TrickyTrev Posted 13 September 2009 Posted 13 September 2009 I thought we were much better against Blackpool in the 2nd half because we played a designated holding player, we were much less susceptible to counter attacks and the midfielders we had were better able to support the attack. I thought this worked particuarly well when it was King, as this allowed both Wellens and Oakley to get forward. It didn't matter that Wellens was very narrow playing from the left, because Berner got forward and provided the width from that side that N'Guessen did from his. With this in mind, as well as the fact that we are playing 3 games in 7 days, I would like to see the following team on Tuesday night. .......................Weale Nielson......Hobbs.....Brown.....McGivern .........................King................ N'Guessen....Oakley....Wellens ...............Gallagher...Fryatt Subs: Logan, Tunchev, Berner, Howard, Dyer, Howard, Waghorn Berner and Howard are rested as they are both 30 plus. Howard looked knackered by half time yesterday and there is little use having a squad of players if you are not going to use them.
Heart-Shaped Fox Posted 13 September 2009 Posted 13 September 2009 Why change it? Keep with the same team, but I am concerned about Neilson vs. Posh as Boyd should be too tricky for him down that side.
ousefox Posted 13 September 2009 Posted 13 September 2009 Same team as Blackpool game. Posh are not good in the air and Howard can take advantage of that.
Pricey Posted 13 September 2009 Posted 13 September 2009 I thought we were much better against Blackpool in the 2nd half because we played a designated holding player, we were much less susceptible to counter attacks and the midfielders we had were better able to support the attack. I thought this worked particuarly well when it was King, as this allowed both Wellens and Oakley to get forward. It didn't matter that Wellens was very narrow playing from the left, because Berner got forward and provided the width from that side that N'Guessen did from his. With this in mind, as well as the fact that we are playing 3 games in 7 days, I would like to see the following team on Tuesday night. .......................Weale Nielson......Hobbs.....Brown.....McGivern .........................King................ N'Guessen....Oakley....Wellens ...............Gallagher...Fryatt Subs: Logan, Tunchev, Berner, Howard, Dyer, Howard, Waghorn Berner and Howard are rested as they are both 30 plus. Howard looked knackered by half time yesterday and there is little use having a squad of players if you are not going to use them. Quit like the look of that, good oppurtunity to let King have a go. I think it's maybe time to bring Tunchev in for a full game, but I think that formation could work, aslong as the midfield 3 got forward plenty.
Heart-Shaped Fox Posted 13 September 2009 Posted 13 September 2009 Same team as Blackpool game. Posh are not good in the air and Howard can take advantage of that. This. The trick is to force them wide make them put high balls into the box for no one to be tall enough or good enough to header. Brown and Hobbs should have a field day in the air, but it will be a big test for Brown on the floor as he is up against two very quick players. I'd be tempted to play Morrison/Tunch or play Morrison at RB against Boyd.
TrickyTrev Posted 13 September 2009 Author Posted 13 September 2009 Why change it? Keep with the same team, but I am concerned about Neilson vs. Posh as Boyd should be too tricky for him down that side. We changed the way we were set up against Blackpool midway through the game and looked like a better side, I'm suggesting we set up against Peterborough in the way we finished against Blackpool not the way we started. I'm not bothered if Howard of Gallagher play, but I don't think we should put Howard through 3 games a week when our squad is strong enough so that we don't have to.
djedmundo Posted 13 September 2009 Posted 13 September 2009 I'd stick with the same team... hopefully Browns saturday off day was only a one off! it would be nice to see tunchev back in the first team tho
Ozwin Posted 13 September 2009 Posted 13 September 2009 Tunchev wasn't on the bench on Saturday was he? Anyone know why?
Pete_foxes Posted 13 September 2009 Posted 13 September 2009 Same as Blackpool, I'd say if you were going to debate a position it would be left midfield as to whether Adams should get a crack ahead of Dyer.
samlcfc Posted 13 September 2009 Posted 13 September 2009 Tunchev wasn't on the bench on Saturday was he? Anyone know why? isnt fully fit yet
Ozwin Posted 13 September 2009 Posted 13 September 2009 Did he not go on International duty with Bulgaria then? I could have sworn I heard he had.
