Liam Moore on loan to Brentford.

[hackneyfox]

Thought he could learn more in training with Huth and Upson than he could at Brentford.

Thought he could learn more in training with Huth and Upson than he could at Brentford.

[Fox92]

Over rated to be honest.

 

He lost his place last season and couldn't force his way back in, the same has happened this year.

 

Plenty of room for improvement but the ability is there so let's hope he does. 

 

He plays for England U21s, I doubt he's overrated. He might not be ready for the top flight yet but there's no doubting he has the ability. He looked good enough in the second tier last season and will no doubt contribute to Brentford.

[Julian Joachim Jr Shabadoo]

Thought he could learn more in training with Huth and Upson than he could at Brentford.

Thought he could learn more in training with Huth and Upson than he could at Brentford.

 

Now that's a chant for Liam

[MC Prussian]

Did you not see the Everton game? Upson, to me, looked like a 36 year old who has just recovered from a long-term injury, having not played at this level for three years.

 

 

I think the concern would be that we are playing three CBs at the moment, and of our four options all are in their thirties, two of them in their mid-thirties, and two of them have just come back from long-term injuries. And we hardly look solid at the back. Add to that the fact that both of our RBs have been poor this season, and Moore can fill in there (in a defensive role, like the one our current first choice favours) and I think we're letting a useful player go.

 

Of course a call-back option is useful, though I'd be worried if there's a 28-day period in which it doesn't apply. It's not unthinkable that we continue to play three CBs, and that two of them either continue to be abysmal or get injured again. Plus I'd really prefer our back-up players to be training alongside our first team players on a regular basis, just in case they need to come in as cover.

 

I understand the logic in the move, but it has the potential to backfire in much the same way as Schlupp's trial at Manchester United in early 2013, during which our first choice LB became unavailable and we had to switch things around to cover for him.

Of course, Upson does look his age and again I wonder what some people were expecting from him after returning from that lengthy injury spell. It's not like we can miraculously get another quality centre-back in (on loan, since we're outside the transfer window).

And Moore has shown that he's yet to find his feet on this level.

Besides, we don't need another right-back option - if at all, we could've or should've gone for another left-back. But they are hard to get and pricey.

 

The major issue has been our central defense, which could either never really settle and/or was the epicenter of some comical defending (Morgan in particular). I think, as much as they have come up with the odd clanger here and there, our full-backs have been more or less consistent and I can't think of many goals conceded from either flank (correct me if I'm wrong).

 

Then again, I don't see our defense as the major issue here. It's winning, of course. Scoring at least a goal more than the opposition. Too often, we've let the other teams taking the lead, with us chasing after the score. We still have to get at the wrong end of a proper hiding, so I can't conclude that our back four are that bad, really.

[Guest Col city fan]

Several if not most players haven't been up to the mark this season and I'm surprised Pearson didn't realise this in the close season as there is a massive gulf between the Championship and Premier League. Perhaps this move will do Liam some good, at least he will be getting some games under his belt.

Unfortunately relying on the old men of Huth & Upson and with Morgan having his best years behind him this is not the way forward.

Our main problem this season has been the midfield. They have not provided a decent service to the forwards and because they have been under so much pressure this has caused problems at he back, something NP hasn't seemed to have realised.

That's refreshing....

I'm not the only one who thinks this then

[Dickov22]

Has Liam Moore made more mistakes than Paul Konchesky and Wes Morgan this season? Just a thought

[nettle]

Moore has been mismanaged badly in my opinion it's like any youngsters they are going to make mistakes. Let them learn from them take them out of the team then put them back in again to boost there confidence. Imagine playing alongside Morgan every week that's enough to dent your confidence the guy is just so panicky.

[Patrick]

Brentford is a team on the up (despite the drama behind the scenes) and for him to continue his development he needs to be playing games instead of warming the bench in the Prem. Good move for him.

[Babylon]

Has Liam Moore made more mistakes than Paul Konchesky and Wes Morgan this season? Just a thought

He's made a damn site more the Konchesky, early in the season he was making mistakes almost every game, came back in and did the same in several games again (Villa, Spurs).

[Dickov22]

He's made a damn site more the Konchesky, early in the season he was making mistakes almost every game, came back in and did the same in several games again (Villa, Spurs).

