Marc Albrighton

[Thracian]

On Saturday he completed 16/17 passes. Even allowing for a bit of a horror show against Everton, his pass completion for the season is 82%, with most of those passes attempted in the final third where loss of possession occurs most frequently.

Last season his pass completion % was higher than Drinkwater.

He's actually very sensible in possession when he does the pass the ball - his biggest problem (as you have partly referred to) could be releasing it in good time.

But even that seems to be overstated. Last season he lost possession less frequently than both Nugent and Vardy. In fact, 136 other players in the division lost the ball more frequently than Knockaert.

The one thing he really lacks is pace. He's ok at most stuff and is capable of moments of genius. Definitely worth persevering with at, what? 22?

 

The "horror show" against Everton gets a mention but how conveniently everyone seems to forget his abyssmal performance against Shrewsbury which absolutely typified the guy.

Lots of energy, lots of involvement but forever chasing down blind alleys. Even Babs refers to his losing the ball while dribbling and the worst thing about doing that is that a lot of the time he doesn't need to be dribbling because other people have already made a decent run that he doesn't pick up on.

Reference is also made to the fact that he doesn't have the pace to be a really successful dribbler and when he does go on one of his runs he so often ends up giving a very late pass when lots of people are out of position and the recipient has no chance of effecting anything.

There have been times when he's seemed to improve - and last season wasn't nearly so bad as the season before - but then we had a better team with more people helping find space for him.

Now we're under far greater pressure and the penalty for fruitless blind alley runs and team-mates being run out of position is greater. 

I don't expect to convince anyone on this because Knockaert's been a crowd favourite since he's been here and good luck to him if he can replicate some of his Championship form in The Premiership.

But I don't think there's any evidence that'll be the case as yet - either against Everton, against Shrewsbury or in his limited cameo against Burnley where even his 16/17 "successful" passes brought no notable impact whatsoever.

[Babylon]

The decision to bring on Knockaert though was baffling. Burnley were out-muscling us all over the pitch and out-numbering us in midfield. We just needed to close out the game.

The game looked like it was there for the taking if you ask me.

 

We looked far more threatening than they did still, we just wasted lots of chances to put the ball into a good position. Vardy twice could have been in on a one on one but he kicked the ball straight at their defender, numerous other times we were in positions to cross and we didn't, or put in a bad ball.

 

I can understand him making attacking changes as he wanted to kill the game rather than just try and defend for 25 minutes, inviting more pressure. Until that last free kick I didn't feel threatened by them in the slightest after the changes.

[Out Foxed]

Good post, I would say Knockaert tends to lose the ball by getting tackled or losing it whilst dribbling rather than by bad / risky passes.

exactly. which is what happened a few times on satdy, unfortunately.

[Fox Ulike]

Well, we've done ok with him up in the stands so far and all for Dyche's screaming it didn't help them much last year, or this year actually.

 

Well we didn't do OK on Saturday which is why i'm suggesting that sometimes Pearson needs to be on the touchline.

 

The game looked like it was there for the taking if you ask me.

 

We looked far more threatening than they did still, we just wasted lots of chances to put the ball into a good position. Vardy twice could have been in on a one on one but he kicked the ball straight at their defender, numerous other times we were in positions to cross and we didn't, or put in a bad ball.

 

I can understand him making attacking changes as he wanted to kill the game rather than just try and defend for 25 minutes, inviting more pressure. Until that last free kick I didn't feel threatened by them in the slightest after the changes.

 

“Closing the game out” isn’t the same as “defending for 25 minutes”. It means controlling the game: keeping possession, frustrating your opponents and limiting their opportunities to attack by using Vardy and Schlupp’s pace to counter-attack – hopefully to get the third goal to kill them off. We were 2-1 up with 18 minutes left.  We didn’t need to win the game twice.

 

We were losing the battle in midfield.  We were losing the physical battle and struggling to retain the ball. This was the problem that needed addressing.  Instead, we just swapped over our wingers. A wasted substitution. James for Hammond also changed nothing. Like for like.

[Dickov22]

Not sure what time Michael Keane came on, but before he did I thought Burnley looked there for the taking. I wasn't surprised to see Knockaert and Nugent come on.

Vardy had two fantastic opportunities to be through on goal, but came up against Keane, who I really really rate.

[Babylon]

Well we didn't do OK on Saturday which is why i'm suggesting that sometimes Pearson needs to be on the touchline.

 

We were winning 2-1 with seconds to go, and frankly even though we weren't playing great we were still showing more than Burnley in my opinion. So I'm not sure what he needed to be down there for, other than to make you feel better about seeing him jump about.

 

The changes you can make without a break in play are massively limited, even then he can pass any changes on to his staff to pass on. As he has stated himself, there seems to be a need in this country to see someone jumping around waving his arms madly and not actually doing a lot when things aren't going well.

 

It's funny that these comments only ever pop up after a couple of iffy performances. The same happened last year, frankly it just looks reactionary. If you think Dyche wandering around like a deranged ape on the sidelines got them a point, then well that's your opinion.

