Post Match Leicester 1 Barnsley 2

[Izzet 6]

Totally inept performance, each home game seems to get progressively worse.

We desperately need a result tomorrow.

 

[spionfox]

It alooks like he is trying to recreate his last team at Leicester and has forgotten that that did not work.

Play-off semi final defeat due to unrest in the team and a pisspoor penalty. It was close to working.

 

[Matt_B]

We should never havd sacked Sven. That was a knee jerk reaction to the fans rather than the football we were playing or the position the tea, was in. The performances have steadily declined for the duration Pearson has been in charge. It alooks like he is trying to recreate his last team at Leicester and has forgotten that that did not work. I find it strange that all of the players we have been slagging off have played worse since Sven left. Pearson is slowly backing himself into a corner with the players and the club. I don't think that we should sack him though! We have no choice in giving Pearson a long period of time to sort things out.

I wish people would validate this claim. There were more new players than old in the team at the weekend and even more when Bamba plays for Tunchev. The only area he has played old players is in midfield, where he has no other viable options; he has even played Abe and Danns there a couple of games which swings it even further the other way.

 

[The Old Fox]

I wish people would validate this claim. There were more new players than old in the team at the weekend and even more when Bamba plays for Tunchev. The only area he has played old players is in midfield, where he has no other viable options; he has even played Abe and Danns there a couple of games which swings it even further the other way.

Yes,but to be fair, even the average Leicester fan knows enough to prefer Schmeichel to Weale - and, apart from Tunch', there isn't any more of his old defence left! The only real decision, in favour of the new players, is Nugent for Howard - and he even tried to change that!!! :icon_bigg

 

[DesertFox]

I'm amazed that people still use the hackneyed old cliche about full backs being "caught out of position" when they go forward. Attacking full backs have been around since the 70s!

In most modern formations it's a full back's job to get forward and provide attacking width. If/when the move breaks down, they have to get back, obviously, but it's the job of the defensive midfielder/s to cover as soon as they go forward. Full backs can't win - if they don't get forward people moan that they "never cross the half way line" and if they do go forward they're getting "caught out". Both phrases have been used on here this week to describe Lee Peltier. What's he supposed to do? It makes no sense at all.

 

[Graz]

I'm amazed that people still use the hackneyed old cliche about full backs being "caught out of position" when they go forward. Attacking full backs have been around since the 70s!

In most modern formations it's a full back's job to get forward and provide attacking width. If/when the move breaks down, they have to get back, obviously, but it's the job of the defensive midfielder/s to cover as soon as they go forward. Full backs can't win - if they don't get forward people moan that they "never cross the half way line" and if they do go forward they're getting "caught out". Both phrases have been used on here this week to describe Lee Peltier. What's he supposed to do? It makes no sense at all.

The Flash wouldn't get caught of position after going forward.

Just saying.

 

[H T B]

I'm amazed that people still use the hackneyed old cliche about full backs being "caught out of position" when they go forward. Attacking full backs have been around since the 70s!

In most modern formations it's a full back's job to get forward and provide attacking width. If/when the move breaks down, they have to get back, obviously, but it's the job of the defensive midfielder/s to cover as soon as they go forward. Full backs can't win - if they don't get forward people moan that they "never cross the half way line" and if they do go forward they're getting "caught out". Both phrases have been used on here this week to describe Lee Peltier. What's he supposed to do? It makes no sense at all.

Fair point, but how many times has either full back been caught out because of the midfield not covering?
If it was me, I'd check that cover was going to be there else I wouldn't "venture over the half way line".
Communication throughout the team appears to be lacking!

 

[SJN-Fox]

One thing I did notice was the amount of times Tunchev was holding on to a player . I'm surprised none of the officials spotted it as it was pretty blatant ... both arms round him pulling him back ... he needs to watch that as I'm sure other officials won't be as lenient

 

[Biffa Bacon]

I wish people would validate this claim. There were more new players than old in the team at the weekend and even more when Bamba plays for Tunchev. The only area he has played old players is in midfield, where he has no other viable options; he has even played Abe and Danns there a couple of games which swings it even further the other way.