First 6-7 games he was very good. Got dropped after Swansea if I remember rightly. That performance is one of the worst I've seen under Pearson for the whole side. Villa mistake was terrible. Played very well against Newcastle, then had a shocker away at spurs. I'm not suggesting he's been brilliant, nor do I question the loan move. Just irritates me when I see people saying he's made mistake after mistake, forgetting how utterly shit most of the rest of them have been..

Paul Konchesky for me has been our worst player this season.

[inckley fox]

Oh I know why people are saying it, I don't agree with them though. He plays the people he thinks are best based on not just 90 minutes during a game but on training etc. They don't like it, can't think rationally about it and decide it's Pearson playing his "mates" or "favourites".

 

I think the arguments that Schlupp would be a better LWB or attacking LB than Konchesky are rational. You might disagree with them, but they're rational. Or that Moore might be useful cover considering the injury status, age and performance of our CBs and RBs, and that he's younger and more likely to improve than some of those players. Or that Wasilewski is a better CB than Upson, or even Morgan. Or that Albrighton might be a serious option. Or that Hamer might be a viable alternative to Schwarzer.

 

You, personally, might happen to agree with all of the rational decisions that Pearson has made, but to argue that all of those who don't are being irrational in their disagreement, or irrational in suggesting that the problem is that Pearson simply likes / prefers some players to others, regardless of form, is incredibly dismissive. 

 

If it's the fact that people use words like 'mates' which irks you, then I'm sure you needn't worry, nobody actually believes that Pearson is down the pub with these guys on a Friday night, sorting out his teamsheet for the following morning. I'm pretty sure that's not what they're suggesting.

 

Because it is 'trending', that's why. People imitate because the others do it. As Dan LCFC pointed out in another post, this argument is desperate.

I particularly like how you yourself mention that Simpson and De Laet have had 'countless' chances. Basically you are saying that both our recognised right-backs have had a fair crack at it, yet you somehow contrive to turn that into criticism of Pearson and his 'favourites'?

 

Is that how you explain more than one person having the same opinion? I respect that lots of people believe that Pearson is the best manager for Leicester, that he'll keep us up or bring us straight back up and that he'll do a good job of building for the future, and not that people are simply 'copying' one another.

 

The argument isn't desperate. There are guys who have come into the side, looked decent, and then found themselves not in the side, then been replaced by guys who have struggled. It applies to Hamer and Albrighton especially at the moment, but it's also applied to Mahrez at stages in the season, and you can easily argue that it's happened to others too. Meanwhile we do have various players in our team who have been consistently below par all season.

 

I'm not sure any of what I've said here can seriously be argued with, even if you do back Pearson's judgement 100%.

 

Now the reason for this, I'm sure, is that Pearson feels other players are best suited to the vision he has of his side in the Premier League. But it isn't desperate to suggest that Hamer had done a better job than Schwarzer, for instance, even if it's debatable.

 

And, while I perfectly understand Moore not being in the side, it's not desperate to say that our current first choice defenders are struggling. That Upson has looked questionable, that Morgan has looked shaky for a long time, that Konchesky and Simpson have been questionable, and that all of these have had far more chances than Moore over the course of our post-Manchester United collapse in form. Again, are we seriously arguing against any of this?

 

Nor is it desperate to suggest that only four players, all in their thirties, two in their mid-30s, two recovering from long-term injuries, two in very questionable form at the moment, covering (potentially) three positions in central defence might pose a problem.

 

As for Simpson / De Laet, obviously I understand why he'd prefer them to a youth team RB, or to Moore at RB, or to us pulling someone out on loan to cover in that position, or even to us playing a 3-5-2 instead of a 5-2-3 / 5-4-1 and sticking a midfielder (e.g. Albrighton) on the right, but it doesn't change the fact that he has persisted with those two players over the entire course of the season.

 

There is a perfectly valid argument that supports what Pearson has done. Why don't you try to explore it rather than dismissing people as 'desperate' or simply 'copying' one another because their opinion is in some way fashionable?

[inckley fox]

First 6-7 games he was very good. Got dropped after Swansea if I remember rightly. That performance is one of the worst I've seen under Pearson for the whole side. Villa mistake was terrible. Played very well against Newcastle, then had a shocker away at spurs. I'm not suggesting he's been brilliant, nor do I question the loan move. Just irritates me when I see people saying he's made mistake after mistake, forgetting how utterly shit most of the rest of them have been..

Paul Konchesky for me has been our worst player this season.