 

 

“Closing the game out” isn’t the same as “defending for 25 minutes”. It means controlling the game: keeping possession, frustrating your opponents and limiting their opportunities to attack by using Vardy and Schlupp’s pace to counter-attack – hopefully to get the third goal to kill them off. We were 2-1 up with 18 minutes left.  We didn’t need to win the game twice.

 

We were losing the battle in midfield.  We were losing the physical battle and struggling to retain the ball. This was the problem that needed addressing.  Instead, we just swapped over our wingers. A wasted substitution. James for Hammond also changed nothing. Like for like.

You keep saying we should have played on the counter attack, the whole point of which is to sit back and soak up pressure and hit against the flow of play. Completely the opposite of possession football where you control the game. Playing on the counter invites pressure and aims to exploit it.

 

As far as I could see we did limit their opportunities anyway, all they got was a poxy free kick. We also had more of the ball than they did, more shots, more corners, so I didn't see us struggling any more than they were to retain it.

 

The game I saw ties in exactly with how Pearson described it and I could understand all the subs he made. They just didn't work how he saw them working.

 

Hammond was being sloppy and dwelling on the ball, he needed to go. Ulloa was looking leggy and Vardy's pace looked the best option to get behind them so more pace up top looked a good option. Knockaert for me was the only debatable one, but again I could see why he did it as we always looked the more likely to create something.

 

It's all opinions, we all see it differently.

 

Walking away after the game I was mostly cheesed off with our forward play the last 10 minutes as we were wasteful in good positions and failed to take the ball to corners when there wasn't a good option on. Knockaert and especially Nugent in Injury time  being guilty when he had the ball and could have taken it into the corner he decided to cross it straight to their player.

[Babylon]

Vardy had two fantastic opportunities to be through on goal, but came up against Keane, who I really really rate.

Keane was pretty lucky with both for me, he knew nothing about either of them. Vardy was slightly unlucky with the first as he wasn't looking that way. The second was just an awful ball to himself, played it way to close to Keane into the space and he'd have been in.

[Corky]

We aren't going through this touchline/stand stuff again are we? He's been on the touchline for games, he's sat in the stand for games. We've won, drawn or lost wherever he's been. It's what Leicester do.

 

Shakespeare comes across as a knowledgeable, eloquent man who can relay instructions across whilst Pearson can watch the game and pass on ideas.

[Babylon]

We aren't going through this touchline/stand stuff again are we? He's been on the touchline for games, he's sat in the stand for games. We've won, drawn or lost wherever he's been. It's what Leicester do.

 

Shakespeare comes across as a knowledgeable, eloquent man who can relay instructions across whilst Pearson can watch the game and pass on ideas.

Well we haven't won for two games sound it's bound to come up. By some of the comments recently I honestly think some people expect us to go unbeaten all year apart from against perhaps the top 6 sides... who we should draw against.

 

Every team in this league, no matter how shit people think they might be, have match winners in their teams. It's going to be a bloody hard long slog, we'll win some, we'll lose some. The sooner people stop thinking like we're world beaters the better as far as I'm concerned as we need the sort of crowd we had the first three games, not the one expecting to roll over Burnley without breaking sweat.

[Fox Ulike]

We were winning 2-1 with seconds to go, and frankly even though we weren't playing great we were still showing more than Burnley in my opinion. So I'm not sure what he needed to be down there for, other than to make you feel better about seeing him jump about.

 

Knockaert for me was the only debatable one, but again I could see why he did it as we always looked the more likely to create something.

 

 

Babs you really should consider a career in politics. You’ve basically just repeated my points whilst telling me that I’m wrong about them. J

 

Yes I agree that it would make the players feel better seeing him jump about sometimes. That is what I am saying.

 

And yes, the Knockaert substitution was certainly “debatable”. That is what I am saying. I can also see why he did it but I can also see why it was never going to work.

 

It’s more the performance I’m bitching about, rather than the result. Yes we were a whisker away from winning, but the way we played always gave Burnley a chance. Which they took.

 

 

 

You keep saying we should have played on the counter attack, the whole point of which is to sit back and soak up pressure and hit against the flow of play. Completely the opposite of possession football where you control the game. Playing on the counter invites pressure and aims to exploit it.

 

 

You can do both at the same time. Keep possession and control the game when you have the ball.  Then when they commit forward, hit them on the break.

[Vardinhio]

rumour has it he isn't playing as he's fallen out with NP due to him hooking up with his daughter.

[Babylon]

Babs you really should consider a career in politics. You’ve basically just repeated my points whilst telling me that I’m wrong about them. J

 

Yes I agree that it would make the players feel better seeing him jump about sometimes. That is what I am saying.

But that's not what I was saying, I was saying making you feel better about it not them. They will just be playing the game, other the person playing right wing / right back half of them probably wouldn't have been aware of anything happening on the touch line during open play.

