Has Pearson lost the fans?

[kingfox]

Not really a fan of his but that doesn't really matter because I am a fan of Leicester City and have been for over 40 yrs. The constant changing of managers is tiring and also makes us a laughing stock so I don't care who is in charge or how we play, I just want to see us back in the Prem again.

Things of concern

- the reluctance to experiment with the strike force when Vardy and Nugent don't have any goals in them right now

- the lack of some steel in midfield

- the shortages in defence and the lack of competition in defensive positions

- Pearson has had 2 transfer windows to sort the defence and the midfield out but IMO we seem to be worse of then we were when he arrived for quality and depth.

Can someone tell me why Danns, SSL and Beckford didn't set foot on the field on Sunday

Some very good points there tbh, kind of agree with all of them.

Especially the thought of having 2 transfer windows to sort the defence and midfield out, I don't think we are worse but I do think he has brought the wrong players, and not added enough defenders, the midfield is too lightweight sometimes and teams will turn us over this season we are only 5 games in. We need some steel in there, but we seriously lack it, I think our wingers are ok, but the central of midfield has been a major problem for some time now. The defence is packed with talent, but I don't think De Laet is a real major change to Peltier, De Laet has his problems and teams will exploit him this season. Moore has been given a chance, i've been impressed with him so far, but he shouldn't start every game, St Ledger was one of our best players towards the end of last season, but the record with him in the team isn't that good, while Whitbread is injury prone too often and Konchesky is off form.

All that is concerning, and we won't get anywhere if Pearson doesn't sort out those problems.

[chris_lcfc_85]

Some very good points there tbh, kind of agree with all of them.

Especially the thought of having 2 transfer windows to sort the defence and midfield out, I don't think we are worse but I do think he has brought the wrong players, and not added enough defenders, the midfield is too lightweight sometimes and teams will turn us over this season we are only 5 games in. We need some steel in there, but we seriously lack it, I think our wingers are ok, but the central of midfield has been a major problem for some time now. The defence is packed with talent, but I don't think De Laet is a real major change to Peltier, De Laet has his problems and teams will exploit him this season. Moore has been given a chance, i've been impressed with him so far, but he shouldn't start every game, St Ledger was one of our best players towards the end of last season, but the record with him in the team isn't that good, while Whitbread is injury prone too often and Konchesky is off form.

All that is concerning, and we won't get anywhere if Pearson doesn't sort out those problems.

Danns didnt play cos he was WOEFUL against Burton so King and Drinkwater were always going to start and James was picked as back up. SSL didnt play cos he he bang average. I've said before if fans believe SSL is the answer, we are in serious trouble!

Beckford maybe i would of started with in fairness but hopefully he'll get his chance this week.

I dont see the issue with the midfield? We've dominated most games, we've only lost because of defensive errors.

King and Drinkwater have been excellent. Whilst some steel is always nice, its not essential.

Finally we have 4 x centre backs, Morgan, SSL, Moore and Whitbread. We all know Whitbread will be 1st choice when fit then we'll have SSL and Moore as back up which is ok. Like i previously said, not a massive fan of SSL but he's ok as back up, cant see your issues!

[marty78]

How many people would've put Beckford, Danns and SSL into the starting line-up for Wolves? I certainly would not and they have all had chances and been average or poor in general. I'm not saying they don't deserve another chance at some point because in my opinion every player deserves some chances provided they work hard but none of them deserved to start at the weekend IMO. When they do get a chance they will need to take it and that chance may well come against Burnley.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing and football is a piece of piss on paper which is why we all think we know how run a football club when, in truth, many couldn't run a bath.

[Mark_w]

How many people would've put Beckford, Danns and SSL into the starting line-up for Wolves? I certainly would not and they have all had chances and been average or poor in general. I'm not saying they don't deserve another chance at some point because in my opinion every player deserves some chances provided they work hard but none of them deserved to start at the weekend IMO. When they do get a chance they will need to take it and that chance may well come against Burnley.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing and football is a piece of piss on paper which is why we all think we know how run a football club when, in truth, many couldn't run a bath.

I'd have put St. Ledger in simply because I wouldn't change a winning side if possible, generally. But you're right none of those players have done enough to guarantee themselves a place in the side and Pearson shouldn't be blamed for not including them.

[kingfox]

Danns didnt play cos he was WOEFUL against Burton so King and Drinkwater were always going to start and James was picked as back up. SSL didnt play cos he he bang average. I've said before if fans believe SSL is the answer, we are in serious trouble!

Beckford maybe i would of started with in fairness but hopefully he'll get his chance this week.