 

That's fair. For me the loan makes sense so long as there's a call-back from Day One, because we may well need him. And yes, he's made plenty of mistakes, though he's certainly not been on his own in that regard and, as a young man, he may well have made the step up better than 34 year olds and 36 year olds who are making the same sorts of mistakes, on a similarly regular basis.

 

But I'm not arguing for him to be in the team, rather pointing out that if he's not in the team there are a few others who should count themselves lucky too, and that we may still need to call on his services.

[inckley fox]

He's made a damn site more the Konchesky, early in the season he was making mistakes almost every game, came back in and did the same in several games again (Villa, Spurs).

 

If you look at how many games Konchesky has played, the number of them we've lost, and our points-per-game average under Moore - as well as how few games he has played - and perhaps take a look at the ratings we gave these players in the games they played (which place Moore as our 2nd or 3rd best player of the season) then it's not nearly so clear-cut.

 

Okay, so our ratings are swayed by people who sing 'he's one of our own', and he hasn't been anything like our 2nd or 3rd best performer, and he has made plenty of mistakes... but to suggest that a guy who looked shaky at times when we were doing well then put in 3 or 4 poor performances during our collapse in form, has been as culpable as one of our worst performers over the entire course of that collapse in form, is a bit of a stretch.

[Babylon]

I disagree he was very good, look back at the goals and the threads on here early season. Can't remember if it was Mark who started the thread, someone did anyway about him being responsible for a lot of goals. I disagreed to start with but after actually looking at the goals again I did agree. There were numerous goals like the Arsenal one where he'd rush out and cause the problems. This isn't saying others haven't been responsible for goals as well, clearly they have. But he was getting caught out quite regularly.

 

Paul Konchesky for me has been our worst player this season.

I'd disagree with that as well. I'm not a huge fan of his, his distribution is shocking and he can get caught out of position. But he's not been responsible for a glut of goals like Wes and Liam have through individual errors.

[inckley fox]

Of course, Upson does look his age and again I wonder what some people were expecting from him after returning from that lengthy injury spell. It's not like we can miraculously get another quality centre-back in (on loan, since we're outside the transfer window).

And Moore has shown that he's yet to find his feet on this level.

Besides, we don't need another right-back option - if at all, we could've or should've gone for another left-back. But they are hard to get and pricey.

 

The major issue has been our central defense, which could either never really settle and/or was the epicenter of some comical defending (Morgan in particular). I think, as much as they have come up with the odd clanger here and there, our full-backs have been more or less consistent and I can't think of many goals conceded from either flank (correct me if I'm wrong).

 

Then again, I don't see our defense as the major issue here. It's winning, of course. Scoring at least a goal more than the opposition. Too often, we've let the other teams taking the lead, with us chasing after the score. We still have to get at the wrong end of a proper hiding, so I can't conclude that our back four are that bad, really.

 

Some really good points here, though I can't agree that our full backs have been consistent, or at least not consistently good

 

I had to watch, I think, the Arsenal game at the start of the season on TV with a friend who is in top level football coaching overseas. He said he was amazed by the amount of pressure our CBs were being put under by a lack of mobility in midfield and poor full backs and he wondered how that might become a bigger problem as the season panned out. While there's no need to take an isolated opinion like that as gospel (though various commentators, pundits, reporters have made similar observations) I think there's been some truth in it.

[Babylon]

If you look at how many games Konchesky has played, the number of them we've lost, and our points-per-game average under Moore - as well as how few games he has played - and perhaps take a look at the ratings we gave these players in the games they played (which place Moore as our 2nd or 3rd best player of the season) then it's not nearly so clear-cut.

 

Okay, so our ratings are swayed by people who sing 'he's one of our own', and he hasn't been anything like our 2nd or 3rd best performer, and he has made plenty of mistakes... but to suggest that a guy who looked shaky at times when we were doing well then put in 3 or 4 poor performances during our collapse in form, has been as culpable as one of our worst performers over the entire course of that collapse in form, is a bit of a stretch.

 

Sorry, but you constantly refer to fans ratings... they really are a bag of crap and as you rightly point out are swayed by who is popular and who isn't. They prove nothing, just as the points gained with him in the team compared to points we got with Konch in the team proves nothing.

 

The question was, has he made more mistakes than Konchesky. I take that as mistakes leading to goals and would 100% say that he's been responsible for more goals than Konchesky. I have no bias to either player. So I'm not just saying it for the sake of it or just to argue, that's what I firmly believe.

