Training match V Notts County

[Joe.]

I suppose it depends how far you want to consider the statistics as being relevent.

However I wonder, if you were a manager, how long you'd put up with a centre-forwards scoring so infrequently.

To be fair, Fryatt hardly gets a sniff

[lookwhaticando]

To be fair, Fryatt hardly gets a sniff

Cos he's been crocked, fat and unfit for a good chunk of the season.

[Wezleylowski]

I would like to see some of the youngsters especially King and Gradel given a chance because lets be fair, our midfielders are shite and it would be nice to have something to rant about to my glory supporting mates. Thracian

[Manwell Pablo]

I suppose it depends how far you want to consider the statistics as being relevent.

However I wonder, if you were a manager, how long you'd put up with a centre-forwards scoring so infrequently.

I'll admit I'd of played Dodds by now.

But then I accept that I don't see him train every day, and unlike you I can say he should be playing at Championship level, I'd have to see him first.

[Lets Be having You]

If that's all you expect from a centre-forward I can see why you you won't be unhappy.

What we actually need is someone who's turns on a sixpence and is sharp enough to take a chance when its offered, who has the control to set up others and has the pace to get away from defenders.

It is some seasons since Horsfield was a regular scorer, and he's rarely been prolific. I can't see that changing now.

You charge me with talking rubbish and you mention people being "good enough".

Apart from a solitary goal on January 13, Iain Hume's previous goal was on November 18 - that's two goals in his last 18 League appearances.

Matt Fryatt has scored three times in 17 League and Cup appearances all season.

Horsfield has scored in one of his five matches.

Hammond has scored 5 in 17.

So what I'd like to know is exactly what you call "good enough".

The fact that we are where we are in the League and have underperformed for so much of this season is simple. Because our strikers - and their supporting midfield players - haven't been good enough by a long way.

And if they had been we'd have been competing at the top end of the table instead of chugging away in the middle with a pitiful 37 goals from 34 League matches.

spot on m8,spot on

[Geo V]

If that's all you expect from a centre-forward I can see why you you won't be unhappy.

What we actually need is someone who's turns on a sixpence and is sharp enough to take a chance when its offered, who has the control to set up others and has the pace to get away from defenders.

It is some seasons since Horsfield was a regular scorer, and he's rarely been prolific. I can't see that changing now.

You charge me with talking rubbish and you mention people being "good enough".

Apart from a solitary goal on January 13, Iain Hume's previous goal was on November 18 - that's two goals in his last 18 League appearances.

Matt Fryatt has scored three times in 17 League and Cup appearances all season.

Horsfield has scored in one of his five matches.

Hammond has scored 5 in 17.

So what I'd like to know is exactly what you call "good enough".

The fact that we are where we are in the League and have underperformed for so much of this season is simple. Because our strikers - and their supporting midfield players - haven't been good enough by a long way.

And if they had been we'd have been competing at the top end of the table instead of chugging away in the middle with a pitiful 37 goals from 34 League matches.

Sometimes you make football sound so straight forward!

There are so many factors to players scoring goals its almost madness to go into it. Unless a player is an out and out quality striker, that player will need SERVICE. If you dont supply the strikers with quality passes and chances they wont score goals. We havent had a proper creative midfield in years so having a pop at the current forwards strike rates and only a side-pop at the midfield doesnt make sense.

In an ideal world we would have two superbly mobile, quick, superb shooting forwards but they are hard to get hold of, just look at the crap that the English National team has to choose from....

[Thracian]

Sometimes you make football sound so straight forward!

There are so many factors to players scoring goals its almost madness to go into it. Unless a player is an out and out quality striker, that player will need SERVICE. If you dont supply the strikers with quality passes and chances they wont score goals. We havent had a proper creative midfield in years so having a pop at the current forwards strike rates and only a side-pop at the midfield doesnt make sense.

In an ideal world we would have two superbly mobile, quick, superb shooting forwards but they are hard to get hold of, just look at the crap that the English National team has to choose from....

It certainly makes sense seeing we were talking about strikers and considering the number of chances we've missed over the weeks.

I would, however, hardly say I've been less critical of the strikers than the midfield generally. I've screamed and shouted for a proper attacking midfielder for as long as I can remember and have consistently claimed that we cannot afford to have two spoilers in central midfield let alone Hughes on the right making three.

PS: I wish you hadn't reminded me of the English National team so early in the morning. Having that shit as an example of tactical initiative just means there's an excuse for others to copy

PPS: Genuiinely attacking midfielders are only hard to come by if you prefer to select defence-first players and ignore the attackers you've got in any case.

If Kelly wants to stay strong defensively but also become more creative from midfield he has to admit we don't really have the personnel for 4-4-2 and adjust to 4-3-3 instead.

Any coach can stick rigidly to one system. The real test of a coach's ingenuity is in being able to adjust his tactics to suit the players he's got. And he needs to adjust - or to sign/use other players - because 37 goals in 34 games is not enough.

[l444ry]

It certainly makes sense seeing we were talking about strikers and considering the number of chances we've missed over the weeks.

I would, however, hardly say I've been less critical of the strikers than the midfield generally. I've screamed and shouted for a proper attacking midfielder for as long as I can remember and have consistently claimed that we cannot afford to have two spoilers in central midfield let alone Hughes on the right making three.

PS: I wish you hadn't reminded me of the English National team so early in the morning. Having that shit as an example of tactical initiative just means there's an excuse for others to copy

PPS: Genuiinely attacking midfielders are only hard to come by if you prefer to select defence-first players and ignore the attackers you've got in any case.

If Kelly wants to stay strong defensively but also become more creative from midfield he has to admit we don't really have the personnel for 4-4-2 and adjust to 4-3-3 instead.

Any coach can stick rigidly to one system. The real test of a coach's ingenuity is in being able to adjust his tactics to suit the players he's got. And he needs to adjust - or to sign/use other players - because 37 goals in 34 games is not enough.

