Beckford rejects row rumours

[Guest ttfn]

not one free kick (that i can remember) was put in the box. drinkwater skied it, konch, skied it, marshall skied it. so why should he have bothered.

You're right. Nobody should ever go up for a free kick again, because it is quite literally a foregone conclusion that the ball will end up in the stand.

[Darkon84]

Have you ever seen anything like that before? Team losing 1-0 gets a late free kick and somebody who is supposedly a master goal poacher is the only one back defending.

I can just about understand the view that he was tired from tracking back 90 yards (and good on him for doing so) but to be so bold in your conviction that there was genuinely a tactical element to his thinking beggars belief.

Being a master poacher probably would not have helped in that situation anyway. With such a packed box, he would have needed it to fall directly to his feet, the same for anyone else in there. End of the day, Drinkwater put it in the stand, the chance was wasted. Wheres his thread?

[Guest ttfn]

Its not any of the defenders job to be in the box then is it? I don;t see any of them getting thoroughly slated for being in there.

I do see your point, yes, as a poacher, you'd like him in there, but after busting a gut to get all the way back to help defend (not his job), he saw

best to hang back, away from an already packed box in case they broke. And you know as well as I do, if he was the last one to get in the box, then Posh broke and scored, he would still get slated for being the last one to get in the box and not having the broader idea to sit back and help defend

I'd like to think he wouldn't have been slated for that.

As for the defenders going forward, we were losing 1-0 in a game we desperately needed a result from. Losing 1-0 or 2-0 is immaterial in the grand scheme of things.

[Guest ttfn]

End of the day, Drinkwater put it in the stand, the chance was wasted. Wheres his thread?

I agree completely, it was absolutely terrible. But DD is a young player who took responsibilty for the free kick and tried to get us back in the match. Beckford's an experienced pro who was standing on the halfway line when the team needed him in the penalty area

[flowwolf]

Give it thirty years and Beckford will be on radio Leicester commenting at how shit and lazy the new striker is. Ring any bells ?

[brockmyster]

There should be an 'Apology/Eat my Hat' thread, for all those slating him/Pearson over this.

Should be one for all those who suddenly turned on beckford and said he was always shit from the start, although seems to have gone quiet on that front now this is out...

[Kitchandro]

not one free kick (that i can remember) was put in the box. drinkwater skied it, konch, skied it, marshall skied it. so why should he have bothered.

Because he plays for a football club and is paid to to do as he's told and give 100%. Not just when he feels like it.

That's got nothing to do with anyone rating him or not rating him. No matter which player it is he should be expected to do as he's told. If you're a striker and you're told to get in the box you get in the box.

I don't know why this is even being argued with.

[cc_star]

not one free kick (that i can remember) was put in the box. drinkwater skied it, konch, skied it, marshall skied it. so why should he have bothered.

What if it had hit the bar & rebounded to an empty space where Beckford should have been standing

Why should he have bothered? Why should he have bothered going out on the pitch at all then if that's the attitude to have

Its not any of the defenders job to be in the box then is it? I don;t see any of them getting thoroughly slated for being in there.

I do see your point, yes, as a poacher, you'd like him in there, but after busting a gut to get all the way back to help defend (not his job), he saw best to hang back, away from an already packed box in case they broke. And you know as well as I do, if he was the last one to get in the box, then Posh broke and scored, he would still get slated for being the last one to get in the box and not having the broader idea to sit back and help defend

Of course the defenders should be in the box, 2 CBs waiting for a header, maybe Konch on the edge of the box to lash it in should it fall to him & maybe Peltier on the halfwayline marking their forward should the ball breakout. that's a perfectly normal situation given the minutes on the clock. Personally I wouldn't have been bothered if everyone was in the box including Kasper... it was the 92nd minute FFS

What does it matter losing 2-0 as losing 1-0? It was all about salvaging a point that our poor finishing cost us when we could have easily had 3 or more on another day

[Guest]

1) Forgive my ignorance, what's an OH? I thought it was pretty clear that he had a strop - whether he had the right to or not is certainly upfor debate.

2) Don't get this point at all. For starters, Drinkwater, taking the free kick, was outside the box and could have put it back in. Beckford is a striker (a "poacher" as I keep being told). He should have been in the penalty area. Whether somebody else should have been waiting for the ball to come back out (Wellens or Marshall perhaps) is another matter. Nobody would be blaming Beckford if he'd got himself in the box, Posh had broken away and he'd scored; that's not his job at all.

