Kelly Backs Hitman Hume

[Geo V]

Knock him as much as you like but I haven't noticed our strikeforce looking much more effective since he's been dropped.

Fryatt (2 League goals in 15) , Hume (1 in 18) and Horsfield scoring in one of his five matches hardly sets any of them apart from Hammond except in people's imaginations.

In fact, just reading the record of results when Hammond has started it looks perfectly healthy by our standards, (won 7 drew 4 lost 4 if my counting is right)...and a damn sight better than when Fryatt has started (lost 8 drew 5 won 2) which is appalling by any standards.

Fryatt isnt at fault for us losing games. He doesnt play in defence. Almost blaming him for our results with him in the side is hilarious.

As for Elvis, you have got to be kidding? Elvis is pants. He has pace but he cant hold the ball up and is a dumb bugger who cant understand the concept of the word "offside". He isnt a finisher, far from it! He is useless and should be the next shown the door.

Now for Hume. Whichever way you look at it, he isnt doing it for us. Like Fryatt, Im not saying he cant make it and I would have him ahead of Cada, Elvis and even the Horse but we cannot afford to carry strikers who score 1 in 16. I`d be absolutely amazed if we dont have a new front two next season with Hume and Fryatt bench players. I hope the Horse isnt signed ahead of them and if he does sign a permanent deal its as a bit part or tactical player as aposed to first teamer. Actually the more I think about it I`d like Fryatt to go out on loan if we manage to bring in a couple of quality strikers like Todorov.

[Thracian]

Fryatt isnt at fault for us losing games. He doesnt play in defence. Almost blaming him for our results with him in the side is hilarious.

As for Elvis, you have got to be kidding? Elvis is pants. He has pace but he cant hold the ball up and is a dumb bugger who cant understand the concept of the word "offside". He isnt a finisher, far from it! He is useless and should be the next shown the door.

Now for Hume. Whichever way you look at it, he isnt doing it for us. Like Fryatt, Im not saying he cant make it and I would have him ahead of Cada, Elvis and even the Horse but we cannot afford to carry strikers who score 1 in 16. I`d be absolutely amazed if we dont have a new front two next season with Hume and Fryatt bench players. I hope the Horse isnt signed ahead of them and if he does sign a permanent deal its as a bit part or tactical player as aposed to first teamer. Actually the more I think about it I`d like Fryatt to go out on loan if we manage to bring in a couple of quality strikers like Todorov.

Fryatt's record from his games played this season is there in black and white. Lost 8 drew 5 won 2. Fifteen League games, 11 points. Relegation form by a distance.

If, as our main striker, Fryatt had scored, say seven goals for his half season's work (the same as Kisnorbo) how many more points we might have collected?. How many draws might have been turned into victories or defeats into draws?.

Strikers are expected to shoulder their share of responsibility.

[Geo V]

Fryatt's record from his games played this season is there in black and white. Lost 8 drew 5 won 2. Fifteen League games, 11 points. Relegation form by a distance.

If, as our main striker, Fryatt had scored, say seven goals for his half season's work (the same as Kisnorbo) how many more points we might have collected?. How many draws might have been turned into victories or defeats into draws?.

Strikers are expected to shoulder their share of responsibility.

I agree strikers should score the lions share of the goals but the stats you have mean nothing. Ian Hume has scored one in 16 but we have won a few of them havent we???! I`m not saying that Fryatt deserves a place in the first team but to try to simplyfy a strikers performance via points earned for his club is ridiculous mate! You are getting worse! He could have scored in 7 of those games and we could have still lost some of those games! Those statistics dont tell the whole story.

[davieG]

I think we are all being conned by Rk, he talks the 442 but walks 451, those of you that want Hume to play as a link between midfield and the strikers that's what he's doing except it's only one striker - reflecting RK's safety first policy.

When RK's feeling adventurous he'll supplement the single striker with two wingers Porter & Yeates when he's feeling his normal cautious self Yeates is dispensed with to include another defensive midfielder (Hughes) That has been his mainstay from the moment he took control.

We've rarely played 442, he doesn't have the confidence, clearly demonstrated against WBA, we're on a three game winning streak, at home albeit against a form team and he resorts to type and surprise, surprise we drop two points in a game we might have won if he'd held his nerve.

[Zingari]

I think we are all being conned by Rk, he talks the 442 but walks 451, those of you that want Hume to play as a link between midfield and the strikers that's what he's doing except it's only one striker - reflecting RK's safety first policy.

