Fox Ulike Posted 20 February 2015 Posted 20 February 2015 We did play a 4-5-1 against Man City and West Ham, with Vardy up front on his own. But I do take your point that it has not been played enough. We don't have the quality of a forward like Costa who can hold the ball up, turn and finish at will. Well that speaks for itself: Ulloa 1 goal every 3.1 games Vardy 1 goal every 23 games Some of Pearson’s decision-making this season has just been bizarre, but his insistence on playing Vardy in positions were he clearly isn’t comfortable (lone striker, on the wing) takes some beating.
SpacedX Posted 20 February 2015 Posted 20 February 2015 the best sides throughout Europe say different, it's a key tactic of the modern game (as is a CDM or two)... if we had 3 attack-minded midfielders or if Schlupp & Mahrez + one other actually turn up (Mahrez and in 2nd half Schlupp were abysmal Vs Villa), we could get a lot of joy out of it. It's a different team mentality though in comparison to what most of the squad has been built on I absolutely agree, but in spite of it's tactical prevalence, show me a lone striker dropping into territory as deep as Krameric was forced to do on Sunday either in the Premiership or on the continent. Mentality or not - it is not the best way to utilise him given our resources and the current urgency of the situation.
cc_star Posted 20 February 2015 Posted 20 February 2015 Well that speaks for itself: Ulloa 1 goal every 3.1 games Vardy 1 goal every 23 games Some of Pearson’s decision-making this season has just been bizarre, but his insistence on playing Vardy in positions were he clearly isn’t comfortable (lone striker, on the wing) takes some beating. It's a pace related tactic the idea was to break with pace Vs Man City because they would obviously play most of the game in our half.... and he did get on his own against Mangela on a few occasions, and with regards to the wing at Man Utd... Mahrez was at AFCON, we were playing away against a possession side with some of the world's best attacking talent, NP knew we wouldn't see much of the ball so countering with pace was important. So playing Vardy on his own upfront or on wing a sound tactic, even though it didn't pan out
Arriba Los Zorros Posted 20 February 2015 Posted 20 February 2015 GK CR CB CL RB LB RM LM RF LF CF This is what you're proposing isn't it? Tell me you're not serious, this is not the 1930s
MooseBreath Posted 20 February 2015 Posted 20 February 2015 If we want to play five at the back then it's got to be wing backs. No point in five and then a four with two wingers. In which case, for me, it'd be Schlupp and De Laet. Three across midfield and two (yes two!) upfront. Schlupp and De Laet aren't good enough to be effective wing backs. Mahrez/Albrighton/Knockaert aren't good enough defensively either. No point in playing formations for which you haven't got the right players. I actually think 541 suits us quite well. It's an underdog formation, which is fine because we're almost always the underdog. An extra man at the back helps massively because we're so horribly weak at the back. It not only strengthens the defense but also gives us more time to find midfielders with balls to feet rather than having to rush and hoof it. Having dedicated wingers provides much more attacking threat than wing backs (as long as the wingers aren't woeful like they were against villa). We played well against arsenal and didn't concede while playing it against Villa. You have to sacrifice a striker but it's give and take at this level. Creating chances has never been our problem so it's a logical sacrifice. Hope we give it another go in the league.
Fox Ulike Posted 20 February 2015 Posted 20 February 2015 It's a pace related tactic the idea was to break with pace Vs Man City because they would obviously play most of the game in our half.... and he did get on his own against Mangela on a few occasions, and with regards to the wing at Man Utd... Mahrez was at AFCON, we were playing away against a possession side with some of the world's best attacking talent, NP knew we wouldn't see much of the ball so countering with pace was important. So playing Vardy on his own upfront or on wing a sound tactic, even though it didn't pan out I can understand the reasoning behind the tactics but unfortunately it just smacks of lower league thinking. The idea that Manchester City can be beaten by hoofing the ball over the top for a speedy striker to chase onto is straight out of the 1980s. If it was do-able, most other teams would do it. Pace is great but not if it comes without any other qualities - otherwise we could sign Usain Bolt. Again, it’s just an example of Pearson’s limited tactical knowledge at this level. We need more astuteness from our Manager than just "He’s fast, so let’s put him on the wing". That’s as far as Pearson’s tactical thinking appears to go! It’s how Fleetwood Town would have used Vardy if they had gone to Man United in the Cup.