1) Other Half

2) Going by your logic, then, lumping our centre-halves up front when chasing the game should be heavily criticised. I bet you don't though.

Whoever took that free kick was going to go for goal. Yeah, it might not have been blasted over the bar, but what's the point in being in a crowded penalty area when you have room outside, from where you may, or may not, be more effective? A striker does not have to be in the 18yd box to be effective. There's also no law on them shooting from outside the area either, or at least, not the last time I looked.

[Darkon84]

What if it had hit the bar & rebounded to an empty space where Beckford should have been standing

Why should he have bothered? Why should he have bothered going out on the pitch at all then if that's the attitude to have

Of course the defenders should be in the box, 2 CBs waiting for a header, maybe Konch on the edge of the box to lash it in should it fall to him & maybe Peltier on the halfwayline marking their forward should the ball breakout. that's a perfectly normal situation given the minutes on the clock. Personally I wouldn't have been bothered if everyone was in the box including Kasper... it was the 92nd minute FFS

What does it matter losing 2-0 as losing 1-0? It was all about salvaging a point that our poor finishing cost us when we could have easily had 3 or more on another day

If it hit the crossbar, it could have rebounded to any one of about 15 other players feet. Unless it fell directly at his feet, it wouldnt have made a difference with that many people there.

I made the point about the defenders being in the box in reply to a post. Yes, I'm more than aware that it's a common thing that happens, and I agree that you should have your 'big men' up there for the last roll of the dice at a free kick or corner, but it was in reply to someone saying Beckford shuld have been in the box because hanging back and defending isn't his job. Therefore by that logic, the defenders in the box were all doing the wrong thing and so, should all get a royal slating too.

You might want every player in there all scrambling over each other, but for me, I think its a good idea to have one hang back a little, not necessarily to stop a counter attack (as you said 1-0 and 2-0 wont make a difference), but if no one is there, then no one can put it back in the box if its cleared.

Anyway, the argument in this (and other) Beckford threads is going round and round, and most likely wouldn't occur for the majority of our other players. He has come out, said there wasn't/isn't a problem with Pearson, so it's all done and dusted.

[davieG]

Daily Mail still running with the Beckford fall out story.

Player power would be recipe for disaster at Leicester

The challenge to Nigel Pearson's authority at Leicester City has recently come from two quarters.

A bust-up with Matt Mills is one thing; now we learn that Jermaine Beckford is at loggerheads with club's manager too.

It may seem like these two issues are trivialities.

But with the Foxes at a crossroads, it is time for difficult decisions to be made.

And to give the club's manager any credibility in the home dressing-room, the Thai owners need to step up and back him.

Mills was a £4.5m signing last summer, taking home around £1.5m-a-year. Beckford is more expensive still.

Leicester City have invested a great amount of money in the pair.

But there is a fundamental issue here that needs clarifying before the club can progress under Pearson.

Both players have directly challenged the manager's authority in separate episodes that have entered te public domain.

In days gone by it was not up to the manager to go cap-in-hand to the player and apologise.

Could you imagine Brian Clough grovelling at Larry Lloyd's feet? Or Martin O'Neill's? You must be joking.

But the swing in power due to multi-million pound investments in these players mean that they hold sway like never before.

Think about it for a moment - and we are talking about two members of a first-team squad here. Albeit that they are part of a first-team squad at an ambitious Championship club.

In fee and wages, the outlay on Mills equates to an investment in excess of £10m. It is a similar figure in Beckford's case.

Two powerful figures in a dressing-room that Pearson is trying to turn to his way of thinking.

How is he trying to do that? His blueprint for success so far has been based on youth. Players with potential that he can mould.

It carried him a long way during his first spell at the club and he followed it in similar fashion at Hull City.

The signings of Danny Drinkwater and Ben Marshall show that this is a path he is prepared to tread once more (I appreciate Wes Morgan's transfer from Forest doesn't apply to this, but then he was signed to fill a hole left by Mills).

In cases like this, it is normally the senior players who knock the others into shape.

Dressing-room leaders. At Villa, for instance, last season we had Brad Friedel. Not a name you would automatically think of, is it?

