Player Ratings - Burnley

[Leonisco]

And, believe it or not, the refrain of "Small town near Blackpool" could actually be heard.

"Small town near Blackburn" would've worked better as they're their main rivals. Although that chant is getting pretty tiresome, to be honest.

[Manwell Pablo]

"Small town near Blackburn" would've worked better as they're their main rivals. Although that chant is getting pretty tiresome, to be honest.

It got tiresome about 2 years ago.

[Hullfox]

"Small town near Blackburn" would've worked better as they're their main rivals. Although that chant is getting pretty tiresome, to be honest.

Twas the point I was making.

Serves nothing but to make us look stupid.

[Thracian]

Am I alone in already hating the phrase 'winning ugly' which seems to have entered the footballing phrase book in recent weeks.

Does it mean deliberately playing badly and hoping you get away with it? In which case it strikes me as being a pretty poor plan. Why not just try and play better than the opposition

It's a Kellyism for no mattter how bad we play we'll try and make the opposition play even worse. He thinks fans appreciate winning ugly and judging by some of the comments he's right.

Perhaps that's why it's been our main approach for so long cos I could count the times Kelly's won by anything other than ugly on one hand.

There was just no excuse for yesterday's approach - no great pressures, injury problems, etc. Kelly could have been as adventurous as he liked. He could have sent us out to play a bit. He could have learned something.

It wasn't even as if we showed some style then ran out of steam. Our whole approach was negative from the first kick. Seige mentality. Hard to beat. No personal initiative. Ball's in your court.

Imagine the whole game full of Kelly's. It would be like watching bathwater going round and round the centre-spot and falling down the plughole.

Thank God there's still a Beaglehole.

[Flynny]

It's a Kellyism

No it isn't.

[STUHILL]

It's a Kellyism for no mattter how bad we play we'll try and make the opposition play even worse. He thinks fans appreciate winning ugly and judging by some of the comments he's right.

Perhaps that's why it's been our main approach for so long cos I could count the times Kelly's won by anything other than ugly on one hand.

There was just no excuse for yesterday's approach - no great pressures, injury problems, etc. Kelly could have been as adventurous as he liked. He could have sent us out to play a bit. He could have learned something.

It wasn't even as if we showed some style then ran out of steam. Our whole approach was negative from the first kick. Seige mentality. Hard to beat. No personal initiative. Ball's in your court.

Imagine the whole game full of Kelly's. It would be like watching bathwater going round and round the centre-spot and falling down the plughole.

Thank God there's still a Beaglehole.

I don't think Managers actively decide right lads i wanna win ugly today, i think it's a phrase for post-match comments where the manager knows it has been a poor performance but they got the 3 points! Leiceter don't have the in depth quality of players that would be needed to play the Brazilian football that Thracian wants every week and especially not on pitches like Burnleys! I can't understand that after 3 wins and 3 clean sheets, Kelly is getting abuse, sometimes i think people would rather see him fail and Leicester lose each week, just to prove a point!

[Simon]

I don't think Managers actively decide right lads i wanna win ugly today, i think it's a phrase for post-match comments where the manager knows it has been a poor performance but they got the 3 points! Leiceter don't have the in depth quality of players that would be needed to play the Brazilian football that Thracian wants every week and especially not on pitches like Burnleys! I can't understand that after 3 wins and 3 clean sheets, Kelly is getting abuse, sometimes i think people would rather see him fail and Leicester lose each week, just to prove a point!

Not at all. I would love Kelly to succeed, but thing is, he doesn't seem to learn from his mistakes and doesn't want to play postitive attacking football. His tactics (for the most part) stink, we're normally so one dimensional its unreal, and we keep making (as a team) the same mistakes over and over again.

We did play attacking football for 30 minutes on saturday and look what we achieved. Why doesn't he try doing that every game? Burnley are certainly no better than Coventry.

[Cobbo]

People whining after a 1-0 win sigh.

We did a Burnley on Burnley - 3 points, clean sheet - what more can you hope for away from home?

We are not spectacular, but we have won a tough midweek away game! Cracking result.

Try being at Plymouth last season when we lost 1-0 - now that was dross.

[lookwhaticando]

People whining after a 1-0 win sigh.

