Odhiambo

[ASH17LCFC]

He played the full 90 today at Port Vale in our 2-1 win, setting up our 2nd goal with a nice, unselfish assist as well.

We're trying to extend his deal but it seems Megson wants to see him so its up in the air as to whether he's going to stay with us. We want to keep him, he wants to stay, but its all down to your end.

No offence mate, but you can have him for the rest of the season. I can't see Megson using him at all. We have Fryatt, Hume, DJ, Court, De Vries ahead of him.

[Thracian]

He played the full 90 today at Port Vale in our 2-1 win, setting up our 2nd goal with a nice, unselfish assist as well.

We're trying to extend his deal but it seems Megson wants to see him so its up in the air as to whether he's going to stay with us. We want to keep him, he wants to stay, but its all down to your end.

I'm not surprised. I imagine most of our young players will be happier away from the Walkers right now. What with a manager obsessed with experienced players and defence-overload football I cannot imagine what possible use our young players would be to him. How we could have done with Sheehan's free kicks today or King's incisive passing in midfield.

But he'd rather have Chambers and Kishishev. Well I hope he sticks with that for awhile. Let's have a few months failing to score the goals we need. Cos that's the only way the message will get through to our club and our fans. Besides I wouldn't want any more of our young players exposed to the sort of hoof -and-hope football which seems to characterise our approach right now. By the time of our next managerial change I hope that MM has no doubts about the need to attack games and pose real problems for the opposition. And not just spasmodically.

Today we had Clemence, Chambers and Kishishev in midfield. Which one of those is creative? Megson might like his spoilers even more than Kelly but he'll not score goals consistently without someone on the field to make them. You might with exceptional strikers but we don't have any.

Put bluntly our passing and our threat today was appalling. Every ball in the air - and there were lots - was a 50-50 ball or worse which produced no more than the smallest of crumbs. Odhiambo would fare no better than anyone else with that sort of service. Leave the lad where he is.

Only when Hume and Fryatt came on did we produce just a little football when in fact the whole thrust of our approach should have been to test the big Stoke defenders where they were most vulnerable - on the floor. But when you cannot pass consistently and you don't have a single player with the pace or skill to take people on and destroy defensive systems, you really are living in forlorn hope.

[ASH17LCFC]

Don't listen to him, Sheehan is crap and you can have him for free.

Sorry my finger slip.

[syston_fox]

Don't listen to him, Sheenan is crap and you can have him for free.

[hebangsthedrums]

I thought this was the Odhiambo thread?

Anyway glad to hear he did well today, by the looks of things if he stays he may be involved in a promotion campaign.

[Lets Be having You]

Don't listen to him, Sheehan is crap and you can have him for free.

Sorry my finger slip.

you talk rubbish ,why slag the kid off,give him a chance

[Brainy]

Don't listen to him, Sheehan is crap and you can have him for free.

Sorry my finger slip.

you talk rubbish ,why slag the kid off,give him a chance

Agreed. With all of your post.

[Webbo]

He played the full 90 today at Port Vale in our 2-1 win, setting up our 2nd goal with a nice, unselfish assist as well.

We're trying to extend his deal but it seems Megson wants to see him so its up in the air as to whether he's going to stay with us. We want to keep him, he wants to stay, but its all down to your end.

If Megson wants to see him then surely he'd be better going to watch 1 of your games or sending a scout. I would of thought that the club would let you hang on to him for a while yet.

[Geo V]

I'm not surprised. I imagine most of our young players will be happier away from the Walkers right now. What with a manager obsessed with experienced players and defence-overload football I cannot imagine what possible use our young players would be to him. How we could have done with Sheehan's free kicks today or King's incisive passing in midfield.

I thought GM messed things up totally yesterday but it wasn't because we were short of strikers. Odhiambo is nowhere near the first team at the moment as he hasnt hardly set the world alight whilst on loan so I cant see why we would recall him, especially with Matty Fryatt continuing his form in the reserves and scoring in Cup and League in consecutive games.

