Blackpool rock on....

[David O'Leary]

Didn't the Stoke fans break the away stand jumping up and down while celebrating? I'm feeling a little nervous if they did

[Thracian]

Lets nail this.

Have you forgotten how dire we were pre-Holloway? This isn't about scapegoating. Its about improving the squad and our weak links.

Do you truly want to continue having Fryatt, Weso, King and Sheehan all in the starting 11?

Oakley and Clemence will/should/must play instead of King and Weso.

Fryatt is further down the pecking order than Barry Hayles. That speaks for itself.

Alan Sheehan is the only kid you have a case for. Unfortunately for him (and you), Ollie doesn't fancy him. Tough luck.

But please, for the love of God, put down you tinted glasses for once.

a) I don't think we were anything like as dour as we were against Norwich and Palace last nigth when we played - Blackpool, Watford, Wednesday, Barnsley, Cardiff, Chelsea, Forest, Ipswich (home), Bristol City, Wolves (away) or Charlton (home) as examples.

b) I've rarely advocated more than three young players in the starting line-up except in emergencies.

c) Oakley and Clemence do start but King should be on the bench.He's our only genuine attacking midfielder, when and if he's ever given chance)

d) I'm disappointed about Fryatt. He seems to do better in a passing side but there's no doubting the many limitations people have mentioned hold him back.

e) You seem to right about Sheehan so why doesn't Holloway let him move on?

[Mark]

e) You seem to right about Sheehan so why doesn't Holloway let him move on?

It's called having competition for places. Mattock has performed well enough to keep his place.

Sheehan will be let go once he's brought in a replacement.

Sheehan will stay if Holloway believes he doesn't need a replacement as he's seen as good enough competition for Mattock.

That's it, it's that simple. Now give it a rest.

[Thracian]

It's called having competition for places. Mattock has performed well enough to keep his place.

Sheehan will be let go once he's brought in a replacement.

Sheehan will stay if Holloway believes he doesn't need a replacement as he's seen as good enough competition for Mattock.

That's it, it's that simple. Now give it a rest.

It's not that "simple" at all and you know it. The dice are loaded and that's only been emphasised by leaked news of Leicester turning down a bid for Mattock.

[Hullfox]

Dear Thracian

It has taken the Good Lord many many years to develop you into the masterpiece that you now are. Your footballing knowledge and unquestionable genius would I'm sure have required an element of tinkering along the way and dare I suggest, in the early days even you may have been wrong about something.

Please therefore allow Mr Holloway the opportunity to build a football team that we can all enjoy watching and when we nick three points on the back of a scrappy game, celebrate it. Three months ago we would not have still been in contention in the 89th minute let alone producing a shintastic strike from 5 yards.

I for one am prepared to give the man time, you quite clearly once more are not.

Yours in admiration

Hullfox

[Thracian]

Dear Thracian

It has taken the Good Lord many many years to develop you into the masterpiece that you now are. Your footballing knowledge and unquestionable genius would I'm sure have required an element of tinkering along the way and dare I suggest, in the early days even you may have been wrong about something.

Please therefore allow Mr Holloway the opportunity to build a football team that we can all enjoy watching and when we nick three points on the back of a scrappy game, celebrate it. Three months ago we would not have still been in contention in the 89th minute let alone producing a shintastic strike from 5 yards.

I for one am prepared to give the man time, you quite clearly once more are not.

Yours in admiration

Hullfox

I thought we went 2-0 up against Crystal Palace last time out.

PS: I've given him until Christmas at least (twice). :D

PPS: Love that word shintastic! Hope I remember to credit you if I use it in future. :D

[Durnerz]

King has scored one wonder goal but what else has he done? He was dire at Ipswich, in fact looked scared of the ball and every other time i've seen him play and read reviews of his performances for the level that matters THE FIRST TEAM, not the reserves, not the academy, THE FIRST TEAM. The lad would benefit more from going out on loan and getting first team football lower down, instead of idiots like yourself putting pressure on him by singing his praises before he had even kicked a ball for this football club in a first team shirt.

Sheehan......where do I even start with this overrated pile of crap....He's a left back supposedly who can't defend and when hes not that hes a winger with no pace, all he has is a left foot for set peices. Stef Oakes anyone?

