Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
bigneville

Team For Brighton

By bigneville, in Leicester City Forum

Recommended Posts

marbelladave

marbelladave

Posted
Posted

We definitely need to evolve, our 4-4-2 has been shut down by the opposition getting at our wingers. Tight marking, a defender in support, has pretty much closed down Dyer and Gradel / Adams.

With the threat from the flanks nullified, our lack of pace and creativity in the center is shown up badly. We are suddenly not creating much at all and the players know this, hence they are hurried and over anxious when the chances do occur.

Time for a change!

Joe.

Joe.

Posted
Posted

I do like the wing back idea actually. I'd go for something like this:

Henderson



Tunchev---Kisnorbo

Gilbert-----------------Mattock

Oakley

Adams----King

Gradel---------------Dyer

Howard

Scrap my previous team, it's time for a change. This side shouldn't have any trouble posing an attacking threat. We'd still have the width with Gilbert/Gradel and Mattock/Dyer, but at the same time Gradel and Dyer could act as support forwards for Howard up front. With Oakley as a holding midfielder, King and Adams would be allowed to get forward as much as possible between them and further support the attack. If necessary the wing backs could just act as standard defenders also.

Uncle Albert

Uncle Albert

Posted
Posted

Martin



Gilbert Tunchev Kisnorbo Mattock

Gradel Oakley King Dyer

Howard Fryatt

Thats the team I can see playing if Gilbert and Howard are fit. Hobbs and Hayles to come in.

What injury did Howard pick up.

SamL

SamL

Posted
Posted
I do like the wing back idea actually. I'd go for something like this:

Henderson



Tunchev---Kisnorbo

Gilbert-----------------Mattock

Oakley

Adams----King

Gradel---------------Dyer

Howard

Scrap my previous team, it's time for a change. This side shouldn't have any trouble posing an attacking threat. We'd still have the width with Gilbert/Gradel and Mattock/Dyer, but at the same time Gradel and Dyer could act as support forwards for Howard up front. With Oakley as a holding midfielder, King and Adams would be allowed to get forward as much as possible between them and further support the attack. If necessary the wing backs could just act as standard defenders also.

I'm liking that.

After the last 3 games, I think it's time for a change and with our current options, I think that's one of the better line ups we could come up with.

Thracian

Thracian

Posted
Posted

Some interesting and quite promising ideas explored here.

General consensus seems to be that we need to change our approach and i just hope that the manager understand that as well.

There is no way our drop in form is down to bad luck or even simply bad finishing. We've been sussed and if we don't change then others will start taking points off us and perhaps even winning games as Northampton so nearly did in the last minute.

dandannieldanok

dandannieldanok

Posted
Posted
I do like the wing back idea actually.

I don't particularly. I know we had different players under Megson, but the formation he used with wing-backs produced some really turgid football. It's risky because if the players aren't quite up to scratch, then it can go tits-up either in an attacking or defending sense, or even both. 4-4-2 is predictable and most definitely a safe option, but I still personally regard it as our best option. The team is slipping badly out-of-form and something needs to change but not the formation for me.

Joe.

Joe.

Posted
Posted
I don't particularly. I know we had different players under Megson, but the formation he used with wing-backs produced some really turgid football. It's risky because if the players aren't quite up to scratch, then it can go tits-up either in an attacking or defending sense, or even both. 4-4-2 is predictable and most definitely a safe option, but I still personally regard it as our best option. The team is slipping badly out-of-form ans something needs to change but not the formation for me.

The difference is, that with Megson we had much poorer players in that position in a tougher league. With both Gilbert/Gradel and Mattock/Dyer we'd have more than enough width, and that was the main problem under Megson.

Munzie

Munzie

Posted
Posted
I don't particularly. I know we had different players under Megson, but the formation he used with wing-backs produced some really turgid football. It's risky because if the players aren't quite up to scratch, then it can go tits-up either in an attacking or defending sense, or even both. 4-4-2 is predictable and most definitely a safe option, but I still personally regard it as our best option. The team is slipping badly out-of-form and something needs to change but not the formation for me.

You're right in the sense that this shouldn't be adopted at the drop of a hat, just because we've been sussed or become predictable. It will take time for the team to adjust. I can't believe that any team in the league just has a 4-4-2 formation in their armoury however.

I do think we have the personnel to adjust. Mattock is more than capable of fulfilling the wingback role and from what I've seen of Gilbert, he too would have no problem with his fitness and pace. With support in midfield with the likes of Porter, Gradel, Adams and King we shouldn't get caught short if opposing teams counter attack. This coupled with a defensive, holding, central midfielder should work.

