops hanging around the Casino more than the training ground!! it's make or break imo for him he needs to realise that he needs to dedicate himself 110% to football instead of gambling/drinking which is not an easy thing for a lad of his age!!! Okay, so Stearman had an iffy start but he looked fine against Colchester when he came on including his two vital defensive headers. The point about Stearman is he offers far more than his rivals going forward. And his performance over 45-odd games has been fine in general. I am quite sure he'd be better in defence if that is all he did but it isn't and the forwards need some support. The sooner he's back the better for me, providing he's got his priorities sorted as you suggest. And the better for Leicester in the medium term.
Shipman Out Posted 1 October 2006 Posted 1 October 2006 Hendrie had a game for stoke hit the bar from a free kick
Thracian Posted 1 October 2006 Posted 1 October 2006 Hendrie had a game for stoke hit the bar from a free kick You don't get much for hitting the bar....unless it's the Swan & Rushes.
coale39 Posted 1 October 2006 Posted 1 October 2006 Despite my despair about our approach and our general performance there were some important positives to take from yesterday. a) Conrad Logan would seem to be emerging as the best goalkeeper we've had in years. b) Gareth McAuley has surprised me and others by seeming to be a capable centre-back. Any points from Birmingham are welcome but Kelly all but surrendered the game from the off with his tactics (yet again) and his comment about having more faith in them then they have is laughable apart from suggesting the players don't have confidence. I have faith. Complete faith. I've never touted for Uncle Tom Cobleigh to be brought in from elsewhere. What I fear is that my faith will never be seen to be justified because our manager will never truly show faith and pick our most effective team. Last week and in previous weeks I have pleaded for him to rid the side of Hughes and Johnson and to choose players who can attack from the back, through the middle and up front. Once we introduced attackers we were able to exploit Birmingham's weakness yesterday - their defence. But we won't win games if we only do that a few minutes from the end. That's not faith Robert. This team is being undersold every week. But Williams is just coming back from injury and wasn't Weso recovering from illness? Who else would ya play in the middle or would ya use a different formation?
Thracian Posted 1 October 2006 Posted 1 October 2006 But Williams is just coming back from injury and wasn't Weso recovering from illness? Who else would ya play in the middle or would ya use a different formation? I'd have no problem with a different formation (team below could play 4-4-2, 4-3-3 and with Stearman instead of Kenton could play 3-5-2) nor would I be unhappy with Levi Porter/Danny Tiatto/Andy King in midfield. For instance: Logan; Kenton/Stearman, McCarthy, McAuley,Nils; from: Hammond, Hume, Andy King, Porter, Tiatto, O'Grady, Dodds. We have a solid enough back four but all the front six I've selected are players who usually give their all and/or are capable of being effective. We never need to play anyone cos it's the only alternative.
Guest Posted 1 October 2006 Posted 1 October 2006 Agreed Leece!!FALSE DAWN....blimey Im getting tired of hearing my own voi...writing! We need a shake up. And frankly I personally have no idea on who what or where the changes are going to come from... my job is to be afan of the club and like or dislike what happens with the money and time we all pump into it. I am not the board. Spot on!We are the customers/consumers and we say it's not good enough. It's up to the board/manager who have a direct bearing on the 'product' to make that product good enough. I love the way these comments were responded to. <_< If anyone thinks I'm happy to pay extortionate prices and give up my time to watch us go for a draw (and have to fluke it to get the point), then you live in Cloudcuckooland, however we appear to be in the minority. I expect us to go for the win. I don't care if we play Colchester, Brum or flipping Manchester United, yesterday's performance left me far from happy!!
lookwhaticando Posted 1 October 2006 Posted 1 October 2006 Despite my despair about our approach and our general performance there were some important positives to take from yesterday. a) Conrad Logan would seem to be emerging as the best goalkeeper we've had in years. b) Gareth McAuley has surprised me and others by seeming to be a capable centre-back. I wasn't surprised.