[Fox Ulike]

But that's not what I was saying, I was saying making you feel better about it not them. They will just be playing the game, other the person playing right wing / right back half of them probably wouldn't have been aware of anything happening on the touch line during open play.

 

Well it which case Pearson might as well sit at home watching the game on a dodgy internet stream like I did. He can tweet his subs through to Shakey.

 

It's just psychology. Seeing Pearson on the touchline would maybe have given the players (and the crowd) a lift at a time when we were losing the impetus of the game? No?

[Stadt]

Well it which case Pearson might as well sit at home watching the game on a dodgy internet stream like I did. He can tweet his subs through to Shakey.

It's just psychology. Seeing Pearson on the touchline would maybe have given the players (and the crowd) a lift at a time when we were losing the impetus of the game? No?

Didn't he do that at Palace?

[Babylon]

And yes, the Knockaert substitution was certainly “debatable”. That is what I am saying. I can also see why he did it but I can also see why it was never going to work.

Well that's very easy to say now.

 

We've won more points than we've lose by continuing to attack to the end, we even did it against Man U when it went 4-3 and 5-3. I thought it was suicidal at the time but continuing to really attack them worked. I think that's what he was trying to do here, because Burnley didn't look a threat from open play.

 

For me the game was there to be won, I never felt we weren't really in control for the most part. What we were was poor in decision making and poor in execution whilst attacking.

[Babylon]

Well it which case Pearson might as well sit at home watching the game on a dodgy internet stream like I did. He can tweet his subs through to Shakey.

 

It's just psychology. Seeing Pearson on the touchline would maybe have given the players (and the crowd) a lift at a time when we were losing the impetus of the game? No?

 

Or they might have thought... oh shit, something must be wrong if he's down here and bottled it even more. Who knows how much it can play a part it's all guess work. But I never look at the bench as I'm watching the game so it wouldn't give me a lift, like it wouldn't many others I'd guess.

[lgfualol]

He was sat next to me at the game. Booed them off at full time.

[Fox Ulike]

Or they might have thought... oh shit, something must be wrong if he's down here and bottled it even more. Who knows how much it can play a part it's all guess work. But I never look at the bench as I'm watching the game so it wouldn't give me a lift, like it wouldn't many others I'd guess.

 

Well something was wrong. Burnley were winning every 50/50 challenge and had more possession than us and were creating chances. 

 

Like I say I only saw the game on a fuzzy internet stream, but loads of times in the second half I ended up saying to myself "how the hell have we lost the ball there". Burnley were on a mission. We just didn't acknowledge it and refused to change our gameplan and pretended that we were comfortable, rather than admitting that we were sailing too close to the wind. 

 

Admittedly, Pearson decending God-like from the clouds to the edge of the action wouldn't necessarily have changed this, but I think it's more likely to do good rather than harm.

[Dickov22]

He was sat next to me at the game. Booed them off at full time.

[st albans fox]

he's normally on the touchline for the last 5 mins. he walked up the tunnel after the game so i suspect he was down there for the free kick?

[Fox Ulike]

Well that's very easy to say now.

 

We've won more points than we've lose by continuing to attack to the end, we even did it against Man U when it went 4-3 and 5-3. I thought it was suicidal at the time but continuing to really attack them worked. I think that's what he was trying to do here, because Burnley didn't look a threat from open play.

 

For me the game was there to be won, I never felt we weren't really in control for the most part. What we were was poor in decision making and poor in execution whilst attacking.

 

it was fairly easy to say at the time, to be honest.

 

Notwithstanding the fact that replacing Mahrez with Knocky is a bit like replacing a thoroughbread racehorse with a pit pony, Pearson should have seen that the reason Mahrez had drifted out of the game was that our midfield was out-numbered and so unable to get any decent service to our flair players. Bringing Knocky on just changed the player who we couldn't get into the game.

We were in a winning position. As you say, Burnley offered little threat, but by failing to close the game down, we always offered them a glimmer of hope. We played the last 20 minutes as if we still needed to win the game, rather than just nullifying it by packing the midfield and hitting on the break (as we did against Man U. Both our 4th and 5th goals were scored on the break, not by attacking them as we did against Bumley).

[Babylon]

The game was already won.

Errr no it wasn't.

[Mark_w]

I started this thread at the start of the season and was lambasted. 

 

http://www.foxestalk.co.uk/forums/topic/96911-albrighton/?hl=albrighton 

 

When you post something stupid and people forget about it, it's a good idea not to bring it back up.

[Fox Ulike]

Errr no it wasn't.

 

Pedant.

 

I've edited "The game was already won" to read "We were in a winning position".

 

I hope you're happy.

[Dickov22]

Keane was pretty lucky with both for me, he knew nothing about either of them. Vardy was slightly unlucky with the first as he wasn't looking that way. The second was just an awful ball to himself, played it way to close to Keane into the space and he'd have been in.

I think it's fair play to give Keane a bit of credit actually. Thought he played well when he came on. Always liked him.