I agree we need more creativity in the team but you cant be calling for Shehans inclusion for his free-kicks? This isn't American football and we haven't got a special teams unit. Sheehan needs to improve plenty to warrant a regular spot in the side as his all round game is far from clever. Don`t get me wrong, I`d have preferred some width with players like Kaebi or even Ferreira instead of the overload of players in midfield who can defend a bit and 3 forwards, two of them so called target men but Sheehan hasn't done enough to automatically deserve to start, just like Levi hadnt before him.

[Thracian]

I thought GM messed things up totally yesterday but it wasn't because we were short of strikers. Odhiambo is nowhere near the first team at the moment as he hasnt hardly set the world alight whilst on loan so I cant see why we would recall him, especially with Matty Fryatt continuing his form in the reserves and scoring in Cup and League in consecutive games.

I agree we need more creativity in the team but you cant be calling for Shehans inclusion for his free-kicks? This isn't American football and we haven't got a special teams unit. Sheehan needs to improve plenty to warrant a regular spot in the side as his all round game is far from clever. Don`t get me wrong, I`d have preferred some width with players like Kaebi or even Ferreira instead of the overload of players in midfield who can defend a bit and 3 forwards, two of them so called target men but Sheehan hasn't done enough to automatically deserve to start, just like Levi hadnt before him.

Can't you get it into your head. Ferreira is injured. It is also accepted and acknowledged that Sheehan has faults and is not the finished article. Do you want me to list the faults of players like Mattock, Kishishev or Chambers? Cos the list would be long enough I can tell you.

You and me clearly have a different way of looking at football and footballers. I am interested first and foremost in what people CAN do. Not what their failings are. Of course I would work on their weaknesses but my starting point would be to play to their strengths.

And my driving target for Leicester City would be to score two goals a game or more. The only logical target if we want to gain promotion as I said in the summer.

We will never do that consistently by playing up to eight defenders at a time who represent next to no chance of scoring or making a goal. I thought this was demonstated last season when I won a pint or two in bets on the issue. The same thing is happening now.

Just using Saturday as an example. Why, why, why would we wrest the initiative with an equaliser and then send a totally defensive midfielder on? Sheehan would have been a far more positive alternative for Cort in trying to make things happen for our strikers and perhaps cause some danger from the inevitable free-kicks which tiring defenders were bound to - and did concede. But Sheehan wasn't even on the bench.

But it's a habit at City. If we ever want a scapegoat, we pick on a youngster. Makes me sick to be honest. And we got the result we deserved in consequence.

Had we been needing to defend our lead for 10 minutes then, yes Kishishev, would perhaps have been the sounder choice.

But we need home wins, not another draw - our fourth of the season - which is a sure sign of negative tactics as we've demonstrated for years in succession.

How many home games have we won this year with Kelly and Megson backing experience for its own sake? I'll tell you. One.

The other one was won through Martin Allen being more expansive and showing some faith in people who could make things happen. He won one out of two at home - Sheehan scored - and would surely have won more given the distinctly modest opposition we've faced since.

Kelly won one out of nine and Megson has won none out of two.

[Fez of Mahrez]

Just using Saturday as an example. Why, why, why would we wrest the initiative with an equaliser and then send a totally defensive midfielder on? Sheehan would have been a far more positive alternative for Cort in trying to make things happen for our strikers and perhaps cause some danger from the inevitable free-kicks which tiring defenders were bound to - and did concede. But Sheehan wasn't even on the bench.

Only because you love the bloke. Everyone else would have seen it as a left-back instead of a defensive midfielder being brought on for a striker.

[Simon]

Can't you get it into your head. Ferreira is injured. It is also accepted and acknowledged that Sheehan has faults and is not the finished article. Do you want me to list the faults of players like Mattock, Kishishev or Chambers? Cos the list would be long enough I can tell you.

You and me clearly have a different way of looking at football and footballers. I am interested first and foremost in what people CAN do. Not what their failings are. Of course I would work on their weaknesses but my starting point would be to play to their strengths.

And my driving target for Leicester City would be to score two goals a game or more. The only logical target if we want to gain promotion as I said in the summer.

We will never do that consistently by playing up to eight defenders at a time who represent next to no chance of scoring or making a goal. I thought this was demonstated last season when I won a pint or two in bets on the issue. The same thing is happening now.