Hopefully Ollie brings in the necessary cover so these oafs can ply their trade lower down the leagues, as this is the only place I believe they will end up.

[Thracian]

King has scored one wonder goal but what else has he done? He was dire at Ipswich, in fact looked scared of the ball and every other time i've seen him play and read reviews of his performances for the level that matters THE FIRST TEAM, not the reserves, not the academy, THE FIRST TEAM. The lad would benefit more from going out on loan and getting first team football lower down, instead of idiots like yourself putting pressure on him by singing his praises before he had even kicked a ball for this football club in a first team shirt.

Sheehan......where do I even start with this overrated pile of crap....He's a left back supposedly who can't defend and when hes not that hes a winger with no pace, all he has is a left foot for set peices. Stef Oakes anyone?

Hopefully Ollie brings in the necessary cover so these oafs can ply their trade lower down the leagues, as this is the only place I believe they will end up.

On at least two occasions in his brief career the first team's performance has improved noticeably when he's been introduced and the word at the club from everyone I've spoken to is that they've been pleased with his performances.

One goal in six starts compared with Weso's one goal in 10 starts and Clemence's one in 22 (I think), while being ordered to play a containing role for his first three matches. Doesn't compare too badly to me.

I cannot remember him playing badly but I've not watched every game.

Sheehan is a left-back simple as that and one who creates far more than the present incumbent.

Indeed it's strange on here how some people talk about what people do well as the reason for keeping them in the team: McAuley with his heading yet ignore what he doesn't do (pass) but with Sheehan they ignore the huge attacking contribution he makes with nebulous claims that he can't defend which statistics just don't support.

Mattock supposedly can defend but has had virtually no attacking effect but no matter.

I don't know but you sound like one of the natural dourists. If there's any chance of playing a supposedly no risk defender or midfielder instead of adding to our attacking capability, go for safety first. It's the sort of view that constantly encourages matches like last night.

Cover? Does that mean you're seriously happy with the team we have in place?

[Durnerz]

On at least two occasions in his brief career the first team's performance has improved noticeably when he's been introduced and the word at the club from everyone I've spoken to is that they've been pleased with his performances.

One goal in six starts compared with Weso's one goal in 10 starts and Clemence's one in 22 (I think), while being ordered to play a containing role for his first three matches. Doesn't compare too badly to me.

I cannot remember him playing badly but I've not watched every game.

Sheehan is a left-back simple as that and one who creates far more than the present incumbent.

Indeed it's strange on here how some people talk about what people do well as the reason for keeping them in the team: McAuley with his heading yet ignore what he doesn't do (pass) but with Sheehan they ignore the huge attacking contribution he makes with nebulous claims that he can't defend which statistics just don't support.

Mattock supposedly can defend but has had virtually no attacking effect but no matter.

I don't know but you sound like one of the natural dourists. If there's any chance of playing a supposedly no risk defender or midfielder instead of adding to our attacking capability, go for safety first. It's the sort of view that constantly encourages matches like last night.

Cover? Does that mean you're seriously happy with the team we have in place?

Clemence isnt an attacking midfielder nor is Wesolowski so goals shouldn't really be an issue, you must talk to the 'yes' men of the club or the complete delusionals as Kings performances have been less than satisfactory, perhaps you spoke to the officials after the game against Saint's where he put forward a contender for goal of the season, that may explain the reactions.

Sheehan is not a left back as I remember correctly a left back is part of the defence and the defence's job is to defend, Sheehan gives his man far too much room on the cross, is slow to recover and is easily beaten. Mattock on the other hand is an exhuberant developing player who has shown he can handle himself well (Villa away anyone?) plus has shown the willing at times to get forward on the run, something which we will no doubt be looking to bring on given his age and development adding to that he has only put in a handful of poor performances, namely against established wingers like Gareth Ainsworth. All Sheehan can do is dead balls and if thats what satisfys you into thinking he is acceptable to place in this football team then maybe you should campaign for the return of Stefan Oakes while you're at it.

I am not happy with the team we have in place and that is evident with my criticisms of who you deem fit to wear the shirt out of the current crop we have that I have highlighted in this response. If you think that players like King and Sheehan are the answer then I thank the lord you are not at the helm of my Football club. I like you also want attacking football but also to win games, and for that you need quality in both attack and defence, the suggestions you have put forward, in my opinion, show no quality to either area.

