FoxyPV Posted 16 January 2011 Posted 16 January 2011 Dyer for not being able to finish his dinner nevermind a 1 on 1.
Finnegan Posted 16 January 2011 Posted 16 January 2011 I voted for everyone because I could. Personally I'm baffled by the lack of Maggie Thatcher as an option, everything else is her fault.
JadeFalcon Posted 16 January 2011 Posted 16 January 2011 i blame the 20 shots at goal and only scoring once, 6 on 14 off, target practice needed methinks
lee(lcfc) Posted 16 January 2011 Posted 16 January 2011 i blame the defence they sounded crap all game
Guest Mee-9 Posted 16 January 2011 Posted 16 January 2011 I blame Nigel Pearson. He should of not sold Gradel. Why isn't there a NP or Campbell option?
sphericalfox Posted 16 January 2011 Author Posted 16 January 2011 I blame Nigel Pearson. He should of not sold Gradel. Why isn't there a NP or Campbell option? I took a secret pre-poll to decide whether or not to include Nige or Golden-toof, and it was decided that not one person who supports Leicester City can remember who these persons are, and therefore I didn't want to confuse people with strange and unfamiliar choices which might cause a controversy which then will never be gotten over.
Kitchandro Posted 16 January 2011 Posted 16 January 2011 Where's the option to blame Yann? Lets face it, if it weren't for Yann we might not even have played Preston yesterday. It's definitely Yann's fault
cc_star Posted 16 January 2011 Posted 16 January 2011 I blame Wycome feckin Wonderers, failing that we need to take our chances although it's hard when your shooting isn't on target
Bugg Posted 17 January 2011 Posted 17 January 2011 I blame Tater Peeler. If it wasn't for his stupidity in managing Leicester. We would be champions of Europe by now
muzzy1981 Posted 17 January 2011 Posted 17 January 2011 Blame for the goal would have to be Hobbs, he came ploughing forward for ridiculous header way to far up the pitch, which left a whole at the back. And the obvious we needed to convert our chances, Vassel and the Yak will be a force to be reckoned with though! At least our away for is slowy improving
Haydos Posted 17 January 2011 Posted 17 January 2011 Blame for the goal would have to be Hobbs, he came ploughing forward for ridiculous header way to far up the pitch, which left a whole at the back. Obviously hobbs is at direct fault for that goal but we had time to adjust, it was the second ball which lead to the goal and after jack has (albeit wrongly) gone for that header it still shouldnt be a problem. For me Naughton needs to be tucking in there and could be called for ball watching in my eyes. Meh.
cc_star Posted 17 January 2011 Posted 17 January 2011 Blame for the goal would have to be Hobbs, he came ploughing forward for ridiculous header way to far up the pitch, which left a whole at the back. And the obvious we needed to convert our chances, Vassel and the Yak will be a force to be reckoned with though! At least our away for is slowy improving If it comes down to an individual's actions there was one mistake at the back, but nineteen upfront Football doesn't work like that, so unless its a dodgy backpass or a keeper gifts it, its down to the group of players as a whole, if one defender does go forward the other or a fullback should cover. no questions thats what being a team is all about, its also one of the dangers of replacing too many players in too short a time.
muzzy1981 Posted 17 January 2011 Posted 17 January 2011 I am far from blaming Hobbs for the whole game, his form has vastly improved for us! And as you rightly said there were plenty of chances wasted upfront, which as previously stated hopefully will be corrected when Vassell partners the Yak as oppose to Dyer. But (theres always a but) if you watch the goal again, there is absolutely no need for Hobbs to come for that ball, it's not in danger area and he comes about 20 yards out of position, which weakens the centre of defence which is where the goal came from. I'm sure he's aware of his mistake and I'm sure Sven has had quiet word, he is still young and learning every game.
Kitchandro Posted 17 January 2011 Posted 17 January 2011 Obviously hobbs is at direct fault for that goal but we had time to adjust, it was the second ball which lead to the goal and after jack has (albeit wrongly) gone for that header it still shouldnt be a problem. For me Naughton needs to be tucking in there and could be called for ball watching in my eyes. Meh. Yeh but the point is if Jack hadn't gone for that header Hume wouldn't have been left unmarked and the goal wouldn't have happened
marbelladave Posted 17 January 2011 Posted 17 January 2011 Yeh but the point is if Jack hadn't gone for that header Hume wouldn't have been left unmarked and the goal wouldn't have happened Hobbs stepped out to make the clearance because none of our midfielders are prepared to put in a challenge in such situations. It left Hume unmarked, Abe bypassed and no one covering. All in all a typical example of how our backline is breached time and time again, a team error caused primarily by a lack of defensive cover provided by our midfield. Our back 4, central defenders in particular, are left exposed by an absent midfield so one error by a defender with no one in a position to cover leads to a goalscoring opportunity. 2 points down the 'dunny'!
Kitchandro Posted 17 January 2011 Posted 17 January 2011 Hobbs stepped out to make the clearance because none of our midfielders are prepared to put in a challenge in such situations. It left Hume unmarked, Abe bypassed and no one covering. All in all a typical example of how our backline is breached time and time again, a team error caused primarily by a lack of defensive cover provided by our midfield. Our back 4, central defenders in particular, are left exposed by an absent midfield so one error by a defender with no one in a position to cover leads to a goalscoring opportunity. 2 points down the 'dunny'! Wellens was standing right next to the player who beat Hobbs to the header. Yes the whole team should take responsibility for defending which is why Hobbs should trust his teammates to deal with things that are in a part of the pitch he shouldn't be venturing into at that time of the match. If he is going to do so though, he needs to make it very clear to one of the midfielders or other defenders that they should be covering him. This obviosuly didn't happen for whatever reason. The point is that Hobbs really shouldn't have done what he did. Even if Wellens had lost that initial header, at least he would have been back far enough to track Hume. I don't know if communication is the main problem, or just panic when it gets to the crunch.
marbelladave Posted 17 January 2011 Posted 17 January 2011 Wellens was standing right next to the player who beat Hobbs to the header. Yes the whole team should take responsibility for defending which is why Hobbs should trust his teammates to deal with things that are in a part of the pitch he shouldn't be venturing into at that time of the match. If he is going to do so though, he needs to make it very clear to one of the midfielders or other defenders that they should be covering him. This obviosuly didn't happen for whatever reason. The point is that Hobbs really shouldn't have done what he did. Even if Wellens had lost that initial header, at least he would have been back far enough to track Hume. I don't know if communication is the main problem, or just panic when it gets to the crunch. I don't think Hobbs trusted Wellens to make the challenge, the cover in front of the back 4 is abysmal, Bamba, Hobbs and before that Davies all come out to make these challenges so perhaps they are under instructions to do that. Maybe it's Sven who doesn't trust our midfield defensively...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.