Thracian Posted 1 October 2006 Posted 1 October 2006 I wasn't surprised. Let's hope he keeps it up - or even gets the chance to keep it up.
lookwhaticando Posted 1 October 2006 Posted 1 October 2006 Let's hope he keeps it up - or even gets the chance to keep it up. I say do something bold - he's looked solid. So had Kisnorbo. McCarthy is captain. How do you keep them all? Drop McCarthy? He's not done anything wrong tho. 3-5-2 is the answer! Plus isn't McAuley supposed to be reasonably nifty at scoring from set pieces? He and Kisnorbo could be joint top scorers come the end of the season.
lcfc_jme Posted 1 October 2006 Posted 1 October 2006 I say do something bold - he's looked solid. So had Kisnorbo. McCarthy is captain. How do you keep them all? Drop McCarthy? He's not done anything wrong tho. 3-5-2 is the answer! Plus isn't McAuley supposed to be reasonably nifty at scoring from set pieces? He and Kisnorbo could be joint top scorers come the end of the season. Who do you play in your 5 man midfield then? 'Cos you, along with many others including myself, think our midfielders are wank
The People's Hero Posted 1 October 2006 Posted 1 October 2006 QUOTE(Jankers @ Oct 1 2006, 09:50 AM) Agreed Leece!! FALSE DAWN....blimey Im getting tired of hearing my own voi...writing! We need a shake up. And frankly I personally have no idea on who what or where the changes are going to come from... my job is to be afan of the club and like or dislike what happens with the money and time we all pump into it. I am not the board. QUOTE(The People's Hero @ Oct 1 2006, 09:52 AM) Spot on! We are the customers/consumers and we say it's not good enough. It's up to the board/manager who have a direct bearing on the 'product' to make that product good enough. I love the way these comments were responded to. If anyone thinks I'm happy to pay extortionate prices and give up my time to watch us go for a draw (and have to fluke it to get the point), then you live in Cloudcuckooland, however we appear to be in the minority. I expect us to go for the win. I don't care if we play Colchester, Brum or flipping Manchester United, yesterday's performance left me far from happy!! Correcto. We're like the illuminati. Whatever they are.
Thracian Posted 1 October 2006 Posted 1 October 2006 I love the way these comments were responded to. <_< If anyone thinks I'm happy to pay extortionate prices and give up my time to watch us go for a draw (and have to fluke it to get the point), then you live in Cloudcuckooland, however we appear to be in the minority. I expect us to go for the win. I don't care if we play Colchester, Brum or flipping Manchester United, yesterday's performance left me far from happy!! I'm encouraged!
lookwhaticando Posted 1 October 2006 Posted 1 October 2006 Who do you play in your 5 man midfield then? 'Cos you, along with many others including myself, think our midfielders are wank Stearman, Williams, Weso, Porter, Sheehan Stearman/Sheehan are wingbacks in this lineup, clearly. Williams and Porter given license to roam thanks to Weso bossing the midfield. Alternatively, Gradel/Low on the right, Porter on the left with Tiatto moving into the middle. -----------Weso-----Tiatto----------- Low/Gradel---Williams-----Porter-- Two players to act as more defensive central midfielders, with two out-and-out wingers and a more attacking central midfielder. Most of you think it's fanciful, I'm sure.
Guest Posted 1 October 2006 Posted 1 October 2006 I'm encouraged! By yesterday's performance? You'll ave to let me know what your pre-match tipple is!!
