Midfield

[davieG]

What's that got to do with it? If Weso or Williams were fit, he'd play them. If the fans don't rate anyone else, that's a different matter entirely.

Well I thought you were implying that the fans were forcing Kelly's arm into playing them to soon, if that's true, and I apologise if it isn't why has the fans influence not been felt with regards to not playing Johnson?

[Fez of Mahrez]

Well I thought you were implying that the fans were forcing Kelly's arm into playing them to soon, if that's true, and I apologise if it isn't why has the fans influence not been felt with regards to not playing Johnson?

I may be going out on a limb here but I don't feel, prior to Saturday's cheering when he went off (I wasn't at the game, don't know how noticeable it was but I imagine it was fairly obvious), that the fans' criticism of Johnson has been that vociferous - certainly not to the point where Kelly has felt the need to leave him out.

Perhaps I am overestimating the fans' influence on Kelly when it comes to Weso and Williams but I remember the clamour for Williams to be included against Southampton and Leeds and Weso to play at QPR. Like it or not there aren't many other options the fans would be happy with so I stand by my opinion that Kelly could be booed for taking one of them off and putting on someone like Johnson or Hughes - even if it was for their own well-being.

[davieG]

I may be going out on a limb here but I don't feel, prior to Saturday's cheering when he went off (I wasn't at the game, don't know how noticeable it was but I imagine it was fairly obvious), that the fans' criticism of Johnson has been that vociferous - certainly not to the point where Kelly has felt the need to leave him out.

Perhaps I am overestimating the fans' influence on Kelly when it comes to Weso and Williams but I remember the clamour for Williams to be included against Southampton and Leeds and Weso to play at QPR. Like it or not there aren't many other options the fans would be happy with so I stand by my opinion that Kelly could be booed for taking one of them off and putting on someone like Johnson or Hughes - even if it was for their own well-being.

You're probably right, with all this bullshit takeover talk I've got myself into an argumentative, pendantic, pissed off mood.

But I'm all now.

[Thracian]

Don't confuse my observations regarding what is clearly obvious to any sensible football person - that this league requires experience, battling and mental qualities first, then skill - with support for the current situation. All I would say is that your touting of our younger players selection would probably end up with City being guaranteed relegation. Go and run your local park or semi-pro side and practice what you preach. Then magnify it ten-fold for Leicester's level and you might start to change your mind when your eyes are opened.

I think if Kisnorbo hadn't been moved to central defence last season the experienced, battling, huffing, puffing people you mention would have got us relegated, so what's the difference? As it was they took us lower than we'd ever been so don't expect me to defend defensive overload cos I won't.

In fact, I don't think anything's changed. And your elevated ideas about City's current standard are a myth too. In certain times past I'd have agreed but this team might so easily have been playing down among the dead men of Division One this season and has already lost to some pretty poor opponents this year.

All the battling we had didn't beat Burnley, Hull, Colchester or Coventry. It's no use adding skill as an afterthought.

Somone drew dramatic attention to the quandary in another post. Okay he clearly didn't rate COG, Hammond or Porter as attackes but said take away Hume and Fryatt and Williams and what have we got in attack?

Although it's not one I agree with, it's a common enough viewpoint among the fans. So if they're right - what sort of indictment is that? Three forwards and how many defenders.... 10 that are fairly regular right off the cuff and 11 if you count Maybury. And that, really, is what I mean about the blinkered attitude and defensive bias of Leicester City today. And you still talk about experience and battling qualities.

With the battlers we've got we could probably defend the nation on a good day.

Whether we couild attack a Snickers is another matter.

[Manwell Pablo]

I may be going out on a limb here but I don't feel, prior to Saturday's cheering when he went off (I wasn't at the game, don't know how noticeable it was but I imagine it was fairly obvious), that the fans' criticism of Johnson has been that vociferous - certainly not to the point where Kelly has felt the need to leave him out.

Perhaps I am overestimating the fans' influence on Kelly when it comes to Weso and Williams but I remember the clamour for Williams to be included against Southampton and Leeds and Weso to play at QPR. Like it or not there aren't many other options the fans would be happy with so I stand by my opinion that Kelly could be booed for taking one of them off and putting on someone like Johnson or Hughes - even if it was for their own well-being.

All due respect fezzlington he shouldn't be such a fu cking mug and worry about whether we boo him or not, he should do the job as he see's fit and be his own man. Even if he is doing it to please the fans it's still his fault.

[Fez of Mahrez]

All due respect fezzlington he shouldn't be such a fu cking mug and worry about whether we boo him or not, he should do the job as he see's fit and be his own man. Even if he is doing it to please the fans it's still his fault.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you. I'm just saying that the very same people who go on about how Weso and Williams should be in the team week in week out would boo Kelly for taking them off even if it was to save them from taking knocks. I was trying to put it across from the fans' perspective rather than any influence they may or may not have over Kelly. I lost my train of thought a bit though.

