Physical presence

[Col city fan]

See the stats below which will show exactly who had the greater control of the football. You only see what you choose to...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/match/2012/sep/16/wolves-v-leicestercity

What does that show?

Possession is nothing if you don't do anything with the ball..

Didn't Peterborough have more possession that us in the first half? And they were shite.

Of more interest is the free kicks conceded. That shows a side being over run and having to make tackles that wouldn't be made if we were controlling the game.

[Babylon]

You saw a different game to me. Until he went off Doumbia ran the midfield.

We were on top from the moment Knockaert came on IMO, their bloke went off on 66 and we were already all over them. In fact the game had already started to even up after about 35 minutes. Whether they took their foot off, or James made a minor difference I don't know. But I was no longer worried about their physical presence towards the end of the first half as I was early in the game.

[Happy Fox]

2-0 down killed us off, we never going to get back in the game we left ourselves with too much work to do imo.

[Babylon]

What does that show?

Possession is nothing if you don't do anything with the ball..

Didn't Peterborough have more possession that us in the first half? And they were shite.

Of more interest is the free kicks conceded. That shows a side being over run and having to make tackles that wouldn't be made if we were controlling the game.

What does that show?

Possession is nothing if you don't do anything with the ball..

Didn't Peterborough have more possession that us in the first half? And they were shite.

Of more interest is the free kicks conceded. That shows a side being over run and having to make tackles that wouldn't be made if we were controlling the game.

To be fair if we sneezed within 3 feet of their blokes they got a free kick.

[Basildon Fox]

What does that show?

Possession is nothing if you don't do anything with the ball..

Didn't Peterborough have more possession that us in the first half? And they were shite.

It quite clearly shows that we dominated the ball thus showing we had control of the game. It would be impossible to have those stats if we had not dominated in the middle of the park. You are wrong. The fact we did not take our chances is neither here nor there. A physical midfielder would have helped us how exactly?

[Babylon]

we never going to get back in the game

Were you thinking that when we hit the post?

[Col city fan]

It quite clearly shows that we dominated the ball thus showing we had control of the game. It would be impossible to have those stats if we had not dominated in the middle of the park. You are wrong. The fact we did not take our chances is neither here nor there. A physical midfielder would have helped us how exactly?

Look at the runs that their midfield made, resulting in our conceding free kicks. Look at the tackles they got in and the blocks they made.

They had a tougher midfield which was more effective with and without the ball than ours was.

Having the ball lots don't mean doing the right things with or without it.

If we were we wouldnt be losing games.

Bamba, Mills, Peltier, Konch, SSL, RDL, Morgan... All bad defenders? Nah

Lay the complete blame for bad defending solely at the feet of the defenders and the cycle will continue.

[smudgerfox]

Although it's possible to see the match many ways - a reasonably prolific forward line is a pre-requisite for success at this level. Collectively, Nugent, Vardy, Beckford, Waghorn have contributed one goal in five league games. Three of our points came from a fortunate penalty. We are just not creating enough chances and scoring enough goals from open play to frighten the opposition. Until we have a forward line which will punish opposition mistakes, we are going nowhere. Wolves' defence was poor - not individually but as a unit - yet our only goal was a speculative blast from a defender. On another day that goes in the stands. The possession isn't turned into chances, the chances aren't turned into goals. In seven competitive games including the League Cup, Vardy has two goals and Futacs one. Nothing from Beckford. Nothing from Nugent. Nothing from Waghorn. That is the source of our problems. Once the chances start to go in, the psychology of matches changes, confidence flows and the points start to rack up. King and Marshall combined look good for 20 goals, the big question is - is there a prolific up-fron combination from what we have? And what is it?

[Basildon Fox]

Look at the runs that their midfield made, resulting in our conceding free kicks. Look at the tackles they got in and the blocks they made.

They had a tougher midfield which was more effective with and without the ball than ours was.

Having the ball lots don't mean doing the right things with or without it.

If we were we wouldnt be losing games.

Bamba, Mills, Peltier, Konch, SSL, RDL, Morgan... All bad defenders? Nah

Lay the complete blame for bad defending solely at the feet of the defenders and the cycle will continue.

But the defenders were quite clearly at fault yesterday. Konchesky went missing for the first goal and De Laet for the second. Conceding those goals was not down to having no physical presence in the midfield. This is surely indisputable. You are talking absolute rubbish. Look how many chances we created. Blame the defenders for not doing the basics or our misfiring attack for not putting the chances away but you can not have a go at the midfield for having a lack of control on the game yesterday.

[Kitchandro]

Once more. We lost yesterday because we were lax on set pieces and not because we lost the midfield battle. Yes they were bigger than us but they hardly bullied us all over the place.

I disagree. I thought we couldn't get hold of the ball in the middle for almost the first hour. Even when we got it in some space our first touch and passsing was absolutely hopeless.

