Post Match Leicester City 0 - 0 Nottingham Forest

[Mike - True Blue Tinter]

Obviously Bamba-Drinkwater do not have the same understanding as Danns-Drinkwater, but they still played well. Second half we did not create chances because too many crosses went straight to Lee Camp.

Bringing Howard on WAS the right decision to mix it up IMO. Could possibly have got the right flick-on to Schlupp, or won a free kick on the edge of the box as he has often done.

 

[tedfoxxx]

We missed Danns last night, he drags the midfield forward and is a more natural attacker than Drinkypoo (Who I thought was decent, if a little overrun in midfield sometimes).

Bamba was okay, mopped up nicely in front of the defence and the back four were steady. Kasper made a good block in the first half, but had feck all to do otherwise.

Nugent looked knackered, usually he's always on the move and attacking the channels, but he barely saw the ball last night.

After a good first half hour, the game had 0-0 written all over it, with the morons around us singling out Beckford and Howard as the reason we didn't win.

 

[gregs_y2k]

Obviously Bamba-Drinkwater do not have the same understanding as Danns-Drinkwater, but they still played well. Second half we did not create chances because too many crosses went straight to Lee Camp.

Bringing Howard on WAS the right decision to mix it up IMO. Could possibly have got the right flick-on to Schlupp, or won a free kick on the edge of the box as he has often done.

I don't understand how you come to this conclusion. The scoreline remained the same and we looked even less threatening after he came on.

 

[FryattFox]

Obviously Bamba-Drinkwater do not have the same understanding as Danns-Drinkwater, but they still played well. Second half we did not create chances because too many crosses went straight to Lee Camp.

Bringing Howard on WAS the right decision to mix it up IMO. Could possibly have got the right flick-on to Schlupp, or won a free kick on the edge of the box as he has often done.

I don't understand how you come to this conclusion. The scoreline remained the same and we looked even less threatening after he came on.

Agreed. It looked as if Howard could have been on until June and he still wouldn't have flicked anything to anyone. He'd have probably been sent off at least 76 times though.

(Not that anyone else looked more like scoring, but I always worry if Howard is the answer to any question that the opposition are asking)

 

[gregs_y2k]

Agreed. It looked as if Howard could have been on until June and he still wouldn't have flicked anything to anyone. He'd have probably been sent off at least 76 times though.

(Not that anyone else looked more like scoring, but I always worry if Howard is the answer to any question that the opposition are asking)

I'd have rather done an O'Neill and stuck one of our defenders up top for the last 10 minutes.

 

[terry south]

Right about what?

Well macky proved right again that we are not going to get promoted under NIGEL PEARSON

 

[indierich06]

Well macky proved right again that we are not going to get promoted under NIGEL PEARSON

How's that been proven then? Until it's mathematically impossible, nothing's been proven at all.

And do you mean that NIGEL PEARSON is never going to get us promoted? Because that is literally impossible to prove.

 

[Redditch Fox]

Opinion is clearly divided over Drinkwater and Bamba. I thought both did well. Marshall's general play was excellent and I withdraw the reservations I had about him when he first came.

Forest came to defend and did so exceptionally well. Our problem was that our strikers were not physical enough to be effective in a crowded penalty area.

Two notes from the dug out.
Cotterill and Gunter had a blazing row in the first half though I could not tell what it was about.
Mike Stowell continues to be a star. Even Craig Shakespeare was laughing when he jumped up and down in rage at one incident.

It was a reasonable performance for a team that is mid-table and nothing more.

Overall we're not doing bad given a bit of a patched up mid field. The points return ratio has been better in recent weeks but almost certainly (but not quite) too late now. You are right about lack of ability to provide a physical presence up front - Howard has provided that in the past but asking too much now. No blame on him - time catches up with everyone.

 

[The Old Fox]

Overall we're not doing bad given a bit of a patched up mid field. The points return ratio has been better in recent weeks but almost certainly (but not quite) too late now. You are right about lack of ability to provide a physical presence up front - Howard has provided that in the past but asking too much now. No blame on him - time catches up with everyone.