[STUHILL]

Clemence isnt an attacking midfielder nor is Wesolowski so goals shouldn't really be an issue, you must talk to the 'yes' men of the club or the complete delusionals as Kings performances have been less than satisfactory, perhaps you spoke to the officials after the game against Saint's where he put forward a contender for goal of the season, that may explain the reactions.

Sheehan is not a left back as I remember correctly a left back is part of the defence and the defence's job is to defend, Sheehan gives his man far too much room on the cross, is slow to recover and is easily beaten. Mattock on the other hand is an exhuberant developing player who has shown he can handle himself well (Villa away anyone?) plus has shown the willing at times to get forward on the run, something which we will no doubt be looking to bring on given his age and development adding to that he has only put in a handful of poor performances, namely against established wingers like Gareth Ainsworth. All Sheehan can do is dead balls and if thats what satisfys you into thinking he is acceptable to place in this football team then maybe you should campaign for the return of Stefan Oakes while you're at it.

I am not happy with the team we have in place and that is evident with my criticisms of who you deem fit to wear the shirt out of the current crop we have that I have highlighted in this response. If you think that players like King and Sheehan are the answer then I thank the lord you are not at the helm of my Football club. I like you also want attacking football but also to win games, and for that you need quality in both attack and defence, the suggestions you have put forward, in my opinion, show no quality to either area.

All very well said but expect a long-winded, repetitive reply from Thracian. And i'm afraid he will always have an answer, no matter how well an argument is put to him. I gave up getting involved a while back and now just bite my tongue when see his posts! He enjoys it and even trys to antagonise people even when we are winning games! YAWN Will leave u to it Thrac!

[Durnerz]

All very well said but expect a long-winded, repetitive reply from Thracian. And i'm afraid he will always have an answer, no matter how well an argument is put to him. I gave up getting involved a while back and now just bite my tongue when see his posts! He enjoys it and even trys to antagonise people even when we are winning games! YAWN Will leave u to it Thrac!

I'll no doubt be needing that portable brick wall thats become the compulsary piece of kit for many-a-foxestalker to bang their head against.

[The Reverend]

a) I don't think we were anything like as dour as we were against Norwich and Palace last nigth when we played - Blackpool, Watford, Wednesday, Barnsley, Cardiff, Chelsea, Forest, Ipswich (home), Bristol City, Wolves (away) or Charlton (home) as examples.

b) I've rarely advocated more than three young players in the starting line-up except in emergencies.

c) Oakley and Clemence do start but King should be on the bench.He's our only genuine attacking midfielder, when and if he's ever given chance)

d) I'm disappointed about Fryatt. He seems to do better in a passing side but there's no doubting the many limitations people have mentioned hold him back.

e) You seem to right about Sheehan so why doesn't Holloway let him move on?

Right. King, though scoring a brilliant goal against Saints, has shown why he is not ready for first team football. He is not mobile enough, fit enough, strong enough or for an attacking midfielder, attacking enough. This is to be expected. He is a young lad learning his trade. I agree with those who have suggested he needs a loan spell somewhere. Maybe, just maybe, we would see his (undoubted) ability flourish with regular games and real match fitness. And confidence. He ius not confident enough to be the same player he is for the reserves.

As for Sheehan, i still think he is good enough as cover. Him and Mattock both bring different qualitites to the field and if you rolled both into one, he certainly wouldnt be be us.

On at least two occasions in his brief career the first team's performance has improved noticeably when he's been introduced and the word at the club from everyone I've spoken to is that they've been pleased with his performances.

One goal in six starts compared with Weso's one goal in 10 starts and Clemence's one in 22 (I think), while being ordered to play a containing role for his first three matches. Doesn't compare too badly to me.

I cannot remember him playing badly but I've not watched every game.

Sheehan is a left-back simple as that and one who creates far more than the present incumbent.

Indeed it's strange on here how some people talk about what people do well as the reason for keeping them in the team: McAuley with his heading yet ignore what he doesn't do (pass) but with Sheehan they ignore the huge attacking contribution he makes with nebulous claims that he can't defend which statistics just don't support.

Mattock supposedly can defend but has had virtually no attacking effect but no matter.

I don't know but you sound like one of the natural dourists. If there's any chance of playing a supposedly no risk defender or midfielder instead of adding to our attacking capability, go for safety first. It's the sort of view that constantly encourages matches like last night.

