Constant Failure

[Thracian]

The worst thing about supporting Leicester City since the departure of MON is being associated with almost constant failure. It's a form of self-harming.

Each season I optimistically believe there has to be an improvement on what's gone before.but, while owners, managers and players come and go like hotel guests through a revolving door, we continue to warrant only a low-star rating.

Today amounted to just one more day of sub-standard service...with only Kasper, Marshall and Konchesky showing themselves as caring about what the customers got for their money.

Whose fault was it all? Who knows or cares any longer? We hadn't got a clue tactically. And, both individually and collectively, almost our entire team acted like job applicants who wanted to be turned down.

I've long stopped listening to Pearson's after-match excuses for dialogue.

Just as I've long stopped trying to understand what the hell he's trying to do

We have one of the most lethal strike partnerships around in Nugent and Beckford - unlikely partners though they may be.

So, in a game we have to win what does our esteemed manager do? He plays Beckford up front on his own and pulls out the now traditional Leicester City "Joker" by playing Nugent on the wing - way out of position. Result? Attacking impotence.

We've done it many times before over the last 10 years and it's almost always been as fruitless as today's misguided managerial masterclass. Who dreamed it up?

Then there was the substitution of St Leger and his replacement in defence with Bamba...when it seemed all the bloke could do to stand up.

I don't know whether he was wearing studded boots or carpet slippers but he was about as steady on his feet as a new-born colt on a day when our defence was peeled open like a spam tin lid by Peterborough's swift and committed counter attacking.

We might have lost the game 1-0 but tactically we got hammered.

And what matters about that is we did nothing to rectify matters. To me a team hardly needs a manager when it is functioning properly and with the almost psychic understanding that comes from playing a familiar system.

The manager is needed when things go wrong, when the system is disrupted for whatever reason, when players are performing below their best, when the opposition is posing uncomfortable questions and when the unit just needs a bit of verbal refeshment.

But did our manager answer our needs today? Not from anything I witnessed. We didn't even show any urgency until the last 10 minutes when we needed a goal to equalise.. and that's just typical Leicester City.

We never fully commit to the task of winning, We only commit for short periods and in certain circumstances.

I was ashamed to watch what we served up as an excuse for attempted matchwinning football today and if the Thais want chapter and verse on our tactical ineptitude and ways to put it right, I'll happily oblige. As for Pearson and his coaching stafff well, if I were them, I'd donate today's wages to charity.

If nothing else it might persuade them to think again...and with a bit more logic.

[Leicester_Loyal]

Please no more depressing posts. You could have just posted 'We are shit' and it'd still have the same effect. We know we're shit. Lets move onto next season, this seasons gone from one disappointment to the next.

[Grewks]

we had 23 shots...they had 14...both had 50% possession. Good away performance but a bad result.

Hammered?? Somehow with the reputation you have on these forums should know better.

[Simmo86]

The worst thing about supporting Leicester City since the departure of MON is being associated with almost constant failure. It's a form of self-harming.

Each season I optimistically believe there has to be an improvement on what's gone before.but, while owners, managers and players come and go like hotel guests through a revolving door, we continue to warrant only a low-star rating.

Today amounted to just one more day of sub-standard service...with only Kasper and Konchesky showing themselves as caring about what the customers got for their money.

Whose fault was it all? Who knows or cares any longer? We hadn't got a clue tactically. And, both individually and collectively, almost our entire team acted like job applicants who wanted to be turned down.

I've long stopped listening to Pearson's after-match excuses for dialogue.

Just as I've long stopped trying to understand what the hell he's trying to do

We have one of the most lethal strike partnerships around in Nugent and Beckford - unlikely partners though they may be.

So, in a game we have to win what does our esteemed manager do? He plays Beckford up front on his own and pulls out the now traditional Leicester City "Joker" by playing Nugent on the wing - way out of position. Result? Attacking impotence.

We've done it many times before over the last 10 years and it's almost always been as fruitless as today's misguided managerial masterclass. Who dreamed it up?

