Our inability to set up properly for big games

[Dax777]

Kolarov was awful because the job he was picked for failed to materialise. I don't think defending is an important part of his remit when picked. It's more to link up further up the field and to provide us with dangerous balls into the box. To give sterling options by overlapping and having defenders track him creating space.
He looked slower and more ponderous than normal but that's to be expected after an injury but the foul he gave away for the first is where my concerns are. Delph was bad enough by allowing himself to be beaten so easily by a drop of the shoulder but Kolarov was fucking brain dead in the way he reacted. That goal led to the general sloppiness that we then endured for 85 minutes before we decided to have a rally for 7/8 minutes.

Zabba was just as poor as all the other players on the pitch.

So let me get this straight. So all the Clichy should have started over Kolarov moaning, was all about giving us more offense?

 

[Dax777]

give over mate the back 4 was shaky all game, scrambled defending and some good stops by joe, they had a solid two banks of 4 we did not,
and some of the ambling back when they were attacking was nothing short of a disgrace.
you have to respect your opponent, we patently didn't and paid the price

2 banks of 4 requires more than 4 defenders. You should ask what some of our mids were doing. I'd tell you, but those are not the players we wanna moan about. :)

We'd rather concentrate on Yaya, Kola and Dimechelis.

 

[Phil1]

So let me get this straight. So all the Clichy should have started over Kolarov moaning, was all about giving us more offense?

No, I don't think Kolarov was fit, simple as that. He didn't look it from the warm ups I was watching and the 90 minutes he played didn't change my mind.

 

[r.soleofsalford]

No. I don't think a choice made is bad just because I'll have made a different choice.

Case in point, you'd have started Zab, so would I. On the balance Kolarov was 2ice as good as Zab defensively. Yet not a single soul has whined about Zab starting over Sagna.

Yet there has been a moanfest over Kolarov starting over Clichy. Yet Zab was the one who was defensively poor but not a pip about it.

He was the one who attempted a tackle up field and never made it back on Mahrez goal. Struggling but never breaking into full stride.

He was the one who got turned around on Drinkwater's break that Joe squashed.
He was the one who didn't close down Albrinton on the Mahrez 1v1 over the top that Joe saved rushing into.
It was Zaba who ball watching instead of attacking the lose ball. Allowing Vardy to get to the ball and create the Phantom cornerkick that led to the 3 goal.

Yet in spite of all this and more, somehow folks who have apparently watched the game multiple times continue to moan about Kolarov's inclusion, but remain mute about Zab's performance.

This is the kind of bias, keeping an open mind picks up with ease. And that's what I mean by keeping an open mind. It helps u see the facts. Not your opinion.

I would of played Zabaletta because he`s a right/back, and we have no other viable r/b other than Sagna. Sagna as I state imo should have been played at centre/back in place of the slower Demichelis. Kolarov who isnt blessed with pace, could of been changed for the speedier and more defensive Clichy, obviously because l/b is Clichy`s position. again Zabaletta whether he played shit or not was the obvious choice for the reasons stated above. When Huth scored I think both times he overpowered Demichelis and the number of times Demichelis was beaten for pace was quite believeable, thats why i suggested Sagna at c/b. Zabaletti and Kolarov, they caught up field numerous times and considering we attack with our full/backs its obvious the defense would be left short of pace and numbers. thats how Leicester play.
Just like the rest of the season, we use wing/backs and one sitting d/m imo the reason the defense gets put under so much pressure against even the poorest team is because we are short in numbers.

 

[tonea2003]

2 banks of 4 requires more than 4 defenders. You should ask what some of our mids were doing. I'd tell you, but those are not the players we wanna moan about. :)

We'd rather concentrate on Yaya, Kola and Dimechelis.

the only one i was absolve from a defensive responsibility is aguero, the rest are fair game, so yeah silva should be busting a gut to get back, he never does, never has to my knowledge

 

[Phil1]

the only one i was absolve from a defensive responsibility is aguero, the rest are fair game, so yeah silva should be busting a gut to get back, he never does, never has to my knowledge

We've never played in a way that's required Silva to bust a gut to get back - why should we? Why ruin one of the best playmakers on the planet by having him sprinting up and down the pitch for 90 minutes?
That's not to say he shouldn't be making it harder for the opposition but this view of Silvas lack of defensive work has only risen to the surface in the last few months, a time where he's patently not fully fit.

 

[Lancet Fluke]

Again, like most who whine about tactics, you've said nothing at all.

Say something that can be put under the light of analysis.

Yes, I said it. Vardy's speed did not change the scoreline. Set pieces did. So why complain about the irrelevant?