[SMX11]

First half they dominated the midfield by the fact they won nearly every second ball. They had big units across the whole team I don't think one addition into the midfield would have done a great deal for the mistakes at the set pieces. What we did do well in the second half was move the ball fairly quickly exposing their 'units' to be quite nervy on the ball and quite often wasteful in possession once we pressed higher up the pitch. However we were equally bad of getting in good positions and then the attack fizzled out with dawdling on the ball or a poor decision.

The thing we certainly didn't do throughout the match was deal with Kevin Doyle and Ebanks-Blake who were a very strong pairing who caused us a lot of problems.

[Col city fan]

I disagree. I thought we couldn't get hold of the ball in the middle for almost the first hour. Even when we got it in some space our first touch and passsing was absolutely hopeless.

This

[Kitchandro]

See the stats below which will show exactly who had the greater control of the football. You only see what you choose to...

http://www.guardian....v-leicestercity

Well yeh, we had pretty much ALL of the ball for the last half hour and dominated most of the second half because Wolves sat back, so obviously that's going to skew the statistics and make it look like we bossed the game. What the stats don't tell you is what was obvious, in the first half we couldn't get hold of it and used it very very poorly.

As much as we were allowed to have the ball in the second half, the first half was where we lost it and when Wolves were actually going for it like the home side (and not settling for a 2 goal lead) they were all over us physically and we couldn't cope.

[Kitchandro]

But the defenders were quite clearly at fault yesterday. Konchesky went missing for the first goal and De Laet for the second. Conceding those goals was not down to having no physical presence in the midfield. This is surely indisputable. You are talking absolute rubbish. Look how many chances we created. Blame the defenders for not doing the basics or our misfiring attack for not putting the chances away but you can not have a go at the midfield for having a lack of control on the game yesterday.

So you're saying the ONLY reason we lost is because we conceded 2 terrible goals? Not that AND not scoring 2? Not that AND conceding first?

Science would argue if we'd have come out with a better frame of mind, if we'd come out and passed the ball better, retained it and created chances in the first half, we wouldn't have had those specifics to defend, we may have scored which would have changed the course of the game, etc.

There is no doubt sloppy set-piece defending and to a lesser extent finishing were major factors in the defeat but you can't suggest that was the only reason we lost - because you know as well as anybody, we played shockingly in the first half. It wasn't just two mistakes, it was an all round shocking performance. You can't just take key incidents into account because these key incidents were only possible because of the course the game took, which was determined by our overall performance.

Now of course, there are odd occassions where the team plays brilliantly and just falls asleep at two set-pieces. Yesterday however was just not one of those days.

[Basildon Fox]

So you're saying the ONLY reason we lost is because we conceded 2 terrible goals? Not that AND not scoring 2? Not that AND conceding first?

Science would argue if we'd have come out with a better frame of mind, if we'd come out and passed the ball better, retained it and created chances in the first half, we wouldn't have had those specifics to defend, we may have scored which would have changed the course of the game, etc.

There is no doubt sloppy set-piece defending and to a lesser extent finishing were major factors in the defeat but you can't suggest that was the only reason we lost - because you know as well as anybody, we played shockingly in the first half. It wasn't just two mistakes, it was an all round shocking performance. You can't just take key incidents into account because these key incidents were only possible because of the course the game took, which was determined by our overall performance.

Now of course, there are odd occassions where the team plays brilliantly and just falls asleep at two set-pieces. Yesterday however was just not one of those days.

Rubbish.. I can barely remember any shots at our goal in the first half. There was the Doyle shot which was gifted to him on a plate but would struggle to think of anything else of note bar for the goals. Perhaps you can remind me of the overpowering onslaught that happened as my hangover from hell obviously made me miss this...

[Col city fan]

So you're saying the ONLY reason we lost is because we conceded 2 terrible goals? Not that AND not scoring 2? Not that AND conceding first?

Science would argue if we'd have come out with a better frame of mind, if we'd come out and passed the ball better, retained it and created chances in the first half, we wouldn't have had those specifics to defend, we may have scored which would have changed the course of the game, etc.

There is no doubt sloppy set-piece defending and to a lesser extent finishing were major factors in the defeat but you can't suggest that was the only reason we lost - because you know as well as anybody, we played shockingly in the first half. It wasn't just two mistakes, it was an all round shocking performance. You can't just take key incidents into account because these key incidents were only possible because of the course the game took, which was determined by our overall performance.

Now of course, there are odd occassions where the team plays brilliantly and just falls asleep at two set-pieces. Yesterday however was just not one of those days.

[Kitchandro]

Rubbish.. I can barely remember any shots at our goal in the first half. There was the Doyle shot which was gifted to him on a plate but would struggle to think of anything else of note bar for the goals. Perhaps you can remind me of the overpowering onslaught that happened as my hangover from hell obviously made me miss this...