Sometimes blaming or changing the system can be a red herring. Chelsea play 4-4-2 with so-called wide players but on other occasions play 4-4-2 with four central midfield players. They win either way. Ultimately it comes down to the standard of the players being employed.

[dave the caveman]

Mention of Rooney, Henry etc is just a sidestep.

We've had plenty of good centre-forwards in our history who did exactly the things I've talked about, both in the top division and the one below . Why should we put up with such poor returns now?

Yeah spot on.

Oh wait, didn't we go into administration or something, a while back?

Oh and yeah we got relegated.

Come to think of it we've not had any money for the last 4 years.

Perhaps, errrm, just a thought like, but maybe we can't (couldn't) afford to buy players of the same quality as we used to?

[MC Prussian]

Yeah spot on.

Oh wait, didn't we go into administration or something, a while back?

Oh and yeah we got relegated.

Come to think of it we've not had any money for the last 4 years.

Perhaps, errrm, just a thought like, but maybe we can't (couldn't) afford to buy players of the same quality as we used to?

In the past, we've often bought so-called bargains that paid off pretty well in the end, especially during the Martin O'Neill era, if I'm not mistaken.

Of course, there are other, more shameful examples under the realm of a certain P.T. now at C.P.

[davieG]

Yeah spot on.

Oh wait, didn't we go into administration or something, a while back?

Oh and yeah we got relegated.

Come to think of it we've not had any money for the last 4 years.

Perhaps, errrm, just a thought like, but maybe we can't (couldn't) afford to buy players of the same quality as we used to?

Well we had 6 million for each of the 2 seasons following relegation, that's more than MM is planning to plough in over the next two seasons!

[Micky]

You needn't worry about Dodds. If someone gives him a proper chance - an afterthought 15 minutes out of a possible 180 he's had at Rochdale so far - then he'll score goals.

None of your scepticism will dim my faith in the guy because I've seen the range of goals he scores and how regularly he scores them.

As for the mention of Billy McKay elsewhere he's a forever dangerous player but, like so many others, he'll have to fight the braun-is-best merchants.

Slow and cumbersome though Horsfield is he's got an instant following at City despite the fact that apart from his two goals against Coventry he's had little real impact, has the deft touch of a concrete bollard and has shown nothing that is likely to trouble a competent and mobile defender except the odd backhand smash.

McKay is quick, elusive, skillful and direct - a headache for even the swiftest defenders. But whether that will ever beat brute strength and experience in City eyes is another question altogether.

Just because I prefer the Arsenal way of fast-passing and ball-to-feet doesn't mean there's any signs of anyone at Leicester thinking similarly.

well go and support arsenal then because this is leicester city and we haven't got the players (from the first team to the youth) to play that style of football. We couldn't even play that style in our peak when o'neill was here! some people will never be happy!

[Thracian]

well go and support arsenal then because this is leicester city and we haven't got the players (from the first team to the youth) to play that style of football. We couldn't even play that style in our peak when o'neill was here! some people will never be happy!

Thankfully I don't think its the case either throughout the club or among the fans in general, but if everyone set their sights as low as you we'll never get anywhere.

Anyone can play that style of football if you've got the will, the belief and the inclination. How long has it taken Arsenal? It is not so many years ago they were characterised by George Graham and every journey starts with the first steps.

It was never MON's style - he more than anyone I can remember adapted his approach to the kind of players he had - and very successful he was too - but if you think MON represented our peak then you're much mistaken.

Leicester had a brilliant attacking side in the 60's, not many years after I first became a fan. And that's the spirit, if not necessarily the exact style, I'd like to see us playing again.

And I'm bloody sure that after 50 years of trapsing over that railway bridge - on and off - I'm not going to be told by you who I should support nor will I modify my views on who City might do well to try and emulate and learn from. Top teams have always set the trends in football and why we should be the last to catch on I don't know.

Ironically, all our Academy training already seems geared to quick ball to feet passing and moving. It is only at senior level the method gets compromised for one reason or another and, unlike you, I believe it will change.

[Geo V]

It certainly makes sense seeing we were talking about strikers and considering the number of chances we've missed over the weeks.

I would, however, hardly say I've been less critical of the strikers than the midfield generally. I've screamed and shouted for a proper attacking midfielder for as long as I can remember and have consistently claimed that we cannot afford to have two spoilers in central midfield let alone Hughes on the right making three.

PS: I wish you hadn't reminded me of the English National team so early in the morning. Having that shit as an example of tactical initiative just means there's an excuse for others to copy

PPS: Genuiinely attacking midfielders are only hard to come by if you prefer to select defence-first players and ignore the attackers you've got in any case.

If Kelly wants to stay strong defensively but also become more creative from midfield he has to admit we don't really have the personnel for 4-4-2 and adjust to 4-3-3 instead.

Any coach can stick rigidly to one system. The real test of a coach's ingenuity is in being able to adjust his tactics to suit the players he's got. And he needs to adjust - or to sign/use other players - because 37 goals in 34 games is not enough.

I understand part of your rants Thracian but you do at times live in a dream world and go to the extreme that is as good as fantasy!

If you look at football in general, take the British game, our players have become like well oiled machines. Our football is, at its the best level, a game for players with pace (average paced players not need apply), with engines who will follow strict tactical decisions and not over elaborate on the ball. Short passes are great but skill on the ball and luxury players at a minimum. That type of football has forced clubs like Chelski to ditch wingers and play 4 central midfielders. Its forced Rafa Benitez to add Mascherano, a defense midfielder to a side that already has Xabi Alonso and Sissoko as CMs and arguably the best all-round centralmidfielder in the world, Steve Gerrard gets pushed out to the right.