How the mighty are fallen: we ditch Sven for not getting us at least into a play off spot - and now, we're not doing too bad in eleventh and failing to beat Forest at home. I wish one could divorce one's football team with the ease of a wife/husband.

 

[Durham Fox]

How the mighty are fallen: we ditch Sven for not getting us at least into a play off spot - and now, we're not doing too bad in eleventh and failing to beat Forest at home. I wish one could divorce one's football team with the ease of a wife/husband.

Do you seriously think we would be better off with Sven here? Thats a serious question.

Could you also let me know at what point we were 'mighty' under Sven?

 

[Miles Away]

Do you seriously think we would be better off with Sven here? Thats a serious question.

Could you also let me know at what point we were 'mighty' under Sven?

I think we would have been.

 

[camberwell fox]

Do you seriously think we would be better off with Sven here? Thats a serious question.

Could you also let me know at what point we were 'mighty' under Sven?

In a purely results driven business we sit worse off in terms of position than when Sven departed.

As to whether Sven would have us better of than where we are now is just pure speculation.

 

[Durham Fox]

In a purely results driven business we sit worse off in terms of position than when Sven departed.

As to whether Sven would have us better of than where we are now is just pure speculation.

I'm not really sure we are, beyond a natural fluctuation in results based on who we played, who was available etc.

 

[Mawsley]

And do you mean that NIGEL PEARSON is never going to get us promoted? Because that is literally impossible to prove.

Sitting an infinite number of monkeys on an infinite number of manager benches, wearing Pearson masks - one of them might manage to find a formation which would have won last night.

 

[Babylon]

In a purely results driven business we sit worse off in terms of position than when Sven departed.

Sven was sacked after Millwall, and we were 13th at the end of that day and 14th midweek when Brum won a game in hand and we didn't play.

 

[camberwell fox]

My bad, It was points away from the play offs then?

 

[The Old Fox]

Do you seriously think we would be better off with Sven here? Thats a serious question.

Could you also let me know at what point we were 'mighty' under Sven?

I am pretty certain that we would have made the play offs. We may have done more. I am sure that Sven would have brought in better players in January: Marshall is a good signing, but not quite the finished article: the other two are, in my opinion, run of the mill.

We were never 'mighty' under Sven but, he paid the price for that - possibly correctly, although, I think a little precipitously. It is more the drop from a manager of Sven's class, expecting a promotion push, to Nigel Pearson and we're doing OK in 11th and it'll be different next season (which I do not see).

 

[homer]

My bad, It was points away from the play offs then?

Can't really use that as a comparator, as you would need to take account of the number of games played etc.

'tis reasonable to say we're pretty much in exactly the same shithole as when he left

 

[gregs_y2k]

To be fair to Pearson, this would have been exactly the type of fixture we would have lost under Sven. We were just as ineffective at trying to break teams down at home that came to stop us play under Sven. Personally I do think we would have been higher up the table had Sven been kept on. There was no way we would have played 3 matches in 7 days with Howard starting up front in all 3 under Sven, during the interim management, which saw us lose to Leeds and West Ham. That said though, I don't think the points totals and league positions would have been hugely different.

 

[Durham Fox]

I am pretty certain that we would have made the play offs. We may have done more. I am sure that Sven would have brought in better players in January: Marshall is a good signing, but not quite the finished article: the other two are, in my opinion, run of the mill.

We were never 'mighty' under Sven but, he paid the price for that - possibly correctly, although, I think a little precipitously. It is more the drop from a manager of Sven's class, expecting a promotion push, to Nigel Pearson and we're doing OK in 11th and it'll be different next season (which I do not see).

I'm pretty certain we showed no signs of any consistency under Sven and never looked like cementing a position in the play offs under his tenure. I'd rather have Drinkwater and Morgan than Johnson and Ball any day, pretty good swap if you ask me.

Your final paragraph is just your expectation rather than anything that actually happened or even looked like happening under Sven.