Monsell1976 Posted 8 December 2013 Posted 8 December 2013 Not a solid unit, all very similar in styles, and look ok when not pressured, do the simple things ok, but when pressured or bullied, whichever you prefer to use, they go missing. The midfield is very ordinary, with the exception of knockeart, the rest offer very little attacking wise and are very predictable. The problem I believe is knockeart will be identified as our main if not only threat, and will be kicked from pillar to post, like mattock did. Add to this dyer normally goes off the boil this time of year, I think we need to gamble in January and bring a couple of decent creative players. I think the defence would be ok as it is, if the midfield was stronger and offered the defence more protection, and the strike force would also be ok with a midfield offering better service. My thoughts and opinions, all won't agree but for me one of my only criticisms even when we were doing good.
Stadt Posted 8 December 2013 Posted 8 December 2013 In Jan, I'd bring in Trotter (depending on FFP, probably unlikely) and maybe Phillips on loan.
Tielemans63 Posted 8 December 2013 Posted 8 December 2013 It's less the personnel within the team more the mentality of the side that concerns me. We look the real deal when we're on top but in adversity we're not great at taking a game by the scruff of the neck. IMHO this is why we hardly ever draw games. If we could rescue a point from situations like Tues night then i'd feel much more confident in our ability to gain promotion.
RumbleFox Posted 8 December 2013 Posted 8 December 2013 Hi there Interesting post Col, you know we haven't always agreed but well thought out post. I think it is more to do with formation. I really believe our midfield and forward line should look more like this: Drinkwater James Knockaert King Dyer Vardy You could juggle the players round a little but most top teams pay with one up front and a five man midfield; I genuinely think a midfield five with five from Drinky, King, James, Hammond, Knocky, Dyer would look very strong.
pazzerfox Posted 8 December 2013 Posted 8 December 2013 Hi there Interesting post Col, you know we haven;t laways agreed but well thought out post. I think it is more to do with formation. I really believe our midfield and forward line should look more like this: Drinkwater James Knockaert King Dyer Vardy You could jugglle the players round a little but most top teams pay with one up front and a five man midfield; I genuinely think a midfield five with five from Drinky, King, James, Hammond, Knocky, Dyer would look very strong. I like the look of that a lot.
Stadt Posted 8 December 2013 Posted 8 December 2013 Hi there Interesting post Col, you know we haven't always agreed but well thought out post. I think it is more to do with formation. I really believe our midfield and forward line should look more like this: Drinkwater James Knockaert King Dyer Vardy You could juggle the players round a little but most top teams pay with one up front and a five man midfield; I genuinely think a midfield five with five from Drinky, King, James, Hammond, Knocky, Dyer would look very strong. I like the look of that but I don't think the lone striker role would suit Vardy.
Tielemans63 Posted 8 December 2013 Posted 8 December 2013 I like the look of that but I don't think the lone striker role would suit Vardy. Got to agree with that. Vardy would be completely lost as a lone striker.
RumbleFox Posted 8 December 2013 Posted 8 December 2013 I like the look of that but I don't think the lone striker role would suit Vardy. Aye you may be right. It was more the set up than the personnel I was interested in. It may not work but I cannot remember us ever really setting up with that kind of formation and would just be interested to see it work. I think Vardy's running and work rate would mean he could do a decent job as a lone striker if he was supported by th midfield and didn;t feel the pressure to have to score all of our goals. Wood could do it but we always seem to want to play a bit long if he is up there which is a shame. I think all we would need in January would be a right sided creative midfielder. We could then rotate King, Drinkwater, James and Hammond in the two more defensice postotions and have Knockaert in the middle of the more atacking three. Schlupp could deputise Dyer on the left and the new man could g on the right. We could slip Knocky to the right if needed and kingy back up to the more attacking position. You could possibly even play RDL on the right. As I said, it may not work and I am a huge Pearson fan I just feel it might be worth a try. Up the Foxes!! Rumble. X
Stadt Posted 8 December 2013 Posted 8 December 2013 Aye you may be right. It was more the set up than the personnel I was interested in. It may not work but I cannot remember us ever really setting up with that kind of formation and would just be interested to see it work. I think Vardy's running and work rate would mean he could do a decent job as a lone striker if he was supported by th midfield and didn;t feel the pressure to have to score all of our goals. Wood could do it but we always seem to want to play a bit long if he is up there which is a shame. I think all we would need in January would be a right sided creative midfielder. We could then rotate King, Drinkwater, James and Hammond in the two more defensice postotions and have Knockaert in the middle of the more atacking three. Schlupp could deputise Dyer on the left and the new man could g on the right. We could slip Knocky to the right if needed and kingy back up to the more attacking position. You could possibly even play RDL on the right. As I said, it may not work and I am a huge Pearson fan I just feel it might be worth a try. Up the Foxes!! Rumble. X It'd be worth a try
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.