Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
jayfox26

formation/starting 11 For peterborough?

By jayfox26, in Leicester City Forum

Recommended Posts

artursteppe

artursteppe

Posted
Posted

No, I just believe you don't need some thug in the middle that many seem to cry out for. Danns is more than capable of putting his foot in and breaking up play. We struggled because we didn't have anyone to partner him. King will never put his foot in and Wellens can't track back like he did two or three years ago. If James or Drinkwater can get back and help and put in some tackles then there will be enough cover in the centre.

Plenty of teams play without someone just sat around doing nothing but making tackles. Man U play with a 4-4-2 and have Scholes and Carrick. Hardly ball winning cm's.

No, I just believe you don't need some thug in the middle that many seem to cry out for. Danns is more than capable of putting his foot in and breaking up play. We struggled because we didn't have anyone to partner him. King will never put his foot in and Wellens can't track back like he did two or three years ago. If James or Drinkwater can get back and help and put in some tackles then there will be enough cover in the centre.

Plenty of teams play without someone just sat around doing nothing but making tackles. Man U play with a 4-4-2 and have Scholes and Carrick. Hardly ball winning cm's.

What are you on. Since when did I suggest we need a thug in midfield? A BALL WINNING midfield player. ( I just thought capital letters might somehow make it easier for you to understand ).

As for the comparison between Carrick and Scholes and our midfield, I was at the Man U home game against Marseilles a couple of years ago when they were protecting a 1-0 lead at home. Don't concede, progress. Carrick and Scholes hardly left each others sides all game. It was pretty boring stuff, but very effective. United did not concede because they effectively played with six defenders. Fact!

We do not have two players like that, Fact. ( I mean of a similar style ). Furthermore Scholes is the dirtiest little shit in football.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Col city fan

Col city fan

Posted
Posted

What are you on. Since when did I suggest we need a thug in midfield? A BALL WINNING midfield player. ( I just thought capital letters might somehow make it easier for you to understand ).

As for the comparison between Carrick and Scholes and our midfield, I was at the Man U home game against Marseilles a couple of years ago when they were protecting a 1-0 lead at home. Don't concede, progress. Carrick and Scholes hardly left each others sides all game. It was pretty boring stuff, but very effective. United did not concede because they effectively played with six defenders. Fact!

We do not have two players like that, Fact. ( I mean of a similar style ). Furthermore Scholes is the dirtiest little shit in football.

I'm having trouble believing that anyone would not consider Paul Scholes a ball winning midfielder?

Have I missed something?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
okie fox

okie fox

Posted
Posted

What are you on. Since when did I suggest we need a thug in midfield? A BALL WINNING midfield player. ( I just thought capital letters might somehow make it easier for you to understand ).

As for the comparison between Carrick and Scholes and our midfield, I was at the Man U home game against Marseilles a couple of years ago when they were protecting a 1-0 lead at home. Don't concede, progress. Carrick and Scholes hardly left each others sides all game. It was pretty boring stuff, but very effective. United did not concede because they effectively played with six defenders. Fact!

We do not have two players like that, Fact. ( I mean of a similar style ). Furthermore Scholes is the dirtiest little shit in football.

And Carrick can and has played centre back in an emergency. Hopefully James can be our Carrick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Babylon

Babylon

Posted
Posted

Why does having a player who is tall enough, strong enough and adept at tackling equate to that player being 'some thug'.

If you are suggesting a tough bloke, mentally with those aforementioned attributes then even better.

Why 'some thug'?

Because most of the people who go on about it talk about some tough tackling brick shit house and little else.

I never said Danns was a defensive midfielder. The point I am making is that I don't believe you need a "defensive midfielder" if you have the right two people in the middle together.

I would never really call Carrick or Scholes a DM. They have much more to their game than that, but they put there foot in when needed.

James (being an ex CB) and Danns (a player who likes a tackle), might not be a Lennon type specialist DM. But together the partnership might well work.

James looks a big lad, Danns can mix it up. They are both box to box players, so there is no reason why duties cannot be shared.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
artursteppe

artursteppe

Posted
Posted

Where did I suggest YOU did. Put your glasses on and read it again.

I quote myself" we do not have a midfield player who can 'put is foot in' ( please note the inverted commas ), break up the opposition's play and regain possession".

I quote you "I just believe you don't need a thug in the middle".

Now try again, which one of us used the word 'thug'?

Is that a bit tough for you Babs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Babylon

Babylon

Posted
Posted

I quote myself" we do not have a midfield player who can 'put is foot in' ( please note the inverted commas ), break up the opposition's play and regain possession".

I quote you "I just believe you don't need a thug in the middle".

Now try again, which one of us used the word 'thug'?

Is that a bit tough for you Babs?

"No, I just believe you don't need some thug in the middle that many seem to cry out for"

Again, please point out where I said YOU.

YOU where questioning MY opinion on balance. So that is MY opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Babylon

Babylon

Posted
Posted

Exactly, I was saying Scholes and Carrick are BOTH defensive midfield players.

Well we obviously have a very different definition of what constitutes a DM then if you think Scholes is a DM. A man known for his god awful tackling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
artursteppe

artursteppe

Posted
Posted

"No, I just believe you don't need some thug in the middle that many seem to cry out for"

Again, please point out where I said YOU.

You answered my quote which by definition means you meant me. The reason anyone quotes another poster is to pass comment specifically on that post. You introduced the term 'thug' in response to my post.

Or are there some obscure variations to this concept when it concerns you?

You want to sit on the fence again don't you! Are you in denial?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
marty78

marty78

Posted
Posted

Well we obviously have a very different definition of what constitutes a DM then if you think Scholes is a DM. A man known for his god awful tackling.

I agree, wonderful footballer but an awful tackler.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Babylon

Babylon

Posted
Posted

You answered my quote which by definition means you meant me. The reason anyone quotes another poster is to pass comment specifically on that post. You introduced the term 'thug' in response to my post.

Or are there some obscure variations to this concept when it concerns you?

You want to sit on the fence again don't you! Are you in denial?

So, if I reply to someone I can only refer to that one person and I'm not allowed to refer to anyone else, or their views.

I wish someone had pointed this out previously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...