At Birmingham City, a few years ago Lee Carsley and Kevin Phillips sorted out any squabbles. Then, there was likes of Barry Ferguson, Lee Bowyer and Stephen Carr - to name but three last time out. Probably spent most of the time trying to out-moan each other...

But the problem is different at the King Power Stadium - none of the older guys are playing with any regularity.

Most of the senior players who would be able to exert a degree of power and control - the likes of Matt Oakley, Steve Howard and Richie Wellens - aren't guaranteed a spot in the team.

They aren't really able to speak with an authority and take their peers to one side and explain how it has to be.

Having watched a feisty east Midlands derby between Leicester and Forest last week, I was surprised at the former's improvement and very surprised at the latter's.

Beckford did reasonably well, but he is a striker who relies on others to create chances for him. He hasn't got the skill to do it by himself.

Let's face it, if he was any good, he'd still be at Everton.

And Mills wasn't missed. St Ledger and the woefully under-rated Morgan did well in his absence. Sol Bamba is an able deputy is either of those picks up a knock.

It may come as a shock to these giant-sized egos - but they clearly aren't as vital to the cause as they think they are.

Yet they are protected by enormous contracts.

However, if they are to be of any use to Leicester City - where I do expect to see significant transfer activity this summer - they need to be told that the tail does not wag the dog.

Leicester City's owners have to spell it out to the pair of them that the manager's authority in a football club is absolute.

They either toe the line - or their agents are informed that they can find new clubs, at an obvious cost to the Foxes.

The only people who can question the manager's standing are his employers. And they do that behind closed doors.

Otherwise Nigel Pearson is a lame-duck manager and the club will be run by its players.

And that, simply, is a recipe for disaster.

Read more: http://www.dailymail...l#ixzz1rBDyDtJe

[yorkie1999]

What if.. the peterborough goalie saved the shot ran to the edge of his box, booted the ball out and because beckford wasn't back the ball went into our net and we lost 2-0. Then last game of the season we needed to win by a one goal against leeds to make the play-offs, but we drew 1-1.

[KidKunny]

Daily Mail still running with the Beckford fall out story.

Player power would be recipe for disaster at Leicester

The challenge to Nigel Pearson's authority at Leicester City has recently come from two quarters.

A bust-up with Matt Mills is one thing; now we learn that Jermaine Beckford is at loggerheads with club's manager too.

It may seem like these two issues are trivialities.

But with the Foxes at a crossroads, it is time for difficult decisions to be made.

And to give the club's manager any credibility in the home dressing-room, the Thai owners need to step up and back him.

Mills was a £4.5m signing last summer, taking home around £1.5m-a-year. Beckford is more expensive still.

Leicester City have invested a great amount of money in the pair.

But there is a fundamental issue here that needs clarifying before the club can progress under Pearson.

Both players have directly challenged the manager's authority in separate episodes that have entered te public domain.

In days gone by it was not up to the manager to go cap-in-hand to the player and apologise.

Could you imagine Brian Clough grovelling at Larry Lloyd's feet? Or Martin O'Neill's? You must be joking.

But the swing in power due to multi-million pound investments in these players mean that they hold sway like never before.

Think about it for a moment - and we are talking about two members of a first-team squad here. Albeit that they are part of a first-team squad at an ambitious Championship club.

In fee and wages, the outlay on Mills equates to an investment in excess of £10m. It is a similar figure in Beckford's case.

Two powerful figures in a dressing-room that Pearson is trying to turn to his way of thinking.

How is he trying to do that? His blueprint for success so far has been based on youth. Players with potential that he can mould.

It carried him a long way during his first spell at the club and he followed it in similar fashion at Hull City.

The signings of Danny Drinkwater and Ben Marshall show that this is a path he is prepared to tread once more (I appreciate Wes Morgan's transfer from Forest doesn't apply to this, but then he was signed to fill a hole left by Mills).

In cases like this, it is normally the senior players who knock the others into shape.

Dressing-room leaders. At Villa, for instance, last season we had Brad Friedel. Not a name you would automatically think of, is it?

At Birmingham City, a few years ago Lee Carsley and Kevin Phillips sorted out any squabbles. Then, there was likes of Barry Ferguson, Lee Bowyer and Stephen Carr - to name but three last time out. Probably spent most of the time trying to out-moan each other...