Mark Posted 1 October 2006 Posted 1 October 2006 Does anyone pro Kelly see him taking this team into the top half the table, whilst scoring 2 or 3 goals a game, regularly? Because that is whats needed. At the moment we struggle to get a goal a game. It's all well and good Kelly being pleased with our defensive play game after game, but we're 19th in the league. I want goals for, some excitement and my team not in the lower reaches of the Championship for the 3rd season in a row. If that means conceding more goals because we're pushing more players forward then so be it. Unless there is a complete change in our approach towards games Kellys time here depends how long we are willing to accept mediocrity, again. This is three successive seasons now and has got to the point where I watched Burnley this afternoon and wished we could put in a similar performance to them :pinch:
Swedging Posted 1 October 2006 Posted 1 October 2006 Does anyone pro Kelly see him taking this team into the top half the table, whilst scoring 2 or 3 goals a game, regularly? I'll put my hand up for that one. Here, because a good defence breeds confidence in the rest of the team and because the back line and with Logan in goal, they really do look good, whatever permutations are tried. This should give the rest of the team more possibilities going forward - and at some point they'll realise that. Plus I refuse to believe that Hume and Fryatt are as bad as they've looked so far this season.
The People's Hero Posted 1 October 2006 Posted 1 October 2006 I'll put my hand up for that one. Here, because a good defence breeds confidence in the rest of the team and because the back line and with Logan in goal, they really do look good, whatever permutations are tried. This should give the rest of the team more possibilities going forward - and at some point they'll realise that. Plus I refuse to believe that Hume and Fryatt are as bad as they've looked so far this season. Some sound reasoning there... something which I think we'd all hope is correct, especially the part about Hume and Fryatt which I agree with. My reservations are over whether the caution is under RK's instruction... he seems to 'fear' every side in the division. At some point we really do need to be a bit more expansive/attacking as, like you've pointed out, the defence seems to be sorted out for now.
Fez of Mahrez Posted 1 October 2006 Posted 1 October 2006 Some sound reasoning there... something which I think we'd all hope is correct, especially the part about Hume and Fryatt which I agree with. My reservations are over whether the caution is under RK's instruction... he seems to 'fear' every side in the division. At some point we really do need to be a bit more expansive/attacking as, like you've pointed out, the defence seems to be sorted out for now. I agree. What I will say though is that I'm not sure whether it's possible to keep the defensive solidity AND commit more to attack in a meaningful fashion. The full-backs offer no effective support whatsoever at the moment and until this changes I can't see us looking that more dangerous going forward whoever is playing in midfield. Plus however useless Johnson is, the fact that he doesn't go forward that often means an extra body covering the defence most of the time. We have lacked this at times over the past two seasons which has led to opposition central midfielders running riot, especially when we played Hughes and Williams there together. The main difference for me is Gudjonsson's energy and willingness to attack in the middle of the park whilst also getting a foot in and covering for Williams while he pansied about.
Guest Posted 1 October 2006 Posted 1 October 2006 Some sound reasoning there... something which I think we'd all hope is correct, especially the part about Hume and Fryatt which I agree with.My reservations are over whether the caution is under RK's instruction... he seems to 'fear' every side in the division. At some point we really do need to be a bit more expansive/attacking as, like you've pointed out, the defence seems to be sorted out for now. When are we going to stop bigging up every other team and start making ourselves look better? We're apologists.... :pinch:
Mark Posted 1 October 2006 Posted 1 October 2006 Some sound reasoning there... something which I think we'd all hope is correct, especially the part about Hume and Fryatt which I agree with. My reservations are over whether the caution is under RK's instruction... he seems to 'fear' every side in the division. At some point we really do need to be a bit more expansive/attacking as, like you've pointed out, the defence seems to be sorted out for now. The defence is sorted because we've got players given more defensive duties than attacking ones all over the field. When we're attempting to build an attack, unless we have a free kick or it's the final 5 minutes of a game and we're 0-1 down, we have no defenders past the half way line, the only midfielder we'll have in a decent position to threaten the opposition will be either of the wingers, depending on which side the ball is on, and two strikers. What I don't think Kelly has quite grasped is to score goals it is vital if you've got other players making moves in the oppositions half to open up gaps in the defence to play in strikers. Currently any ball played into the strikers has to be perfect, else the oppositions defence won't have any problem whatsoever dealing with it. But even then they've got no support to do anything with it
BartonFox Posted 1 October 2006 Posted 1 October 2006 He is scared to be in the job, and our team is scared of doing anything other than defending, and more by luck than judgement we get away with it. He clearly has a problem with 'senior' players (that aren't his darlings) with Maybury, Sylla and de Vries all frozen out because he hasn't the skills to manage them. How our joint top scorer from last season, no matter what prejudices people have against him, can be farmed out to Holland while we lack any sort of physical presence (nuisance) up front is staggering. Particuarly when you see how stale we are wth Hume and Fryatt off colour and the woefully inept O'Grady and Hammond. I refuse to believe Low is a better player or option than Sylla at the minute and Maybury is a good full back, you don't play for Eire if you're not. It's very telling as the weeks go on just where the problems of recent seasons have come from, and to be honest I would never have guessed he was this bad. So a huge well done to Dim Tim and the gang and the wet tissue we have running the football team.
