renards Posted 29 January 2007 Posted 29 January 2007 Young and hungry has been quietly diluted by a "Hard to beat" theory that is just not working and the sooner we get back to young, (fit) and hungry the better. Fit fast full-backs, forward-driving midfield players, forwards who live for goals and believe they're going to score em. And a bloody great injection of confidence and self-belief from the manager. There's an air of despondency creeping over City and there's neither reason for it no excuse for it. People think we can't put out an attacking team and I turned bhack to the old 2-3-5 system. and this is what turned out. Logan; Stearman, Sheehan/Tiatto; King, Kisnorbo, Hughes; Hammond, Hume, Fryatt, Dodds, Porter. It's just a very provocative thought at a time when we need some initiative. And there's seven or eight potential scorers in that side. I suppose I'd rather rely on scoring goals than any remote chance of our failing to concede them. Anyway that's not so much a proposal as food for thought and debate. It is based on the system which led Leicester to their greatest ever achievements. No, we don't have that quality of player - but nor do we face that quality of opposition, thankfully. Bit of info on the great mistery of why despite are forwards being poor Dodds doesn't get a sniff. Dodds himself is convinced that it may alert other clubs as he is out of contract in the summer, dosen't explain why the club have not secured him (source ..his girl friend at the estate agents!)
renards Posted 29 January 2007 Posted 29 January 2007 Not directly to do with the Luton changes but.... Just reading Bill Blandersons 'Match facts' Williams.... ' His usual good touches and passing were there, BUT he needed to see more movement in front of him' Levi....'Not enough service from his hard-worked midfield' Is it just me??
Fez of Mahrez Posted 29 January 2007 Posted 29 January 2007 WE CAN'T PLAY PLAYERS WHO ARE NOT FIT. OUR PLAYERS ARE BAD ENOUGH WHEN THEY ARE FIT.
Thracian Posted 29 January 2007 Posted 29 January 2007 Surely Saturday will be one of the most important matches of our season. We're at home against fellow strugglers and the question is do we play cagey or try to take the initiative and really do everything we can to win the game. We've already suffered one 2-0 defeat against Luton after signing on for our season with one of the most dour line-ups imaginable. Saturday will be the utmost test of Kelly's nerve, his tactical acumen and his motoivational skills. What do the players want? How do they see their futures at Leicester City? So who would you pick? I'll go 4-3-3 and try and stick strictly to my principles of fast defenders, good passers, plenty of movement, creativity, goals potential and everyone fully fit. Sooner or later we have to move forward, overcome our nerves, our doubts and have a first team mirroring the approach of the Academy trainees. Fryatt and Tiatto are ignored due to injury and there being no chance they'll be fully fit. What we have is a mobile centre-back, attacking full-backs, all-attacking midfield but with two hard workers and all attacking front line with speed and with Hammond/King providing width. Logan; Maybury, Stearman, Kisnorbo, Mattock; King, Hughes, Porter, Hammond, Hume, Dodds. Subs: McAuley/Nils, Sheehan, Williams, Fryatt/Cadamarteri, That's radical I know but we cannot go on as before. This is a new team. It might not even gel first time out. But it represents the changes that have to be made to follow my principles for 90 minutes. We simply have to be faster at the back and swifter to support. And we take the field with seven and half potential scorers which is about as many as we can manage.
JoeyB Posted 29 January 2007 Posted 29 January 2007 Logan; Maybury, Stearman, Kisnorbo, Mattock; King, Hughes, Porter, Hammond, Hume, Dodds. Subs: McAuley/Nils, Sheehan, Williams, Fryatt/Cadamarteri, you know, i know, we all know that will never happen i think i'll go for a boring 4-4-2 logan stearman kis mcauley nisse if fit(mabury) hughes williams weso porter huuuuume Danny c (elvis)
filbertway Posted 29 January 2007 Posted 29 January 2007 Logan; Maybury, Stearman, Kisnorbo, Mattock; King, Hughes, Porter, Hammond, Hume, Dodds. Subs: McAuley/Nils, Sheehan, Williams, Fryatt/Cadamarteri, That's radical I know but we cannot go on as before. This is a new team. It might not even gel first time out. But it represents the changes that have to be made to follow my principles for 90 minutes. We simply have to be faster at the back and swifter to support. And we take the field with seven and half potential scorers which is about as many as we can manage. I'd swap hughes and hume and put fryatt up front, because hume can't finish at the minute, and nisse in for mattock and stearman RB with McAuley in the middle
Joe. Posted 29 January 2007 Posted 29 January 2007 Yep it's a massive game for both sides: I'd play Logan Maybury McAuley Kisnorbo Nissa Hammond (not going to happen but he'd be a better right winger than Hughes easy). Tiatto Hughes Porter Fryatt Hume
Fez of Mahrez Posted 29 January 2007 Posted 29 January 2007 Logan Stearman Maybury Kisnorbo McAuley Porter Tiatto Wesolowski Hume Fryatt Hammond
He's not bald Posted 29 January 2007 Posted 29 January 2007 Logan Stearman Maybury Kisnorbo McAuley Porter Tiatto Wesolowski Hume Fryatt Hammond Who care's? we won't pick the side...numpty will..whatever it is please just get behind the lad's because believe me we HAVE to win!