But the problem is different at the King Power Stadium - none of the older guys are playing with any regularity.

Most of the senior players who would be able to exert a degree of power and control - the likes of Matt Oakley, Steve Howard and Richie Wellens - aren't guaranteed a spot in the team.

They aren't really able to speak with an authority and take their peers to one side and explain how it has to be.

Having watched a feisty east Midlands derby between Leicester and Forest last week, I was surprised at the former's improvement and very surprised at the latter's.

Beckford did reasonably well, but he is a striker who relies on others to create chances for him. He hasn't got the skill to do it by himself.

Let's face it, if he was any good, he'd still be at Everton.

And Mills wasn't missed. St Ledger and the woefully under-rated Morgan did well in his absence. Sol Bamba is an able deputy is either of those picks up a knock.

It may come as a shock to these giant-sized egos - but they clearly aren't as vital to the cause as they think they are.

Yet they are protected by enormous contracts.

However, if they are to be of any use to Leicester City - where I do expect to see significant transfer activity this summer - they need to be told that the tail does not wag the dog.

Leicester City's owners have to spell it out to the pair of them that the manager's authority in a football club is absolute.

They either toe the line - or their agents are informed that they can find new clubs, at an obvious cost to the Foxes.

The only people who can question the manager's standing are his employers. And they do that behind closed doors.

Otherwise Nigel Pearson is a lame-duck manager and the club will be run by its players.

And that, simply, is a recipe for disaster.

Read more: http://www.dailymail...l#ixzz1rBDyDtJe

The Daily Mail... Any excuse to make a story really, who do you believe Daily Mail or Sky Sports News?

Hmmmmm, difficult that one is

[Libertine Dream]

What if.. the peterborough goalie saved the shot ran to the edge of his box, booted the ball out and because beckford wasn't back the ball went into our net and we lost 2-0. Then last game of the season we needed to win by a one goal against leeds to make the play-offs, but we drew 1-1.

Then its pretty irrelevant as we didn't get the right points total.

And a goalkeeper running for anything when they're winning would be a novelty,

[5waller5]

This place is polarising in to "Pearson Haters" and "Pearson Lovers" ... it's getting boring to be pigeon holed as a Pearson Hater if you question him in anyway ....

He made this story about the fall out by his typically defensive and guarded monosyllabic answers when asked about it in an interview after the game. If he just came out and said, "hey it's a passionate game and there's disagreements, but it's no biggy" that'd be the end of it .... What he said.... Words to the affect of "I'm not talking about it but you can be bloody sure I'll bollock him in private"

Big Nige's media management leaves alot to be desired and causes him these problems.....

OOOooooops .... Now I'm a Pearson Hater and will accept the inevitable back lash from Pearson's bumboys!!!

[5waller5]

What if.. the peterborough goalie saved the shot ran to the edge of his box, booted the ball out and because beckford wasn't back the ball went into our net and we lost 2-0. Then last game of the season we needed to win by a one goal against leeds to make the play-offs, but we drew 1-1.

Maybe we could have trusted Kasper to deal with a shot from the opposition's box .... he's not Pressman after all!!!!

[Guest Col city fan]

Don't matter to me whatsoever whether there is any truth in this story or not.

I was far more concerned about the sitter he missed a few minutes earlier which would have been the equaliser.

I would suspect this was a major reason why Nige was as fooked off as he was.

[Captain...]

Daily Mail still running with the Beckford fall out story.

Player power would be recipe for disaster at Leicester

The challenge to Nigel Pearson's authority at Leicester City has recently come from two quarters.

A bust-up with Matt Mills is one thing; now we learn that Jermaine Beckford is at loggerheads with club's manager too.

It may seem like these two issues are trivialities.

But with the Foxes at a crossroads, it is time for difficult decisions to be made.

And to give the club's manager any credibility in the home dressing-room, the Thai owners need to step up and back him.

Mills was a £4.5m signing last summer, taking home around £1.5m-a-year. Beckford is more expensive still.

Leicester City have invested a great amount of money in the pair.

But there is a fundamental issue here that needs clarifying before the club can progress under Pearson.

Both players have directly challenged the manager's authority in separate episodes that have entered te public domain.

