Next season, style or substance?

[Grey Fox]

But again we are oversimplifying things and confusing the matter at hand. Pearson has a philosophy on football and he buys footballers to fit that philosophy so their age is largely irrelevant. In fairness to Pearson I believe he buys players based on ability rather than age, it just so happens that the players he can currently afford are relatively young, if he could afford older players he'd sign them instead.

Lets not confuse youth with exuberance and flair, Steve Howard was young once.

I'm starting to see some contradictions come through in your posts. On the one hand you say you would like to build a legacy, and on the other you are saying that you would buy older players if you had the money? Or Pearson would? I don't agree that he would. He hasn't and I don't put all of that down to finances.

I don't think I am oversimplifying. Maybe you are just reading my posts with a biased view? If you have young players, you can chose to develop them to play any style that you like. Pearson has his own views on the best style to play to get out of this league. I am happy for him to develop the players in the way that he thinks will get the most points.

Maybe you can explain what exactly your idea of building a legacy is? It's starting to look different to mine.

Lastly, you mention Steve Howard. Well I for one wouldn't be disappointed to have a 20 year old Steve Howard in our ranks at this level.

[Raj]

Play like Spain and lose.

Play like Wimbledon and win...Its a no brainer!

(yes...we could play like Spain and win...but i doubt it...)

[Leicester_Numan]

Okay bringing it back to philosophy and legacy. If we assume that an average players first team career is from around 20 until around 32. That is 12 years. If a player has around 4 years left of that time, then they have 8 years or two thirds of it behind them.

My idea of building a legacy would be a focus on youth, preferably home grown, but also bought and developed from the start of their first team career time frame, so early 20's.

You might not agree that the correct young players were/are being bought, but I don't think you can argue with the philosophy.

That will be the case at most clubs anyway when FFP really starts to hit home at all clubs. The academy is one place that investment will make a difference as there are no restrictions on it. We will start to see more homegrown or at least our own academy players in the first team. We seem to have a good crop coming through right now

[Bob Weasel Fox]

Why can't the first option also be entertaining?

in all honesty it probably would be

[Kitchandro]

What some people don't realise is you're very unlikely to finish in the top 2 with bland hoofball and no pace.

[Grey Fox]

What some people don't realise is you're very unlikely to finish in the top 2 with bland hoofball and no pace.

So far you are the only one that has mentioned those two. Especially no pace. Do you think we will deliberately leave all of our pacey players out next season then? On that basis you would be saying that De Laet, Vardy, Marshall, Nugent, Beckford, Schlupp, and Dyer all will never feature?

[ealingfox]

You are surely just lying to yourself if you say you'd take attractive football over promotion. Winning is always, ALWAYS fun. I think people are being a bit harsh on NP's style of play as well. During the play-off season I don't think we played hoofball all that much, you certainly couldn't have grouped us with the Stokes or West Hams. Watch peterborofox's video of all the goals from 09-10 and see how fluid and especially non-aerial some of our build-up play was.

And remember set-pieces were our main weapon in the MON years too.

[Unreliable Squirrel]

Who says what is and what isn't attractive football? Attractive football is purely subjective. One man's attractive football is another man's hell.

Some people love watching Spain pass a team into submission, others hate it.

Another men would dream of watching a team play like United did a few seasons back when they would counter from one end of the pitch to the other in a matter of seconds,

Hell, some people even enjoy watching a team so brutally organised that the opposition can't get within thirty yards of the goal. Defending is an art too.

Each style of football is attractive in someone's eyes'. In the same way that every women is attractive in some man's eyes' (with the exception of that one from Big Brother a few series back).

All this is telling us that "attractive football" is entirely subjective. There is only one thing in football that is truly objective and that is the end result. As long as Leicester actually adopt a style, some people will find it attractive. The problem towards the end of last season was that we didn't actually play to a style. Once we adopt a style and stick to it, the results will come with time and then we have the best of both worlds.

[Milton Keynes Fox]

Option two would be ludicrous

[fleckneymike]

I'm starting to see some contradictions come through in your posts. On the one hand you say you would like to build a legacy, and on the other you are saying that you would buy older players if you had the money? Or Pearson would? I don't agree that he would. He hasn't and I don't put all of that down to finances.