When RK's feeling adventurous he'll supplement the single striker with two wingers Porter & Yeates when he's feeling his normal cautious self Yeates is dispensed with to include another defensive midfielder (Hughes) That has been his mainstay from the moment he took control.

We've rarely played 442, he doesn't have the confidence, clearly demonstrated against WBA, we're on a three game winning streak, at home albeit against a form team and he resorts to type and surprise, surprise we drop two points in a game we might have won if he'd held his nerve.

good points but if kelly can continue to get 10 pts out of every 12 ( unlikely i know) with these tactics i am prepared to put up with it for a while longer and hope that he and the team will garner the confidence to be more adventurous on the back of sustained good results ; because lets not forget that a team that has strung toether good results will affect the the attitude of the opponents who we are facing ( ie it may make them more defensive , allowing us greater freedom)

[Geo V]

Im not convinced what RK wants with his team/squad at most times! He seems a nice enough chap but struggles to make the big decisions and gets too attached to players like he has with Hume and McCarthy. Its OK for now but what will he do when a big decision has got to be made???

[Thracian]

I think we are all being conned by Rk, he talks the 442 but walks 451, those of you that want Hume to play as a link between midfield and the strikers that's what he's doing except it's only one striker - reflecting RK's safety first policy.

When RK's feeling adventurous he'll supplement the single striker with two wingers Porter & Yeates when he's feeling his normal cautious self Yeates is dispensed with to include another defensive midfielder (Hughes) That has been his mainstay from the moment he took control.

We've rarely played 442, he doesn't have the confidence, clearly demonstrated against WBA, we're on a three game winning streak, at home albeit against a form team and he resorts to type and surprise, surprise we drop two points in a game we might have won if he'd held his nerve.

Summed up perfectly and the prime reason we don't score enough goals.

[STUHILL]

Have any of you guys thought that maybe our strikers just aren't getting the service, I think our lack of creativity in midfield is the real problem! Even the best of strikers are always going to miss chances but whereas they have quality feeding them constant chances, I don't see our strikers having numerous chances week in week out. Surely the Midfield should be partly blamed also. I personally have a lot of faith in Fryatt, I think with a better midfield supplying creative and more dangerous balls through, then both Fryatt and Hume will score a lot more. As for Horsfield, signing him on a longterm contract would clearly show a lack of ambition to bring quality in. Hammond causes problems but it's not enough for me, he simply can't finish!

Bring in a player of Todorov's quality in Summer but also 2 quality CREATIVE minded midfielders!

[Phlashman]

To get promoted you need 2 20 goals a year strikers. We've got none and it's not like our midfield is chipping in with a few either!

[STUHILL]

I think we are all being conned by Rk, he talks the 442 but walks 451, those of you that want Hume to play as a link between midfield and the strikers that's what he's doing except it's only one striker - reflecting RK's safety first policy.

When RK's feeling adventurous he'll supplement the single striker with two wingers Porter & Yeates when he's feeling his normal cautious self Yeates is dispensed with to include another defensive midfielder (Hughes) That has been his mainstay from the moment he took control.

We've rarely played 442, he doesn't have the confidence, clearly demonstrated against WBA, we're on a three game winning streak, at home albeit against a form team and he resorts to type and surprise, surprise we drop two points in a game we might have won if he'd held his nerve.

I think we got a point because of RK's tactics that day. Playing Hughes may have been less attacking but lets not forget how ineffective their midfield became in that game. From what I've seen of Yeates he would have struggled defensively when required, and against Thracian's belief, Midfielders do have to be able to defend also! I think we were only put in a game winning position because of the tactics we employed. I truely think that if we had played Yeates and a more attacking minded team that day, then WBA could have run away with it. Just look at the quality they have! And we stopped them playing their usual flowing, attacking football. I think it was a great result and we were very close to getting all 3, if Hughes had a bit more quality in front of goal. I'm very suprised Kelly is drawing critism from this one.

[Thracian]

I think we got a point because of RK's tactics that day. Playing Hughes may have been less attacking but lets not forget how ineffective their midfield became in that game. From what I've seen of Yeates he would have struggled defensively when required, and against Thracian's belief, Midfielders do have to be able to defend also! I think we were only put in a game winning position because of the tactics we employed. I truely think that if we had played Yeates and a more attacking minded team that day, then WBA could have run away with it. Just look at the quality they have! And we stopped them playing their usual flowing, attacking football. I think it was a great result and we were very close to getting all 3, if Hughes had a bit more quality in front of goal. I'm very suprised Kelly is drawing critism from this one.