[Manwell Pablo]

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you. I'm just saying that the very same people who go on about how Weso and Williams should be in the team week in week out would boo Kelly for taking them off even if it was to save them from taking knocks. I was trying to put it across from the fans' perspective rather than any influence they may or may not have over Kelly. I lost my train of thought a bit though.

I wouldn't say that your right in a sense IMO He probably is influenced by the fans a bit. It's just unfortunate that this is the case and we aren't stuck with someone like Fergie, who wisely never listens to Man u fans as he knows they haven't got a clue what they're on about. A bit like the people who demand 180 minutes p/w out of players returning from a long lay off.

[Thracian]

I wouldn't say that your right in a sense IMO He probably is influenced by the fans a bit. It's just unfortunate that this is the case and we aren't stuck with someone like Fergie, who wisely never listens to Man u fans as he knows they haven't got a clue what they're on about. A bit like the people who demand 180 minutes p/w out of players returning from a long lay off.

You're right about that - bloody ridiculous. And the consequence!

[l444ry]

I think if Kisnorbo hadn't been moved to central defence last season the experienced, battling, huffing, puffing people you mention would have got us relegated, so what's the difference? As it was they took us lower than we'd ever been so don't expect me to defend defensive overload cos I won't.

In fact, I don't think anything's changed. And your elevated ideas about City's current standard are a myth too. In certain times past I'd have agreed but this team might so easily have been playing down among the dead men of Division One this season and has already lost to some pretty poor opponents this year.

All the battling we had didn't beat Burnley, Hull, Colchester or Coventry. It's no use adding skill as an afterthought.

Somone drew dramatic attention to the quandary in another post. Okay he clearly didn't rate COG, Hammond or Porter as attackes but said take away Hume and Fryatt and Williams and what have we got in attack?

Although it's not one I agree with, it's a common enough viewpoint among the fans. So if they're right - what sort of indictment is that? Three forwards and how many defenders.... 10 that are fairly regular right off the cuff and 11 if you count Maybury. And that, really, is what I mean about the blinkered attitude and defensive bias of Leicester City today. And you still talk about experience and battling qualities.

With the battlers we've got we could probably defend the nation on a good day.

Whether we couild attack a Snickers is another matter.

Why you have gone diving off on a tangent replying to my post I don't know!!! I have consistently offered my view that this is the worst Leicester City team of my lifetime of supporting the club. So why you assume I have "elevated views of City's current standard" is beyond me.

The main question really is-: Is Rob Kelly getting the best he can out of the current playing squad? It just happens that in my view he is. We have no flair players in the squad, let alone the two or three which might combine consistently enough to give Rob Kelly the confidence to adopt a more attacking policy.

As for the introduction of our younger prospects, it is blindingly obvious that they need to be introduced slowly and carefully. They simply are not ready yet to be introduced en masse as you keep suggesting. At least most of the "chosen men" have the experience and/or battling qualities to operate at this level.

It is not a "blinkered attitude and defensive bias" that I have, just a realisation of what can be realistically acheived with the tools at Kelly's disposal.

[Thracian]

Why you have gone diving off on a tangent replying to my post I don't know!!! I have consistently offered my view that this is the worst Leicester City team of my lifetime of supporting the club. So why you assume I have "elevated views of City's current standard" is beyond me.

The main question really is-: Is Rob Kelly getting the best he can out of the current playing squad? It just happens that in my view he is. We have no flair players in the squad, let alone the two or three which might combine consistently enough to give Rob Kelly the confidence to adopt a more attacking policy.

As for the introduction of our younger prospects, it is blindingly obvious that they need to be introduced slowly and carefully. They simply are not ready yet to be introduced en masse as you keep suggesting. At least most of the "chosen men" have the experience and/or battling qualities to operate at this level.

It is not a "blinkered attitude and defensive bias" that I have, just a realisation of what can be realistically acheived with the tools at Kelly's disposal.

I've consistently agreed that young players should be introduced gradually and in 20-30 minute cameos. I don't want them introducing en masse and have never wanted that so, it seems we're both guilty of misinterpreting?

So why doesn't Kelly do that? And enable people to be properly ready and acclimatised for when we are stretched.

Dodds, Gradel and King, even Odhiambo were prime candidates for the subs bench this season. No, not all at once. Trouble is despite there being great opportunities to do that, not least at Sheffield, we rarely go down that route.

We don't broaden our options when we get the chance. Yet all of these people are the sort of make-things-happen players who are constantly missing from our side.