I don't think I am oversimplifying. Maybe you are just reading my posts with a biased view? If you have young players, you can chose to develop them to play any style that you like. Pearson has his own views on the best style to play to get out of this league. I am happy for him to develop the players in the way that he thinks will get the most points.

Maybe you can explain what exactly your idea of building a legacy is? It's starting to look different to mine.

Lastly, you mention Steve Howard. Well I for one wouldn't be disappointed to have a 20 year old Steve Howard in our ranks at this level.

The legacy is the philosophy. I'd buy players to fit the philosophy and I believe Pearson would/does also (for every 20 year old there is a Wellens, Solano, Berner, Brown, Powell etc). Age should not be the first thing you look at. I'm no more excited at the signing of a 20 year old than a 30 year old, the one advantage of a more experienced player is that you know roughly what you are getting, with a youngster you are taking a slightly bigger risk but ultimately you sign a player as you feel they could add something to the way you like to play.

Micky Adams left us with a squad of not very good players who were also very very old which meant we had to completely rebuild, this set us back years as when they retired we had to buy replacements, his philosophy had been promotion at all costs after our second relegation.

[Grey Fox]

The legacy is the philosophy. I'd buy players to fit the philosophy and I believe Pearson would/does also (for every 20 year old there is a Wellens, Solano, Berner, Brown, Powell etc). Age should not be the first thing you look at. I'm no more excited at the signing of a 20 year old than a 30 year old, the one advantage of a more experienced player is that you know roughly what you are getting, with a youngster you are taking a slightly bigger risk but ultimately you sign a player as you feel they could add something to the way you like to play.

Micky Adams left us with a squad of not very good players who were also very very old which meant we had to completely rebuild, this set us back years as when they retired we had to buy replacements, his philosophy had been promotion at all costs after our second relegation.

Well I am, at least they have a chance of developing into a Leicester great, like Izzet and Lennon did. I'd rather that than sign 30 year olds at the end of their careers any day.

You do need a mixture of youth and experience though.

You just want us to always play passing football, no matter whether we win or not, get promoted or not. You always want us to hire managers that only play that style and never change, like Swansea have. It's not bad when it works, but as Clough himself says, a little utopian.

[Col city fan]

Anybody that feels the Martin O Neil brand of football wasn't entertaining wasn't watching it.

It combined the use of width to great effect. The key was the quality of the crosses being whipped in primarily by Steve Guppy.

Oneil mixed it up though. In Parker we had a player who could slice defences open with delicious killer passes, in Muzzy a player who could score out of nothing. Lennon was the lynchpin, the man that made the whole thing tick. Because he played just off the back four and was full of energy, he mopped up so well that the more attacking players had the time on the ball to do what they did best. Emile was the target for the long ball, when it was neccessary. His ability to hold the ball up and link up the play far outweighed his importance as a goal scorer. Clagger and Cottee were 'sniffers', always on the shoulder of the last defender, stressing them out all the time because they knew that if they slipped up, our strikers were in and would most probably finish the chances they got. The extra benefit of Claridge of course, was that he could also shield the ball beautifully.. A target man to feet, so to speak.

That was a great team of eclectic ability... Martin was such a dream manager because he knew how to mix up his tactics to suit the demands of the game. Long ball sometimes, intricacy through the middle at others.

He demonstrated two things...

1. You don't have to have one or the other approach...

2. Both approaches can give you exciting football.

The foundation stone was the ability of the players you have at your disposal. Oneil had both players who could pass the ball around when necessary, but also utilise a more direct game if the circumstances changed.

It was serendipity and has not since been emulated at City. It showed that tactical approaches to playing the game could be interlinked to meet the abilities of the players at hand, and the demands of the match being played.

[Grey Fox]

Anybody that feels the Martin O Neil brand of football wasn't entertaining wasn't watching it.

It combined the use of width to great effect. The key was the quality of the crosses being whipped in primarily by Steve Guppy.