Just using Saturday as an example. Why, why, why would we wrest the initiative with an equaliser and then send a totally defensive midfielder on? Sheehan would have been a far more positive alternative for Cort in trying to make things happen for our strikers and perhaps cause some danger from the inevitable free-kicks which tiring defenders were bound to - and did concede. But Sheehan wasn't even on the bench.

But it's a habit at City. If we ever want a scapegoat, we pick on a youngster. Makes me sick to be honest. And we got the result we deserved in consequence.

Had we been needing to defend our lead for 10 minutes then, yes Kishishev, would perhaps have been the sounder choice.

But we need home wins, not another draw - our fourth of the season - which is a sure sign of negative tactics as we've demonstrated for years in succession.

How many home games have we won this year with Kelly and Megson backing experience for its own sake? I'll tell you. One.

The other one was won through Martin Allen being more expansive and showing some faith in people who could make things happen. He won one out of two at home - Sheehan scored - and would surely have won more given the distinctly modest opposition we've faced since.

Kelly won one out of nine and Megson has won none out of two.

After Saturday Thrac, surely even you can see that Mattock is a better bet at left wing-back at the moment. He's there on merit. Sheehan hasn't played badly, but he can't take on a player like Mattock, and his crossing is arguably not as good. I think he has a sweet left peg for free kicks, but Mattock seems to me to be the better player, even at this stage of development. Would arguably still have Sheehan in the squad though...

[Thracian]

After Saturday Thrac, surely even you can see that Mattock is a better bet at left wing-back at the moment. He's there on merit. Sheehan hasn't played badly, but he can't take on a player like Mattock, and his crossing is arguably not as good. I think he has a sweet left peg for free kicks, but Mattock seems to me to be the better player, even at this stage of development. Would arguably still have Sheehan in the squad though...

Mattock had a smashing game Saturday and against Villa defensively during the week.

In fact, for him to play so well in two full games was as good an achievement as I've seen this season from any of our players.

I wrote pre-season that I'd use both - they compliment each other anyway.

But Sheehan remains the more dangerous attacking option to me and I think you'll find as time goes on that Mattock was slightly flattered by the slow-turning Stoke full-back.

Although Mattock is comfortable on the wing, like Porter I've never felt he has the raw pace or deft skills needed to make any great impression from there. Nor is he a regular marksman. He may improve those things of course and I hope he does.

But Sheehan has a habit of making or scoring goals. He often looks dangerous going forward whereas Mattock looks functional.

To emphasise my point Mattock has one assist to his name so far all told, Sheehan two goals and one assist this season alone.

I would emphasise that I wouldn't have suggested taking Mattock off Saturday even if Sheehan had been on the bench.

Just because it didn't work for them at Charlton doesn't mean they don't work well together. a lot of people didn't do well against Charlton.

[Flynny]

Mattocks free kicks weren't too shabby at all. The one at the end of the first half was a beauty and definately goalbound.

Also, what Fez says is right. Kishishev played a quite attacking role when he came on anyway and looked to get forward and arrive late in the box. Pretty tidy performance, I thought. Quite why you think bringing on an extra left-back would be the more positive decision is beyond me. Where would you have put him on the pitch, anyway?

I also distinctly recall you saying you WOULDN'T use both, and that Sheehan was a left-back, not a left-midfielder (even though he's a shite defender and his only real strength is going forward) and would use a different option in left-mid. The second I find that post, I'll paste a link.

Anyway, in a 5-3-2, there's no room for both anyway, so the entire point is moot.

[Miquel The Work Geordie]

I agree we need more creativity in the team but you cant be calling for Shehans inclusion for his free-kicks?

Agreed. I also think that, also Sheehans free kicks are dangerous, Clemence isn't bad from a dead ball situation.

[Wooly]

If we ever want a scapegoat, we pick on a youngster. Makes me sick to be honest.

No we don't you mug. Idiots like you put these youngsters on a pedestal they should never be put on so the only way for them to go, when people have actually seen them play and realise that they are not suited to play above League 2 level successfully (Tommy Wright, Conrad Logan, Jon Stevenson, Jon Ashton, Chris O'Grady, Levi Porter, Tomi Petrescu, Louis Dodds etc.), is down.