It is the eternal problem - some fans think a more defensive line-up is "safer" and others, like me, believe a more attacking approach poses additional problems for the opposition to deal with.

I think the WBA game was there for the taking when, in fact, as we played, had the game gone on five seconds longer we would probably have lost.

To me a good manager tries to have our team take the initiative, our team dictating terms rather than just simply stopping the opposition from playing which should be a requirement of every game.

What's changed so much at Leicester is that we now greatly overate teams like West Brom, Derby and Birmingham and it is a sign of how far downhill we'e gone. They are not good teams. They are competent but perfectly ordinary teams.

The sooner we start making them worry about us the better.

[Manwell Pablo]

To get promoted you need 2 20 goals a year strikers. We've got none and it's not like our midfield is chipping in with a few either!

Do you feck.

[Alabama Man]

To get promoted you need 2 20 goals a year strikers. We've got none and it's not like our midfield is chipping in with a few either!

I'd say more of tenner and a 15teener

[Ric Flair]

Davie has hit the nail on the head here. Hume's natural game is to drop deep and Kelly know's that. He exploits that and will ask Hume to be the link between the midfield and the striker. This isn't a bad idea as Hume is at his most productive running at defenders, but with no attacking central midfielders it means we only have one attacker in the final third of the pitch when we break forward.

I think Hume has played his best football when the team have looked dangerous attacking as a whole. When he goes looking for the ball and there's few options in front of him, then he's wasted. Most of his goals last season and this season have come from him being set free from midfield and scoring one on one's or from a similar situation. He does a lot of good work dropping deep, but very few of his goals have been when he's done this. Southampton at home is the only game I can think of where he's scored from getting the ball deep and run at defenders that's led to him scoring. Sheff United last season his 2nd was I suppose.

So although he's brilliant in and behind the strikers, to get goals out of him, he must play up front and stay there as much as possible.

[STUHILL]

It is the eternal problem - some fans think a more defensive line-up is "safer" and others, like me, who believe a more attacking line-up poses more problems for the opposition to deal with.

I think the game was there for the taking when, in fact, as we played, had the game gone on five seconds longer we would probably have lost.

To me a good manager tries to have our team take the initiative, our team dictating terms.

What's changed so much at Leicester is that we now greatly overate teams like West Brom, Derby and Birmingham and it is a sign of how far downhill we'e gone. They are not good teams. They are competent but perfectly ordinary teams.

The sooner we start making them worry about us the better.

I admire yor ambition i really do. However, quite simply look at the two line-ups, look at the two subs they brought on late on. I think 100% of leicester fans and not just yourself would like Leicester to take the iniative and play attacking rather than defensive football for much of the 90mins. However, we do not have the individuals West Brom, Derby and Birmingham all posses and it is very foolish for you to overlook that simple point. Alot of these single players cost more than our whole team cost to buy and for good reason, they are faster, more skilled, more confident and BETTER players. They have better first touch, better anticipation, a more accurate passing range, better shooting technique etc etc. These are all small individual abilities and skills each player in a team of 11 may posses in greater quantities or lesser. I believe in the word team work and '..no I in team' but realistically, the best teams are the ones who have the best and largest number of talented individuals. Leicester are certainly not one of those teams currently. Individually we are not good enough to play fast, attacking, flowing football week in week out.

[Thracian]

I admire yor ambition i really do. However, quite simply look at the two line-ups, look at the two subs they brought on late on. I think 100% of leicester fans and not just yourself would like Leicester to take the iniative and play attacking rather than defensive football for much of the 90mins. However, we do not have the individuals West Brom, Derby and Birmingham all posses and it is very foolish for you to overlook that simple point. Alot of these single players cost more than our whole team cost to buy and for good reason, they are faster, more skilled, more confident and BETTER players. They have better first touch, better anticipation, a more accurate passing range, better shooting technique etc etc. These are all small individual abilities and skills each player in a team of 11 may posses in greater quantities or lesser. I believe in the word team work and '..no I in team' but realistically, the best teams are the ones who have the best and largest number of talented individuals. Leicester are certainly not one of those teams currently. Individually we are not good enough to play fast, attacking, flowing football week in week out.

I don't agree that 100% of Leicester fans want to play like that at all. I think a good proportion are just like you and Kelly, essentially cautious.