In days gone by it was not up to the manager to go cap-in-hand to the player and apologise.

Could you imagine Brian Clough grovelling at Larry Lloyd's feet? Or Martin O'Neill's? You must be joking.

But the swing in power due to multi-million pound investments in these players mean that they hold sway like never before.

Think about it for a moment - and we are talking about two members of a first-team squad here. Albeit that they are part of a first-team squad at an ambitious Championship club.

In fee and wages, the outlay on Mills equates to an investment in excess of £10m. It is a similar figure in Beckford's case.

Two powerful figures in a dressing-room that Pearson is trying to turn to his way of thinking.

How is he trying to do that? His blueprint for success so far has been based on youth. Players with potential that he can mould.

It carried him a long way during his first spell at the club and he followed it in similar fashion at Hull City.

The signings of Danny Drinkwater and Ben Marshall show that this is a path he is prepared to tread once more (I appreciate Wes Morgan's transfer from Forest doesn't apply to this, but then he was signed to fill a hole left by Mills).

In cases like this, it is normally the senior players who knock the others into shape.

Dressing-room leaders. At Villa, for instance, last season we had Brad Friedel. Not a name you would automatically think of, is it?

At Birmingham City, a few years ago Lee Carsley and Kevin Phillips sorted out any squabbles. Then, there was likes of Barry Ferguson, Lee Bowyer and Stephen Carr - to name but three last time out. Probably spent most of the time trying to out-moan each other...

But the problem is different at the King Power Stadium - none of the older guys are playing with any regularity.

Most of the senior players who would be able to exert a degree of power and control - the likes of Matt Oakley, Steve Howard and Richie Wellens - aren't guaranteed a spot in the team.

They aren't really able to speak with an authority and take their peers to one side and explain how it has to be.

Having watched a feisty east Midlands derby between Leicester and Forest last week, I was surprised at the former's improvement and very surprised at the latter's.

Beckford did reasonably well, but he is a striker who relies on others to create chances for him. He hasn't got the skill to do it by himself.

Let's face it, if he was any good, he'd still be at Everton.

And Mills wasn't missed. St Ledger and the woefully under-rated Morgan did well in his absence. Sol Bamba is an able deputy is either of those picks up a knock.

It may come as a shock to these giant-sized egos - but they clearly aren't as vital to the cause as they think they are.

Yet they are protected by enormous contracts.

However, if they are to be of any use to Leicester City - where I do expect to see significant transfer activity this summer - they need to be told that the tail does not wag the dog.

Leicester City's owners have to spell it out to the pair of them that the manager's authority in a football club is absolute.

They either toe the line - or their agents are informed that they can find new clubs, at an obvious cost to the Foxes.

The only people who can question the manager's standing are his employers. And they do that behind closed doors.

Otherwise Nigel Pearson is a lame-duck manager and the club will be run by its players.

And that, simply, is a recipe for disaster.

Read more: http://www.dailymail...l#ixzz1rBDyDtJe

Another article without a single supported fact or quote from the club.

Pure speculation and utter bollox.

Again Pearson hasn't helped himself with the way he has avoided talking about it in the press, drawinf paralells with how he dealt with the Mills think, I understand why "journalists" will make the link between the Beckford incident and the Mills one.

Is there any footage of the "incident"?

Is it also possible that Beckford was expecting Drinkwater to take it quickly, and didn't want to make him wait for him to get in the box and was just saying get on with it, we were in the last minute at the time.

[_Fatboyslow_]

Being a bit of a plastic fan, cannt pay won't pay the sort of prices asked, I tend to listen to RL for matches and the odd stream, but I did go to Watford and still don't know how we lost that. Anyway back to RL last saturday and I don't know and have no opinion on why whatever Beckford did Young had a go at Becford, should have passed not shot, why the flick he should slotted it though etc etc. I for one got really fed up with it and what ever happened at the end Young sure as hell went for the jugular. All Young has done is stir things has he got an agend ? Is Young to blame for the moaners ? Maybe it's a ratings thing for RL is Youngs contract up for review? Don't kown and don't really care but slagging our own players by Young and the like will not help anyone.

So come let's move on everyone, take Pearson's comment as he said .... He saw it he will sort it in house... and give Beckford credit for what he has said. Let's face with out Beckfords and Nuggets goals this season it would have been a disaster.