We did a Burnley on Burnley - 3 points, clean sheet - what more can you hope for away from home?

We are not spectacular, but we have won a tough midweek away game! Cracking result.

Try being at Plymouth last season when we lost 1-0 - now that was dross.

The game that cost the bespectacled Scot his job?

The Match Thread that day was about 900 posts of 'Levein OUT!'

[davieG]

I don't think Managers actively decide right lads i wanna win ugly today, i think it's a phrase for post-match comments where the manager knows it has been a poor performance but they got the 3 points! Leiceter don't have the in depth quality of players that would be needed to play the Brazilian football that Thracian wants every week and especially not on pitches like Burnleys! I can't understand that after 3 wins and 3 clean sheets, Kelly is getting abuse, sometimes i think people would rather see him fail and Leicester lose each week, just to prove a point!

Why do you equate playing attractive football with Brazil, of course we haven't got players of that quality but by the same token we weren't playing Italy either, we were playing a team that hadn't won for 13/14 games yet we were like some spotty teenager on a first date, nervous and afraid to make the first move.

As a team we had the quality there to beat Burnley by playing positive, attacking, attractive football had we chosen to but it was obvious from the word go that we were just not interested in that option.

[Glen_lcfc]

My player ratings may, in hindsight and soberness be a bit too rewarding, however as Cobbo said we did a Burnley on the Burnley and I feel Kelly went there with a plan and it worked...just. I'm not saying for one minute it was entertaining however any Leicester away win in the last two years has to be credited with some entertainment value.

As for the Ultras, there were six of us - at the top - and we tried in vain mostly to ge the crowd going but it was a bit much for some.

<Rob Kelly's> <Blue Army> went for about 10 minutes in the second half but I'm willing to bet only me and the bloke stood behind me lost our voices last night.

As for standing up, that was amusing, the stewards made half-hearted attempts to get us to sit and then gave up and sodded off and that was that, but as I say, thier were only six of us!

[SydneyFC]

Twas a good result for us. Keeps our neck above the tide.

[Thracian]

Porter sounded a lot worse on the radio than perhaps he was, then. It sounded like he didn't get a touch in the entire first half. I think his name was said something like twice in the second half.

Johnson didn't sound THAT bad either, but that's Barber, I guess.

Porter wasn't really involved and got his six marks simply because he put the vital ball across goal for our bizarre winner. In other words he was only guy who had any effect.

Being fair to him that pass across the goalline should have an army of city players attacking it but spotting one City player anywhere near the box was like trying to spot a rare bird in the nearby Pennines.

Porter is a player who epitomises pass and move football. He needs runners around him to work the play and they simply didn't exist on Tuesday.

It was by far the most "can't be bothered" opening I've ever seen from a Leicester side. It was apparent that no-one fancied push and run. We simply camped in midfield/defensive situations, broke up attacks and let Burnley do what they could to pull us apart.

Grind and scarper really - exactly as our esteeemed manager suggested and an insult to everyone who paid their money to attend.

[Ric Flair]

Porter wasn't really involved and got his six marks simply because he put the vital ball across goal for our bizarre winner. In other words he was only guy who had any effect.

Being fair to him that pass across the goalline should have an army of city players attacking it but spotting one City player anywhere near the box was like trying to spot a rare bird in the nearby Pennines.

Porter is a player who epitomises pass and move football. He needs runners around him to work the play and they simply didn't exist on Tuesday.

It was by far the most "can't be bothered" opening I've ever seen from a Leicester side. It was apparent that no-one fancied push and run. We simply camped in midfield/defensive situations, broke up attacks and let Burnley do what they could to pull us apart.

Grind and scarper really - exactly as our esteeemed manager suggested and an insult to everyone who paid their money to attend.

I understand what you are saying, but you don't seem to be able to understand that sometimes teams play badly and don't create many opportunities. That's just the way it goes, sometimes it can't be helped. There is not one team in the history of the game that hasn't at some point played absolutely dreadful and looked like they couldn't be arsed to attack. We do it quite often, but that's because we are a crap football team. You over-estimate our players, especially the youngsters. I'm not offering any excuses for the performance on tuesday or in previous games like this, Kelly does have to shoulder some of the blame.

