Burrows gone

[Joe.]

Like Manwell says, we won't miss 3-5-2.

Wish him luck for the future, him and Taggart did a fairly decent job whilst in charge.

[Simi]

Fantastic post. 100% correct.

What's going on? Master Fox posting something on topic that made a lot of sense.

[Fez of Mahrez]

That's bollocks though Thrac. Against Chelsea where we were gung ho at times, we had 7 defenders, zero midfielders and 3 strikers playing. It was a horrific mess but somehow we went out there and went for it. Against Burnley the team was slightly more balanced with 6 defenders, 1 midfielder and 3 strikers and we were absolute guff.

I can't imagine Burrows and Taggart said anything different to them in terms of playing it tight at the back. We just had a fookin shockin game, like we often do. That's down to bad team selection, bad management and piss poor players but not necessarily defensive tactics per say.

:laugh:

Leicester City Football Club, ladies and gentlemen.

I hope FIFA, Pro Evo and FM introduce 6-1-3 as a possible formation in their next games.

[Thracian]

I don't actually think we deliberately change things. It's just one of those things that happens on certain occasions, players just raise there game for the bigger games. It's a well known theory, not a tactical decision.

Don't you think that playing three centre-backs plus Stearman, Kenton, Mattock and Clemence at home was pretty negative?

[Simi]

Don't you think that playing three centre-backs plus Stearman, Kenton, Mattock and Clemence at home was pretty negative?

Obviously, but lets not forget what we're working with at the moment, a lot of injured players, for that game we didn't have Weso or King, who I would now consider first team regulars, not so much King. Can't see what other options we had really without digging deep into the academy.

[Ric Flair]

Don't you think that playing three centre-backs plus Stearman, Kenton, Mattock and Clemence at home was pretty negative?

Not when the alternatives was Alan Maybury, Ryan Beswick and Adda Djeziri.

[Master Fox]

I wasn't going to slate him. I had my say after the Burnley game.

But given how wonderfully we did at Chelsea - and the three goals we scored to almost win the match - why did we approach the Burnley game in such an unambitious and negative way? If memory serves we were 64 minutes having our first serious shot.

If that's good coaching you can stick it.

Anyone can be adventurous and positive in Cup matches. We'd been that against Tottenham, Villa at home and Fulham (twice) under other managers and have generally done okay in the cups, even against decent opposition.

So, bearing that in mind, why the change of attitude for League games?

Burnley at home was a disgrace I’ll give you that.

Going away to Chelsea expecting to get hammered 6 or 7 nil, and then nearly coming away with victory after and epic 4-3 is something else (if it weren’t for Richard Stearman)

I’m not actually saying I thought they were particularly good coaches, but that I feel a lot the criticism is unjust and unnecessary.

I don’t really care too much about the league games in October however frustrating and rubbish they were. But the fact at what happened down at Chelsea more than makes up for it. At the end of the season you’ll look back and would have probably forgotten about Colchester and Preston away. But the night at Chelsea will still be fresh in the memory sitting right up there next to Burrow’s and his cheeky little face smiling down at you, gleefully winking and nodding while touching the peak of his hat!

[Finnegan]

Oh well. It's done, it's gone. No point arguing about it now - he filled a gap, he's gone, we don't have a gap anyway. Let's hope Olly gets the job done.

Thankyou, Mr. Flatcap.

[Simi]

Oh well. It's done, it's gone. No point arguing about it now - he filled a gap, he's gone, we don't have a gap anyway. Let's hope Olly gets the job done.

Thankyou, Mr. Flatcap.

Imagine Burrows sporting one of these...

[Ric Flair]

Imagine Burrows sporting one of these...

With some 10mm plugs in each ear.

[Thracian]

That's bollocks though Thrac. Against Chelsea where we were gung ho at times, we had 7 defenders, zero midfielders and 3 strikers playing. It was a horrific mess but somehow we went out there and went for it. Against Burnley the team was slightly more balanced with 6 defenders, 1 midfielder and 3 strikers and we were absolute guff.

I can't imagine Burrows and Taggart said anything different to them in terms of playing it tight at the back. We just had a fookin shockin game, like we often do. That's down to bad team selection, bad management and piss poor players but not necessarily defensive tactics per say.

Playing "gung ho" as you call it we lost against arguably the best club in the land 4-3 away from home and everyone who went seemed to thoroughly enjoy it, apart from the finale.

Against Burnley we didn't have a go at all, not at any time. We still lost 1-0. We hardly had a single shot worth remembering and thousands of people left early because they were so pissed off. And that was a home game!

Nothing will convince me that coaches and managers have no responsibility for that. We lost against Blackpool at the beginning of the season but our chances created numbered something in the mid-20's.

[OriginalRobboFOX]

I have mixed views on Taggars, he's someone who needs to learn his trade and he seems like he's got a clue about organising a defense.

However part of me thinks he's just here to keep the fans happy which is wrong, and if Holloway wants shot of him to bring in his own staff then that should be the way of things.

Agreed, he can certainly learn quite a bit from Holloway though. I think its good to have someone around the new manager who genuinely has the clubs best interests at heart too...