Cover? Does that mean you're seriously happy with the team we have in place?

Because a central defenders job, is to defend. If his distribution is good, then wonderful. Though i would argue Sheehan CAN defend, if he cant, he is pretty useless as a DEFENDER. If a left back can offer support, then great. But if he cant, then it isnt a vital necessity. Thats what midfielders and strikers are for.

The arguement is a bit like saying you would get rid of a striker who scores goals, but doesnt do much else. Well im sorry, but a strikers job is to score goals, the same as a defenders job is to defend. If they can do both, great. But in all likelihood, they wouldnt be with Leicester City in the Championship if they could.

Comprende?

[Thracian]

Clemence isnt an attacking midfielder nor is Wesolowski so goals shouldn't really be an issue, you must talk to the 'yes' men of the club or the complete delusionals as Kings performances have been less than satisfactory, perhaps you spoke to the officials after the game against Saint's where he put forward a contender for goal of the season, that may explain the reactions.

Sheehan is not a left back as I remember correctly a left back is part of the defence and the defence's job is to defend, Sheehan gives his man far too much room on the cross, is slow to recover and is easily beaten. Mattock on the other hand is an exhuberant developing player who has shown he can handle himself well (Villa away anyone?) plus has shown the willing at times to get forward on the run, something which we will no doubt be looking to bring on given his age and development adding to that he has only put in a handful of poor performances, namely against established wingers like Gareth Ainsworth. All Sheehan can do is dead balls and if thats what satisfys you into thinking he is acceptable to place in this football team then maybe you should campaign for the return of Stefan Oakes while you're at it.

I am not happy with the team we have in place and that is evident with my criticisms of who you deem fit to wear the shirt out of the current crop we have that I have highlighted in this response. If you think that players like King and Sheehan are the answer then I thank the lord you are not at the helm of my Football club. I like you also want attacking football but also to win games, and for that you need quality in both attack and defence, the suggestions you have put forward, in my opinion, show no quality to either area.

I've rarely criticised Mattock defensively but as an attacker he is largely inconsequential and to pretend otherwise is to just indulge in illusion as the facts clearly show though you choose to ignore them.

Sheehan too does far more than dead ball situations and saying otherwise just ignores the truth and is rather like saying Sheehan is like Stefan Oakes when their only real similarities are in being footballers and left footed.

As for who I'd choose for a team of mine it would depend entirely on who was available. But, I'd have a lot more pace in the side, a lot more goals from a lot more places, more passers, people who could take people on and/or create goals and I wouldn't have defenders giving the ball away so easily because they hadn't got the patience and forethought to pass the ball simply.

People, including King if he was involved, would be fit, they'd be played where they belonged, they would move out of defence far faster and defend/support far higher. We would also get far more players into the front third more often.

The players would, I hope, love their job and the fans would look forward to the games because we'd always try to make things happen in an abundance of ways.

Yes I'd show some faith in people coming through because the only way they'll finally emerge is to load em full of confidence and take away their fear of making mistakes while finding time to iron out final weaknesses as they become apparent.

We haven't got much of all that which is why we've scored at a basically pathetic goal a game this season, why our club has been a graveyard for attackers for so long and why we've wasted more points than I care to count while playing some of the most laboured and unadventurous football.

Of course this approach would, by your estimation, only lead to defeat after defeat and I've really no idea why, after 50 years of watching football played by so many teams, successful and otherwise, I've ever settled on this being my favoured approach but there you are. I'm sure there's a reason if I could think of it.

[The Reverend]

I've rarely criticised Mattock defensively but as an attacker he is largely inconsequential and to pretend otherwise is to just indulge in illusion as the facts clearly show though you choose to ignore them.

Sheehan too does far more than dead ball situations and saying otherwise just ignores the truth and is rather like saying Sheehan is like Stefan Oakes when their only real similarities are in being footballers and left footed.

As for who I'd choose for a team of mine it would depend entirely on who was available. But, I'd have a lot more pace in the side, a lot more goals from a lot more places, more passers, people who could take people on and/or create goals and I wouldn't have defenders giving the ball away so easily because they hadn't got the patience and forethought to pass the ball simply.