Then there was the substitution of St Leger and his replacement in defence with Bamba...when it seemed all the bloke could do to stand up.

I don't know whether he was wearing studded boots or carpet slippers but he was about as steady on his feet as a new-born colt on a day when our defence was peeled open like a spam tin lid by Peterborough's swift and committed counter attacking.

We might have lost the game 1-0 but tactically we got hammered.

And what matters about that is we did nothing to rectify matters. To me a team hardly needs a manager when it is functioning properly and with the almost psychic understanding that comes from playing a familiar system.

The manager is needed when things go wrong, when the system is disrupted for whatever reason, when players are performing below their best, when the opposition is posing uncomfortable questions and when the unit just needs a bit of verbal refeshment.

But did our manager answer our needs today? Not from anything I witnessed. We didn't even show any urgency until the last 10 minutes when we needed a goal to equalise.. and that's just typical Leicester City.

We never fully commit to the task of winning, We only commit for short periods and in certain circumstances.

I was ashamed to watch what we served up as an excuse for attempted matchwinning football today and if the Thais want chapter and verse on our tactical ineptitude and ways to put it right, I'll happily oblige. As for Pearson and his coaching stafff well, if I were them, I'd donate today's wages to charity.

If nothing else it might persuade them to think again...and with a bit more logic.

I don't quite know how you can say we got tactically hammered when we dominated play. Before they're goal they were an absolute shambles!

[Corky]

Thrac, I appreciate most of what you say but we were not hammered tactically or swept aside by Peterborough's swift football. They were stronger towards the end when we went for it a bit more.

But for the majority we had them pinned back but did not take advantage.

[Thracian]

Believe what you wish. Peterborough knew that man-for-man they'd likely be under pressure but pinned their hopes on soaking up pressure and breaking as fast as possible to catch our lumbering, out-of-position, defenders off guard. To me it worked perfectly. And they might easily have scored a couple more including the penalty.

When did we ever break effectively and at full speed? We didn't. On rare occasions when we might have done Dyer and one or two others over-ran or miscontrolled the ball and the potential was lost.

Yes, we had chances ourselves but it was the theoretically weaker Posh who contrived the victory and exactly as they planned it.

Our chances were too-often wasted because of shortcomings related to the final ball. On rare occasions when we crossed the ball in low there was no-one driving into the six-yard-box to take advantage.

And mostly our final cross was in the air where we simply don't have the aerial personnel to put chances away, a fault we've had all season to rectify.

[The People's Hero]

I don't agree with everything Thrac, but it is refreshing to see a post which is obviously thought out and does not pretend that everything is rosy.

I think something we will both agree on is that some of the issues are longstanding and that the real frustration is that NP and his coaching team seem to be doing so little to address any of the many problems and flaws.

We are not without positives, but I simply cannot understand why some of the more basic flaws have not been addressed.

[Thracian]

we had 23 shots...they had 14...both had 50% possession. Good away performance but a bad result.

Hammered?? Somehow with the reputation you have on these forums should know better.

I didn't say we got statistically hammered I said we got tactically hammered.

[Thracian]

I don't agree with everything Thrac, but it is refreshing to see a post which is obviously thought out and does not pretend that everything is rosy.

I think something we will both agree on is that some of the issues are longstanding and that the real frustration is that NP and his coaching team seem to be doing so little to address any of the many problems and flaws.

I've meant to say for a while that it's good to have you back - and to enjoy your always interesting perspective.

We are not without positives, but I simply cannot understand why some of the more basic flaws have not been addressed.

[Grewks]

I didn't say we got statistically hammered I said we got tactically hammered.

But tactically hammered directly affects the statistics. Posh broke on us because we were the stronger side who controlled the game, and up until the final third we were vastly superior. However, unfortunatley for us... i believe that boyd, tomlin and sinclair > beckford, nugent and dyer....shame

[Corky]

Believe what you wish. Peterborough knew that man-for-man they'd likely be under pressure but pinned their hopes on soaking up pressure and breaking as fast as possible to catch our lumbering, out-of-position, defenders off guard. To me it worked perfectly. And they might easily have scored a couple more including the penalty.