My point is that if you have ever been lucky enough to watch todays Prem player train, you would be amazed at what skills the most basic players have and the tricks that they can do. Unfortunately the brirish game is about workhorses and powerhouses who possess pace and the old days that you will probably remember all to well where the glory players lie Georgie Best and Rod Marsh who didnt have to run back and defend. Them days of ill-discipline are long gone.

To actually be able to afford an attacking midfield player at this level is very difficult. Unless players are have all round qualities its difficult to selct them these days. Midfielders have to have all-round games and sadly it may well lead to the demise of wingers. Already clubs like Spurs play a CM at LM in Malbranque but at least they have a winger in Lennon. WBA play Koumas on LM when he is more suited to the middle. Frank Lampard has even been tried as a LM for England !!

The days of 442, two wingers and the central midfielders being two footed, creative football-backs and creative skillful players are over IMO. Your ideas would have been suited to the 70s, never mind the year 2007. You need to move with the times and forget about all of this almost total football malarky you spout for Leicester City because there isnt a team in the land that plays that way anymore, maybe with the exception of Barcelona or maybe Arsenal who have found away to counter that by player only one out and out striker and having the protection of 5 in midfield.

[Manwell Pablo]

I understand part of your rants Thracian but you do at times live in a dream world and go to the extreme that is as good as fantasy!

If you look at football in general, take the British game, our players have become like well oiled machines. Our football is, at its the best level, a game for players with pace (average paced players not need apply), with engines who will follow strict tactical decisions and not over elaborate on the ball. Short passes are great but skill on the ball and luxury players at a minimum. That type of football has forced clubs like Chelski to ditch wingers and play 4 central midfielders. Its forced Rafa Benitez to add Mascherano, a defense midfielder to a side that already has Xabi Alonso and Sissoko as CMs and arguably the best all-round centralmidfielder in the world, Steve Gerrard gets pushed out to the right.

My point is that if you have ever been lucky enough to watch todays Prem player train, you would be amazed at what skills the most basic players have and the tricks that they can do. Unfortunately the brirish game is about workhorses and powerhouses who possess pace and the old days that you will probably remember all to well where the glory players lie Georgie Best and Rod Marsh who didnt have to run back and defend. Them days of ill-discipline are long gone.

To actually be able to afford an attacking midfield player at this level is very difficult. Unless players are have all round qualities its difficult to selct them these days. Midfielders have to have all-round games and sadly it may well lead to the demise of wingers. Already clubs like Spurs play a CM at LM in Malbranque but at least they have a winger in Lennon. WBA play Koumas on LM when he is more suited to the middle. Frank Lampard has even been tried as a LM for England !!

The days of 442, two wingers and the central midfielders being two footed, creative football-backs and creative skillful players are over IMO. Your ideas would have been suited to the 70s, never mind the year 2007. You need to move with the times and forget about all of this almost total football malarky you spout for Leicester City because there isnt a team in the land that plays that way anymore, maybe with the exception of Barcelona or maybe Arsenal who have found away to counter that by player only one out and out striker and having the protection of 5 in midfield.

Seriously don't bother argueing with him, what your posting has been posted a thousand times.

[Geo V]

Seriously don't bother argueing with him, what your posting has been posted a thousand a times.

Without wanting to patronize the bloke, he must be about 50-60 years old and I see where the frustration comes from when watching todays football, especially at our level.

My dad lives in Cyprus but whenever he comes over he goes on about the good old days with Cloughy ( he is a Forest fan!) and how crap things are today. The old school fan who was lucky enough to witness both quality football and be party to the amazing noise in the ground cant get there heads around the crap of today.

I say today is our reality and we have to live with it and try and be as good as we can without talking fantasy football.

[Thracian]

I understand part of your rants Thracian but you do at times live in a dream world and go to the extreme that is as good as fantasy!

If you look at football in general, take the British game, our players have become like well oiled machines. Our football is, at its the best level, a game for players with pace (average paced players not need apply), with engines who will follow strict tactical decisions and not over elaborate on the ball. Short passes are great but skill on the ball and luxury players at a minimum. That type of football has forced clubs like Chelski to ditch wingers and play 4 central midfielders. Its forced Rafa Benitez to add Mascherano, a defense midfielder to a side that already has Xabi Alonso and Sissoko as CMs and arguably the best all-round centralmidfielder in the world, Steve Gerrard gets pushed out to the right.

My point is that if you have ever been lucky enough to watch todays Prem player train, you would be amazed at what skills the most basic players have and the tricks that they can do. Unfortunately the brirish game is about workhorses and powerhouses who possess pace and the old days that you will probably remember all to well where the glory players lie Georgie Best and Rod Marsh who didnt have to run back and defend. Them days of ill-discipline are long gone.

To actually be able to afford an attacking midfield player at this level is very difficult. Unless players are have all round qualities its difficult to selct them these days. Midfielders have to have all-round games and sadly it may well lead to the demise of wingers. Already clubs like Spurs play a CM at LM in Malbranque but at least they have a winger in Lennon. WBA play Koumas on LM when he is more suited to the middle. Frank Lampard has even been tried as a LM for England !!

The days of 442, two wingers and the central midfielders being two footed, creative football-backs and creative skillful players are over IMO. Your ideas would have been suited to the 70s, never mind the year 2007. You need to move with the times and forget about all of this almost total football malarky you spout for Leicester City because there isnt a team in the land that plays that way anymore, maybe with the exception of Barcelona or maybe Arsenal who have found away to counter that by player only one out and out striker and having the protection of 5 in midfield.

I've watched lots of modern football and while the game is generally faster I still see plenty of space for good players and plenty of mistakes, many of them juvenile mistakes, by careless ones, even in the Premiership.

In fact some of the defending has been woeful.

The inclination towards additional insurance in midfield is not out of necessity, it is out of fear and how our national team has suffered for it.

However, far from wingers or skillful players becoming outmoded they are becoming manner from heaven.