Well they were shit, lets not forget that, making the fact that we were second best even more galling. That's also why they didn't create much.

I didn't say anything about an onslaught, but they did boss the game first half no doubt, they were in control, didn't look particularly troubled by our 'attacks' and they kept possession better than we did.

The amount of shots or clear cut chances they had are irrelevant because they barely needed any, they were 2-0 up at half time and we barely troubled their goal.

Do you seriously dispute that we played shit in the first half?

[Basildon Fox]

Well they were shit, lets not forget that, making the fact that we were second best even more galling. That's also why they didn't create much.

I didn't say anything about an onslaught, but they did boss the game first half no doubt, they were in control, didn't look particularly troubled by our 'attacks' and they kept possession better than we did.

The amount of shots or clear cut chances they had are irrelevant because they barely needed any, they were 2-0 up at half time and we barely troubled their goal.

Do you seriously dispute that we played shit in the first half?

No I strongly dispute we were over powered and over run in the midfield. They had 2 goals gifted to them but at no stage did I feel we were out of the game. The physical thing was not an issue. It was individual **** ups and wasteful finishing that cost us 3 points.

[Col city fan]

No I strongly dispute we were over powered and over run in the midfield. They had 2 goals gifted to them but at no stage did I feel we were out of the game. The physical thing was not an issue. It was individual **** ups and wasteful finishing that cost us 3 points.

Was that the case at Charlton and/or Blackburn too?

If you really believe this, Pearson needs to sort his defence out and quick, because, you are basically implying its rubbish.

Look at why this forum has accused Mills, Bamba, Peltier, SSL, RDL, Konch of exactly the same thing time after time. Either they are all rubbish, (I dont believe that) or something else is missing.

Pearson should be heavily criticised, Im afraid, if he keeps on fielding defences and defenders who were/are all so poor that we continue to ship soft goals.

I think something else is the problem, away from home. I said it last season and am saying it again this season.

[marty78]

No I strongly dispute we were over powered and over run in the midfield. They had 2 goals gifted to them but at no stage did I feel we were out of the game. The physical thing was not an issue. It was individual **** ups and wasteful finishing that cost us 3 points.

I think we were over powered at times first half but it was all over and not just a couple of players. It was a poor first half but it won't be the last we, or any other team in the World, will have this season. At least we showed a response and fought to try and get something from the game instead of folding and giving up. A disappointment but you move on and look to the next match.

[Thracian]

Really starting to think our inconsistency is caused by a lack of physicality in the team, especially in away games. We have very little height or strength throughout the starting XI, apart from Futacs. Probably one of the reasons why we get dominated in midfield so often?

This is the last thing I'd put our problems down to. We've dominated all our games for perhaps three fifths of the time so far, more in some cases, and have created countless chances including quite enough which could be classed as easy and which, if converted would have seen us near very near the top of the table instead of the bottom.

So:

A) we need to have sufficient attitude to dominate all of the game which we've shown ourselves to be quite capable of if we press the ball from start to finish and never offer the opposition easy chance to come onto us as against Wolves yesterday in the first half-hour.

B) We need to convert our chances.

I don't think we were out-muscled generally. We won lots of poessession and almost totally dominated after Wolves' second goal creating all sort of opportunities to recover the game. But poor shooting and too many floated final passes ruined too many of our best situations.

[Basildon Fox]

Was that the case at Charlton and/or Blackburn too?

If you really believe this, Pearson needs to sort his defence out and quick, because, you are basically implying its rubbish.

Look at why this forum has accused Mills, Bamba, Peltier, SSL, RDL, Konch of exactly the same thing time after time. Either they are all rubbish, (I dont believe that) or something else is missing.

Pearson should be heavily criticised, Im afraid, if he keeps on fielding defences and defenders who were/are all so poor that we continue to ship soft goals.

I think something else is the problem, away from home. I said it last season and am saying it again this season.

I didn't see the Charlton game but this was absolutely the case at Blackburn. Konchesky at fault for the first goal (which incidentally was offside) by giving the ball away under no pressure just outside our area. We were then massively wasteful in front of goal as well as having a perfectly good goal disallowed. We then conceded a good finish albeit a fortunate bounce to Pederson from a block by Danns.

[LCFC_FAN_1995]

We need Wellens

[The Guvnor]

Really starting to think our inconsistency is caused by a lack of physicality in the team, especially in away games. We have very little height or strength throughout the starting XI, apart from Futacs. Probably one of the reasons why we get dominated in midfield so often?

Surely this is only an issue if you pump long balls forward,as we rarerly won a header against Wolves.

Pass the ball to feet, David silva and Xavi both 5' 7 inches never seem to have a problem.