Howard needs more than just Fryatt partnering him upfront. If we persist with using him as a target man, it makes sense to have more than one outlet for him to find.

I would suggest that any manager worth his salt will be trying diffeent formations within the safe confines of the training ground. As plan 'A' has been sussed Mr Pearson, please reveal plan 'B'. If we are going to experiment, let's do it sooner rather than later whilst we still have games. Up and coming cup competitions provide a perfect platform to try these out for real. A version of 4-3-3 lends itself to a more attacking option. We can always adopt a more conventional style when leading a match.

Salieri

Salieri

Posted
Posted

Just read through all the ideas on formations/personnel and it makes for a very interesting read. Some good ideas and a general concencus that something has to be done to freshen things up a bit.

I like the idea of Dyer and Gradel being given more freedom to roam with support down the flanks from Mattock and (hopefully) Gilbert. This, coupled with an attacking midfielder to link up with the striker makes for a team full of attacking options rather tha the predictable 442 line up.

Henderson



Gilbert Tunchev Kisnorbo Mattock

Oakley King

Adams

Gradel Howard Dyer

Something like that or possibly Porter for Adams and or Fryatt for Howard.

The sad thing is, as much as i like NP and still have faith in him, ive got a feeling its gonna be more of the same tomorrow night with regards to formation and personnel, if so, i'll let him off if we get the points! Having said that, itd be nice to see that he is flexible tactically.......

lookwhaticando

lookwhaticando

Posted
Posted

Douglas



Stearman -- McCarthy © -- Kisnorbo -- Johansson

Sylla -- Gudjonsson -- Wesolowski -- Hughes

Fryatt -- Hume

Subs: Henderson P, Hammond E, Smith, O'Grady, Gerrbrand.

Get 'er done. :santa:

Koke

Koke

Posted
Posted

As others have said, we have become a bit too predictable lately so we need a new approach. Apart from Nicky Adams, we don't really have any other personnel that Pearson can tinker with. I'd like to see Levi Porter get involved in some capacity, whether it be from the bench or as a starter.

I agree with Ric, it'd be good to see if Gradel and Dyer was moved to an advanced and more a 'free' role ala Agbonlahor and Young at Villa. If that happens though, our 3 CM's needs to be very disciplined, and I'm not too sure about King's and Oakley's keeping their discipline and protecting out defence enough, and on top of that I don't quite think either of them (nor Adams for that matter) has the engine for that. It's times like these where Weso could be a very useful option.

Loads of options, and we certainly need that. We tend to run out of ideas lately.

Jimmy

Jimmy

Posted
Posted
Gk - MARTIN

RB - BERNER ( GILBERT IF FIT )

CB - TUNCHEV

CB - HOBBS

LB - MATTOCK

RW - GRADEL

CM - OAKLEY

LW - DYER

SS- ADAMS

CF - HOWARD

SUBS - FRYATT,HENDERSON,KING,POWELL,MORRISON

only 10 players

stevie909

stevie909

Posted
Posted

-----------------Martin----------------------

Berner----Tunchev----Kisnorbo----Powell

Gradel------Oakley------Adams------Dyer

-------------Fryatt---------------------------

----------------------Mckay-----------------

Subs: King, Hobbs, Mattock, Howard, Henderson

Im assuming gilbert isnt fit, and if powell isnt aswell then id have mattock at LB.

Raj

Raj

Posted
Posted

BIG BIG BIG BIG BIG UP To all the Leicester massive going to this one!!

Nuff respect!

BIG UP!!!

Whoop Whoop!!!

:appl::appl::appl:

(Yes i has turned into a gangst!) :huh:

Tommeh

Tommeh

Posted
Posted

the way I see it people say Howard or fryatt need to be dropped but the only way I see this happening would be going 4-5-1, which would get even more people moaning.

Sometimes I think NP can't win.

The only change I'd make is Powell for mattock if fit, and also hendo for martin but let's face it the latter won't happen.

Uncle Albert

Uncle Albert

Posted
Posted
the way I see it people say Howard or fryatt need to be dropped but the only way I see this happening would be going 4-5-1, which would get even more people moaning.

Sometimes I think NP can't win.

The only change I'd make is Powell for mattock if fit, and also hendo for martin but let's face it the latter won't happen.

Neither would be better.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...