People like Ronaldo or Giggs or Lennon, Robben or Walcott, people who can fly at the opposition but who still have the brains and presence of mind to make a final pass, are priceless and that shows in the fees they command.

Chelsea have an exceptional situation but considering the money they've poured into it I think their system helps explain exactly why they might struggle to retain the Premiership - which is abject failure in their situation to be truthful.

And, but for Drogba (a genuine world talent) they'd likely have lost to Arsenal in the Cup. Indeed, if Arsenal's left back had scored his sitter I am quite sure that would have been curtains.

Chelsea's style restricts their performance and, indeed, it is often only when Arjen Robben comes on

to cause havoc from the wing that Chelsea start to look impressive and threatening.

Gerrard and Lampard, exactly like Hughes at city, are totally wasted in wide positions - and invariably unbalance their side.

As for dismissing players of the past for their indiscipline you are quite wrong. There is nothing new in modern football. Spurs played like Arsenal in the 60's with their push and run football, although they tended to used the flanks more forcefully and Liverpool of Thompson and Callagher were very much a fast pass and move team.

George Best may have been a jack-the-lad off the pitch but let no-one doubt his workrate or willingness to tackle. I've never seen a player take so many whackings - and I mean whackings not the sort of tip-tap tackles that would get a yellow card these days - and still be up for more.

Rodney Marsh was a bit laid back but worshipped nevertheless and Matt Le Tissier even more so, but Le Tissier would have been as much a God in today's football as any other. They'd have been scared to death of him and for good reason. Cos he was a bloody genius.

I don't want to be unkind to Horsfield but our current centre-forward, a contract holder in the modern football you talk about, has never been good enough to lace LeTissier's boots. Nor any other forward we've got for that matter.

You are quite wrong about the inevitable demise of wingers, attacking full-backs and skillful players generally.

And you only have to see the top teams to know that they think that too.

People like Ronaldo, Robben, Lennon, Walcot, Giggs are priceless and would have a queue of people wanting their services any time they were available.

And why do you think Manchester United are the best supported club? Because people love watching such players and they do get results, basically because the workhorses can't cope with them over 90 minutes as is demonstrated every year by their goals for column.

People like Ronaldo take two defenders to contain them and that buggers your zonal marking straight away because it means there's loads of space somewhere else, as Paul Scholes invariably demonstrates.

It is what the negative tacticians never seem to realise...

As soon as you have individual talent in dangerous places it takes numbers to neutralse them

And so it has ever been to be honest.

Just think about the British game you mention and ask if its really about skill or about powerhouses?

Best, LeTissier, Bobby Charlton, Frank Worthington, Davie Gibson, Osgood, Henry, Giggs, Ronaldo, Greaves,

Robben weren't/aren't first and foremost about power but about irrepressible skill and all are/were timeless. Every one would have been welcomed in any team, in any era.

Of course pace, power and strength plays a part, it always has.

Our own Frank McLintock and Graham Cross epitomised such qualities years ago. But you will never eclipse the value of intelligent individuals and if you think the ill-disciplined/layed-back George Best, Frank Worthington or Matt LeTissier wouldn't get into today's teams you are surely joking.

[Manwell Pablo]

I've watched lots of modern football and while the game is generally faster I still see plenty of space for good players and plenty of mistakes, many of them juvenile mistakes, by careless ones, even in the Premiership.

In fact some of the defending has been woeful.

The inclination towards additional insurance in midfield is not out of necessity, it is out of fear and how our national team has suffered for it.

However, far from wingers or skillful players becoming outmoded they are becoming manner from heaven.

People like Ronaldo or Giggs or Lennon, Robben or Walcott, people who can fly at the opposition but who still have the brains and presence of mind to make a final pass, are priceless and that shows in the fees they command.

Chelsea have an exceptional situation but considering the money they've poured into it I think their system helps explain exactly why they might struggle to retain the Premiership - which is abject failure in their situation to be truthful.

And, but for Drogba (a genuine world talent) they'd likely have lost to Arsenal in the Cup. Indeed, if Arsenal's left back had scored his sitter I am quite sure that would have been curtains.

Chelsea's style restricts their performance and, indeed, it is often only when Arjen Robben comes on

to cause havoc from the wing that Chelsea start to look impressive and threatening.

Gerrard and Lampard, exactly like Hughes at city, are totally wasted in wide positions - and invariably unbalance their side.

As for dismissing players of the past for their indiscipline you are quite wrong. There is nothing new in modern football. Spurs played like Arsenal in the 60's with their push and run football, although they tended to used the flanks more forcefully and Liverpool of Thompson and Callagher were very much a fast pass and move team.

George Best may have been a jack-the-lad off the pitch but let no-one doubt his workrate or willingness to tackle. I've never seen a player take so many whackings - and I mean whackings not the sort of tip-tap tackles that would get a yellow card these days - and still be up for more.

Rodney Marsh was a bit laid back but worshipped nevertheless and Matt Le Tissier even more so, but Le Tissier would have been as much a God in today's football as any other. They'd have been scared to death of him and for good reason. Cos he was a bloody genius.

I don't want to be unkind to Horsfield but our current centre-forward, a contract holder in the modern football you talk about, has never been good enough to lace LeTissier's boots. Nor any other forward we've got for that matter.

You are quite wrong about the inevitable demise of wingers, attacking full-backs and skillful players generally.

And you only have to see the top teams to know that they think that too.

People like Ronaldo, Robben, Lennon, Walcot, Giggs are priceless and would have a queue of people wanting their services any time they were available.

And why do you think Manchester United are the best supported club? Because people love watching such players and they do get results, basically because the workhorses can't cope with them over 90 minutes as is demonstrated every year by their goals for column.

People like Ronaldo take two defenders to contain them and that buggers your zonal marking straight away because it means there's loads of space somewhere else, as Paul Scholes invariably demonstrates.