Oneil mixed it up though. In Parker we had a player who could slice defences open with delicious killer passes, in Muzzy a player who could score out of nothing. Lennon was the lynchpin, the man that made the whole thing tick. Because he played just off the back four and was full of energy, he mopped up so well that the more attacking players had the time on the ball to do what they did best. Emile was the target for the long ball, when it was neccessary. His ability to hold the ball up and link up the play far outweighed his importance as a goal scorer. Clagger and Cottee were 'sniffers', always on the shoulder of the last defender, stressing them out all the time because they knew that if they slipped up, our strikers were in and would most probably finish the chances they got. The extra benefit of Claridge of course, was that he could also shield the ball beautifully.. A target man to feet, so to speak.

That was a great team of eclectic ability... Martin was such a dream manager because he knew how to mix up his tactics to suit the demands of the game. Long ball sometimes, intricacy through the middle at others.

He demonstrated two things...

1. You don't have to have one or the other approach...

2. Both approaches can give you exciting football.

The foundation stone was the ability of the players you have at your disposal. Oneil had both players who could pass the ball around when necessary, but also utilise a more direct game if the circumstances changed.

It was serendipity and has not since been emulated at City. It showed that tactical approaches to playing the game could be interlinked to meet the abilities of the players at hand, and the demands of the match being played.

Yes, and I don't think you will find MON saying that he would rather entertain than get results. He played to win, no doubt about that!

[Corky]

Just pass the fvcking ball.

[Grey Fox]

Just pass the fvcking ball.

[Col city fan]

Just pass the fvcking ball.

[Corky]

Sorry, went into Barry Fry mode there.

[Col city fan]

Sorry, went into Barry Fry mode there.

Hope that don't happen too often.. It's a medical condition you know.

[fleckneymike]

Well I am, at least they have a chance of developing into a Leicester great, like Izzet and Lennon did. I'd rather that than sign 30 year olds at the end of their careers any day.

You do need a mixture of youth and experience though.

You just want us to always play passing football, no matter whether we win or not, get promoted or not. You always want us to hire managers that only play that style and never change, like Swansea have. It's not bad when it works, but as Clough himself says, a little utopian.

That is precisely what I want.

[Col city fan]

That is precisely what I want.

Then you are unfortunately gonna be disappointed.

Until there is a marked change in culture regarding how kids are taught to play this won't happen.

We've just signed Futacs, which shows that Pearson is going to mix up how we play.

You may want to play a completely passing style of football, but it won't happen under Pearson or at many clubs in England until we do what the Spanish did ten years ago.

It could happen more generally, but not in the immediate future.

The kids football, Hell even football at Academy level, is still primarily based on utilising the biggest and strongest lads at various ages.

And many of the pitches at kids football level don't lend themselves to developing an exclusively passing game.

[fleckneymike]

Then you are unfortunately gonna be disappointed.

Until there is a marked change in culture regarding how kids are taught to play this won't happen.

We've just signed Futacs, which shows that Pearson is going to mix up how we play.

You may want to play a completely passing style of football, but it won't happen under Pearson or at many clubs in England until we do what the Spanish did ten years ago.

It could happen more generally, but not in the immediate future.

The kids football, Hell even football at Academy level, is still primarily based on utilising the biggest and strongest lads at various ages.

And many of the pitches at kids football level don't lend themselves to developing an exclusively passing game.

I am a patient man.

[yag101]

The game's moved on, West Ham were found out towards the end of the season and couldn't score a goal with their predictable route one stuff, and so panicked and went further down that route, and ended up in the playoffs. If they carry on doing what they're doing they'll come straight back down.

We need to have a side of players comfortable with the ball who can pass well so we can retain the ball, in order to do things such as seeing out wins, which can be tricky when we decide to sit deep and go defensive after scoring one or two, this tends to just invite pressure and since we don't have world class defenders, pressure will usually lead to goals.

Tiki taka can be the ultimate defensive style really, if we dominate possession and chances against weaker teams against this league they'll be so starved of the ball and so tired from chasing that we'll concede much less over the course of the season. This is the only way we can actually dominate the league and get promoted. The only time we've looked like champions was in Sven's first season, after Sousa left.

[Grey Fox]

The 13 of you that voted for option 2 must be loving it tonight.