LanguedocFox Posted 31 January 2015 Posted 31 January 2015 I have to declare an interest: I am, and remain, a fan of Pearson, and I reckon if we got rid of him, we are definitely doomed. I also think we were not as bad as some people have been saying today. However, I did find the starting line-up strange today, and although I thought the subs made a real difference, I think we were starting from a disadvantage because of the initial selection. So what team should be have started with? I know it's all a bit pointless, but this is Foxes Talk. My line-up would have been: Schwarzer (although I would have been happy with Hamer) De Laet Morgan Wasilewski Simpson Albrighton Cambiasso Hammond Schlupp Nugent Kramaric We do need another LB, though. Simpson is good on the right, but struggles when played out of position. Any thoughts?
shen Posted 31 January 2015 Posted 31 January 2015 Hamer Simpson Wasilewski Morgan De Laet Albrighton Cambiasso Hammond Drinkwater Schlupp Ulloa
Sharpe's Fox Posted 31 January 2015 Posted 31 January 2015 Nigel doesn't change a winning side, especially one with experience of a decent away win because he will alway give players a chance to replicate their success and that's his personal approach to man management. I'm not sure why, after five years of knowing Nigel Pearson's approach, people are "baffled", "bewildered" and even "fuming" at this.
the-blue-wildabeast Posted 31 January 2015 Posted 31 January 2015 Hamer De Laet Was Wes Simpson Cambiassio Drinky Nugent (Yes, advanced midfield to add some mobility, energy, fight and creativity) Schlupp (left) Krammy Vardy (Right)
Fox Ulike Posted 31 January 2015 Posted 31 January 2015 Nigel doesn't change a winning side, especially one with experience of a decent away win because he will alway give players a chance to replicate their success and that's his personal approach to man management. I'm not sure why, after five years of knowing Nigel Pearson's approach, people are "baffled", "bewildered" and even "fuming" at this. I'm baffled by it. We were 1-0 down to Spurs before Albrighton and Nugent came on. So, in fact, he's played the eleven who lost to Spurs last week. I'm bewildered because i expected Pearson to realise that what works in the Championship don't necessarily work in the prem. I'm not fuming, but i am disappointed to see such a talented young squad of players wasted by a manager whose tactical knowledge of the game hasnt changed since 1986. I can see a lot of our players having big premiership futures, sadly though this will probably be with other teams.
hackneyfox Posted 31 January 2015 Posted 31 January 2015 I have to declare an interest: I am, and remain, a fan of Pearson, and I reckon if we got rid of him, we are definitely doomed. I also think we were not as bad as some people have been saying today. However, I did find the starting line-up strange today, and although I thought the subs made a real difference, I think we were starting from a disadvantage because of the initial selection. So what team should be have started with? I know it's all a bit pointless, but this is Foxes Talk. My line-up would have been: Schwarzer (although I would have been happy with Hamer) De Laet Morgan Wasilewski Simpson Albrighton Cambiasso Hammond Schlupp Nugent Kramaric We do need another LB, though. Simpson is good on the right, but struggles when played out of position. Any thoughts? Schwarzer De Laet Morgan Wasilewski Simpson Albrighton Cambiasso Hammond Schlupp Ulloa Kramaric Ulloa gets picked because he's our top scorer and Albrighton is playing. If Upson was fit I'd pick him ahead of Morgan.
Bagworthblue Posted 31 January 2015 Posted 31 January 2015 Number 26 bus Simpson Wes Upson Was De Laet Cambiasso Drinky King Vardy Nugent Krameric Ulloa Albrighton Schlupp Lawrence MOM.................................................. The Bus!
Sunbury Fox Posted 31 January 2015 Posted 31 January 2015 Nigel doesn't change a winning side, especially one with experience of a decent away win because he will alway give players a chance to replicate their success and that's his personal approach to man management. I'm not sure why, after five years of knowing Nigel Pearson's approach, people are "baffled", "bewildered" and even "fuming" at this. If that's true, how come he changed a winning team against Stoke by dropping Albrighton?
BoyJones Posted 31 January 2015 Posted 31 January 2015 Unfortunately for NP too many players were ineffectual today. Vardy, Ulloa, krameric, Schlupp in particular were poor today. Jeff especially, a shame after he had had a good run of form. When we matched them body count wise in midfield, whilst still mostly defending had a much better shape. For me Albrighton has to play for the quality of his crosses. A few minutes earlier drinky was in a similar position and basically hooked the ball out of the danger area. We must get if right next week before tough games at Arsenal and Everton. I am personally happy with the back four as long as they have four in front of them. If not they are always under too much pressure which leads too inevitable mistakes. In midfield would go with Drinky, Cambiasso, holding, Schlupp left and give Albrighton a chance on the right. Up front, krameric / Ulloa and Nugent. That leaves quite a few out, but the likes of Vardy, James, knocky, king seem more likely to only impact players these days - they haven't had many effective full 90 minute games this season. Think the new lad should also maybe play later in the game until he fully understands how we play. (I know how can he learn if he doesn't play - but he cost us today when we needed to keep the game tight) Anyway, confident we do have the personnel to stay up, NP's problem is finding the right blend with 18/20 first team players who all must think they are good enough and should be in the team. Sh#t, just pulled into Direby. It will be interesting to see what team we put out next week in a MUST win game.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.