Maybe the real issue with Beckford is did he want to come or was he shown the door by Everton?

[Guest ttfn]

1) Other Half

2) Going by your logic, then, lumping our centre-halves up front when chasing the game should be heavily criticised. I bet you don't though.

Whoever took that free kick was going to go for goal. Yeah, it might not have been blasted over the bar, but what's the point in being in a crowded penalty area when you have room outside, from where you may, or may not, be more effective? A striker does not have to be in the 18yd box to be effective. There's also no law on them shooting from outside the area either, or at least, not the last time I looked.

Well that wouldn't really be going by my logic at all, unless you reduce it to its basest form (defenders defend, attackers attack which is clearly not what I meant). We needed as many men in the box as possible. A supposed goal poacher like Beckford should be the first man you want in the box, but in the dying seconds of the game you want as many bodies as possible in there.

A striker does not have to be in the 18yd box to be effective

If there are 15 seconds of a game left and we have a free kick 20 yards out, then yes, yes they do.

Does anybody genuinely believe that:

1) Beckford was standing in and around the centre circle for tactical reasons?

2) He had more chance of positively influencing the game for his teammates by taking up that position than one inside the penalty area?

I'm not even trying to have a go at Beckford here. The chances of that incident actually impacting on our season one way or another are slim to none. I just can't believe that anybody is buying the line that he did what he did for any reason other than that he was in a strop.

The facts we know are:

1) Beckford runs back 80-90 yards to help try to prevent a Peterborough breakaway.

2) Leicester have a free kick 20 yards out in a central position, from which they shot as one would expect.

3) The free kick was crap.

4) Beckford was in the centre circle (or near enough) at the time.

5) Pearson was not happy about this, nor were Bamba and Schmeichel, both of whom were asking/demanding he go forward in an extremely animated fashion.

6) Pearson acknowledged something had happened after the game through saying that he would "deal with it in house".

7) Beckford has come out today and denied there is a problem.

It doesn't take a particularly huge amount of speculation to conclude that Beckford and Pearson have talked through Beckford's reasons for not going up at some point between Saturday and today and have resolved their differences. Just because there was a disagreement over something, it doesn't mean there was a row. They're both grown-ups; I'm sure they've agreed to disagree and move on.

[5waller5]

Well that wouldn't really be going by my logic at all, unless you reduce it to its basest form (defenders defend, attackers attack which is clearly not what I meant). We needed as many men in the box as possible. A supposed goal poacher like Beckford should be the first man you want in the box, but in the dying seconds of the game you want as many bodies as possible in there.

If there are 15 seconds of a game left and we have a free kick 20 yards out, then yes, yes they do.

Does anybody genuinely believe that:

1) Beckford was standing in and around the centre circle for tactical reasons?

2) He had more chance of positively influencing the game for his teammates by taking up that position than one inside the penalty area?

I'm not even trying to have a go at Beckford here. The chances of that incident actually impacting on our season one way or another are slim to none. I just can't believe that anybody is buying the line that he did what he did for any reason other than that he was in a strop.

The facts we know are:

1) Beckford runs back 80-90 yards to help try to prevent a Peterborough breakaway.

2) Leicester have a free kick 20 yards out in a central position, from which they shot as one would expect.

3) The free kick was crap.

4) Beckford was in the centre circle (or near enough) at the time.

5) Pearson was not happy about this, nor were Bamba and Schmeichel, both of whom were asking/demanding he go forward in an extremely animated fashion.

6) Pearson acknowledged something had happened after the game through saying that he would "deal with it in house".

7) Beckford has come out today and denied there is a problem.

It doesn't take a particularly huge amount of speculation to conclude that Beckford and Pearson have talked through Beckford's reasons for not going up at some point between Saturday and today and have resolved their differences. Just because there was a disagreement over something, it doesn't mean there was a row. They're both grown-ups; I'm sure they've agreed to disagree and move on.

Hang on a minute!!!!!

You're not meant to talk sense like that!!! You're meant to just hate NP or love him aren't you??? This seems like a rational and reasoned sensible opinion!!! Where are the mods?????

[gazfox9]

So everythings all fine and sorted now. Good. He'll definately be in the starting eleven saturday then won't he? We shall see.......