Ultra Posted 1 October 2006 Posted 1 October 2006 He is scared to be in the job, and our team is scared of doing anything other than defending, and more by luck than judgement we get away with it. He clearly has a problem with 'senior' players (that aren't his darlings) with Maybury, Sylla and de Vries all frozen out because he hasn't the skills to manage them. How our joint top scorer from last season, no matter what prejudices people have against him, can be farmed out to Holland while we lack any sort of physical presence (nuisance) up front is staggering. Particuarly when you see how stale we are wth Hume and Fryatt off colour and the woefully inept O'Grady and Hammond. I refuse to believe Low is a better player or option than Sylla at the minute Low at least puts in a bit of effort, which is more than Sylla used to do. And he also set the goal up yesterday!
Isopen Posted 1 October 2006 Posted 1 October 2006 He is scared to be in the job, and our team is scared of doing anything other than defending, and more by luck than judgement we get away with it. He clearly has a problem with 'senior' players (that aren't his darlings) with Maybury, Sylla and de Vries all frozen out because he hasn't the skills to manage them. How our joint top scorer from last season, no matter what prejudices people have against him, can be farmed out to Holland while we lack any sort of physical presence (nuisance) up front is staggering. Particuarly when you see how stale we are wth Hume and Fryatt off colour and the woefully inept O'Grady and Hammond. I refuse to believe Low is a better player or option than Sylla at the minute and Maybury is a good full back, you don't play for Eire if you're not. It's very telling as the weeks go on just where the problems of recent seasons have come from, and to be honest I would never have guessed he was this bad. So a huge well done to Dim Tim and the gang and the wet tissue we have running the football team. Come off it Barton How many City fans were moaning because DeV was loaned out ..... a handful? How many City fans moaned about Sylla's lack of effort.......the vast majority? How many City fans would have accepted a Sunderland bid for Maybury had one been made... the majority? Are you sure RK sees the players much differently to the fans?
BartonFox Posted 1 October 2006 Posted 1 October 2006 Come off it Barton How many City fans were moaning because DeV was loaned out ..... a handful? Maybe, but lets look at the facts we are not scoring we have absolutely no physical presence up front and we have a player who despite his limitations does actually score at this level. But the sheer bloody-mindedness of the manager means he won't even consider hauling him back. Do you not think he would add substantialy more than O'Grady? How many City fans moaned about Sylla's lack of effort.......the vast majority? Again, he's far from my favourite but we need something different as we have little or no attacking creativity whatsoever. We're in a rut so at least try something. How many City fans would have accepted a Sunderland bid for Maybury had one been made... the majority? Are you sure RK sees the players much differently to the fans? I too would have sold him at the time, but the fact he's our best right back and has been frozen out I fail to see why he didn't offload him. Include the f'cker for Christ sake. I and a few others are beginning to wonder just how far RK has set us back since his arrival?
lookwhaticando Posted 2 October 2006 Posted 2 October 2006 RE: Maybury... "why he didn't offload him" - I was under the impression it was the board that took a while to answer Sunderland's approach...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.