[Finnegan]

Imagine Burrows sporting one of these...

Why just imagine!? STEZ! Get on it!

[Cheese Me]

I wont miss 3-5-2.

Tar Tar Frank.

I will miss it.

Great formation, but needs quality wingbacks to really work. With the right players give me 3-5-2 over 4-4-2 any day of the week.

[Ric Flair]

Playing "gung ho" as you call it we lost against arguably the best club in the land 4-3 away from home and everyone who went seemed to thoroughly enjoy it, apart from the finale.

Against Burnley we didn't have a go at all, not at any time. We still lost 1-0. We hardly had a single shot worth remembering and thousands of people left early because they were so pissed off. And that was a home game!

Nothing will convince me that coaches and managers have no responsibility for that. We lost against Blackpool at the beginning of the season but our chances created numbered something in the mid-20's.

Sorry, I think we might have got confused. What I was saying is that we had arguably the same team out against both teams, yet one game we nearly beat one of the best teams in the land away from home and the other we were disgraceful. This was down to the fact one game we performed, the other we were an utter shit house. You could argue tactics came in to play here, but I doubt that's the case. More than likely the teams just didn't perform against Burnley, it happens.

It's not always as simple as looking at the team put out and how they set up, Chelsea being the case. 7 defenders, zero midfielders and 3 strikers against one of the best teams in Europe at their gaff?? I'd say that's outrageous, especially with Lampard in the middle of the park, but we had a right go and the tactics that night and team selection were a farce.

[Simi]

I will miss it.

Great formation, but needs quality wingbacks to really work. With the right players give me 3-5-2 over 4-4-2 any day of the week.

I'm not sure if I'd choose it over 4-4-2 everyday but I certainly think it does work very well when used correctly, with proper wing backs as you say. We just simply don't have them, or we do but we don't use them, but that's another story entirely.

[OriginalRobboFOX]

I will miss it.

Great formation, but needs quality wingbacks to really work. With the right players give me 3-5-2 over 4-4-2 any day of the week.

As long as its 3-5-2 and not 5-3-2 though....

[Thracian]

Not when the alternatives was Alan Maybury, Ryan Beswick and Adda Djeziri.

I think you'll find Ryan's on crutches.

But apart from that I thought we had Hume (last year's top scorer) the fast, durable James Chambers, Premiership club marksman Collins John and our best midfielder James Wesolowski on the bench.

Given that, and particularly Hume's presence I cannot think of a single excuse for starting with three central defenders and making ourselves seriously light in attack as a result.

[Thracian]

Fantastic post. 100% correct.

Unfortunately, wonderful as Chelsea was, our principal need is to perform with attitude in League matches.

[Ric Flair]

I think you'll find Ryan's on crutches.

But apart from that I thought we had Hume (last year's top scorer) the fast, durable James Chambers, Premiership club marksman Collins John and our best midfielder James Wesolowski on the bench.

Given that, and particularly Hume's presence I cannot think of a single excuse for starting with three central defenders and making ourselves seriously light in attack as a result.

Hume and Wesolowski were both only half fit, so even if they started, they'd of had to have been replaced in the second half. Chambers has proved to be very much a mixed bag in midfield, infuriating at times and competent at others. John should have played, instead of Cort, but not as well as. Otherwise that again would have meant having 2 strikers playing out of position in a formation that had 6 defenders already in it and just 1 midfielder.

[Manwell Pablo]

I'm not sure if I'd choose it over 4-4-2 everyday but I certainly think it does work very well when used correctly, with proper wing backs as you say. We just simply don't have them, or we do but we don't use them, but that's another story entirely.

I'd like someone, to name anyone, actually anyone, not just at Leicester, who they consider to be a "proper wing back" who is in our price range and good enough.

Ironically the only one I can think of is James Chambers.

[Ric Flair]

I'd like someone, to name anyone, actually anyone, not just at Leicester, who they consider to be a "proper wing back" who is in our price range and good enough.

Ironically the only one I can think of is James Chambers.

Capaldi is about the only other I can think of right now. Sorted!

[Finnegan]

Unfortunately, wonderful as Chelsea was, our principal need is to perform with attitude in League matches.

Well we've a new manager now, whose old fans claim he plays attacking football.

Why don't you stop moaning like an eejit and just wait and see what happens?

[Thracian]

Obviously, but lets not forget what we're working with at the moment, a lot of injured players, for that game we didn't have Weso or King, who I would now consider first team regulars, not so much King. Can't see what other options we had really without digging deep into the academy.

You and Ric know your football and are both right about the limited choices, I appreciate that, but there's still the matter for manages and coaches of where to place the emphasis even in a crisis.

I believe we suffer in lots of ways from having no attackers in our first team coaching line up, at least that I know about. It has meant over seasons now that, when push comes to shove, we always go safety first.

And with Burrows/Taggart that meant those three centre-backs. And as so often, it didn't work. You have to score goals to win football matches and you have to win at home to have any realistic chance of success.

[Manwell Pablo]

Capaldi is about the only other I can think of right now. Sorted!

Yes well if i had a penny for every time Tony Capaldi has been mentioned on here I'd be a rich man.