The players labelled as 'scapegoats' as you say are the likes of, for examples from this season, Cort & Kishishev. The two have barely played yet are booed by idiots who don't know any better. The likes of Kenton, Maybury, Newton have also had this type of tag recently. If we sign a player over 25 he has a shadow cast over him by the ignorant amongst you. Even the likes of N'Gotty, who is clearly exceptional at this level, was and still is under constant question because of his age.

When was the last time a half decent youngster was used as a scapegoat?

[Thracian]

No we don't you mug. Idiots like you put these youngsters on a pedestal they should never be put on so the only way for them to go, when people have actually seen them play and realise that they are not suited to play above League 2 level successfully (Tommy Wright, Conrad Logan, Jon Stevenson, Jon Ashton, Chris O'Grady, Levi Porter, Tomi Petrescu, Louis Dodds etc.), is down.

The players labelled as 'scapegoats' as you say are the likes of, for examples from this season, Cort & Kishishev. The two have barely played yet are booed by idiots who don't know any better. The likes of Kenton, Maybury, Newton have also had this type of tag recently. If we sign a player over 25 he has a shadow cast over him by the ignorant amongst you. Even the likes of N'Gotty, who is clearly exceptional at this level, was and still is under constant question because of his age.

When was the last time a half decent youngster was used as a scapegoat?

Cort hasn't played enough to be labelled a scapegoat by anyone. Many didn't fancy him from the start cos they considered him injury prone and that's about as much as has been said apart from that he didn't play well Saturday which is difficult to contest.

Kishishev has never been a scapegoat. Again he's made limited appearances but most people seem to appreciate him as a solid defensive midfielder.

Kenton has hardly been mentioned this season apart from his okay games in the reserves, Maybury has generally been praised for his reserves football when mentioned at all. A few questioned why he was chosen as a midfield substitute against Villa but we won anyway. There were no scapefoats.

Newton too has never been made a scapegoat. He's simply failed to make the sort of impression people hoped for in his brief first team appearances and, far from isolating him as a scapegoat, most people seem to be simply disappointed.

I don't intend to compare the pro's and cons of people you consider half-decent and those I consider the same way but there's no doubt that Sheehan was made a scapegoat after the Charlton game.

From all I read the whole team played badly and the central defenders were specifically at fault for the goals. Sheehan played badly too but he was the one sidelined. One of the consequences Saturday was that we lacked creativity to an alarming degree which is one of Sheehan's strengths and so dropped two more home points.

In my opinion we had only two, perhaps three available players who could have provided that creativity from midfield when we needed it after the equaliser. King, Sheehan or Newton out of position. But we opted for safety first again, just as we did against QPR when we drew our last home match.

[David O'Leary]

you talk rubbish ,why slag the kid off,give him a chance

well said Sheehan has real potential

[Fez of Mahrez]

No we don't you mug. Idiots like you put these youngsters on a pedestal they should never be put on so the only way for them to go, when people have actually seen them play and realise that they are not suited to play above League 2 level successfully (Tommy Wright, Conrad Logan, Jon Stevenson, Jon Ashton, Chris O'Grady, Levi Porter, Tomi Petrescu, Louis Dodds etc.), is down.

The players labelled as 'scapegoats' as you say are the likes of, for examples from this season, Cort & Kishishev. The two have barely played yet are booed by idiots who don't know any better. The likes of Kenton, Maybury, Newton have also had this type of tag recently. If we sign a player over 25 he has a shadow cast over him by the ignorant amongst you. Even the likes of N'Gotty, who is clearly exceptional at this level, was and still is under constant question because of his age.

When was the last time a half decent youngster was used as a scapegoat?

I wouldn't bother mate, he seems to see this forum as representative of the views of your average Leicester City fan, which it patently isn't.

Levi still gets his own chant while Kishishev is hung out to dry by all those around me at games whenever he plays. N'Gotty has got a slagging by two or three blokes near me at both Villa and the Stoke game.

The idea that young players are scapegoated only exists in his head. Even O'Grady, who was absolute garbage, never got the sort of abuse that Cort and de Vries get. You can apply the same to Sheehan this season and the likes of Maybury or Kenton last season.

He just gets a bee in his bonnet because not everyone thinks the sun shines out of Alan Sheehan's arse.