I dont see the issue with the midfield? We've dominated most games, we've only lost because of defensive errors.

King and Drinkwater have been excellent. Whilst some steel is always nice, its not essential.

Finally we have 4 x centre backs, Morgan, SSL, Moore and Whitbread. We all know Whitbread will be 1st choice when fit then we'll have SSL and Moore as back up which is ok. Like i previously said, not a massive fan of SSL but he's ok as back up, cant see your issues!

I don't really care about Danns mate, whether he plays or not I wouldn't really be fussed, more than happy to see Drinkwater and King in midfield, but would prefer Danns to actually be involved on the bench. St Ledger I rate and people on this forum will know that, I really like the way he plays, he brings the ball out of defence, can pick out a pass, puts his body on the line, everything I like about a defender; however the record with him in the team isn't good, I think he is a very good player, and I really thought him and Danns improved dramatically in the second half of last season, but St Ledger wouldn't be a permanent answer.

We haven't been dominated in midfield, but in some games we will get turned over, Sunday was the case, Drinkwater, King and James struggled against Doumbia's and Henry's presence, and in games like that, we really could do with some steel, Doumbia is a tank and Henry is one of the best defensive midfielders in the league, we just don't have those type of players. Drinkwater, King, James and Danns won't struggle in every game, but some games you just look at, and think yes they may struggle today against the opposition midfield.

Yes we have four centre backs, but how many games is Whitbread capable of playing?

This is why I believe we lack depth in defence, most of the time we will be left with five defenders, we have no back-up to Konchesky, and when Whitbread is injured we only have three centre backs, is that enough?

We lack depth in some positions, and with some of those positions struggling for form, i.e Konchesky at left-back, and Nugent and Beckford up front. Those positions need addressing, we can't keep playing the same type of team especially away from home, we need plan A's and plan B's. Against some teams, because of physical presence, we really could do with a defensive type midfielder, or three in midfield, along with Futacs up front.

[Guest Col city fan]

I don't really care about Danns mate, whether he plays or not I wouldn't really be fussed, more than happy to see Drinkwater and King in midfield, but would prefer Danns to actually be involved on the bench. St Ledger I rate and people on this forum will know that, I really like the way he plays, he brings the ball out of defence, can pick out a pass, puts his body on the line, everything I like about a defender; however the record with him in the team isn't good, I think he is a very good player, and I really thought him and Danns improved dramatically in the second half of last season, but St Ledger wouldn't be a permanent answer.

We haven't been dominated in midfield, but in some games we will get turned over, Sunday was the case, Drinkwater, King and James struggled against Doumbia's and Henry's presence, and in games like that, we really could do with some steel, Doumbia is a tank and Henry is one of the best defensive midfielders in the league, we just don't have those type of players. Drinkwater, King, James and Danns won't struggle in every game, but some games you just look at, and think yes they may struggle today against the opposition midfield.

Yes we have four centre backs, but how many games is Whitbread capable of playing?

This is why I believe we lack depth in defence, most of the time we will be left with five defenders, we have no back-up to Konchesky, and when Whitbread is injured we only have three centre backs, is that enough?

We lack depth in some positions, and with some of those positions struggling for form, i.e Konchesky at left-back, and Nugent and Beckford up front. Those positions need addressing, we can't keep playing the same type of team especially away from home, we need plan A's and plan B's. Against some teams, because of physical presence, we really could do with a defensive type midfielder, or three in midfield, along with Futacs up front.

Don't mention the DM mate...

You won't be thanked for it.

[kingfox]

Don't mention the DM mate...

You won't be thanked for it.

Couldn't care what other people will think Col, my opinion is that we need one.

I know I keep saying it, but im just answering someone.

[chris_lcfc_85]

I don't really care about Danns mate, whether he plays or not I wouldn't really be fussed, more than happy to see Drinkwater and King in midfield, but would prefer Danns to actually be involved on the bench. St Ledger I rate and people on this forum will know that, I really like the way he plays, he brings the ball out of defence, can pick out a pass, puts his body on the line, everything I like about a defender; however the record with him in the team isn't good, I think he is a very good player, and I really thought him and Danns improved dramatically in the second half of last season, but St Ledger wouldn't be a permanent answer.

We haven't been dominated in midfield, but in some games we will get turned over, Sunday was the case, Drinkwater, King and James struggled against Doumbia's and Henry's presence, and in games like that, we really could do with some steel, Doumbia is a tank and Henry is one of the best defensive midfielders in the league, we just don't have those type of players. Drinkwater, King, James and Danns won't struggle in every game, but some games you just look at, and think yes they may struggle today against the opposition midfield.

