Babylon Posted 15 February 2015 Posted 15 February 2015 I must have imagined the part where after the arsenal game about half of this forum said we should stick with 5 at the back.
Foxhateram Posted 15 February 2015 Posted 15 February 2015 Look what happened when he changed it at half time to a more attacking formation. Oh yer we lost.
Focks Posted 15 February 2015 Posted 15 February 2015 I think that he was using todays game as a chance to practice the new formation ahead of the more important league matches ahead... I can see us keeping 5 at the back for the remainder of the season and switch to 442 if we're chasing the game
Karljohn Posted 15 February 2015 Posted 15 February 2015 Club captain who spends most of the time on the deck and Danny Simpson (poor mans robbie neilson) stay on the field and we take Wasyl off. Nigel is a genius.
dayday Posted 15 February 2015 Author Posted 15 February 2015 Look what happened when he changed it at half time to a more attacking formation. Oh yer we lost. After half time?
AKCJ Posted 15 February 2015 Posted 15 February 2015 He'd have been ripped apart on here for changing the side that did so brilliantly against Arsenal. Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. Wish these knobs would shut up and educate themselves before they inflict these threads on us.
marko Posted 15 February 2015 Posted 15 February 2015 And it was still 11 goal Villa until we went 4-4-2. Maybe he was justified in going with a 5
ScouseFox Posted 15 February 2015 Posted 15 February 2015 tactics were again not the problem, it's the personnel. huth in for morgan, probably de laet for simpson and this is a formation that will work. no formation would've worked with the amount of times we needlessly gave the ball away.
Harry - LCFC Posted 15 February 2015 Posted 15 February 2015 It worked well against Arsenal. It worked very, very well. That being the case how was it so obvious to you or anyone else that it wouldn't work against Villa? Pearson's got it wrong at times with the line up this season but I don't he was unreasonable in thinking we could repeat what we did on Tuesday. tactics were again not the problem, it's the personnel. huth in for morgan, probably de laet for simpson and this is a formation that will work. no formation would've worked with the amount of times we needlessly gave the ball away. This is my view too. The system we employed was a reasonable one to go with as we already knew it could work. The difference was that the quality of our passing dropped immensely. I've not given up on this formation yet, if the players can kick it to each other more often than not it can work.
dayday Posted 15 February 2015 Author Posted 15 February 2015 I think that he was using todays game as a chance to practice the new formation ahead of the more important league matches ahead... I can see us keeping 5 at the back for the remainder of the season and switch to 442 if we're chasing the game Yeah **** you 6,500 Leicester fans we are experimenting today,Wtf
nettle Posted 15 February 2015 Posted 15 February 2015 He'd have been ripped apart on here for changing the side that did so brilliantly against Villa. Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. Wish these knobs would shut up and educate themselves before they inflict these threads on us. You are one angry young man. Have a drink mate if your old enough!
Tuna Posted 15 February 2015 Posted 15 February 2015 I genuinely think a Baked Potato would be more tactically astute than Pearson.
dayday Posted 15 February 2015 Author Posted 15 February 2015 He'd have been ripped apart on here for changing the side that did so brilliantly against Arsenal. Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. Wish these knobs would shut up and educate themselves before they inflict these threads on us. Oh not you again I'm sure you stalk me every time I post,get your head out of your balls and talk some sense for a change
tommo1966 Posted 15 February 2015 Posted 15 February 2015 tactics were again not the problem, it's the personnel. huth in for morgan, probably de laet for simpson and this is a formation that will work. no formation would've worked with the amount of times we needlessly gave the ball away. Good call, With 3 centre backs, the wing back need to be attacking, ie RDL and Albrighton, more pace and flair, not Simpson and Konch who can t attack and cross a ball and are more defensive. Under MoN Guppy was a wing back
NotTheMarketLeader Posted 15 February 2015 Posted 15 February 2015 He'd have been ripped apart on here for changing the side that did so brilliantly against Arsenal. Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. Wish these knobs would shut up and educate themselves before they inflict these threads on us. Not by me. He should be ripped apart for using the same tactics today. He should 'be dammed' for today's diabolical tactics. End of
Focks Posted 15 February 2015 Posted 15 February 2015 Yeah **** you 6,500 Leicester fans we are experimenting today,Wtf I wasn't one of the 6500, as I never go to any away matches and actually choose to not bother going to the home games.. The FA cup is meaningless in modern football so in a way I agree with what Pearson has done today (formation-wise)
Harry - LCFC Posted 15 February 2015 Posted 15 February 2015 Yeah **** you 6,500 Leicester fans we are experimenting today,Wtf IT WAS NOT AN EXPERIMENT WE HAD EVIDENCE THAT IT COULD WORK ALREADY DID YOU NOT SEE THE FVCKING ARSENAL GAME?
NotTheMarketLeader Posted 15 February 2015 Posted 15 February 2015 It worked well against Arsenal. It worked very, very well. That being the case how was it so obvious to you or anyone else that it wouldn't work against Villa? Pearson's got it wrong at times with the line up this season but I don't he was unreasonable in thinking we could repeat what we did on Tuesday. This is my view too. The system we employed was a reasonable one to go with as we already knew it could work. The difference was that the quality of our passing dropped immensely. I've not given up on this formation yet, if the players can kick it to each other more often than not it can work. NO YOU ARE VERY WRONG Tactics appalling (Imo)
the-blue-wildabeast Posted 15 February 2015 Posted 15 February 2015 'Tactical' and 'Nigel' should never be used in the same sentence.
Harry - LCFC Posted 15 February 2015 Posted 15 February 2015 NO YOU ARE VERY WRONG Tactics appalling (Imo) That isn't a response.
dayday Posted 15 February 2015 Author Posted 15 February 2015 tactics were again not the problem, it's the personnel. huth in for morgan, probably de laet for simpson and this is a formation that will work. no formation would've worked with the amount of times we needlessly gave the ball away. We gave the ball away because we were under constant pressure,it was crying out for another midfielder,nothing else. Geez if the manager cannot see what thousands can,begs the question what is he watching?
st albans fox Posted 15 February 2015 Posted 15 February 2015 I think that he was using todays game as a chance to practice the new formation ahead of the more important league matches ahead... I can see us keeping 5 at the back for the remainder of the season and switch to 442 if we're chasing the game I agree with this. if given doesn't make that save could have been different. Fine margins again but I don't think he has the personnel right, especially against a goal shy villa. We could have been more attack minded with more progressive players.
ScouseFox Posted 15 February 2015 Posted 15 February 2015 We gave the ball away because we were under constant pressure,it was crying out for another midfielder,nothing else. Geez if the manager cannot see what thousands can,begs the question what is he watching? yet when we played one of the best midfields in the country just 5 days ago we didn't give the ball away much at all? we gave the ball away because our best passer had a huge off day, cambiasso's inability to pass for an hour or so today was nothing to do with pearson's tactics.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.