To get where I want to go you first have to pick a side that is geared up to that approach and progress from there by fine tuning any weaknesses.

We never do that because it is never quite the right moment for one reason or another.

And that is why I talk about Kelly progressing the team. We never seem to take a step forward. It is always the same essentially negative 4-5-1 which DavieG described earlier.

Eleven draws that's produced this season and I seem to think it was the same sort of story last year. For the sake of a little more initiative - we are miles and miles away from fast, attacking, flowing football you mention - and the choosing of players who compliment a positive approach, we could be well among the chasing pack even with our limitations.

But we're not. We're trundling along like last season and in exactly the same vein.

When it comes to change all I hear is excuses, excuses, excuses. Tomorrow, tomorrow, tomorrow. It is no use claiming you'd like to see attacking football and then defending the defensive overload we forever employ.

The way you sound we should work out what each team cost and simply try to hold out against anyone who happened to have more expensive players than us.

Personally I couldn't give a shit what players cost. Akinbiyi cost £5m+ but was never anything special and the same goes for lots more supposed superstars.

If these people you mention were so good they'd be playing in the Premiership. Chopra's a pain to us but I've seen very few outstanding footballers in the Championship and no-one I'd be losing sleep over now Earnshaw's injured.

Oh yes, I'd give em respect and close everyone down early. It's when we have the ball I'd change things and change them dramatically.

[davieG]

I admire yor ambition i really do. However, quite simply look at the two line-ups, look at the two subs they brought on late on. I think 100% of leicester fans and not just yourself would like Leicester to take the iniative and play attacking rather than defensive football for much of the 90mins. However, we do not have the individuals West Brom, Derby and Birmingham all posses and it is very foolish for you to overlook that simple point. Alot of these single players cost more than our whole team cost to buy and for good reason, they are faster, more skilled, more confident and BETTER players. They have better first touch, better anticipation, a more accurate passing range, better shooting technique etc etc. These are all small individual abilities and skills each player in a team of 11 may posses in greater quantities or lesser. I believe in the word team work and '..no I in team' but realistically, the best teams are the ones who have the best and largest number of talented individuals. Leicester are certainly not one of those teams currently. Individually we are not good enough to play fast, attacking, flowing football week in week out.

So your saying, in spite of their massive superiority all over the pitch we only got a point because we played Hughes instead of Yeates - that takes some believing

[STUHILL]

So your saying, in spite of their massive superiority all over the pitch we only got a point because we played Hughes instead of Yeates - that takes some believing

Is that all you got from what I wrote, then i apologise. What i meant to stress was that the tactics RK employed against a superior team (and if you think their not, then your dreaming) were good. We stopped them from playing their usual game that has made them a rightful title contender and we began to impose ourselves on them and like I said with a bit more quality in the final third we could have won.

[Ric Flair]

If we go in to matches cautious and afraid of the opposition then the battle is almost already lost.

I do agree that we need a manager who can put together a team that has attacking conviction and not some half hearted attempt every so often.

It pains me to say it, but Roy Keane is a fine example of the sort of football we desire and deserve at Leicester. Sunderland play some seriously entertaining football, but it's not all gung ho. They are as good going forward as they are at the back, due to a manager giving players belief and direction.

Ok, so you need the players to play attacking football. But i've seen managers balls it up with good players at their disposal and i've seen managers be a success with a pretty limited bunch of footballers.

Kelly's not the man to take us forward. We all know that, anyone who thinks he can be a success are absurd.

[STUHILL]

I don't agree that 100% of Leicester fans want to play like that at all. I think a good proportion are just like you and Kelly, essentially cautious.

To get where I want to go you first have to pick a side that is geared up to that approach and progress from there by fine tuning any weaknesses.

We never do that because it is never quite the right moment for one reason or another.

And that is why I talk about Kelly progressing the team. We never seem to take a step forward. It is always the same essentially negative 4-5-1 which DavieG described earlier.

Eleven draws that's produced this season and I seem to think it was the same sort of story last year. For the sake of a little more initiative - we are miles and miles away from fast, attacking, flowing football you mention - and the choosing of players who compliment a positive approach, we could be well among the chasing pack even with our limitations.

But we're not. We're trundling along like last season and in exactly the same vein.

When it comes to change all I hear is excuses, excuses, excuses. Tomorrow, tomorrow, tomorrow. It is no use claiming you'd like to see attacking football and then defending the defensive overload we forever employ.