lcfc_jme Posted 30 January 2007 Posted 30 January 2007 Well as could have been predicted, we're re-doubling efforts on the training ground in an attempt to iron out our inconsistencies which Kelly actually realises exist now. Though if the past is anything to go by, it won't work... AGAIN. I think I could safely assume that we're going to line up 4-4-2 as well on Saturday, with the team looking something like: Logan McAuley McCarthy Kisnorbo Maybury Hughes Williams Johnson Porter Elvis Hume I'd like to think I was wrong, but somehow I know Kelly isn't going to change the formation or the approach to the game. With us having to play against 5 of the top 7 still this season, I'd like to think that whilst we have a chance to play against a side as poor as the Luton one we're playing on Saturday, Kelly will tell the lads to go at them all guns blazing to ensure we come away with a crucial 3 points. I reckon I'm in for a major disappointment though.
moseeds Posted 30 January 2007 Posted 30 January 2007 We're ok no team changes required effort is being doubled to ensure the illusive win we all need. Foxes Prepare For Battle
Geo V Posted 30 January 2007 Posted 30 January 2007 PMSL I cant believe that we have only been trying half as hard as we now will be trying. Its scandalous to have been short changed again
moseeds Posted 30 January 2007 Posted 30 January 2007 Surely training must be so hard for the players by now with all this doubling and re-doubling. Is that why the players look so unfit on occasions - the fitness regime is having the reverse effect?
Manwell Pablo Posted 30 January 2007 Posted 30 January 2007 Can someone clarify, what is the differnce between doubling and re-doubling?
Bert Posted 30 January 2007 Posted 30 January 2007 Can someone clarify, what is the differnce between doubling and re-doubling? Doubling is twice as much and re-doubling is 4 times??
moseeds Posted 30 January 2007 Posted 30 January 2007 its an exponential rate of increase, where dx/dy is blah blah blah
Lord Nibblington Posted 30 January 2007 Posted 30 January 2007 I noticed the graph only goes to March. Is this foreshadowing the end of the redoubling of efforts in some way?
moseeds Posted 30 January 2007 Posted 30 January 2007 My algorithm cannot model such high levels of super human training.
Manwell Pablo Posted 30 January 2007 Posted 30 January 2007 Doubling is twice as much and re-doubling is 4 times?? No that would be quadroupling it, maybe it's doubling, going back and doubling again, and then doubling once more for good measure? I think RL should be asking this sort of question.
surrifox Posted 30 January 2007 Posted 30 January 2007 Can someone clarify, what is the differnce between doubling and re-doubling? I'm pretty sure one or other is the capital of the Irish Republic
harpendenfox Posted 30 January 2007 Posted 30 January 2007 Perhaps we should 'quintuple our efforts', as in multiply them by five. That should crack it. However I offer this warning from the dictionary: multiplication - a multiplicative increase; "repeated copying leads to a multiplication of errors"; So by quintupling our efforts this week we may just end up being five times as bad. Quick, get a message through to the training ground
Lord Nibblington Posted 30 January 2007 Posted 30 January 2007 Perhaps we should 'quintuple our efforts', as in multiply them by five. That should crack it. However I offer this warning from the dictionary: multiplication - a multiplicative increase; "repeated copying leads to a multiplication of errors"; So by quintupling our efforts this week we may just end up being five times as bad. Quick, get a message through to the training ground That would explain a lot, thinking about it!
The People's Hero Posted 30 January 2007 Posted 30 January 2007 The reason we're so rubbish is that the players are obviously confused about how hard they should be trying in training.
Lord Nibblington Posted 30 January 2007 Posted 30 January 2007 Or, the redoubling has in fact reached the point that they've broken all conventional mathematical wisdom, and have returned back to 0*. *which when they started at 0, isn't really a suprise.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.