cc_star Posted 20 February 2015 Posted 20 February 2015 I can understand the reasoning behind the tactics but unfortunately it just smacks of lower league thinking. The idea that Manchester City can be beaten by hoofing the ball over the top for a speedy striker to chase onto is straight out of the 1980s. If it was do-able, most other teams would do it. Pace is great but not if it comes without any other qualities - otherwise we could sign Usain Bolt. Again, it’s just an example of Pearson’s limited tactical knowledge at this level. We need more astuteness from our Manager than just "He’s fast, so let’s put him on the wing". That’s as far as Pearson’s tactical thinking appears to go! It’s how Fleetwood Town would have used Vardy if they had gone to Man United in the Cup. Completely agree, was just talking about the sound reasoning behind the selection
shailen Posted 20 February 2015 Posted 20 February 2015 It's not always about big lad holding the ball up Pearson played Vardy on his own because he was hoping to unleash the pace, there was a couple of occasions when we managed to get Vardy 1 on 1 against Managala, but he was outmuscled. With Kram upfront on his own he was able to drop deep or push outwide to hold on to possession and this creates an enormous amount of space for attacking players to pour into (trouble was against Villa Schlupp was only in the 1st half, not 2nd and Mahrez was not in the whole game The trouble with playing someone up on their own is unless they have the ability to be intricate, pace and skillful in their play there is little chance of them being effective on their own. Only the likes of Suarez, Aguero...etc can do this consistently. If we go one up at the top he needs to bring other people into play, otherwise its an ineffective system, and he needs to act as a release ball. I understand why Pearson played Vardy there up front, mostly as a release ball when we soaked up pressure, but on the whole he isnt good enough to bring others into play by holding onto the ball. Funny thing is as much as Vardy was slated against United away, I think his most effective position is on the left of a 4-5-1. But I wouldnt have him in the team atm anyway
DANGEROUS TIGER Posted 20 February 2015 Posted 20 February 2015 We've played 442 plenty of times this season and got torn to shreds. And what's that formation? A 523? That's very, very similar to the 541 we play at the minute, as Schlupp and Mahrez play as attacking wingers anyway. No it's not. It's a two, three, five, system, that was played well into the seventies, and was very successful for us.
weller54 Posted 20 February 2015 Posted 20 February 2015 What Suffolk fox says. Likewise I will be amazed if we manage 5 wins during the rest of the season, and who is to say that would benough anyway It won't be.. 6 wins and 3 draws more like it!!...
maxwelld_ Posted 20 February 2015 Posted 20 February 2015 IF we stay up this will be talked about for years to come as the greatest ever escape . Can anyone remember a team staying up who have been bottom for as long as we have ?
Rich Fox Posted 20 February 2015 Posted 20 February 2015 IF we stay up this will be talked about for years to come as the greatest ever escape . Can anyone remember a team staying up who have been bottom for as long as we have ? Coventry used to do it every season, we could do it but we got no chance if we play a weakened team every weak!
shailen Posted 21 February 2015 Posted 21 February 2015 IF we stay up this will be talked about for years to come as the greatest ever escape . Can anyone remember a team staying up who have been bottom for as long as we have ? West Brom in 04/05 and Wigan and Fulham in recent seasons. The Fulham one they were relegated in a game they were losing at half time if things stayed the same, they ended up winning that game and go on a run that saw their status confirmed
Benguin Posted 21 February 2015 Posted 21 February 2015 Portsmouth in 05/06 were 19th with 18 points after 25 games they were 7 points from safety but ended up staying up with 5 points to play with.
v6rat Posted 21 February 2015 Posted 21 February 2015 Biggish man, littleish man up front, Ulloa and Krameric Schwarzer dropped. Morgan left at home. Sorted
Callabinho Posted 21 February 2015 Posted 21 February 2015 If we stay up I'm going to walk around Leicester City center in a mankini, and document it.....
SpacedX Posted 21 February 2015 Posted 21 February 2015 Portsmouth in 05/06 were 19th with 18 points after 25 games they were 7 points from safety but ended up staying up with 5 points to play with. I'm reliably informed by my lodger (who is a 'skate') that the goal that secured a crucial three points over Villa scored by Lomana Tresor Lua Lua was the one that put him out for the rest of the season doing one of his ridiculous celebrations.
maddog Posted 21 February 2015 Posted 21 February 2015 GK CR CB CL RB LB RM LM RF LF CF This is what you're proposing isn't it? Tell me you're not serious, this is not the 1930s The classic Christmas pudding formation.