When did we ever break effectively and at full speed? We didn't. On rare occasions when we might have done Dyer and one or two others over-ran or miscontrolled the ball and the potential was lost.

Yes, we had chances ourselves but it was the theoretically weaker Posh who contrived the victory and exactly as they planned it.

Our chances were too-often wasted because of shortcomings related to the final ball. On rare occasions when we crossed the ball in low there was no-one driving into the six-yard-box to take advantage.

And mostly our final cross was in the air where we simply don't have the aerial personnel to put chances away, a fault we've had all season to rectify.

There were a couple of times in the first half where we broke from midfield but lost it carelessly. We had them stretched but as you say, a poor touch and the chance is gone.

I quite agree with the lack of conviction on reaching the second ball in the box first but to be honest we had enough possession and opportunity to put ourselves in a position to control the game in terms of the scoreline.

[Vardinhio]

It isn't right to presume that we dominated just from the statistics, I think Thrac is trying to say that ultimately Peterborough made us play with no real tactical nous or even much of a gameplan. I like Nige and he has said he wants a balanced squad with purpose but on today's performance he doesn't have a clue.

Ultimately think back to the days of Mickey Adams, he had a plan. He knew that Deane would head it, Dickov would get it and score. He knew McKinaly would kick you and if you let him Sumberbee would cross it. Somewhere in between all that he knew Izzet would work his magic.

Our main problem for a while now is having no real determining feature within our play. Not since we had Fryatt, Waggy and Howard upfront in the playoff season have we really had any recipie for success. Pearson bringing Dyer back to the squad and signing players like Marshall is an attempt to correct this from a midfield perspective though in other areas of the team I just don't believe players are really playing to any of their strengths. Gallagher is the wrost culprit, no pace, strength and yet finds himself on the wing. Is Drinkwater playing as a DMC or a MC or a AMC?

The best thing we could possibly do would be to get a proper defensive central midfielder in the summer and a replacement for Howard to partner Nugent/Beckford. The league is harder to get out of than a few years ago but until we can strengthen our approach to games we will always be inconsistent.

[funkyrobot]

It isn't right to presume that we dominated just from the statistics, I think Thrac is trying to say that ultimately Peterborough made us play with no real tactical nous or even much of a gameplan. I like Nige and he has said he wants a balanced squad with purpose but on today's performance he doesn't have a clue.

Ultimately think back to the days of Mickey Adams, he had a plan. He knew that Deane would head it, Dickov would get it and score. He knew McKinaly would kick you and if you let him Sumberbee would cross it. Somewhere in between all that he knew Izzet would work his magic.

Our main problem for a while now is having no real determining feature within our play. Not since we had Fryatt, Waggy and Howard upfront in the playoff season have we really had any recipie for success. Pearson bringing Dyer back to the squad and signing players like Marshall is an attempt to correct this from a midfield perspective though in other areas of the team I just don't believe players are really playing to any of their strengths. Gallagher is the wrost culprit, no pace, strength and yet finds himself on the wing. Is Drinkwater playing as a DMC or a MC or a AMC?

The best thing we could possibly do would be to get a proper defensive central midfielder in the summer and a replacement for Howard to partner Nugent/Beckford. The league is harder to get out of than a few years ago but until we can strengthen our approach to games we will always be inconsistent.

Yeh Adams did have a plan. Sadly it involved shit tactics and shit players and ultimately led to him being asked to leave.

[Daggers]

Under Mandaric we had to contain views within two or three threads - now with the Thais & Pearson we can repeat the same opinions across ten or fifteen threads.

If people can't see how this is an improvement then there is no hope for the club.

Why oh why did Francis Maude spark off all this panic posting? What a berk.