The way you sound we should work out what each team cost and simply try to hold out against anyone who happened to have more expensive players than us.

Personally I couldn't give a shit what players cost. Akinbiyi cost £5m+ but was never anything special and the same goes for lots more supposed superstars.

If these people you mention were so good they'd be playing in the Premiership. Chopra's a pain to us but I've seen very few outstanding footballers in the Championship and no-one I'd be losing sleep over now Earnshaw's injured.

Oh yes, I'd give em respect and close everyone down early. It's when we have the ball I'd change things and change them dramatically.

You havn't really answered my issues with the quality of players we have and the fact that you need a certain quality to achieve your style of play. It's very easy to say you play there and you play there and your roles will be blah blah blah. If they don't hold up the ball well enough or beat the defenders enough times, deliver quality balls in to the box, put chances away etc etc! Then how has your sytem worked?

You can go on about money all you want but I wasn't trying to use that as an excuse, I was using the fact we don't have the QUALITY in the team week in week out!

And these people have and will be playing in the Premiership again by the looks of things, something the majority of our team cannot boast.

[Geo V]

Do you feck.

Sheff Utd got promoted last season with Neil Shipperley being there top scorer with 11 goals. You dont need two 20 goal scorers to get out of this division anymore but of course it would help!

[Ric Flair]

You need to score over 60-70 goals a season minimum to stand a chance of automatic promotion. Going up through the play-offs is a lottery in true honesty, even if we have a tradition of doing so.

[Geo V]

I don't agree that 100% of Leicester fans want to play like that at all. I think a good proportion are just like you and Kelly, essentially cautious.

To get where I want to go you first have to pick a side that is geared up to that approach and progress from there by fine tuning any weaknesses.

We never do that because it is never quite the right moment for one reason or another.

And that is why I talk about Kelly progressing the team. We never seem to take a step forward. It is always the same essentially negative 4-5-1 which DavieG described earlier.

Eleven draws that's produced this season and I seem to think it was the same sort of story last year. For the sake of a little more initiative - we are miles and miles away from fast, attacking, flowing football you mention - and the choosing of players who compliment a positive approach, we could be well among the chasing pack even with our limitations.

But we're not. We're trundling along like last season and in exactly the same vein.

When it comes to change all I hear is excuses, excuses, excuses. Tomorrow, tomorrow, tomorrow. It is no use claiming you'd like to see attacking football and then defending the defensive overload we forever employ.

The way you sound we should work out what each team cost and simply try to hold out against anyone who happened to have more expensive players than us.

Personally I couldn't give a shit what players cost. Akinbiyi cost £5m+ but was never anything special and the same goes for lots more supposed superstars.

If these people you mention were so good they'd be playing in the Premiership. Chopra's a pain to us but I've seen very few outstanding footballers in the Championship and no-one I'd be losing sleep over now Earnshaw's injured.

Oh yes, I'd give em respect and close everyone down early. It's when we have the ball I'd change things and change them dramatically.

Im not convinced RK is over cautious. He did what he had to do in recent weeks to toughen us up to get ready to battle for points (and survival) and its worked. His team last season wasnt that direct and we didnt start this seeing overly defensive. It would be ludicrous to think that we should just keep attempting to play our way out of trouble because historically that way has failed, ask Notts F**est!

[davieG]

Is that all you got from what I wrote, then i apologise. What i meant to stress was that the tactics RK employed against a superior team (and if you think their not, then your dreaming) were good. We stopped them from playing their usual game that has made them a rightful title contender and we began to impose ourselves on them and like I said with a bit more quality in the final third we could have won.

But his only tactic was to replace Yeates with Hughes to make us just that bit more defensive and less attacking. I frankly don't see the point and it puts the team and the support into a negative mindset.

[Geo V]

But his only tactic was to replace Yeates with Hughes to make us just that bit more defensive and less attacking. I frankly don't see the point and it puts the team and the support into a negative mindset.

I think that decision was just tactical because Koumas plays wide left and attacks loads, cutting inside at will and maybe Hughes who is less forward thinking would stifle that. Im not saying I agree with the decision but in RKs defence there isnt a major problem with being tactically aware.

I think we do need to attack more at home though and take more risks. We proved at Cov that if we attack sides we can be succesful. Maybe we shouldnt go too gung-ho against the likes of WBA who have the pace to rip most sides at this level apart on the break but still our home record needs to improve.