It is what the negative tacticians never seem to realise...

As soon as you have individual talent in dangerous places it takes numbers to neutralse them

And so it has ever been to be honest.

Just think about the British game you mention and ask if its really about skill or about powerhouses?

Best, LeTissier, Bobby Charlton, Frank Worthington, Davie Gibson, Osgood, Henry, Giggs, Ronaldo, Greaves,

Robben weren't/aren't first and foremost about power but about irrepressible skill and all are/were timeless. Every one would have been welcomed in any team, in any era.

Of course pace, power and strength plays a part, it always has.

Our own Frank McLintock and Graham Cross epitomised such qualities years ago. But you will never eclipse the value of intelligent individuals and if you think the ill-disciplined/layed-back George Best, Frank Worthington or Matt LeTissier wouldn't get into today's teams you are surely joking.

See Apex, you could of prevented that.

[Geo V]

I've watched lots of modern football and while the game is generally faster I still see plenty of space for good players and plenty of mistakes, many of them juvenile mistakes, by careless ones, even in the Premiership.

In fact some of the defending has been woeful.

The inclination towards additional insurance in midfield is not out of necessity, it is out of fear and how our national team has suffered for it.

However, far from wingers or skillful players becoming outmoded they are becoming manner from heaven.

People like Ronaldo or Giggs or Lennon, Robben or Walcott, people who can fly at the opposition but who still have the brains and presence of mind to make a final pass, are priceless and that shows in the fees they command.

Chelsea have an exceptional situation but considering the money they've poured into it I think their system helps explain exactly why they might struggle to retain the Premiership - which is abject failure in their situation to be truthful.

And, but for Drogba (a genuine world talent) they'd likely have lost to Arsenal in the Cup. Indeed, if Arsenal's left back had scored his sitter I am quite sure that would have been curtains.

Chelsea's style restricts their performance and, indeed, it is often only when Arjen Robben comes on

to cause havoc from the wing that Chelsea start to look impressive and threatening.

Gerrard and Lampard, exactly like Hughes at city, are totally wasted in wide positions - and invariably unbalance their side.

As for dismissing players of the past for their indiscipline you are quite wrong. There is nothing new in modern football. Spurs played like Arsenal in the 60's with their push and run football, although they tended to used the flanks more forcefully and Liverpool of Thompson and Callagher were very much a fast pass and move team.

George Best may have been a jack-the-lad off the pitch but let no-one doubt his workrate or willingness to tackle. I've never seen a player take so many whackings - and I mean whackings not the sort of tip-tap tackles that would get a yellow card these days - and still be up for more.

Rodney Marsh was a bit laid back but worshipped nevertheless and Matt Le Tissier even more so, but Le Tissier would have been as much a God in today's football as any other. They'd have been scared to death of him and for good reason. Cos he was a bloody genius.

I don't want to be unkind to Horsfield but our current centre-forward, a contract holder in the modern football you talk about, has never been good enough to lace LeTissier's boots. Nor any other forward we've got for that matter.

You are quite wrong about the inevitable demise of wingers, attacking full-backs and skillful players generally.

And you only have to see the top teams to know that they think that too.

People like Ronaldo, Robben, Lennon, Walcot, Giggs are priceless and would have a queue of people wanting their services any time they were available.

And why do you think Manchester United are the best supported club? Because people love watching such players and they do get results, basically because the workhorses can't cope with them over 90 minutes as is demonstrated every year by their goals for column.

People like Ronaldo take two defenders to contain them and that buggers your zonal marking straight away because it means there's loads of space somewhere else, as Paul Scholes invariably demonstrates.

It is what the negative tacticians never seem to realise...

As soon as you have individual talent in dangerous places it takes numbers to neutralse them

And so it has ever been to be honest.

Just think about the British game you mention and ask if its really about skill or about powerhouses?

Best, LeTissier, Bobby Charlton, Frank Worthington, Davie Gibson, Osgood, Henry, Giggs, Ronaldo, Greaves,

Robben weren't/aren't first and foremost about power but about irrepressible skill and all are/were timeless. Every one would have been welcomed in any team, in any era.

Of course pace, power and strength plays a part, it always has.

Our own Frank McLintock and Graham Cross epitomised such qualities years ago. But you will never eclipse the value of intelligent individuals and if you think the ill-disciplined/layed-back George Best, Frank Worthington or Matt LeTissier wouldn't get into today's teams you are surely joking.

Manlo, I should have listened!

Firstly, I dont think you really understand the implications to the speed of our game. Our game is so fast and poerful that it actually toughens up the foreign players that come over and almost make them complete! Our game has transformed average foreign players like Cantona, Henry, Pires and Ginola and turned them into superstars! Because the game has become like that, you need to have exceptional ability to stand out. There arent many of them type of players about. The fees for Ashley Young and Theo Walcott prove that decent young players with some skill are hard to come by.

My personal choice is for 442 with two wingers and two complete midfielders like a Steve Gerrard. The facts are that not many central midfielders are as complete as him, infact the likes of Paul Scholes have been getting by and rated highly despite not being able to head the ball or pass. Even wingers have been downgraded and one of the better wingers in recent years according to most is David Beckham who cant actually dribble the football or beat a man!

As for the old players, despite being 34 I can fully appreciate the players of yesteryear due to my former life as an owner of a football related business. The research saw me going through so many video tapes of domestic football to world cups that in those days I hardly ever slept! My opinions of the old style centre forward was that some of them used to run back and defend to a point but you hardly ever had them as disciplined as todays footballer who is an intergral part at corners and would chase players from an attacking position to slide in and tackle on the edge of there own box, like players like Rooney and even Heskey have to do at will. The attacking player of the 60s and 70s had more energy in forward positions because they preserved most of it. Its funny you mention Matt Le Tissier because he was not only an amazing player but recognised as an old style of player, skillful but very lazy.

