General Smuts Posted 1 January 2008 Posted 1 January 2008 How bad is it? Im at a family shinding and they dont have java so i cannae go on Live Chat Same Old Leicester eh! The promise dashed by the shiteness as always.
Joe. Posted 1 January 2008 Posted 1 January 2008 It is not a matter of who's the better player, it is a matter of balancing what different players bring to the team. James Chambers hasn't scored or made one single goal since he's been here. Thracian you know he's been injured for a large part of the season and when he has played he's been out of position in the defensive midfield slot.
MC Prussian Posted 1 January 2008 Posted 1 January 2008 Goal difference keeps us out of the bottom 3 Pfft... Something to be really proud of!!!
Thracian Posted 1 January 2008 Posted 1 January 2008 Of course they can but we need to take off 3.5 defenders and replace them with 2 attacking midfielders and 1.5 strikers. Then by reshuffling the pack we should adopt a formation of 3.75 - 4.10 - 2.15.I really can't understand why we are not utilising the talents of Sheehan and making the most of his average of 0.6 assists and 0.83 completed passes every 152 seconds. It's like listening to a Rob Kelly team in action at Burnley. Pah. You are an enthusiastic pisstaker, usually at my expense, but you rarely offer any ideas for solutions. Except that we need more muscle. Well, I didn't altogether disagree with that and it would seem that we'e got a bit more muscle - at least compared with what we had when you wrote that... three centre-backs and the fast/competitive Chambers in midfield. But at what cost? At the cost of all creativity such as we had. And the outcome has been a succession of results that are nothing short of relegation form.
Sly Posted 1 January 2008 Posted 1 January 2008 It is not a matter of who's the better player, it is a matter of balancing what different players bring to the team. James Chambers hasn't scored or made one single goal since he's been here.I am sick of hearing what we're going to do tomorrow. We sent our best winger to Bournemouth in August! We leave our most creative midfielder, Andy King, out in the cold and instead we play two essentially defensive players. It's not as we haven't done that in the past and paid the penalty. You cannot start with two potential attackers plus two halves and expect to win a Championship football match other than by a fortunate smash and grab. Such tactics only mean the opposition can commit more players to attack. As we might have already gathered from the visit to Burnley. To balance this argument out, I think it all depends on how you want to play football. I think whilst Holloway wants to play wingers but he can't rate the one's he's got so he'd adopted a shut up shop attitude by playing defensive players, I have no problem playing either system as long as it's effective. What we are currently witnessing is tactics being undone, we have defended poorly and now have very, very little chance to win this game. you can only change your hand 3 time and we've already used one of our cards. I'm not a fan of playing square pegs in round holes but we've had to resort to this becuase the players we have are neither good enough or are unfit/unaviliable. I agree with you Thracian, I think our best winger is currently out on loan. Unfortuantely that is not something that Holloway can turn to as he unable to be recalled as far as I am aware. He'd be an asset to us right now. As much as I rate Sheehan and Mattock I don't think the club can long term continue to hold onto both of them, as we are both unable to offer them first team experience at the expensive of further exposing our team. We need wingers and I just don't undertsand why Hayes hasn't been given more of a chance?!?
Hullfox Posted 1 January 2008 Posted 1 January 2008 You are an enthusiastic pisstaker, usually at my expense, but you rarely offer any ideas for solutions.Except that we need more muscle. Well, I didn't altogether disagree with that and it would seem that we'e got a bit more muscle - at least compared with what we had when you wrote that... three centre-backs and the fast/competitive Chambers in midfield. But at what cost? At the cost of all creativity such as we had. And the outcome has been a succession of results that are nothing short of relegation form. I was being deadly serious.