I just think you're flogging a dead horse if you think this club will ever produce a side that will guarantee attacking football at all times. It's the nature of the game, it doesn't always happen. Not when there are two teams involved.

Some fans obviously have different tolerance levels, but i've come to accept that this team is fairly crap and there will always be games where we are dreadful and if we can still win some of the games we are dreadful, then it's better than losing them. Don't you agree? Or would you rather we lose the games we play badly in as punishment for playing shite?

[Thracian]

I understand what you are saying, but you don't seem to be able to understand that sometimes teams play badly and don't create many opportunities. That's just the way it goes, sometimes it can't be helped. There is not one team in the history of the game that hasn't at some point played absolutely dreadful and looked like they couldn't be arsed to attack. We do it quite often, but that's because we are a crap football team. You over-estimate our players, especially the youngsters. I'm not offering any excuses for the performance on tuesday or in previous games like this, Kelly does have to shoulder some of the blame.

I just think you're flogging a dead horse if you think this club will ever produce a side that will guarantee attacking football at all times. It's the nature of the game, it doesn't always happen. Not when there are two teams involved.

Some fans obviously have different tolerance levels, but i've come to accept that this team is fairly crap and there will always be games where we are dreadful and if we can still win some of the games we are dreadful, then it's better than losing them. Don't you agree? Or would you rather we lose the games we play badly in as punishment for playing shite?

The problem with winning games in this manner is that it preserves the illusion that somehow the manager has done and is doing well.

This wasn't just a bad performance it was a non performance from the point of view of attacking intent.

I refuse to believe Kelly wasn't the "mastermind" behind the whole approach which was, plain and simple, pinch one and scarper.

I've no idea if the team is crap cos Kelly has never really played an attacking team in the manner that I would define it. And where you've seen proof that I overestimate the youngsters I don't know seeing we've never played a geuninely back to front young, attacking team. Never. In fact not even nearly.

It has varied according to available personnel but times I've said our best attacking team is something along the lines of:

Henderson/Logan;

Stearman/Maybury, McAuley, Kisnorbo, Sheehan/Mattock/Tiatto;

King, Hughes, Porter;

Hume, Horsfield, Fryatt/Dodds

And when has anything like that line-up ever been used to prove me right or wrong? Never is the answer.

The truth is Kelly doesn't have the nerve to really attack. And neither do a lot of the fans. You only have to listen to the excuses they give not to.

I stand by my comments about Tuesday. The performance was an utter disgrace to football.

Totally unaceptable.

And no I don't get any compensation for the fact that we won because that only justifies taking the same approach again - an approach which is wholly against the spirit of the game and wholly against what is presumably our broader intentions.

I would rather we had lost. In fact I'd rather we'd been slaughtered so that Mandaric might have insisted we never approach a game in that manner again.

Had Kelly been my manager I have taken him to one side afterwards and told him that if he ever sent a team to represent me in that manner then he could go and work elsewehere. Not for one minute would I put up with that.

I agree I'm flogging a dead horse. In fact I'm quite shocked at the change in fans expectations down the years and what they perceive as acceptable football. But at least I can say I tried to encourage a different approach - as I know you have at times.

[Ric Flair]

The problem with winning games in this manner is that it preserves the illusion that somehow the manager has done and is doing well.

This wasn't just a bad performance it was a non performance from the point of view of attacking intent.

I refuse to believe Kelly wasn't the "mastermind" behind the whole approach which was, plain and simple, pinch one and scarper.

I've no idea if the team is crap cos Kelly has never really played an attacking team in the manner that I would define it. And where you've seen proof that I overestimate the youngsters I don't know seeing we've never played a geuninely back to front young, attacking team. Never. In fact not even nearly.

It has varied according to available personnel but times I've said our best attacking team is something along the lines of:

Henderson/Logan;

Stearman/Maybury, McAuley, Kisnorbo, Sheehan/Mattock/Tiatto;

King, Hughes, Porter;

Hume, Horsfield, Fryatt/Dodds

And when has anything like that line-up ever been used to prove me right or wrong? Never is the answer.

The truth is Kelly doesn't have the nerve to really attack. And neither do a lot of the fans. You only have to listen to the excuses they give not to.

I stand by my comments about Tuesday. The performance was an utter disgrace to football.

Totally unaceptable.