[inckley fox]

Sorry, but you constantly refer to fans ratings... they really are a bag of crap and as you rightly point out are swayed by who is popular and who isn't. They prove nothing, just as the points gained with him in the team compared to points we got with Konch in the team proves nothing.

 

The question was, has he made more mistakes than Konchesky. I take that as mistakes leading to goals and would 100% say that he's been responsible for more goals than Konchesky. I have no bias to either player. So I'm not just saying it for the sake of it or just to argue, that's what I firmly believe.

 

Konchesky has played, what, 24 league games this season? In which we've shipped 37 goals, 20 of which were in games which Moore didn't play. In that time he's been regularly one of our poorest defensive performers. You're seriously telling me that Moore has had a bigger role than him in us conceding those 37 goals? Because a 'mistake' isn't necessarily a fluffed clearance or a misplaced back-pass or a rash challenge, it's getting caught out of position, failing to track your man, giving the ball away and putting us under pressure, holding the line etc. I'd feel fairly sure that you could point the finger at Konchesky for a great deal more goals this season than you could Moore. Now, in the games that both played it might be close, but over the course of the season I'd be astonished if it was.

[Dickov22]

I disagree he was very good, look back at the goals and the threads on here early season. Can't remember if it was Mark who started the thread, someone did anyway about him being responsible for a lot of goals. I disagreed to start with but after actually looking at the goals again I did agree. There were numerous goals like the Arsenal one where he'd rush out and cause the problems. This isn't saying others haven't been responsible for goals as well, clearly they have. But he was getting caught out quite regularly.

I'd disagree with that as well. I'm not a huge fan of his, his distribution is shocking and he can get caught out of position. But he's not been responsible for a glut of goals like Wes and Liam have through individual errors.

Depends what goals you blame Wes for I suppose. For example many blamed him for the Liverpool goals. I'd argue the first he just has to get his head on it. Unfortunate for him, but Konchesky goes to sleep allowing Lallana to get to the ball first to score. Not Wes' fault. Second I think he's stretching to clear the ball and can't do much about it ending up on the edge of the penalty area. I'd blame more the midfielders for not tracking Gerrard, not Wes. I don't think Wes has been as bad as many suggest.

Konchesky wasn't good enough last season, let alone this. He's dreadful.

[Babylon]

Konchesky has played, what, 24 league games this season? In which we've shipped 37 goals, 20 of which were in games which Moore didn't play. In that time he's been regularly one of our poorest defensive performers. You're seriously telling me that Moore has had a bigger role than him in us conceding those 37 goals? Because a 'mistake' isn't necessarily a fluffed clearance or a misplaced back-pass or a rash challenge, it's getting caught out of position, failing to track your man, giving the ball away and putting us under pressure, holding the line etc. I'd feel fairly sure that you could point the finger at Konchesky for a great deal more goals this season than you could Moore. Now, in the games that both played it might be close, but over the course of the season I'd be astonished if it was.

Yeah I'm saying Moore is responsible for goals even when he's on the pitch. Sigh.

[Guest Col city fan]

Yeah I'm saying Moore is responsible for goals even when he's on the pitch. Sigh.

Yes he is.

Moore was dropped for making errors..and quite rightly so.

However, to be fair, Morgan has made some huge clangers but DOESN'T appear droppable.

What's right for one player, should be right for another.

IMO.

[Matt]

Yes he is.

Moore was dropped for making errors..and quite rightly so.

However, to be fair, Morgan has made some huge clangers but DOESN'T appear droppable.

What's right for one player, should be right for another.

IMO.

 

Which is where the favourites comment is coming from.

 

Ok it might not be the case of a favourites but it might be a case of not liking the players that have been dropped for not doing as much wrong as others who play regularly.

 

Hamer - According to Bert, Pearson was fuming and didn't rate him after 1 mistake (That I repeat wasn't even his mistake, it's not his fault the two in the wall were pussies and decided to split) and he was replaced almost immediately, how many mistakes did Kasper have to make (None, he got injured, if it wasn't for injury I think he'd have been playing every game), Schwarzer - Still there after seemingly making a mistake every week.

 

Albrighton - Was it something his missus said? Ok the two wingers we have are ok, tough to get ahead of them, but he hasn't even been given a sniff after playing really well, not even off the bench.

 

Knockaert - Well it's been a non-starter for him hasn't it, again not even off the bench, was it something he said?

 

Wood - Not the answer really and i've been complaining our team isn't good enough, in all honesty he is worse than others BUT he came on as a sub against Everton played reasonably well for the short time he was on and grabbed us a last minute goal and point for us, not been given a chance since.