Yes we have four centre backs, but how many games is Whitbread capable of playing?

This is why I believe we lack depth in defence, most of the time we will be left with five defenders, we have no back-up to Konchesky, and when Whitbread is injured we only have three centre backs, is that enough?

We lack depth in some positions, and with some of those positions struggling for form, i.e Konchesky at left-back, and Nugent and Beckford up front. Those positions need addressing, we can't keep playing the same type of team especially away from home, we need plan A's and plan B's. Against some teams, because of physical presence, we really could do with a defensive type midfielder, or three in midfield, along with Futacs up front.

You make some valid points in fairness, i dont disagree with you completely.

Obviously my opinions is based on Whitbread being match fit. When this happens, how long he'll stay fit, nobody knows. Without him i still think we're ok. 1 x sub centre back is enough. Obviously if we go to centre backs, we need another in on loan. Time will tell on that one. You'd struggle to keep 5 x centre backs happy!

On the midfield, we all know physical presence can be useful in this league but, as i've previously stated, not essential.

We dominated in there 2nd half and we were hardly outplayed first half. I think its down to the formation rather than the personnel. Maybe we should start playing 3 x centre mids in certain away games....?

West Ham's centre mid last season was Nolan, Noble and one more, mainly O'Neil. None of which are physical but all did a job cos they packed out the midfield.

As for the strikers, we just need to rotate it more. We have pretty much every type of striker but need to use them correctly. Futacs would of been a better option to come on against Wolves but it didnt happen. I think it may of done had James not already come on for King

[smudgerfox]

We have nothing like enough defensive cover....this idea of De Laet and Moore can play right across the back four just doesn't stack up. Both need to prove themselves in their premier position (RB in both cases) Neither look good enough to be nailed on first choices in their current position and.In any case they can only be utilised in one position at once. As I see it, the best back four we have is: De Laet RB (far from perfect), Moore CB (learning and wd be better at RB); Morgan CB (undisputed first choice) and Konchesky (booking/sending off prone and no LB cover/competition at all.) Cover is Whitbread - yet to appear fully fit, and SSL (a bit mardy, and vulnerable to pace, height and very strong players). One injury is going to require a complete shift-round - remember Konchesky finished up at CB v Blackpool and a further weakening of an already vulnerable defence. An injury to Morgan would be devestating.

[chris_lcfc_85]

We have nothing like enough defensive cover....this idea of De Laet and Moore can play right across the back four just doesn't stack up. Both need to prove themselves in their premier position (RB in both cases) Neither look good enough to be nailed on first choices in their current position and.In any case they can only be utilised in one position at once. As I see it, the best back four we have is: De Laet RB (far from perfect), Moore CB (learning and wd be better at RB); Morgan CB (undisputed first choice) and Konchesky (booking/sending off prone and no LB cover/competition at all.) Cover is Whitbread - yet to appear fully fit, and SSL (a bit mardy, and vulnerable to pace, height and very strong players). One injury is going to require a complete shift-round - remember Konchesky finished up at CB v Blackpool and a further weakening of an already vulnerable defence. An injury to Morgan would be devestating.

Konch went to CB cos RDL was injured and Whitbread wasnt fit.

When everyone is fit, we DO have cover. Last season, our defence pretty much had the same numbers:

Last season we finished with:

Peltier

Konch

Kennedy

Bamba

Mills

Morgan

SSL

Moore (only towards the end)

Mills and Bamba have essentially been replaced with Whitbread and Moore. Only exception is Kennedy but maybe NP believes Schlupp is a better option there

[The Year Of The Fox]

If Pearson goes so soon so does my ST

[seenitall]

If Pearson goes so soon so does my ST

Even if Harry comes in?

[I blame Wellens]

Playing good football but were wasting chances, need to put goals away and we will be fine

No problem then, I can sleep well tonight!

[The Year Of The Fox]

I think so.

Cos Harry wouldn't get us up either.

Fergie would struggle we're that type of club.

[Babylon]

All that is concerning, and we won't get anywhere if Pearson doesn't sort out those problems.

And yet we were the width of a post (wolves), a poor official decision (blackburn), and a terrible last minute miss (charlton) away from getting something from each away game this season.

Do we have problems, of course we wouldn't have lost three away games if we didn't. But I think we are talking quite fine margins here between a fantastic start and an average/poor one. We haven't been hammered by anyone in any game, and we've probably had the better of the play in each game so far this season and certainly played the better football.

That's why I believe we are only a few minor tweaks away from actually doing something with this team. Sometimes fine margins can dictate the difference between success and failure, but I think the problems we have are solvable. Can Pearson solve them is the biggest question, I would like to see if he can.