Also, to suggest that wingers are still as common these days is ludicrous. Name Arsenals "wingers". they play 5 midfielders but would throw more central strikers or even playmakers like Rosicky and Hleb out there. They have followed the common theme of almost creating a new type of midfielder. They play a similar style to Barca who play with one forward and 5 midfielders who can all interchange positions and play wide when needed. Most teams seem to be abandoning 2 out and out attackers for this 5 pronged midfield. Look at Everton. Aj upfront and Beattie on the bench and they play 5 in midfield. Wingers will exist but not as you know it! The days of the 70s where not only wide men were at there best but the central midfield players were playmakers have ended.

As for "skill". As I said before, players are very skilful, surprisingly so when you watch them in training. The problem is that they are not allowed to express themselves in this day and age. Many of the more flair players are benched. You mentioned 5 wingers and one hardly plays for his club (Robben), one is at the veteran stage of his career and has been used in a different wingers role, much of it in central midfield of 5 (Giggs) and one of them is a teenage striker who again plays in a 5 man midfield as doesnt look as effective wide (Walcott). He may well become a great striker if he is allowed to flourish in that position. Lennon is an out and out talent and Ronaldo is world class. No mame some more out and out wingers in the Premiership!!! Liverpool have Zenden (now plays central), Pennant (rarely starts), Gonzalez (see Pennant ). Who are Evertons wingers? Man Citys? Wigans? Aston Villas? Most of these are central midfielders pushed wide! Even England have good two good right-wingers in SWP and Lennon but on the left our best is a central midfielder converted, Joe Cole. Other than say Downing, name another English left-winger!!

Back to the original discussion as I am sure we have sent Manlo and the others to sleep, all I am suggesting is that we move with the times and try to bring in good players who can do a job to get us competitive and hopefully promoted. If one or two are wingers then great. But to almost suggest we play all these amazing kids you go on about who are attacking fullbacks, superb wingers, amazing natural finishers and attacking midfielders is lunacy.

[Thracian]

Manlo, I should have listened!

Firstly, I dont think you really understand the implications to the speed of our game. Our game is so fast and poerful that it actually toughens up the foreign players that come over and almost make them complete! Our game has transformed average foreign players like Cantona, Henry, Pires and Ginola and turned them into superstars! Because the game has become like that, you need to have exceptional ability to stand out. There arent many of them type of players about. The fees for Ashley Young and Theo Walcott prove that decent young players with some skill are hard to come by.

My personal choice is for 442 with two wingers and two complete midfielders like a Steve Gerrard. The facts are that not many central midfielders are as complete as him, infact the likes of Paul Scholes have been getting by and rated highly despite not being able to head the ball or pass. Even wingers have been downgraded and one of the better wingers in recent years according to most is David Beckham who cant actually dribble the football or beat a man!

As for the old players, despite being 34 I can fully appreciate the players of yesteryear due to my former life as an owner of a football related business. The research saw me going through so many video tapes of domestic football to world cups that in those days I hardly ever slept! My opinions of the old style centre forward was that some of them used to run back and defend to a point but you hardly ever had them as disciplined as todays footballer who is an intergral part at corners and would chase players from an attacking position to slide in and tackle on the edge of there own box, like players like Rooney and even Heskey have to do at will. The attacking player of the 60s and 70s had more energy in forward positions because they preserved most of it. Its funny you mention Matt Le Tissier because he was not only an amazing player but recognised as an old style of player, skillful but very lazy.

Also, to suggest that wingers are still as common these days is ludicrous. Name Arsenals "wingers". they play 5 midfielders but would throw more central strikers or even playmakers like Rosicky and Hleb out there. They have followed the common theme of almost creating a new type of midfielder. They play a similar style to Barca who play with one forward and 5 midfielders who can all interchange positions and play wide when needed. Most teams seem to be abandoning 2 out and out attackers for this 5 pronged midfield. Look at Everton. Aj upfront and Beattie on the bench and they play 5 in midfield. Wingers will exist but not as you know it! The days of the 70s where not only wide men were at there best but the central midfield players were playmakers have ended.

As for "skill". As I said before, players are very skilful, surprisingly so when you watch them in training. The problem is that they are not allowed to express themselves in this day and age. Many of the more flair players are benched. You mentioned 5 wingers and one hardly plays for his club (Robben), one is at the veteran stage of his career and has been used in a different wingers role, much of it in central midfield of 5 (Giggs) and one of them is a teenage striker who again plays in a 5 man midfield as doesnt look as effective wide (Walcott). He may well become a great striker if he is allowed to flourish in that position. Lennon is an out and out talent and Ronaldo is world class. No mame some more out and out wingers in the Premiership!!! Liverpool have Zenden (now plays central), Pennant (rarely starts), Gonzalez (see Pennant ). Who are Evertons wingers? Man Citys? Wigans? Aston Villas? Most of these are central midfielders pushed wide! Even England have good two good right-wingers in SWP and Lennon but on the left our best is a central midfielder converted, Joe Cole. Other than say Downing, name another English left-winger!!

Back to the original discussion as I am sure we have sent Manlo and the others to sleep, all I am suggesting is that we move with the times and try to bring in good players who can do a job to get us competitive and hopefully promoted. If one or two are wingers then great. But to almost suggest we play all these amazing kids you go on about who are attacking fullbacks, superb wingers, amazing natural finishers and attacking midfielders is lunacy.

It seems to be a trend on here to totally exaggerate what people say in order to get a point over.

When have I ever called any of our kids "amazing" or suggested they are "superb wingers" or "amazing" natural finishers or "amazing" attacking midfielders.

I have never said or implied anything of the sort. I don't think that for one minute.

Forgetting where we might intend to go in the future we have perfectly ordinary footballers in our team today. Players who would be ordinary in any era.

