Les-TA-Jon Posted 8 April 2013 Posted 8 April 2013 I very much doubt Pearson would sign the kind of loan deal being discussed here. And yes Kane has been rubbish. But he's really not alone on that one. And yes it was a bad pass to drinkwater, but there was a lot of play between that moment and Kasper picking it out of the net. I'd argue that RDL closing down slowly, Moore being slow to double up and Schmeichel's position were all more influential in us conceding. Still I think a lot of our players either have lost or never had much of a 'footballing' brain. Still can't fathom what Pearson and Shakey must be telling them on the training pitch. Why can't we close out a game? Why can't we kick it out? Why can't we retain possession? Why did we take a throw in and a corner long, smash a freekick into the wall and take another quickly all when 1-0 up with less than 10 minutes to go? Instead we should have been running the clock down, breaking up any rhythm the game had and also just keeping the ball! That's equally why we didn't win as well as not taking chances.
indierich06 Posted 8 April 2013 Posted 8 April 2013 I don't think he's shit at all, he's just been playing in the team while we're going through our worst patch of form of the entire season - everyone's looking pretty dog shit at the moment and we know that's not the case. I remember his first couple games, when he was played up front, and he looked decent. Why Pearson's playing him on the wing, I'll never know.
Manwell Pablo Posted 8 April 2013 Posted 8 April 2013 I very much doubt Pearson would sign the kind of loan deal being discussed here. And yes Kane has been rubbish. But he's really not alone on that one. And yes it was a bad pass to drinkwater, but there was a lot of play between that moment and Kasper picking it out of the net. I'd argue that RDL closing down slowly, Moore being slow to double up and Schmeichel's position were all more influential in us conceding. Still I think a lot of our players either have lost or never had much of a 'footballing' brain. Still can't fathom what Pearson and Shakey must be telling them on the training pitch. Why can't we close out a game? Why can't we kick it out? Why can't we retain possession? Why did we take a throw in and a corner long, smash a freekick into the wall and take another quickly all when 1-0 up with less than 10 minutes to go? Instead we should have been running the clock down, breaking up any rhythm the game had and also just keeping the ball! That's equally why we didn't win as well as not taking chances. He wouldn't be the first. Bit odd he's got straight into the side and played every game, and got on in front of Knockaert don't you think?
inckley fox Posted 8 April 2013 Posted 8 April 2013 Think what you like.. I reckon he's been rubbish for us. You don't like it? I don't give a shite He's been very poor for us, but he's a young lad who had been played out of position in a massively out of form side. If we salvage something from this season then Harry Kane playing with confidence could be a useful presence in the play offs. That, by the way, is based on the two occasions that I've seen him play (in which he's been utterly useless) rather than the string of decent performances he put in at other clubs earlier in the season. In other words, I'm being hopeful.
whitlock Posted 11 April 2013 Posted 11 April 2013 Its a tough one, he's just signed a new deal at Spurs, been there for a few years now and for all I know he could be a Spurs fan. If I was a Leicester supporter and also young player, been with us for years etc sign a new deal, then get shipped down to Walsall, I wouldn't give a shit about them, knowing I was long term signed up at Leicester. I think this is the problem with Kane, he could play horrendous (hasn't been that far off) and he knows he is at Spurs for X amount of years. Sometimes loans don't work out, and I think this is one of those...
indierich06 Posted 11 April 2013 Posted 11 April 2013 Its a tough one, he's just signed a new deal at Spurs, been there for a few years now and for all I know he could be a Spurs fan. If I was a Leicester supporter and also young player, been with us for years etc sign a new deal, then get shipped down to Walsall, I wouldn't give a shit about them, knowing I was long term signed up at Leicester. I think this is the problem with Kane, he could play horrendous (hasn't been that far off) and he knows he is at Spurs for X amount of years. Sometimes loans don't work out, and I think this is one of those... That's going to do absolutely nothing for his prospects of breaking into Spurs team though, is it? The whole point of going out on loan is trying to impress the team you're on loan from. I think he's a good player, it's just hard to shine in a team that's in such a terrible run of form, especially when you're being played out of position. Just looks bereft of confidence at the moment, like everyone else.
dynamark Posted 11 April 2013 Posted 11 April 2013 Regardless of anything else he needs to look up for it and slightly interested.Micheal Caine looked better.Mind he had Ardiles next to him which probably helped. Np decision again I rest my case
ozleicester Posted 15 April 2013 Posted 15 April 2013 Well, i think its now patently clear that Kane has been guaranteed some playing minutes in evry game, otherwise the can be no rational to why he wouldve come on in the last two games at least. Hopefully Stringer or someone will ask Pearson if this is the case. (of course, Pearson being interviewed means his response will be a sneer and either a one word answer or a cheap shot at the interviewer or the fans.) If it is...and Pearson continues, then its very very evident that he is looking after his own back and not LCFC's. As an aside - Kane has signed a four year deal with Spurs, really? Im not scapegoating him, he is not to blame for our results, BUT, from the little i have seen (and what ive read/heard) he is barely average and somehow hes got a 4 year deal at Spurs?
indierich06 Posted 15 April 2013 Posted 15 April 2013 Well, i think its now patently clear that Kane has been guaranteed some playing minutes in evry game, otherwise the can be no rational to why he wouldve come on in the last two games at least. Hopefully Stringer or someone will ask Pearson if this is the case. (of course, Pearson being interviewed means his response will be a sneer and either a one word answer or a cheap shot at the interviewer or the fans.) If it is...and Pearson continues, then its very very evident that he is looking after his own back and not LCFC's. As an aside - Kane has signed a four year deal with Spurs, really? Im not scapegoating him, he is not to blame for our results, BUT, from the little i have seen (and what ive read/heard) he is barely average and somehow hes got a 4 year deal at Spurs? I've seen him play a fair bit before he came to Leicester (my girlfriend's dad is a Millwall fan) and he's a lot better than he's shown during his brief spell here. It must be difficult to come into a team on such a turgid run of form and make any kind of impression, especially when you're being brought on for the last few minutes and played out of position.
ozleicester Posted 15 April 2013 Posted 15 April 2013 I've seen him play a fair bit before he came to Leicester (my girlfriend's dad is a Millwall fan) and he's a lot better than he's shown during his brief spell here. It must be difficult to come into a team on such a turgid run of form and make any kind of impression, especially when you're being brought on for the last few minutes and played out of position. Fair point, they must see something in him. I wonder then...why does NP persist with playing him out of position (or at all in fact?).