Ian Haggarty Posted 21 February 2015 Author Posted 21 February 2015 We've played 442 plenty of times this season and got torn to shreds. And what's that formation? A 523? That's very, very similar to the 541 we play at the minute, as Schlupp and Mahrez play as attacking wingers anyway. The difference is we end up with 3 at the front. Its called attack? have you and Nigel heard of it??? Sometimes the best defence is attack. In the first 4 games we feared no team and we got results !!!Then Pearson lost his bottle and it's been downhill ever since??? Blind freddy can see that our team is an attacking team. Wigston Feilds would put goals past our defence??
Ian Haggarty Posted 21 February 2015 Author Posted 21 February 2015 Everyone's an expert when we're loosing. Obviously I have been an expert for most of the season. Any more smart comments ?? It's not being an expert it's knowing the game?? But what would a 70 year old know??? Why don't YOU try to be constructive and tell me what you would do?? Or would you just leave everything as is???
Ian Haggarty Posted 21 February 2015 Author Posted 21 February 2015 It's bad enough when people hark back to the MON days when trying to slag of Pearson but using a system devised 80 years ago!? That is the point !! Well done. In your own way you have actually grasped what I was saying. Pearson was actually playing that type of system with just a twist of variation. You should become a brain surgen with the IQ you have?? And here is me thinking that a Wookie was a mythical creature. Actually I think you should change your name to "Homer" Doh !!!
MooseBreath Posted 21 February 2015 Posted 21 February 2015 This is not a criticism so don't get all pissy with me but I don't understand the formation you've proposed. What are the right back and left backs? To me that means full backs and then the three 'halfs' are all effectively centre backs, so you've got five at the back? Then outside right and left are both wingers, with the forwards as a three, so you've got nobody in central midfield? A 5-0-5 formation? SOS is quite appropriate. Or at the right/left backs actually centre backs so it's a 2-3-5? Deffo a proper old school formation that. Can't do much worse then we have already I suppose.
Ian Haggarty Posted 21 February 2015 Author Posted 21 February 2015 GK CR CB CL RB LB RM LM RF LF CF This is what you're proposing isn't it? Tell me you're not serious, this is not the 1930s I guess you and Nigel just dont get it?? here we go. Goalie Right Back that means over to the right on the edge of the box. Left Back is the same on the other side. Are you paying attention?? In front of them you have 3 players. Right Half take a line fron the edge of the 6 yard box and thats his position. Left Half the same on the other side. In the Middle of these two is the Centre Half. He is in the middle of the pitch. Now here is where it gets tricky. In front of these are 5 players. WOW??? That's right 5 players who are able to attack. This is something not seen for decades at Leicester. Right out on the Right touchline is the Right Winger. On the Opposite side is the Left Winger. Inside each of these players is the Inside Right and Inside Left. In the Centre is a bloke called the Centre Forward. You might have heard of him. But at Leicester its become a dying breed!!! We used to have a bloke called "Lineker" that did it but you may not remember him?? Now in this formation you can either have the Wingers attacking or defending or the inside right and inside left attacking or defending. Take you pick?? I do however like your formation but i would tweek it like this: Put RB & LB in the Middle. Drop the LF in the middle of RM & LM. Which will make your formation 1 * 3 * 2 * 3 * 2 which came become a 1 * 5 * 3 * 2 or a 1 * 3 * 5 * 2. But at least we would have TWO up front?? Get my drift??? Why buy a goalscoring machine and stick him up front on his own. Oh and by the way. Pearson played the 1930's formation against Arsenal & Aston Villa with a slight change. Have a look???
Ian Haggarty Posted 21 February 2015 Author Posted 21 February 2015 No it's not. It's a two, three, five, system, that was played well into the seventies, and was very successful for us. Thanks Dangerous. Thank god Someone took the time to read and understand?? Perason played this system in reverse against Arsenal & Villa. The only time in the Villa Game that Schlupp decided to cross early instead of trying to beat his marker we scored. But did you notice how many City players were in the box?? But what would a 70 year old know??
Oxfordfox83 Posted 21 February 2015 Posted 21 February 2015 That is the point !! Well done. In your own way you have actually grasped what I was saying. Pearson was actually playing that type of system with just a twist of variation. You should become a brain surgen with the IQ you have?? And here is me thinking that a Wookie was a mythical creature. Actually I think you should change your name to "Homer" Doh !!! Chap, If you're going to abuse someone by sarcastically suggesting they become a brain surgeon, could I suggest you run it by a spell checker first? Or a Dictionary we used to have them in the 30's mine was singed by Arthur Rowley remember him???
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.