And no I don't get any compensation for the fact that we won because that only justifies taking the same approach again - an approach which is wholly against the spirit of the game and wholly against what is presumably our broader intentions.

I would rather we had lost. In fact I'd rather we'd been slaughtered so that Mandaric might have insisted we never approach a game in that manner again.

Had Kelly been my manager I have taken him to one side afterwards and told him that if he ever sent a team to represent me in that manner then he could go and work elsewehere. Not for one minute would I put up with that.

I agree I'm flogging a dead horse. In fact I'm quite shocked at the change in fans expectations down the years and what they perceive as acceptable football. But at least I can say I tried to encourage a different approach - as I know you have at times.

In regard to the point i've highlighted, you're right in saying they've never played in the first team together to prove you right or wrong, but if they were that good then they'd be in the first team. It's as simple as that. Whether Kelly is a crap manager or not, he has a track record working with youngsters and knows when to play them in the first team or not. I doubt there would be many managers in the land that would play Max Gradel, Andy King and Joe Mattock in our first team right now.

Just because they are part of a dominant youth team, does not mean they will replicate that at first team level. The gulf in class is un-measurable. I have watched plenty of academy games for Leicester over the years and very few have made it to the level of player you're talking about. Players that can attack as a unit and destroy teams at Championship level. I hope the 3 i've mentioned make it and others do, It's very rare to get 1-2 in a batch of academy players, let alone the several youngsters you talk about.

Our academy is doing well though and I hope they get the recognition they deserve, but only when they are ready and good enough.

[Manwell Pablo]

In regard to the point i've highlighted, you're right in saying they've never played in the first team together to prove you right or wrong, but if they were that good then they'd be in the first team. It's as simple as that. Whether Kelly is a crap manager or not, he has a track record working with youngsters and knows when to play them in the first team or not. I doubt there would be many managers in the land that would play Max Gradel, Andy King and Joe Mattock in our first team right now.

Just because they are part of a dominant youth team, does not mean they will replicate that at first team level. The gulf in class is un-measurable. I have watched plenty of academy games for Leicester over the years and very few have made it to the level of player you're talking about. Players that can attack as a unit and destroy teams at Championship level. I hope the 3 i've mentioned make it and others do, It's very rare to get 1-2 in a batch of academy players, let alone the several youngsters you talk about.

Our academy is doing well though and I hope they get the recognition they deserve, but only when they are ready and good enough.

Thracian please try and read this post and answear the points before woffling about lack of ambition and defensive football blah blah blah BLAH BLAH!

[Thracian]

In regard to the point i've highlighted, you're right in saying they've never played in the first team together to prove you right or wrong, but if they were that good then they'd be in the first team. It's as simple as that. Whether Kelly is a crap manager or not, he has a track record working with youngsters and knows when to play them in the first team or not. I doubt there would be many managers in the land that would play Max Gradel, Andy King and Joe Mattock in our first team right now.

Just because they are part of a dominant youth team, does not mean they will replicate that at first team level. The gulf in class is un-measurable. I have watched plenty of academy games for Leicester over the years and very few have made it to the level of player you're talking about. Players that can attack as a unit and destroy teams at Championship level. I hope the 3 i've mentioned make it and others do, It's very rare to get 1-2 in a batch of academy players, let alone the several youngsters you talk about.

Our academy is doing well though and I hope they get the recognition they deserve, but only when they are ready and good enough.

If I thought it was as simple as "being good enough" was all that's required I wouldn't mind but it isn't. There are always other factors like MM's demand for "experience" for a start.

And the fact still remains that you cannot take these people from an attacking team and play them in isolation within a defensive team and expect to get the best out of them.

Just to illustrate what I mean it is clear we will persist with two from Hughes, Johnson, Jarrett in midfield. And I can't believe the praise that's been lavished on Johnson and Jarrett so easily.

Cos the truth is that neither will provide the goals and the creativity from midfield that we need to move forward. Nor even the consistent driving into the box. Anyone who watched them Tuesday night would know exactly what I mean.

Yet they'll continue to be chosen again and again.

It just doesn't wash. But for Kisnorbo's unexpected goals and Porter's assists we'd be in the basement with this team. And that's a fact.

Yet we never to to put the problems right.