[Thracian]

I wouldn't bother mate, he seems to see this forum as representative of the views of your average Leicester City fan, which it patently isn't.

Levi still gets his own chant while Kishishev is hung out to dry by all those around me at games whenever he plays. N'Gotty has got a slagging by two or three blokes near me at both Villa and the Stoke game.

The idea that young players are scapegoated only exists in his head. Even O'Grady, who was absolute garbage, never got the sort of abuse that Cort and de Vries get. You can apply the same to Sheehan this season and the likes of Maybury or Kenton last season.

He just gets a bee in his bonnet because not everyone thinks the sun shines out of Alan Sheehan's arse.

I'd certainly agree with your first line.

[Father Ted]

I think we missed Sheehan yesterday, especially with his free kicks. We had 2/3 good positions for free kicks but Clemence couldn't pull much off.

[Thracian]

Mattocks free kicks weren't too shabby at all. The one at the end of the first half was a beauty and definately goalbound.

Also, what Fez says is right. Kishishev played a quite attacking role when he came on anyway and looked to get forward and arrive late in the box. Pretty tidy performance, I thought. Quite why you think bringing on an extra left-back would be the more positive decision is beyond me. Where would you have put him on the pitch, anyway?

I also distinctly recall you saying you WOULDN'T use both, and that Sheehan was a left-back, not a left-midfielder (even though he's a shite defender and his only real strength is going forward) and would use a different option in left-mid. The second I find that post, I'll paste a link.

Anyway, in a 5-3-2, there's no room for both anyway, so the entire point is moot.

No need to look for the post. Generally I wouldn't use both together just now, not because they don't compliment one another but because I think it is an enormous amount of responsibility haing two relative novices playing one in froint of the other, particularly in difficult away matches.

However, on Saturday, we needed to be positive after scoring the equaliser because drawing our home games isn't good enough. I think Sheehan offers far more going forward as an old fashioned left-half than Kishishev - even though he certainly isn't a left winger - and, having three centre-backs and win-backs as well, I don't see there'd have been any great risk.

Sheehan's not a lousy defender. And City's defensive record when he's played doesn't suggest he is. He's got faults no question. Like Nils he's slow to turn inside on his right foot, he's vulnerable to pace like many full-backs and he could do with getting tighter.

But generally his defensive work is okay. He reads the game well enough, has improved his heading, gets his blocks in, has good control, rarely panics, distributes the ball well and is always the first available outlet for the goalkeeper throwing out, something we've badly needed.

That doesn't make him a lousy defender. Just one that still has things to improve. But we weren't talking about him playing left-back Saturday. We were talking about whether we should have attacked the game after equalising or put our team into neutral or caution mode, which actually happened.

To me it was a game we should have won but we never really committed to winning - a familiar tale over recent seasons.

[Lord Nibblington]

From all I read the whole team played badly and the central defenders were specifically at fault for the goals. Sheehan played badly too but he was the one sidelined. One of the consequences Saturday was that we lacked creativity to an alarming degree which is one of Sheehan's strengths and so dropped two more home points.

Brilliant. I've read this passage a few times now, and it just seems to read to me as "We didn't win because we didn't play Sheehan."

Magical Stuff.

[Thracian]

Brilliant. I've read this passage a few times now, and it just seems to read to me as "We didn't win because we didn't play Sheehan."

Magical Stuff.

Not at all. We didn't give ourselves chance to win because we didn't have enough creativity. Choices are limited. Sheehan can make things happen as his record this season plainly shows. But I'd just as soon have played King.

Clearly my point is lost on you. We will not win football matches often enough without playing sufficient people to score and make goals. And, just like Kelly we are covering up for slow and sometimes incompetent defenders by playing too many of them.

Even then we still concede our regular goal so it plainly doesn't work.

[The People's Hero]

Not at all. We didn't give ourselves chance to win because we didn't have enough creativity. Choices are limited. Sheehan can make things happen as his record this season plainly shows. But I'd just as soon have played King.

Clearly my point is lost on you. We will not win football matches often enough without playing sufficient people to score and make goals. And, just like Kelly we are covering up for slow and sometimes incompetent defenders by playing too many of them.

Even then we still concede our regular goal so it plainly doesn't work.

amongst all the bollocks I type.

Sounds about right.