BigmanLee Posted 17 March 2007 Share Posted 17 March 2007 Leicester City's under 18 side made it three wins on the bounce when they registered a 3-1 victory over Charlton Athletic on Saturday. City's goals came from Joe Mattock, Billy McKay and Scott Lycett on the day - with the result leaving the Foxes three points clear at the top of the Premier League Academy Group B table. Leicester have now got just five games remaining this season - against Bristol City, Reading, West Ham United, Norwich City and Millwall Joe Mattock's goal was pure quality - 35yard f/k in to the top corner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flemmish Posted 17 March 2007 Share Posted 17 March 2007 Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wycombe Fox Posted 17 March 2007 Share Posted 17 March 2007 It sounds like the academy side should be gracing the Walkers Stadium and the first team should be farmed out to Belvoir Drive. At least then the 20000+ paying customers would have something to shout about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeyB Posted 17 March 2007 Share Posted 17 March 2007 At least one Leicestershire football team can win Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simi Posted 17 March 2007 Share Posted 17 March 2007 The game against Reading will most likely be the title decider then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lcfc_jme Posted 17 March 2007 Share Posted 17 March 2007 Good on the academy, serving up another win. I may just take up watching them when they play at home from now on seeing as I can no longer watch the first team. At least I'll go home happy, be allowed to stand all game and more than likely see a victory!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigmanLee Posted 17 March 2007 Author Share Posted 17 March 2007 Also John Rudkin sent home the arsenal lad due to having a bad attitude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lildave3 Posted 17 March 2007 Share Posted 17 March 2007 Well done yet again young 'uns. It'll never happen, but thw whole first team should be dropped for the next match, in place of these. At least the youngsters might show a bit of passion and hunger <_< Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonbluefox9 Posted 18 March 2007 Share Posted 18 March 2007 Didn't go to see the Academy this morning but wish I had now. Would've been good to have seen some football being played. They almost always do play some good stuff although the opposition isn't always the best in quality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 18 March 2007 Share Posted 18 March 2007 It sounds like the academy side should be gracing the Walkers Stadium and the first team should be farmed out to Belvoir Drive. At least then the 20000+ paying customers would have something to shout about. At least you get a balanced team looking like they're really having a go. But first teamers playing in the reserves? Nothing official has been said but I get the impression reserve football is considered beneath the dignity of first teamers. How long that nonsense has been the case I don't know but to me some of our players should be glad of even a Conference team to play for cos they don't rate much higher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The People's Hero Posted 19 March 2007 Share Posted 19 March 2007 At least you get a balanced team looking like they're really having a go. But first teamers playing in the reserves? Nothing official has been said but I get the impression reserve football is considered beneath the dignity of first teamers. How long that nonsense has been the case I don't know but to me some of our players should be glad of even a Conference team to play for cos they don't rate much higher. Like Hammond for example? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 19 March 2007 Share Posted 19 March 2007 Like Hammond for example? Hammond has no problem playing in the Reserves and, unlike some others I could name, always gives of his best and plays well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hullfox Posted 19 March 2007 Share Posted 19 March 2007 Hammond has no problem playing in the Reserves and, unlike some others I could name, always gives of his best and plays well. So, taking you at your word then: Hammond plays well in the reserves But, - Hammond is shit. Opponents therefore must be shit (based upon fact that Hammond plays well and Hammond is shit) Those around Hammond who also play well, could also therefore be shit (based upon the fact that they are playing as well as Hammond who is shit) Which means that anyone promoted from the reserves as called for by certain people may in fact be as shit as Hammond. Which conclusively proves that being good in the reserves is no guarantee that it means being good in the first team. Remember, Hammond in reserves = good. Hammond in the Championship = not good (or shit if you prefer). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 20 March 2007 Share Posted 20 March 2007 So, taking you at your word then: Hammond plays well in the reserves But, - Hammond is shit. Opponents therefore must be shit (based upon fact that Hammond plays well and Hammond is shit) Those around Hammond who also play well, could also therefore be shit (based upon the fact that they are playing as well as Hammond who is shit) Which means that anyone promoted from the reserves as called for by certain people may in fact be as shit as Hammond. Which conclusively proves that being good in the reserves is no guarantee that it means being good in the first team. Remember, Hammond in reserves = good. Hammond in the Championship = not good (or shit if you prefer). Seeing as we disagree about the fundamental value of Hammond as a first team player for a start, then the above seems like a pointless discussion seeing its based on something I don't agree with in the first place. However, as to your conclusion, however doubtfully it was arrived at, I've never said or implied that being good in the reserves equals a guarantee of being good in the first team so why you wish to give that impression I have no idea. Being good at Leicester City is a relative term anyway. A player justifying promotion to the first team does not necessarily have to be "good" but simply better than the present incumbent as I have said many times. That I believe Hammond to be a valuable player for Leicester City's current side has nothing to do with whether I think he's good. I doubt that I would have signed him because I find it hard to imagine I would sign any striker unless he had form which showed him capable of 18 goals plus a season. It simply wouldn't be my approach. But we have signed him and all that matters in deciding whether he should be in the first team is whether he's better than Hume, Fryatt or Horsfield. Hume's 12 goals speak for themselves and, while City fans might be blind to the failings of Hammond (factual and perceived) he is not fully fit and shouldn't even come under consideration for a starting place this week. And as for Hammond being better than Horsfield not only do the facts suggest it pretty plainly but Horsfield's contribution is so poor that I reckon Billy McKay would do better never mind Elvis. Despite your obvious disagreement, Hammond, to my mind, remains a fast, strong, awkward, dangerous player who unsettles almost ever defence he comes up against. Even using just the players currently signed, Leicester should be regularly scoring two or more goals a game, with Hammond playing an important role. That they don't really is a condemnation of the tactics and the team selections. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.