Haydos Posted 2 January 2012 Posted 2 January 2012 like it but i would have konchesky instead of wellens on the bench And no midfield cover? Why, because you dislike Wellens?
gazfox9 Posted 2 January 2012 Posted 2 January 2012 And no midfield cover? Why, because you dislike Wellens? Or maybe because Gally or Bamba can play as part of that midfield three?
leicesterisme Posted 2 January 2012 Posted 2 January 2012 Or maybe because Gally or Bamba can play as part of that midfield three? Why not just put Wellens on the bench? Neither Gallagher or Bamba are centre midfielders.
Haydos Posted 2 January 2012 Posted 2 January 2012 Or maybe because Gally or Bamba can play as part of that midfield three? When have either of them ever played there? Gally once or twice tops? Bamba never?
city1993 Posted 2 January 2012 Posted 2 January 2012 I would stick with the same formation, although we still looked shaky at the back today I think with a few games under our belts the system could work perfectly. I'd keep Tunchev in there with Mills and Bamba as a reassuring party, Mills and Sol have proven to be less than reliable so far this season. Think Konchesky and Peltier deserve to be in the team when fit and would fit into a 5-3-2 perfectly, both like to get forward and always look a threat from out wide, and cutting inside. Great to have Moore and Kennedy pushing through though, bright outlook for the future if they maintain their levels of progression. Also believe King and Danns played well together without the interference of Wellens in the middle, and Abe gave us some assurance when going forward, always looking to sweep up after the attack broke down. Schlupp tends to be bright but fades badly in matches, think Beckford as an impact substitute would work well for 30 minutes in games, but would he want that role? Hasn't earned his place in the starting 11 as of yet as a City player. Nugent and Kasper first names on the team sheet for me currently, both playing out of their skin. Will be interesting to see Pearson's line-ups against Forest and the other 3 January games, all of which will be different types of game and will need a different mentality each time. Should we stick with the players or style, I hope that with a few additions this month in the window we can be a force for the remaining 21 games and push for those top 6 places. With many sides proving they can't be consistent, those 4 play-off spots are totally up for grabs and as supporters we have to show our TOTAL backing to the team and staff. Foxes never quit - always keep the faith. Amen.
Guest Col city fan Posted 2 January 2012 Posted 2 January 2012 I think Pelts would thrive in a 5-3-2. You could well be right here mate.. I think Pelts is starting to look suspect defensively. Perhaps wing back may be a more comfortable position for the young lad?
The Year Of The Fox Posted 2 January 2012 Posted 2 January 2012 If the forest fans who post on here are right and they play a fair few reserves/youth team players, then why not? But Forest may well have turned a corner today so don't want us to get hammered by them or go into the game expecting it to be easy
ozleicester Posted 2 January 2012 Posted 2 January 2012 Pearson referred to needing to improve the "team first" attitude and it's been clear this last month that he's right. Kennedy's MOM performance doesn't negate all that Konch has done this season and nor does Moore's efforts at right back suddenly make Peltier useless. In fact we have more serious worries than in either of those positions. Victory shouldn't cloud the fact that we hadly sounded like promotion contenders from anything said on the radio. If Pearson believes he can strengthen any position he will, and should, do so. But in considering that he should also be aware that we need to develop as a collective unit and that will open happen if people get used to playing with the people around them. I wouldn't say Pearson sounded especially happy in his interview. Yes, the three points pleased him and so did the battling qualities seemingly shown by most of our players. But winning promotion requires teams with more to offer than just battling qualities and surely, he'll be looking to improve certain areas while retaining/improving our overall willingness to dig in. People, for instance, mentioned bringing Gallagher on. But we were winning and Gallagher, for all the qualities he has, is not a battler and he doesn't have the pace to be a harrasser either. He's much more the sort of player i might ask to help us conjure a goal. I don't much care who Pearson chooses next week except I'd definitely learn the lesson that King/Wellens are not complimentary and that, when it comes to choosing battlers i wouldn't be inclined towards Gallagher or Beckford for that matter. That's not saying anyone should necessarily be discarded. Gallagher/Beckford have their own qualities and, for the manager, it's all about getting the balance right. Spot on
Bob Weasel Fox Posted 2 January 2012 Posted 2 January 2012 The side will definately be changed for the F****t cup game without a doubt, but probably for rotational/tactical purposes etc
Tielemans63 Posted 2 January 2012 Author Posted 2 January 2012 The side will definately be changed for the F****t cup game without a doubt, but probably for rotational/tactical purposes etc I like the way you've rotated your font. Nice.
Bob Weasel Fox Posted 2 January 2012 Posted 2 January 2012 I like the way you've rotated your font. Nice. Aye, you cant whack a bit of Times New Roman . . . . . . .
Joeb.lcfc Posted 2 January 2012 Posted 2 January 2012 aren't there 7 subs aloud in the cup? if so would put Tom Hopper or another youth player on the bench
Bob Weasel Fox Posted 2 January 2012 Posted 2 January 2012 aren't there 7 subs aloud in the cup? if so would put Tom Hopper or another youth player on the bench Would be sensible enough i think
LCFC FOX Posted 2 January 2012 Posted 2 January 2012 What formation did we actually play today? Did Bamba play in midfield or something
cc_star Posted 2 January 2012 Posted 2 January 2012 What formation did we actually play today? Did Bamba play in midfield or something 1st half was Kasper Mills - Bamba - Tunchev Moore -------------------------- Kennedy Danns - King - Abe Schlupp - Nugent Tunchev was either off the pace, injured or there was just a tactical change as half time to Kasper Moore - Mills - Bamba - Kennedy Danns - King - Abe - Dyer Schlupp - Nugent
NewburyFox Posted 3 January 2012 Posted 3 January 2012 Schlupp was good today, a lot better than he was against Portsmouth, and certainly contributed a lot more to the team than Beckford has done when he's started. For that reason, and that reason alone, I'd start Schlupp against Forest.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.