Phil The Fox said:
We were poor definitely and we created no chances for way too long
I dont agree with the comment re Williams completely, he does (usually) have the ability to pass and to see a player but it didnt gel yesterday
Blake - was woeful, should have been subbed off at ht
Wilcox - mostly awful, did make the occasional tackle but completely unable to pass
The worst thing was the complete disarray on the left side in the first half, both defence and mid-field. I assume others saw the shouting match between Dabizas and the rest of the defence on who was to blame for the goal?
Definitely a day to forget, several poor individual performances and a bad team performance too
Phil
irst post here btw)
You wonder if MA is nasty enough or cunning enough to really fulfill his apparent potential as a manager.
Notwithstanding the disciplinary problems of recent months and the latest sendings off Leicester seemed second best in every phase against Millwall. Being outplayed by superior footballers is one thing, being out-thought is bad news for a manager.
There seems an unjustified arrogance among City pundits. First there was the pre-season hype about how we were 'favourites' to go up (based on what evidence, I'd ask), second the assumption that West Ham were 'one of our biggest championsip rivals' (by what logic) and third City themselves seem so overconfident they select a team with so many ineffective journeymen we might have been playing 9 against 11 on any one day.
Why would a manager ever pick a player who was not fully fit to do his job. Firstly (unless injured) no self-respecting professional should ever let himself get into that state and secondly the remaining players have to carry the handicap.
Then there's tactics. If you don't have the personnel to play in a certain way (attacking down the left flank, for instance), then you have to devise tactics which do suit the strengths and weaknesses of your team. And you need to be clever enough to adjust those tactics whenever you wish.
Scowcroft, for example is a threat with his head but that threat is negated if he's away from the danger zone so why play him there?
If you're being overrun in midfield then why not play someone who does win the ball. Why wait til late in the second half of matches to fix the bloody obvious.
Cunning? Well, Wisey was dictating tactical terms for Millwall and, typically, winding a lot of players up. Once he got booked I would have delegated someone inconsequential to clatter him good and proper, provoke a reaction and accept both players would get sent off. Take him on at his own game. Leicester would have lost an unimportant player, Millwall would have lost their talisman and Leicester would have been halfway home.
That's not strictly ethical, I know, but a lot of what Wisey does isn't ethical (but he still gets away with it) and if Leicester are going to get men sent off every other match then it might as well be for a good reason. The alternate of course is to out-think him legitimately. Did we even start to think at Millwall?
Finally, all this masks the truth that no-one can surely say Leicester are looking a better footballing side then they were when Mickey took over.
Where are the keen, talented youngsters with a bit of pace, a bit of cheek, the special skills to compliment some solid experience? Is the Academy just a fanciful PR excercise or is it actually going to do City some good?
I ask because if there's not one or two Academy players who are good enough at 17/18 to do better than two or three in the side just now then the whole project should be abandoned to save costs or the club should get better scouts.
Anyone who believes City with this team and these tactics are going to win a championship is having some wonderful hallucinations. I remember reading a Leicester Mercury supplement about how good the Tigers were going to be at the beginning of last season - despit being without their Internationals - and that proved a load of rubbish too.
Lets get real at Leicester before there's too much damage done. Mickey should demand at least four good games out of five from every player selected (which means some should be banished to the sidelines already) and each player selected should be fit and show willing to do his job.
A manager should have no friends and show no favours when picking a team. I actually believe the way you win is important - you should want to win with the style of City in the early 60's - but the first and only real criterion for success is winning points.
Being in the bottom half of the table isn't terminal after three games but its where we deserve to be on the evidence so far - even a little flattering - and the sooner MA starts moulding a team with real authority the better.
It starts with players being fit. 'Oh they'll be no-one fitter than the Leicester lads' say insider pundits. And yet the evidence is clear. Some are fit but they're having to make up for others who appear not to be.
MA should set out his demands, let each individual know what his job is in various circumstances, and be ruthless with anyone who fails to deliver on a 75-80 per cent basis.
It may take time, even more than this season, but eventually (like Wenger as a good example) he will have players with the character to fulfill his and our ambitions.
The thing about Wenger is that he recognises what makes a good player, fits them into a method of play which emphasises their strengths and links all the various skills towards an effective outcome.
He doesn't play any passengers that I can see.
Of course he's at a higher lever but the principles should be the same in the Coca Cola League or the Senior League. They are principles which, if observed, make a genuinely successful manager.
:? :? :?