On the day that NP took over city had Fernandes, Johnson, King, Wellens, Abe, Danns, Gally, Dyer and Moussa as midfield options in the first team, there seem to be options there many of which haven't been tried, we also have forwards who have played deeper or out wide in games (Schlupp, Beckford) and defenders that can play in midfield. I don't see a real lack of options, there is a lack of quality there but King, Wellens, Dyer and Gally are hardly exempt from that.

 

[indierich06]

To be fair to Pearson, it seems clear that once Sven went, Fernandes was no longer really interested in playing for us and I suspect that if it weren't for Sven he never would have agreed to join us in the first place. I don't know if the same is true of Michael Johnson - but if rumours are to be believed, he's been calling in sick quite a bit and missing loads of training sessions - what kind of signal does it send to the rest of the team if you drop players who work hard in training and are committed to the team for players who don't really want to be here?

You can say what you like about Dyer, Wellens, King and Gallagher - they all certainly have their flaws, but they all want to play for the club. There's no use fielding players who have no desire to be here. Danns has been given a pretty fair crack of the whip - he's no really shown anything to say that he should be an automatic choice in the first team and he's been played on the wings out of necessity so far this season. I think when we get a bit more balance in the team, we'll see a lot more rotation in the centre of midfield.

We really, really need around 3 players to give the midfield creativity, balance and competition for places. Two wingers and someone in the Mark Davies mould on loan would be perfect.

 

[FryattFox]

I'm amazed that people still use the hackneyed old cliche about full backs being "caught out of position" when they go forward. Attacking full backs have been around since the 70s!

In most modern formations it's a full back's job to get forward and provide attacking width. If/when the move breaks down, they have to get back, obviously, but it's the job of the defensive midfielder/s to cover as soon as they go forward. Full backs can't win - if they don't get forward people moan that they "never cross the half way line" and if they do go forward they're getting "caught out". Both phrases have been used on here this week to describe Lee Peltier. What's he supposed to do? It makes no sense at all.

Agreed.

Man City last night played with only 2 CBs at the back, with the 2 full backs playing like midfielders. This was only possible as they had suitable cover in Barry and De Jong who know when to hold.

I appreciate it's different teams and different formations, but our team is all over the shop in so many aspects it's frightening. And I'm surprised that NP hasn't addressed this quicker.

 

[Biffa Bacon]

To be fair to Pearson, it seems clear that once Sven went, Fernandes was no longer really interested in playing for us and I suspect that if it weren't for Sven he never would have agreed to join us in the first place. I don't know if the same is true of Michael Johnson - but if rumours are to be believed, he's been calling in sick quite a bit and missing loads of training sessions - what kind of signal does it send to the rest of the team if you drop players who work hard in training and are committed to the team for players who don't really want to be here?

You can say what you like about Dyer, Wellens, King and Gallagher - they all certainly have their flaws, but they all want to play for the club. There's no use fielding players who have no desire to be here. Danns has been given a pretty fair crack of the whip - he's no really shown anything to say that he should be an automatic choice in the first team and he's been played on the wings out of necessity so far this season. I think when we get a bit more balance in the team, we'll see a lot more rotation in the centre of midfield.

We really, really need around 3 players to give the midfield creativity, balance and competition for places. Two wingers and someone in the Mark Davies mould on loan would be perfect.

Based on that I'd say Nigel was the wrong appointment to takeover the squad, City needed a manager who could get the players they had working together, Fernandes was the best midfielder we had imo and Johnson was slowly getting back some fitness, bringing in a manager who couldn't work with them was crazy.

 

[FryattFox]

Fernandes was the best midfielder we had imo

I may have been watching different games, because the matches I went to Fernandes looked very mediocre. I accept that our midfield generally has been shite, but Fernandes didn't offer much on the ball, and his whole game was based around running around after the ball. Admittedly he could run and run and run, but I saw no international quality.

Johnson was slowly getting back some fitness

So bring in a manager based on them working with a player who was good about 3 years ago and has done as much on the football pitch since as Birch?!

Madness.

 

[indierich06]

Based on that I'd say Nigel was the wrong appointment to takeover the squad, City needed a manager who could get the players they had working together, Fernandes was the best midfielder we had imo and Johnson was slowly getting back some fitness, bringing in a manager who couldn't work with them was crazy.