People, including King if he was involved, would be fit, they'd be played where they belonged, they would move out of defence far faster and defend/support far higher. We would also get far more players into the front third more often.

The players would, I hope, love their job and the fans would look forward to the games because we'd always try to make things happen in an abundance of ways.

Yes I'd show some faith in people coming through because the only way they'll finally emerge is to load em full of confidence and take away their fear of making mistakes while finding time to iron out final weaknesses as they become apparent.

We haven't got much of all that which is why we've scored at a basically pathetic goal a game this season, why our club has been a graveyard for attackers for so long and why we've wasted more points than I care to count while playing some of the most laboured and unadventurous football.

Of course this approach would, by your estimation, only lead to defeat after defeat and I've really no idea why, after 50 years of watching football played by so many teams, successful and otherwise, I've ever settled on this being my favoured approach but there you are. I'm sure there's a reason if I could think of it.

Yes, because its that simple isnt it. Thracian for manager.

Go buy Fabregas, Ronaldo and Tevez. That is the goalscoring threat and pace that we need and you talk about so much.

Ollie out! Crikey, why didnt he think of that sooner?!

[Thracian]

Yes, because its that simple isnt it. Thracian for manager.

Go buy Fabregas, Ronaldo and Tevez. That is the goalscoring threat and pace that we need and you talk about so much.

Ollie out! Crikey, why didnt he think of that sooner?!

The inevitable sarcasm whenever anyone suggests there might be an alternative to cautious football. Burnley (away), Hull (away), Norwich (away), Queens Park Rangers (away), Palace on Monday ... is that kind of football really something to be defended?

I don't want Holloway out whatever he does but I'll leave you to defend that lot.

[The Reverend]

The inevitable sarcasm whenever anyone suggests there might be an alternative to cautious football. Burnley (away), Hull (away), Norwich (away), Queens Park Rangers (away) ... is that kind of football really something to be defended?

I cant help it. I live in hope that humouring you may help the message get through. If it was that simple, everyone would play like Arsenal, we would have a 22 man squad of pace, passing ability, etc etc.....

The way you suggest that you would just go and get players that would make the difference, or that you could use the players we have to greater effect.Like there isnt a million obstacles in doing this. Its quite frankly ludicrous in fact, and you know this.

[MPH]

We need natural width on both flanks, not just one. So Bori and Laczko have to play. I'd also start DJ alongside Howard and have Hume and Hayles to come on if we need to change dimension.

good call. we might need to soak it up a bit and catch them on the break...

[Thracian]

I cant help it. I live in hope that humouring you may help the message get through. If it was that simple, everyone would play like Arsenal, we would have a 22 man squad of pace, passing ability, etc etc.....

The way you suggest that you would just go and get players that would make the difference, or that you could use the players we have to greater effect.Like there isnt a million obstacles in doing this. Its quite frankly ludicrous in fact, and you know this.

Plenty of teams have played to win and score goals without having Arsenal's resources or Manchester United's. And even with their resources Arsenal haven't always played like they do, they've adopted an approach and shown some faith in it.

There is NOTHING to stop any team attacking, look at little Havant and Waterlooville. Or even Yeovil not so long back. Or Portsmouth.

What varies is the personality of managers. Some have the nerve to attack and do all they can to facilitate attacking. Others want to but, when they're up against it, they never quite have the nerve to see the policy through. We'll see soon which sort Holloway is.

[Raj]

This could be a BIg one.

A real rollercoaster of a game.

Full of ups and downs!!!

[jae-ols]

Jeg tror på seier over Blackpool. Leicester er i siget nå. Sterk seier over Palace.

[Asha]

Jeg tror på seier over Blackpool. Leicester er i siget nå. Sterk seier over Palace.

Yes, my thoughts exactly

[lavrentis]

Jeg tror på seier over Blackpool. Leicester er i siget nå. Sterk seier over Palace.

[Koke]

Jeg tror på seier over Blackpool. Leicester er i siget nå. Sterk seier over Palace.

Don't hold your breath. We battled against Palace, but we might bend over at Blackpool.

[MC Prussian]

Jeg tror på seier over Blackpool. Leicester er i siget nå. Sterk seier over Palace.

Valerenga?

[Simi]

Jeg tror på seier over Blackpool. Leicester er i siget nå. Sterk seier over Palace.

I am not doing that to you.