Babylon Posted 15 April 2013 Posted 15 April 2013 Well, i think its now patently clear that Kane has been guaranteed some playing minutes in evry game, otherwise the can be no rational to why he wouldve come on in the last two games at least. Hopefully Stringer or someone will ask Pearson if this is the case. (of course, Pearson being interviewed means his response will be a sneer and either a one word answer or a cheap shot at the interviewer or the fans.) If it is...and Pearson continues, then its very very evident that he is looking after his own back and not LCFC's. As an aside - Kane has signed a four year deal with Spurs, really? Im not scapegoating him, he is not to blame for our results, BUT, from the little i have seen (and what ive read/heard) he is barely average and somehow hes got a 4 year deal at Spurs? When we signed prem players on loan previously the deal was that we paid less to the loaning club IF a player got game time, compared to them just sitting on the bench. This was done with the two lads from Chelsea. I would hazard a guess there would be something like that again rather than a you have to play them.
ozleicester Posted 15 April 2013 Posted 15 April 2013 When we signed prem players on loan previously the deal was that we paid less to the loaning club IF a player got game time, compared to them just sitting on the bench. This was done with the two lads from Chelsea. I would hazard a guess there would be something like that again rather than a you have to play them. Cheers - interesting So its money over results again?
Babylon Posted 15 April 2013 Posted 15 April 2013 So its money over results again? As I said I'm only guessing, but to be honest if the management are under pressure financially to reduce costs then it's almost as good as a "you have to play them" isn't it really.
indierich06 Posted 15 April 2013 Posted 15 April 2013 Or there might not be any reduced fees or playing clauses and Pearson - rightly or wrongly - thinks he's a better option than what we've got on the bench, which is presumably the reason he brought him in in the first place?
Babylon Posted 15 April 2013 Posted 15 April 2013 Or there might not be any reduced fees or playing clauses and Pearson - rightly or wrongly - thinks he's a better option than what we've got on the bench, which is presumably the reason he brought him in in the first place? Well exactly, an idea I'd be willing to accept more easily though if Kane hadn't been shoved out on the wing half the time when we have several people (who aren't strikers) on the bench for that position.
Manwell Pablo Posted 15 April 2013 Posted 15 April 2013 The specifics don't really matter do they. If he's being played for anything other than footballing reasons he should be sent back to Spurs.
Guest Col city fan Posted 15 April 2013 Posted 15 April 2013 The specifics don't really matter do they. If he's being played for anything other than footballing reasons he should be sent back to Spurs. This
Babylon Posted 15 April 2013 Posted 15 April 2013 If he's being played for anything other than footballing reasons he should be sent back to Spurs. Which we can't do.
Guest Col city fan Posted 15 April 2013 Posted 15 April 2013 Which we can't do. Then that's another very strange decision on the part of Pearson. IMO.
Babylon Posted 15 April 2013 Posted 15 April 2013 Then that's another very strange decision on the part of Pearson. IMO. Pretty standard in all loan contracts, little to do with Pearson. His choice to sign him though clearly.
Burbage Fox Posted 15 April 2013 Posted 15 April 2013 I am not a Harry Kane fan but he has never been a left sided player so it makes him look worse than he is. The bigger issue lies with the fact that Pearson would rather try out a squad premier league player than one of our own youngsters. I cant believe that we do not have someone who is either out on loan or in the development squad who cant do as good a job as Kane. This all adds fuel to the rumour that Pearson and Rudkin have fallen out over issues like this particular loan signing
Babylon Posted 15 April 2013 Posted 15 April 2013 I am not a Harry Kane fan but he has never been a left sided player so it makes him look worse than he is. The bigger issue lies with the fact that Pearson would rather try out a squad premier league player than one of our own youngsters. I cant believe that we do not have someone who is either out on loan or in the development squad who cant do as good a job as Kane. This all adds fuel to the rumour that Pearson and Rudkin have fallen out over issues like this particular loan signing Eh?
Burbage Fox Posted 15 April 2013 Posted 15 April 2013 Answer to Eh? Kane average but played out of position. My commentis I dont understand why we have him at the club as surely we must have as good in our own system. if we dont then we are up shite creek because as said Kane is very average bloody speel check comments
Babylon Posted 15 April 2013 Posted 15 April 2013 Answer to Eh? Kane average but played out of position. My commentis I dont understand why we have him at the club as surely we must have as good in our own system. if we dont then we are up shite creek because as said Kane is very average The eh was more to do with the highlighted part. Kane has been a good player at Millwall and at Spurs. I don't buy into the "we couldn't have done much worse with the youth" stuff that gets trotted out when things aren't going well.
Manwell Pablo Posted 15 April 2013 Posted 15 April 2013 Pretty standard in all loan contracts, little to do with Pearson. His choice to sign him though clearly. So we're stuck having to play a player we don't want and we can't send him back. Sorry but that's just horrible management from Pearson .
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.