Cobbo Posted 1 January 2008 Posted 1 January 2008 It is not a matter of who's the better player, it is a matter of balancing what different players bring to the team. James Chambers hasn't scored or made one single goal since he's been here.I am sick of hearing what we're going to do tomorrow. We sent our best winger to Bournemouth in August! We leave our most creative midfielder, Andy King, out in the cold and instead we play two essentially defensive players. It's not as we haven't done that in the past and paid the penalty. You cannot start with two potential attackers plus two halves and expect to win a Championship football match other than by a fortunate smash and grab. Such tactics only mean the opposition can commit more players to attack. As we might have already gathered from the visit to Burnley. Oh for gods sake if you went to QPR in great form with a bunch of unproven kids you would get battered more than we are now. Your argument is born out of your love for the kids we bring through, hardly any of which have proven themselves worthy of first team places. Wait until he has made his signings and has his own team and shape set up and then if it's crap get on his back. In the meantime he has inherited an unbalanced, struggling team and is trying to get the best out of them and in the last 3 games prior to this one our results has shown that we were progressing as much as we could.
Thracian Posted 1 January 2008 Posted 1 January 2008 Thracian you know he's been injured for a large part of the season and when he has played he's been out of position in the defensive midfield slot. I've seen enough of Chambers. His strengths are that he's fast, brave, competitive and has a wonderful engine. But subtlety is not a part of his blessings as a footballer and I'd doubt he'd have much impact as a creative player season on season.
Rodders Posted 1 January 2008 Posted 1 January 2008 Get rid of Barber now. Please. Thought we'd scored the way he was shouting when Howard hit the post then.
MPH Posted 1 January 2008 Posted 1 January 2008 Typical Leicester, Getting boring seeing us spend and continue to make fools of ourselves on the pitch bloody hell give them a chance. 2 games in 3 days was too much to ask of howard which is why he was on the bench... its only the first day of the transfer window and we have also lost fulop...
Bluemoon Posted 1 January 2008 Posted 1 January 2008 It is not a matter of who's the better player, it is a matter of balancing what different players bring to the team. James Chambers hasn't scored or made one single goal since he's been here.I am sick of hearing what we're going to do tomorrow. We sent our best winger to Bournemouth in August! We leave our most creative midfielder, Andy King, out in the cold and instead we play two essentially defensive players. It's not as we haven't done that in the past and paid the penalty. You cannot start with two potential attackers plus two halves and expect to win a Championship football match other than by a fortunate smash and grab. Such tactics only mean the opposition can commit more players to attack. As we might have already gathered from the visit to Burnley. You're right...............the system being employed does not make sense. Is Holloway supposed to be an attacking managaer or a fan of playing football.......I had heard both, butnither seems true to me.
Solihullfox Posted 1 January 2008 Posted 1 January 2008 I've seen enough of Chambers. His strengths are that he's fast, brave, competitive and has a wonderful engine. But subtlety is not a part of his blessings as a footballer and I'd doubt he'd have much impact as a creative player season on season. He's a RIGHT BACK for goodness sake, so the attributes you list are perfect for when he actually plays there.
Thracian Posted 1 January 2008 Posted 1 January 2008 Oh for gods sake if you went to QPR in great form with a bunch of unproven kids you would get battered more than we are now.Your argument is born out of your love for the kids we bring through, hardly any of which have proven themselves worthy of first team places. Wait until he has made his signings and has his own team and shape set up and then if it's crap get on his back. In the meantime he has inherited an unbalanced, struggling team and is trying to get the best out of them and in the last 3 games prior to this one our results has shown that we were progressing as much as we could. He could have played the same team today and still balanced it better. Attacking/creative players don't have to be kids. It is not my fault Leicester City only have kids as alternatives. But the fact is the experienced pro's your apparently rever are getting hammered the same as the kids you mentioned. They've been second-bested for four years. Because you cannot win football matches without balance. whether the balance is provided by old or young doesn't matter. And I've not seen people like King or Sheehan contributing less in general than the likes of N'Gotty, Clemence, Fryatt, James Chambers or Mattock. By the way. It's 3-0 now. When did we ever lose by three goals with King or Sheehan in the team?
Ozwin Posted 1 January 2008 Posted 1 January 2008 >_> Great. We go on a roll and then get slaughtered against a team worse than us.
FleckneyFox Posted 1 January 2008 Posted 1 January 2008 fuking hell 3 chances 3 goals Paul Henderson you c**t
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.