Horsfield would not have been stronger, fitter, faster, work harder be more lethal or have greater control than loads of Leicester City centre-forwards I can recollect.

Yeates would not be faster, cleverer, stronger, more effective than Len Glover, Keith Weller, Derek Hogg, Howard Riley or loads more.

And as for the likes of Johnson, Hughes, Wesolowski, Tiatto - are you seriously suggesting their modern attributes would make them more effective than Izzett, Lennon, Davie Gibson, Graham Cross cos I don't think so.

And all I've said in relation to our young players is that we need attacking full-backs (plainly obvious to me but you support whatever style you like) and that we should try the options we've already trained up if the players we've got are not capable of doing the job.

I've said we need an effective right winger who scores and creates goals and that, seeing as Sylla, Low, Hughes, Stearman were clearly not such people then someone who does score and create things like Gradel might be - at least off the bench.

I've said we need an attacking midfield player and, before we buy one, should see how good Andy King is in the role seeing as he looks extremely effective to me.

I've never suggested he was "amazing" only that he should be tried seeing our current midfielders are clearly incapable of attacking effectively or of creating anything of consequence on a regular basis.

The same goes for Dodds. I've never once said he's amazing. Kelly said he was the club's most natural finisher, not me, but I'm no more sure than others whether he can be effective at Championship level. All I've said is that seeing our current strikers are so demonstrably unproductive, we should have found out.

At our striker's current rate of success it wouldn't be hard for anyone to register an improvement.

That is what I've said and that is what I believe.

Especially considering the loanees we bring in hardly appear to be especially capable.

Is Yeates more effective than Gradel. I doubt it.

Is Jarrett more effective than King - not from anything I've seen.

Is Horsfield better than Dodds - unlikely.

Was Glombard better than King?. I saw no evidence.

Was Welch better than Porter? You're joking.

[FrankieWorthoYaggedMyWife]

Is Horsfield better than Dodds - unlikely.

Come back when Dodds has over 100 professional goals at nearly 1 in 2!!!!!

[Manwell Pablo]

It seems to be a trend on here to totally exaggerate what people say in order to get a point over.

When have I ever called any of our kids "amazing" or suggested they are "superb wingers" or "amazing" natural finishers or "amazing" attacking midfielders.

I have never said or implied anything of the sort. I don't think that for one minute.

Forgetting where we might intend to go in the future we have perfectly ordinary footballers in our team today. Players who would be ordinary in any era.

Horsfield would not have been stronger, fitter, faster, work harder be more lethal or have greater control than loads of Leicester City centre-forwards I can recollect.

Yeates would not be faster, cleverer, stronger, more effective than Len Glover, Keith Weller, Derek Hogg, Howard Riley or loads more.

And as for the likes of Johnson, Hughes, Wesolowski, Tiatto - are you seriously suggesting their modern attributes would make them more effective than Izzett, Lennon, Davie Gibson, Graham Cross cos I don't think so.

And all I've said in relation to our young players is that we need attacking full-backs (plainly obvious to me but you support whatever style you like) and that we should try the options we've already trained up if the players we've got are not capable of doing the job.

I've said we need an effective right winger who scores and creates goals and that, seeing as Sylla, Low, Hughes, Stearman were clearly not such people then someone who does score and create things like Gradel might be - at least off the bench.

I've said we need an attacking midfield player and, before we buy one, should see how good Andy King is in the role seeing as he looks extremely effective to me.

I've never suggested he was "amazing" only that he should be tried seeing our current midfielders are clearly incapable of attacking effectively or of creating anything of consequence on a regular basis.

The same goes for Dodds. I've never once said he's amazing. Kelly said he was the club's most natural finisher, not me, but I'm no more sure than others whether he can be effective at Championship level. All I've said is that seeing our current strikers are so demonstrably unproductive, we should have found out.

At our striker's current rate of success it wouldn't be hard for anyone to register an improvement.

That is what I've said and that is what I believe.

Especially considering the loanees we bring in hardly appear to be especially capable.

Is Yeates more effective than Gradel. I doubt it.

Is Jarrett more effective than King - not from anything I've seen.

Is Horsfield better than Dodds - unlikely.

Was Glombard better than King?. I saw no evidence.

Was Welch better than Porter? You're joking.

Funnily enough Thracian, having seen all the players mentioned, bearing in mind some of played well at Championship level and others have shone good at youth level. I think Yeates is more effective than Gradel, Jarrat is definatley "more effective" than King, and Horsfield is without question better than Dodds.

If your going to reply di me a favour and keep it below 7 lines.

[Geo V]

It seems to be a trend on here to totally exaggerate what people say in order to get a point over.

When have I ever called any of our kids "amazing" or suggested they are "superb wingers" or "amazing" natural finishers or "amazing" attacking midfielders.

I have never said or implied anything of the sort. I don't think that for one minute.

Forgetting where we might intend to go in the future we have perfectly ordinary footballers in our team today. Players who would be ordinary in any era.

Horsfield would not have been stronger, fitter, faster, work harder be more lethal or have greater control than loads of Leicester City centre-forwards I can recollect.

Yeates would not be faster, cleverer, stronger, more effective than Len Glover, Keith Weller, Derek Hogg, Howard Riley or loads more.

And as for the likes of Johnson, Hughes, Wesolowski, Tiatto - are you seriously suggesting their modern attributes would make them more effective than Izzett, Lennon, Davie Gibson, Graham Cross cos I don't think so.

And all I've said in relation to our young players is that we need attacking full-backs (plainly obvious to me but you support whatever style you like) and that we should try the options we've already trained up if the players we've got are not capable of doing the job.

I've said we need an effective right winger who scores and creates goals and that, seeing as Sylla, Low, Hughes, Stearman were clearly not such people then someone who does score and create things like Gradel might be - at least off the bench.