[Ric Flair]

If I thought it was as simple as "being good enough" was all that's required I wouldn't mind but it isn't. There are always other factors like MM's demand for "experience" for a start.

And the fact still remains that you cannot take these people from an attacking team and play them in isolation within a defensive team and expect to get the best out of them.

Just to illustrate what I mean it is clear we will persist with two from Hughes, Johnson, Jarrett in midfield. And I can't believe the praise that's been lavished on Johnson and Jarrett so easily.

Cos the truth is that neither will provide the goals and the creativity from midfield that we need to move forward. Nor even the consistent driving into the box. Anyone who watched them Tuesday night would know exactly what I mean.

Yet they'll continue to be chosen again and again.

It just doesn't wash. But for Kisnorbo's unexpected goals and Porter's assists we'd be in the basement with this team. And that's a fact.

Yet we never to to put the problems right.

There are big problems in this team, I agree with you. Hat's off to you for never settling for second best, but I simply don't agree that Andy King, Max Gradel and any other attack minded academy players would improve this team to the level you crave.

I thoroughly enjoy watching the academy matches when I get the chance and the style of football is mesmorising at times, but it's been like that for as long as I can remember when i've watched academy sides. That's the nature of how they play, due to the level of football. It's entertaining and if it could be replicated at proefessional level then i'd be all for it, but I don't believe it's possible. Certainly not at Leicester anyway. I apologise for appearing to be making allowances for Leicester to continue to pick shit players like Johnson, Jarrett and Hughes but it's like that at almost every club.

All clubs have players that fans don't think should be playing, we have plenty of them. I would love to find the answer from our academy team, I would love a manager that really believed in them. However, I don't think Rob Kelly neglects them in any way, he's worked a lot of his coaching life with academy players and know's the importance of producing good young players.

It was mentioned on tv last night that Rob Kelly was the man who pleaded with Blackburn to sign Matt Derbyshire to the club a few years ago.

[Thracian]

There are big problems in this team, I agree with you. Hat's off to you for never settling for second best, but I simply don't agree that Andy King, Max Gradel and any other attack minded academy players would improve this team to the level you crave.

I thoroughly enjoy watching the academy matches when I get the chance and the style of football is mesmorising at times, but it's been like that for as long as I can remember when i've watched academy sides. That's the nature of how they play, due to the level of football. It's entertaining and if it could be replicated at proefessional level then i'd be all for it, but I don't believe it's possible. Certainly not at Leicester anyway. I apologise for appearing to be making allowances for Leicester to continue to pick shit players like Johnson, Jarrett and Hughes but it's like that at almost every club.

All clubs have players that fans don't think should be playing, we have plenty of them. I would love to find the answer from our academy team, I would love a manager that really believed in them. However, I don't think Rob Kelly neglects them in any way, he's worked a lot of his coaching life with academy players and know's the importance of producing good young players.

It was mentioned on tv last night that Rob Kelly was the man who pleaded with Blackburn to sign Matt Derbyshire to the club a few years ago.

You've touched on what makes Kelly so frustrating. He just doesn't seem true to himself. He achieved success with Blackburn's youth players with attacking football.

He appears to favour a more attacking side here (signing Yeates/Horsfield even Welsh though that didn't work). But alongside his expansive ideals he also has this hard-to-beat mentality and is vainly trying to blend the two.

It is right to do that and it's possible to do that - but you have to pick fully complimentary players. Picking half and half leads to a disjointed mess.

[Hullfox]

but you have to pick fully complimentary players

How cool would that be?

"I say Mr Johnson, your hair is looking nice today." "Why thank you Mr Kisnorbo, It's all my own you know. You really look good today yourself."

"You are too kind Mr Johnson."

[Ultra]

The problem with winning games in this manner is that it preserves the illusion that somehow the manager has done and is doing well.

This wasn't just a bad performance it was a non performance from the point of view of attacking intent.

I refuse to believe Kelly wasn't the "mastermind" behind the whole approach which was, plain and simple, pinch one and scarper.

I've no idea if the team is crap cos Kelly has never really played an attacking team in the manner that I would define it.

Have you got Alzheimer's or something? What were we doing in the first half of the Cov game?

And where you've seen proof that I overestimate the youngsters I don't know seeing we've never played a geuninely back to front young, attacking team. Never. In fact not even nearly.