[Guest MattP]

Even if Harry comes in?

If Harry comes in we'll all be giving up our season tickets eventually.

[kingfox]

And yet we were the width of a post (wolves), a poor official decision (blackburn), and a terrible last minute miss (charlton) away from getting something from each away game this season.

Do we have problems, of course we wouldn't have lost three away games if we didn't. But I think we are talking quite fine margins here between a fantastic start and an average/poor one. We haven't been hammered by anyone in any game, and we've probably had the better of the play in each game so far this season and certainly played the better football.

That's why I believe we are only a few minor tweaks away from actually doing something with this team. Sometimes fine margins can dictate the difference between success and failure, but I think the problems we have are solvable. Can Pearson solve them is the biggest question, I would like to see if he can.

I have posted exactly that in other posts.

We don't need drastic changes, im happy with the players and the performances but a few positions need addressing and if the players in those positions don't hit form soon, we could be in serious trouble. Plus we lack depth, and could do with a couple of loan signings.

[Guest Col city fan]

And yet we were the width of a post (wolves), a poor official decision (blackburn), and a terrible last minute miss (charlton) away from getting something from each away game this season.

Do we have problems, of course we wouldn't have lost three away games if we didn't. But I think we are talking quite fine margins here between a fantastic start and an average/poor one. We haven't been hammered by anyone in any game, and we've probably had the better of the play in each game so far this season and certainly played the better football.

That's why I believe we are only a few minor tweaks away from actually doing something with this team. Sometimes fine margins can dictate the difference between success and failure, but I think the problems we have are solvable. Can Pearson solve them is the biggest question, I would like to see if he can.

Players will always miss chances.. Didn't Fryatt usually need 3/4 chances before he buried one?

It's conceding goals.. That's the problem.

Sort that out and it'll come the other end.

Playing catch up usually results in snatched shots and rushed headers. And so it has proven. This, for me, remains clear to see. Strikers who don't 'have to score', usually do... If that makes sense. And they wouldn't 'have to' if we stopped going behind. A la Pearson's play off season.. Goals scored... Good. Goals conceded... Excellent.

[Dr The Singh]

More importantly has Pearson lost his virginity

PS - stupid as OP question

[Babylon]

Players will always miss chances.. Didn't Fryatt usually need 3/4 chances before he buried one?

It's conceding goals.. That's the problem.

Sort that out and it'll come the other end.

Playing catch up usually results in snatched shots and rushed headers. And so it has proven. This, for me, remains clear to see. Strikers who don't 'have to score', usually do... If that makes sense. And they wouldn't 'have to' if we stopped going behind. A la Pearson's play off season.. Goals scored... Good. Goals conceded... Excellent.

I think you probably missed my point.

[5waller5]

If any of the people saying they'd give up their season tickets if Harry came ..... I'm in the market to take them off your hands!!

[lcfcsnow]

He'd have a lot more support off me if he'd actually improved the squad since he returned, we look weaker in every area apart from on the wings - not difficult since the only winger in the squad was Dyer.

I can see the way he's trying to play and I like it but his squad of medicore easily managed players are nowhere near good enough for a promotion push.

[Mark_w]

He'd have a lot more support off me if he'd actually improved the squad since he returned.

Morgan>Mills/Bamba/SSL

Marshall>...?

Knockaert>...?

Vardy>Beckford

Drinkwater>Wellens

De Laet>Peltier/Pantsil

[lcfcsnow]

Morgan>Mills/Bamba/SSL

Marshall>...?

Knockaert>...?

Vardy>Beckford

Drinkwater>Wellens

De Laet>Peltier/Pantsil

Are you being serious? Morgan is no better than those 3 defenders, unless we're going by who is easiest for Pearson to get along with.. Vardy is in no way better than Beckford not that I rate him either. Drinkwater is looking more and more like Wellens the more I see him and De Laet has been disappointing. So as I said, the only area improved is on the wings.

[Mark_w]

Are you being serious? Morgan is no better than those 3 defenders, unless we're going by who is easiest for Pearson to get along with.. Vardy is in no way better than Beckford not that I rate him either. Drinkwater is looking more and more like Wellens the more I see him and De Laet has been disappointing. So as I said, the only area improved is on the wings.

Morgan has been fantastic so far this season, I'd say he's performing at the moment at a higher level than Mills, Bamba or St. Ledger ever have for us. Vardy has shown glimpses of being a better option than Beckford (Although it is to early to tell), and while De Laet hasn't been incredible he's still looked just as good as the two I mentioned if not better.