I've said we need an attacking midfield player and, before we buy one, should see how good Andy King is in the role seeing as he looks extremely effective to me.

I've never suggested he was "amazing" only that he should be tried seeing our current midfielders are clearly incapable of attacking effectively or of creating anything of consequence on a regular basis.

The same goes for Dodds. I've never once said he's amazing. Kelly said he was the club's most natural finisher, not me, but I'm no more sure than others whether he can be effective at Championship level. All I've said is that seeing our current strikers are so demonstrably unproductive, we should have found out.

At our striker's current rate of success it wouldn't be hard for anyone to register an improvement.

That is what I've said and that is what I believe.

Especially considering the loanees we bring in hardly appear to be especially capable.

Is Yeates more effective than Gradel. I doubt it.

Is Jarrett more effective than King - not from anything I've seen.

Is Horsfield better than Dodds - unlikely.

Was Glombard better than King?. I saw no evidence.

Was Welch better than Porter? You're joking.

Firstly, may I make an apology to Manuel Pablo for continuing this thread and secondly, although maybe you missed it, for calling you Manlo on an earlier post. I merged your names by accident.

As for the man known as Thracian. When we win, you call for the superkids. When we lose, you call for the super kids. When Hume was scoring, you wanted new strikers in. We paid £750k for a young striker who has scored goals at a lower level and you want him out as well for more of the kids. The list is endless. All I would have to do is see you prefered team selections since I joined this forum and it would include the likes of Dodds, Gradel, King etc.

I may have exagerated your ratings for these kids but you do hype them up something silly.

Your surmising at the end of your last post explains it all. You have put head to head battles with players that have plenty of league experience against our kids who have hardly featured. Your classic of rating Dodds better than Horsfield sums it up! Your over exaggerations on players abilities seem to cloud any sense of opinion you may have on some of these youngsters.

[Thracian]

Firstly, may I make an apology to Manuel Pablo for continuing this thread and secondly, although maybe you missed it, for calling you Manlo on an earlier post. I merged your names by accident.

As for the man known as Thracian. When we win, you call for the superkids. When we lose, you call for the super kids. When Hume was scoring, you wanted new strikers in. We paid £750k for a young striker who has scored goals at a lower level and you want him out as well for more of the kids. The list is endless. All I would have to do is see you prefered team selections since I joined this forum and it would include the likes of Dodds, Gradel, King etc.

I may have exagerated your ratings for these kids but you do hype them up something silly.

Your surmising at the end of your last post explains it all. You have put head to head battles with players that have plenty of league experience against our kids who have hardly featured. Your classic of rating Dodds better than Horsfield sums it up! Your over exaggerations on players abilities seem to cloud any sense of opinion you may have on some of these youngsters.

There you go again - I've never wanted Fryatt out in a permanent way. I've wanted him properly fit and justifying his place which he has very rarely done all season.

Nor did I ever want Hume out when he was scoring. I don't even want him out now. Just moved to a supporting role (where he's mainly to be found anyway) so a specialist striker can take some of his workload.

I would also say I've only rarely included either Dodds, Shehan and Gradel in my preferred starting line-ups this season - and when I did it was only because our strikers and wingers were so utterly ineffective and when Nils had was apparently out injured or out of favour. I've mainly wanted Dodds, Sheehan and Gradel used from the bench, Gradel very sparingly to start with.

But as you mention it I do believe Dodds to be a better bet than Horsfield. I can't see Horsfield being a steady let alone prolific scorer at this stage of his career. I'll be delighted to be proved wrong but nothing I've seen so far suggests it.

King is the only youth player I've consistently felt could fill a gaping void in our side. The others, I've felt just MIGHT solve a problem and should be given a chance before we go wasting wages on ordinary loanees.

[Geo V]

There you go again - I've never wanted Fryatt out in a permanent way. I've wanted him properly fit and justifying his place which he has very rarely done all season.

Nor did I ever want Hume out when he was scoring. I don't even want him out now. Just moved to a supporting role (where he's mainly to be found anyway) so a specialist striker can take some of his workload.

I would also say I've only rarely included either Dodds, Shehan and Gradel in my preferred starting line-ups this season - and when I did it was only because our strikers and wingers were so utterly ineffective and when Nils had was apparently out injured or out of favour. I've mainly wanted Dodds, Sheehan and Gradel used from the bench, Gradel very sparingly to start with.

But as you mention it I do believe Dodds to be a better bet than Horsfield. I can't see Horsfield being a steady let alone prolific scorer at this stage of his career. I'll be delighted to be proved wrong but nothing I've seen so far suggests it.

King is the only youth player I've consistently felt could fill a gaping void in our side. The others, I've felt just MIGHT solve a problem and should be given a chance before we go wasting wages on ordinary loanees.

You keep going on about stats on another thread to suit you so I`ll aim one in your direction. Geoff Horsfield, played 5, scored 2, Leicester havent lost any!! Does that make him a great striker???!

Hume is a second striker to the target man. We tried it with Fryatt but despite the partnership doing OK last season and a small part of this one, has failed and one or two needed to be left out. When you say supporting role I suppose you are talking of something different to what he is doing now with Horsfield?? A 4-3-3 probably??? More formations for the fantasy football specialist!?

You do hype up the kids mate. You are famous for it on here and everyone knows that your name is synonymous with talking about our youth team and pioneering their involvement in the first team! Ive said in recent days to try and blood some kids because the situation allows us to. We have managed to gather some points largely thanks to the impact of the loanees and it would be right to try a few of the kids now that we are as good as safe within this division. What I refuse to do is to start making claims that the kids should be blooded into a side that was staring relegation in the face like you were doing. Its all about timing and letting them join the first team squad when the players are on the up and not add the kind of pressure to ruin them! Now the time is right to try one or two and hopefully they are good enough to be part of next seasons quest.