Burrows out of the running?

[Flynny]

Fulop

McAuley N'Gotty Kisnorbo

Chambers Hume Wesolowski Clemence Mattock

John Campbell

Would be my effort. I think we need to make the most of our energetic players. Fair enough if we were going to carry on being a set piece team you'd stick Cort and Sheehan in there but I think we have the players to play some high-tempo stuff and get at teams even using three centre backs.

If we're going to be brave and drop a big player, like Burnham has, then I'd go like this:

Fulop

Chambers - N'Gotty - Kisnorbo - Sheehan

Hume - Clemence - Wesolowski

Fryatt

Campbell - John

Bench: McAuley, Mattock, Hellings, Stearman, Cort

[Thracian]

Fulop

McAuley N'Gotty Kisnorbo

Chambers Hume Wesolowski Clemence Mattock

John Campbell

Would be my effort. I think we need to make the most of our energetic players. Fair enough if we were going to carry on being a set piece team you'd stick Cort and Sheehan in there but I think we have the players to play some high-tempo stuff and get at teams even using three centre backs.

It's a workmanlike and quite competent line-up but doesn't convince me I'm afraid.

Seems to me you've accommodated those you consider to be our best players but not necessarily put together the most effective team.

I cannot think of one reason Mattock's a more effective left wing-back than Sheehan. In fact in a team that scores so few goals in the League the last thing I'd do is drop a guy who's always threatening to create something for one who has hardly shone in that department.

As to whether Hume is a better midfielder than King or whether Chambers is a good wing back at all I've yet to be convinced. I'd be happy to try both but I'm not convinced of either because Hume is not the greatest at passing and moving economically and Chambers has never showed me that he's a natural attacker.

Finally a five-man defence with limited creativity and no genuine penetration - either through passing or dribbling/racing down the flanks - is not what I'd consider a recipe for top six success.

And with our best available midfield - whoever it proves to be - I'd see far less need for giving ourselves the limitation of three centre-backs anyway.

Once we're at our attacking best we can probably afford to concede a goal a game which seems to be about par for us whichever system we use.

And were that the case why use more defenders than you need especially when our attack needs strengthening anyway?

Despite the system your side looks like a more sophisticated version of Rob Kelly's, having seven or eight essentially defensive players and only three genuine attackers.

We'd perhaps get into the top half of the table on effeciency alone but top six? I'd doubt it. Not enough chances, not enough goals and always likely to leak one as history shows.

All that said it would be quite hard deciding our best team right now and would probably depend on where you wished to place the emphasis.

[Chrysalis]

MM had good reason to not be happy, if anyone was content today then I am saddened you dont have much ambition.

1 - in midfield completely outplayed by a club that got promoted to this division not long ago.

2 - when were attacking at 1-0 up I seen a surge of leics players running forward but only 3 continued past the halfway line I seen frank tell the rest to stop running, hanging onto 1-0?

3 - subbing our goal scorer bad move

4 - age old problem of allowing them too much space in midfield still not closing down opposing players allowing them comfort zones.

[davieG]

MM had good reason to not be happy, if anyone was content today then I am saddened you dont have much ambition.

1 - in midfield completely outplayed by a club that got promoted to this division not long ago.

2 - when were attacking at 1-0 up I seen a surge of leics players running forward but only 3 continued past the halfway line I seen frank tell the rest to stop running, hanging onto 1-0?

3 - subbing our goal scorer bad move

4 - age old problem of allowing them too much space in midfield still not closing down opposing players allowing them comfort zones.

I don't think anyone was happy as such but they accept that we haven't got a midfield so your criticism of them is a bit unfair. Most people I would imagine are thinking that we did the best we could with the current players, midfield in particular who had recently played an energy sapping game against one of the top teams in the country with that Frank & Taggs had their hands tied.

As for subbing Johns didn't he bring on Cort, fresh legs and recently scored at Chelsea - seems a fair enough swap to me, ok it increased the amount of hoofing but that just bypassed the none existent midfield anyway..

[lcfc_jme]

I'd lose faith in our club if we didn't keep the 'tache and flat-cap combo around in some capacity, if I'm honest.

[Thracian]

MM had good reason to not be happy, if anyone was content today then I am saddened you dont have much ambition.

1 - in midfield completely outplayed by a club that got promoted to this division not long ago.

2 - when were attacking at 1-0 up I seen a surge of leics players running forward but only 3 continued past the halfway line I seen frank tell the rest to stop running, hanging onto 1-0?

3 - subbing our goal scorer bad move

4 - age old problem of allowing them too much space in midfield still not closing down opposing players allowing them comfort zones.

Trying simply to hang on to 1-0's instead of closing people down quickly and going for more goals seems to be a constant characteristic of our managers but with MM in the stands I weonder how easy it is to be adventurous.

As a manager you might turn to MM for money to buy players but I doubt you'd turn to him for backing, patience or understanding.

So point 2 is a good one.

But point one is unfair - we didn't have a single specialist midfielder and I thought the players we had did the best that could be expected.

Point 3 is speculative but I saw no problem with the decision.

Point 4 is all very well if you have the energy to do it but various people referred to the likely draining effect of the Chelsea match and I think that showed - especially on the players in midfield and on our wing-backs who had a lot of defending to do second half.

Having another match tomorrow will be just the same and I'll be amazed if we escape without one or more injuries. Wasn't it in similar circumstances last season - around the time of the Villa cuptie - that we lost the likes of Williams, Johnson, Wesolowski, Fryatt. Saturday's midfield was never going to close down fast for 90 minutes.

[Chrysalis]

If chelsea was impacting a league game then its a bad decision to use first team players in a unimportant cup match.

On the cort sub I will back down a little as he did hold the ball up well after he came on although missed a goal scoring sitter.

The midfield you are correct there is a lack of proper midfielders but it doesnt seem to be rectified with any urgency I thought we had some midfield players in our squad not been used.

[Bryn]

I sincerely hope that at the least, Burrows and Taggs aren't sacked... neither of them wanted to be in this position. I think they'd make a more than adequate assistant manager and 1st team coach.