[Guest]

Well that wouldn't really be going by my logic at all, unless you reduce it to its basest form (defenders defend, attackers attack which is clearly not what I meant). We needed as many men in the box as possible. A supposed goal poacher like Beckford should be the first man you want in the box, but in the dying seconds of the game you want as many bodies as possible in there.

It's a direct free-kick. Someone is going to go for goal. There are too many possibilities as to what will happen after that ball was struck, but the most likely outcome is that it was going to go out for a goal kick.

You have conveniently ignored any suggestion put forward, not just by me, that there can be too many players in the box at times. As already pointed out by others, there were better headers of the ball in there, and despite what you think, I always believe someone should stay outside of the box, whether we are attacking or defending.

If there are 15 seconds of a game left and we have a free kick 20 yards out, then yes, yes they do.

Then we're going to have to disagree, for the reasons I've already given.

Does anybody genuinely believe that:

1) Beckford was standing in and around the centre circle for tactical reasons?

2) He had more chance of positively influencing the game for his teammates by taking up that position than one inside the penalty area?

1) It's a possibility.

2) It's a possibility.

I'm not even trying to have a go at Beckford here. The chances of that incident actually impacting on our season one way or another are slim to none. I just can't believe that anybody is buying the line that he did what he did for any reason other than that he was in a strop.

He didn't look like he was in a strop to me. He didn't look like he was in a strop to my Other Half. To read on Twitter afterwards that he'd spat his dummy out baffled us both.

The facts we know are:

1) Beckford runs back 80-90 yards to help try to prevent a Peterborough breakaway.

2) Leicester have a free kick 20 yards out in a central position, from which they shot as one would expect.

3) The free kick was crap.

4) Beckford was in the centre circle (or near enough) at the time.

5) Pearson was not happy about this, nor were Bamba and Schmeichel, both of whom were asking/demanding he go forward in an extremely animated fashion.

6) Pearson acknowledged something had happened after the game through saying that he would "deal with it in house".

7) Beckford has come out today and denied there is a problem.

1-4 are facts, as is 7.

5 and 6 are assumptions based on your interpretation of the situation. They are not facts.

Take 5 for example, has Pearson actually come out and said he was unhappy? No. Were you close enough to hear or understand what any gestures you thought you saw were? I put it like that, because I didn't see anyone having a go at Beckfor

My interpretation of 6 is that Pearson was asked a question that he did not want to answer, and his curt manner was down to the fact we lost the game.

It doesn't take a particularly huge amount of speculation to conclude that Beckford and Pearson have talked through Beckford's reasons for not going up at some point between Saturday and today and have resolved their differences. Just because there was a disagreement over something, it doesn't mean there was a row. They're both grown-ups; I'm sure they've agreed to disagree and move on.

It also doesn't take a huge amount of speculation to conclude that someone, somewhere, has made a mountain out of a molehill, and that nothing untoward actually happened.

[Guest]

And Pearson has now been quoted as saying to Stringer "I have no control over the spin people put on things".

Interesting....

[Guest ttfn]

It's a direct free-kick. Someone is going to go for goal. There are too many possibilities as to what will happen after that ball was struck, but the most likely outcome is that it was going to go out for a goal kick.

You have conveniently ignored any suggestion put forward, not just by me, that there can be too many players in the box at times. As already pointed out by others, there were better headers of the ball in there, and despite what you think, I always believe someone should stay outside of the box, whether we are attacking or defending.

Then we're going to have to disagree, for the reasons I've already given.

1) It's a possibility.

2) It's a possibility.

He didn't look like he was in a strop to me. He didn't look like he was in a strop to my Other Half. To read on Twitter afterwards that he'd spat his dummy out baffled us both.

1-4 are facts, as is 7.

5 and 6 are assumptions based on your interpretation of the situation. They are not facts.

Take 5 for example, has Pearson actually come out and said he was unhappy? No. Were you close enough to hear or understand what any gestures you thought you saw were? I put it like that, because I didn't see anyone having a go at Beckfor

My interpretation of 6 is that Pearson was asked a question that he did not want to answer, and his curt manner was down to the fact we lost the game.

It also doesn't take a huge amount of speculation to conclude that someone, somewhere, has made a mountain out of a molehill, and that nothing untoward actually happened.

Good post.

We'll agree to disagree