I can explain the necessity of a high line, but clearly you are not interested. Of more interest to you, is to have someone to blame. Well, go right ahead. It's all Pellars fault.

Why don't some of you guys suspend your support for the next couple of months. You can come back when Pep gets here. You'd have your wish then. Even though, based on what you whine about now, I'm certain you be whinning then too.

I'm not sure there is any point trying to explain to you why people are complaining about the high line against Vardy as you will just continue to argue that black is white but I will try. Firstly just because they didn't score directly from Vardy being played in behind the high line doesn't mean that it didn't impact on the game. That seems to be your basic premise and I just don't accept it. All sorts of things can affect the outcome of a match and the way it pans out not just the actual goals. I think it is entirely arguable that the fact that they were carving out one on ones at will by playing Vardy in behind the high line will have given them incredible confidence throughout the match and at the same time made us incredibly nervous. I know you will dispute this and that is fine but they looked absolutely fearless throughout the match and we looked like we had the weight of the world on our shoulders. There will have been various reasons for that but I am certain that Leicester will have had a massive lift right from the start when they realised that Pellegrini was doing exactly as expected and playing into their hands tactically and I am sure our players won't have felt full of the joys of spring walking out knowing that same thing. Secondly, it is well worth being concerned about (and it is that concern that leads to the whining) some of the stuff going on at the back even if by absolute good fortune it doesn't result in a goal. Presumably you will have thought we defended well against Sunderland, after all we kept a clean sheet. You probably thought people were right whining bastards for raising concerns about players not being marked 6 yards out from goal. Well 2 minutes in on Saturday and we did pay for it. The next time we deploy a high line against a lightening fast striker we might well not get bailed out time and again by Joe but it won't stop him doing it because he presumably has the same attitude to you when we get away with stuff. As for explaining why deploying slow defenders in a high line against a very quick striker is questionable so you can put it under your unique "light of analysis", well I don't think that's necessary tbh because anyone with a brain in their head can see why it was a high risk strategy at best. And while we are it, you didn't tell me anything that explained why a high line is a "necessity." You tried to explain why Pellegrini chooses to employ a high line but that in no way means it is a necessity. It isn't a necessity at all, that is absolute bollocks.

Edit: As for this "Why don't some of you guys suspend your support for the next couple of months" you can suck my dick. I have been a season ticket holder since the first day in my life that I had enough of my own money to buy one, in 1989. I followed us all around the country when we were in the lower divisions. I am quite prepared to give Pellegrini credit when he gets things right but yes, I will call him out when he makes mistakes over and over. You're the only one here being totally intransigent and just refusing to see anything wrong in what the guy does and as I said at times trying to argue black is white. You remind me of Mancio when he used to come on here and "discuss" Mancini or the Bosnian Dzeko fans who used to infest this place.

 

[Father Paul]

1. It wasn't extremely important Clichy played. Ffs Clichy is a role player at best. Not to mention Kolarov was fine playing these same players on their own patch, but all of a sudden his choice has been turned into this egregious error.

I'm sorry, bit most of these personnel complaints are laughable.

Yes, Kolarov played poorly. But that's an after the fact analysis. The pre game analysis will suggest he held his own very well against this very same players a month and a half ago. And he was the fresher of our 2 leftbacks.

Even worse still is the fact he was mostly poor on offense. Defensively, he was average. About where Clichy would have been.

But none of these facts matter. I get it. I'm beginning to sound like the Grinch here. Messing up the ' Pellars sucks' party with facts. So I'm going to stop.

Let the party continue
Pellar sucks, he never changes tactics, he is clueless etc. Carry on folks :)

Well Dax If you are happy to see humiliation piled upon upon humiliation just go right ahead with your so called facts until he is out the gate. I for one just hope that somehow we can steady the ship and avoid a meltdown. If we continue to play the way we have since Sept we will end up with nothing and out of Europe. There's a fact for you!!!

 

[tonea2003]

We've never played in a way that's required Silva to bust a gut to get back - why should we? Why ruin one of the best playmakers on the planet by having him sprinting up and down the pitch for 90 minutes?
That's not to say he shouldn't be making it harder for the opposition but this view of Silvas lack of defensive work has only risen to the surface in the last few months, a time where he's patently not fully fit.

as i have said he never has, but if things aren't working you have to look at reasons why, it wasn't working saturday so you have to look for why it wasn't,
and leicester breaking 5 on 5(might be over egging it, but the sentiment is right) was a big one
why would you absolve silva from doing it? marhez/okazaki got back why shouldn't yaya and silva do it( i love both players by the way)

 

[FantasyIreland]

Great post Lancet,and bjgger respect for having the patience to reply and pointing out what many of us couldnt be arsed.