Guest Gist Posted 13 September 2009 Posted 13 September 2009 I'd like to see Adams start, but overall I'd be happy to see the same starting eleven.
ousefox Posted 13 September 2009 Posted 13 September 2009 Did he not go on International duty with Bulgaria then? I could have sworn I heard he had. No. Played a whole game in the reserves though if i remember correctly.
Thracian Posted 13 September 2009 Posted 13 September 2009 Having collected three points against previously unbeaten Blackpool I just can't see Pearson doing anything dramatic to try to improve the team. Why should he? A win's a win whether we carved openings out, attacked in numbers, bombarded the opposition with shots or not. Why would Pearson be especially concerned that Fryatt seems to be our only real goalscoring threat or that we really only ever have four potential scorers in the side at a time? We're sixth and that represents heady heights for Leicester these days. We've got a strong, organised, experienced side and the lack of speed and goalscorers doesn't really seem to be much affecting our ability to gather points. Any change in approach represents risk and I just don't see Pearson taking unnecessary risks. City will remain perfectly prepared to grind out results if they can't be expansive. Even then we're far better to watch than we have been under previous (recent) managers so here's no grounds for complaint. The only changes I'd expect would revolve around injury or fatigue.
Jimmy Posted 13 September 2009 Posted 13 September 2009 Adams for Dyer maybe McGivern for Berner but otherwise unchanged
ian_marshall Posted 13 September 2009 Posted 13 September 2009 I'd keep the same team with the exception of Neilson. The guy really is a liability and doesn't look good enough at this level. However i'm not sure who i'd play in his place as we're not exactly brimming with full backs at the moment.
Vlad The Impaler Posted 13 September 2009 Posted 13 September 2009 Adams for Dyer maybe McGivern for Berner but otherwise unchanged
davieG Posted 13 September 2009 Posted 13 September 2009 I'd keep the same team with the exception of Neilson. The guy really is a liability and doesn't look good enough at this level. However i'm not sure who i'd play in his place as we're not exactly brimming with full backs at the moment. How many goals has he caused us to concede? He may not have much going for him in an attacking sense but as a defender he's good enough for this league so liability seems somewhat off the mark If you can't think of suitable replacement it seems a pointless suggestion to make.
Thracian Posted 13 September 2009 Posted 13 September 2009 I'd keep the same team with the exception of Neilson. The guy really is a liability and doesn't look good enough at this level. However i'm not sure who i'd play in his place as we're not exactly brimming with full backs at the moment. As DavieG says, he's in no way a liability and you can't think of an option because we haven't got one. Luke O'Neil has been as good as anyone at right back in an attacking sense but that was once against Macclesfield in a meaningless cup match and there's no way he's strong enough, good enough or wise enough to be a first team regular just yet, if at all. My own idea of perhaps schooling Matt Oakley in the job has attracted not one iota of support any more than my suggestion of playing Dyer at left-back, Adams in front of him and really going for the goals we're going to need. And, likely as not, the punters on here are right. What we've got at full-back and across our entire back-line is basically a group of tough, rock-steady professionals. Anyone else is risky and some might say recklessly so. One day, of course, we will have to have alternatives because we'll be in desperate need of goals and I don't see any of our defenders scoring or assisting much in that department, especially the full-backs. Who those alternatives might be I cannot imagine.
haraven Posted 13 September 2009 Posted 13 September 2009 I would like to see the Tunch, but my problem is that the two guys playing center backs are doing excellent.
MC Prussian Posted 13 September 2009 Posted 13 September 2009 ------------- Weale ----------------- Neilson -- Brown -- Tunchev -- Berner ------------ Wellens -------------- N'Guessan ---------- ------- Dyer ------------- Oakley ---------------- ------- Howard ----- Fryatt------------ Although I'd like to see Gallager given a chance to start instead of Howard, who didn't convince me yesterday. Subs: Logan (?), Hobbs, McGivern, Gradel, King, Adams, Gallagher
Bert Posted 13 September 2009 Posted 13 September 2009 Personally I'd love to see this: Weale Neilson Tunchev Hobbs Berner N'Guessan Oakley Wellens Adams Fryatt Gallagher. I can see Pearson probably keeping the same team to be honest though.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.