Name ONE team that has, other than the fabled Man Utd Busby Babes?

It has varied according to available personnel but times I've said our best attacking team is something along the lines of:

Henderson/Logan;

Stearman/Maybury, McAuley, Kisnorbo, Sheehan/Mattock/Tiatto;

King, Hughes, Porter;

Hume, Horsfield, Fryatt/Dodds

And when has anything like that line-up ever been used to prove me right or wrong? Never is the answer

The manager has said 4-4-2 is the system that suits the players at his didposal. None of us are in a position to dispute that conclusion.

The truth is Kelly doesn't have the nerve to really attack. And neither do a lot of the fans. You only have to listen to the excuses they give not to.

I stand by my comments about Tuesday. The performance was an utter disgrace to football.

Lighten up - there have been many other performances in this and past seasons which have been worse.

Totally unaceptable.

Why? We WON, FFS!! And if that means more bums on seats for the game against West Brom than we should welcome that.

And no I don't get any compensation for the fact that we won because that only justifies taking the same approach again - an approach which is wholly against the spirit of the game and wholly against what is presumably our broader intentions.

Maybe you should just take a cheap one-way flight to Barcelona and have done with it. You'll never find the team of your dreams in England - not even among the big four!

I would rather we had lost. In fact I'd rather we'd been slaughtered so that Mandaric might have insisted we never approach a game in that manner again.

Had Kelly been my manager I have taken him to one side afterwards and told him that if he ever sent a team to represent me in that manner then he could go and work elsewehere. Not for one minute would I put up with that.

I agree I'm flogging a dead horse. In fact I'm quite shocked at the change in fans expectations down the years and what they perceive as acceptable football. But at least I can say I tried to encourage a different approach - as I know you have at times.

We had these debates when Martin O'Neill was here. If you're deluded enough to think that your approach excels his, then you really DO need to seek treatment!

[Thracian]

Have you got Alzheimer's or something? What were we doing in the first half of the Cov game?

Name ONE team that has, other than the fabled Man Utd Busby Babes?

The manager has said 4-4-2 is the system that suits the players at his didposal. None of us are in a position to dispute that conclusion.

The truth is Kelly doesn't have the nerve to really attack. And neither do a lot of the fans. You only have to listen to the excuses they give not to.

Lighten up - there have been many other performances in this and past seasons which have been worse.

Why? We WON, FFS!! And if that means more bums on seats for the game against West Brom than we should welcome that.

Maybe you should just take a cheap one-way flight to Barcelona and have done with it. You'll never find the team of your dreams in England - not even among the big four!

We had these debates when Martin O'Neill was here. If you're deluded enough to think that your approach excels his, then you really DO need to seek treatment!

a) That wasn't a through the side attacking team and lasted just 35 minutes as a close-suppoorting attacking force. It is you that might have Alzheimer's if you've already forgotten that we could easily have shipped three goals second half such was the turn-around.

b) They don't HAVE to be be young attackers. But I've already mentioned several teams.

c) That's blind faith and how would anyone know. He's never used another system for any length of time.

d) I stand by my comment 100%. Were you there? And if there really has been worse I rest my case.

e) The Burnley game wouldn't have added one single bum to the attendance. It might just have persuaded one or two to sever their ties with football altogether.

f) I have, at various times, watched many teams in England that mirrored my philosophy - and bloody good they were to watch too. Furthermore some were modern teams.

g) If you want some sort of apology from me for defending my beliefs about how football should be played you won't get one. Especially after my trip to Burnley.

[Glen_lcfc]

Thracian.

I have one question - If we win 4-0 tomorrow but do not play high standard football - will you moan for the whole of next week as well?

[Thracian]

Thracian.

I have one question - If we win 4-0 tomorrow but do not play high standard football - will you moan for the whole of next week as well?

We have no chance of winning 4-0 against West Brom without playing a high-standard of football.

And there wasn't even five minutes of high standard football from Leicester at Burnley, but worse, there was no attempt or intent to play high standard football.

I paid a considerable sum of money to see a football match - not a blatant 90-minute exercise in spoiling tactics.

If Kelly thinks he can rob me and elicit praise for it because he chanced to steal three points, he's wrong.