 

Now hindsights a wonderful thing, risk can't really be afforded, but at the same time if things aren't working (Which they're not) you have to take risks, there are 4 examples above, I could probably make cases for others, but my point is, if these players have impressed in their 1 games appearances (Or in a few games then to be dropped for someone worse in Hamer's case) what are they meant to think when people who come in for them are worse, consistantly worse and they are allowed to get away with it? What incentive is there? What do they have to do? How are they meant to get more chances?

 

The most annoying part of it all and the bit I (And clearly many others) aren't understanding is there are certain players consistantly making mistakes, how many mistakes do these players have to make before they are dropped when players who have come in for cameo appearances impress yet get dropped the following game.

[Guest Col city fan]

Which is where the favourites comment is coming from.

Ok it might not be the case of a favourites but it might be a case of not liking the players that have been dropped for not doing as much wrong as others who play regularly.

Hamer - According to Bert, Pearson was fuming and didn't rate him after 1 mistake (That I repeat wasn't even his mistake, it's not his fault the two in the wall were pussies and decided to split) and he was replaced almost immediately, how many mistakes did Kasper have to make (None, he got injured, if it wasn't for injury I think he'd have been playing every game), Schwarzer - Still there after seemingly making a mistake every week.

Albrighton - Was it something his missus said? Ok the two wingers we have are ok, tough to get ahead of them, but he hasn't even been given a sniff after playing really well, not even off the bench.

Knockaert - Well it's been a non-starter for him hasn't it, again not even off the bench, was it something he said?

Wood - Not the answer really and i've been complaining our team isn't good enough, in all honesty he is worse than others BUT he came on as a sub against Everton played reasonably well for the short time he was on and grabbed us a last minute goal and point for us, not been given a chance since.

Now hindsights a wonderful thing, risk can't really be afforded, but at the same time if things aren't working (Which they're not) you have to take risks, there are 4 examples above, I could probably make cases for others, but my point is, if these players have impressed in their 1 games appearances (Or in a few games then to be dropped for someone worse in Hamer's case) what are they meant to think when people who come in for them are worse, consistantly worse and they are allowed to get away with it? What incentive is there? What do they have to do? How are they meant to get more chances?

The most annoying part of it all and the bit I (And clearly many others) aren't understanding is there are certain players consistantly making mistakes, how many mistakes do these players have to make before they are dropped when players who have come in for cameo appearances impress yet get dropped the following game.

Every manager has their favourite players... Allardyce and Nolan being the best example I can think of. Nolan has followed big Sam everywhere. I guess they are mates off field also.

BUT when having your favourites becomes a problem to the team, then it becomes a bigger problem.

If anyone can argue that Wes should have stayed in the team, week-in, week-out ON MERIT, then I defy them to provide the evidence. So what if he's the captain. Seriously..so what? Does that mean that the captain is 'undroppable'...? I don't think so...

Every player needs the proverbial kick up the arris every so often... Remember Joe Hart being dropped from the Man City side? That worked...he realised he wasn't God's gift and returned a better player.

For me, the best centre back pairing we could play at present are Wasa and Huth. Huth is good..Wasa has earnt it on the back of solid performances.

It's time to drop Wes and to appoint Cambiasso as captain. I know I've been at odds with most posters about how good Cambiasso is..but you can't argue he's not been just about our best midfielder...the only issue I've had with people is about how good he is. I think he's been good..but not sensational.

But I DO think he's a role model, a model pro..and he should now be the skipper.

It's time Pearson dropped Wes...gave him a shake-up AND gave the armband to Esteban. That's how I see it anyway.

[inckley fox]

Yeah I'm saying Moore is responsible for goals even when he's on the pitch. Sigh.

 

I'm not actually clear what you are saying. Is it that Moore has been responsible for us conceding more goals than Konchesky this season (what you said)? Or, that Moore was responsible for us conceding more goals in the 11 games he started than Konchesky was in the, what, 10 of them that he also played in (which is what you seem to be saying now)?

 

I'm not being awkward, I genuinely don't know which of the two it is. One is wrong, the other's quite possible, of course.

[adam]

Surely its more beneficial to Moore to play him with huth and Upson. We're as good as down so we need to look to next season. what's the point in persissting with Morgan who is clearly not good enough at least Moore is young and still learning.

[Bob Weasel Fox]

Good luck to the lad I hope he comes back better than ever