Like I said though, it seems that Fernandes was here because Sven was here and once his manager was sacked, he no longer wanted to be here - would it have been prudent to gamble on a getting in a high profile manager to try and pander to one player? It might not even have been successful. Both had potential but neither set the world alight while they were here. When Pearson came in, he said it would be a clean slate for everyone - obviously Fernandes and Johnson didn't do enough to warrant a place in the team despite their supposed natural talent.

I'd argue that keeping players who refuse to work with a new manager would be crazy.

 

[Biffa Bacon]

I may have been watching different games, because the matches I went to Fernandes looked very mediocre. I accept that our midfield generally has been shite, but Fernandes didn't offer much on the ball, and his whole game was based around running around after the ball. Admittedly he could run and run and run, but I saw no international quality.



So bring in a manager based on them working with a player who was good about 3 years ago and has done as much on the football pitch since as Birch?!

Madness.

Not what I was advocating, not getting rid of Sven until June at least would have been the best option, bringing in a manager who could get the best out of what (little) he had for the rest of the season would have been the next best option, bringing in a manager who would not work with half the squad and had to wait until mid/end January to do anything about it was the worst option. It will put pressure on for NP to be sacked in June (another lunatic idea) and a new manager to take over for pre-season.

I just don't think Nigel was the right choice at the point we sacked Sven and he's now in big trouble, it looks like City are in a spiral of managerial changes with no end.

 

[spionfox]

Man City last night played with only 2 CBs at the back, with the 2 full backs playing like midfielders. This was only possible as they had suitable cover in Barry and De Jong who know when to hold.

DeJong came on as a late substitute.

 

[fosseman]

Not what I was advocating, not getting rid of Sven until June at least would have been the best option, bringing in a manager who could get the best out of what (little) he had for the rest of the season would have been the next best option, bringing in a manager who would not work with half the squad and had to wait until mid/end January to do anything about it was the worst option. It will put pressure on for NP to be sacked in June (another lunatic idea) and a new manager to take over for pre-season.

I just don't think Nigel was the right choice at the point we sacked Sven and he's now in big trouble, it looks like City are in a spiral of managerial changes with no end.

We don't have to perpetuate the spiral though. We don't have to persist with sacking managers after a few months.

 

[Durham Fox]

Not what I was advocating, not getting rid of Sven until June at least would have been the best option, bringing in a manager who could get the best out of what (little) he had for the rest of the season would have been the next best option, bringing in a manager who would not work with half the squad and had to wait until mid/end January to do anything about it was the worst option. It will put pressure on for NP to be sacked in June (another lunatic idea) and a new manager to take over for pre-season.

I just don't think Nigel was the right choice at the point we sacked Sven and he's now in big trouble, it looks like City are in a spiral of managerial changes with no end.

The only sensible conclusion to draw is that when they appointed Pearson they bought in to his vision for the club. You have to assume that vision included an element of alteration to not just the playing staff but also the approach and general method of achieving their promotion aims. Accepting this I'm sure they thought we had little chance of promotion this season, however they could hardly announce this to the world.

 

[The Old Fox]

The only sensible conclusion to draw is that when they appointed Pearson they bought in to his vision for the club.

I don't think so. When they ditched Sven, I believe that the board thought Martin O'Neill or Mark Hughes would jump at the opportunity. When it slowly sank in that this was not the case, the appointment of another popular ex-manager seemed like a Godsend (and heaven knows, that's a pretty select band!).

Pearson's ethos seems to be diametrically opposed to that of the owners and I do not see it being a long, or successful tenure for that reason.

 

[indierich06]

I don't think so. When they ditched Sven, I believe that the board thought Martin O'Neill or Mark Hughes would jump at the opportunity. When it slowly sank in that this was not the case, the appointment of another popular ex-manager seemed like a Godsend (and heaven knows, that's a pretty select band!).

Pearson's ethos seems to be diametrically opposed to that of the owners and I do not see it being a long, or successful tenure for that reason.

I highly doubt they'd ditch their manager and pay up his contract without first sounding out Hughes or O'Neill, if they were indeed their targets. It wouldn't have even been tapping up as they were both free agents.