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.
I applaud your attempt, but you can accuse me of saying 'black is white' when I've in fact done no such thing.
We are both in agreement, that the high line hard no impact on the scoreline.
Your point now is that the high line gave them confidence and made us nervous. An acceptable supposition, but not necessarily factual. But I wouldn't belabor that point. Rather, I'd answer your question:
Because we are the home team, and generally a possession based ( due to the fact our best players: Silva and Yaya) are predisposed to incisive passing, we slowly possess the ball and try to find holes to penetrate. When we do that our team moves up as a unit, on which the last defender is around midfield. This is normal with almost all teams in possession.
Even Leicester did the same thing when the possessed the ball but weren't in counter mode. Huth and Morgan come up to the half line. On 2 occasions, 1 by Yaya, and another by Silva, when we turned them over, both players immediately tried to hit it quickly over the half line and create a counter. On both occasions, one with Aguero, and the other Sterling, both strikers were on the correct side of the play. Again here, the issue was poor positioning bybour strikers and poor delivery by our mids. Even though Leicester's was there to be taken advantage of.
The point here is simple. The high line for the most part is a function of possesion. As teams move up together when they have the ball. Even Leicester does.
But let's get tactical here, since unlike vmist you seem up for it. By and large the, the high line was a none issue. We scooped up most of the lose balls because of Ota and Demichelis positioning. Vardy got free 3ice. The first was simply an error by Demichelis, I will explain in a second. But let me give you the tactical plan as it played out.
Generally, if you watched tactical cam this was obvious by the way, we played an 'over and under' on Vardy. Meaning 1 CB played a step being him and the other played next to him or a step ahead. To accommodate this 2 V 1. Fernandihno man marked Okazaki. Literally followed him around bfor a great portion of the game. 6 jump balls BTW the 2 in the first half alone.
So on most of Leicester's long ball attempts or hoofs to Vardy, Leicester was 1 out of 11. The shot Joe came out to block and Otamendi cleared. Only early ball that worked for them. Again I'll repeat, they were 1 of 11 attempts.
On that 1, Demichelis made the error. Generally, who plays ahead of Vardy, and who plays behind was dependent on what side of the half Vardy was on. If he was on the right Ota played ahead and Demi dropped, if he is on the left, Ota drops and Demi plays ahead.
On the initial ( and only) Vardy break over the top Demi assumed Vardy was crossing into his area, and thus his turn to step up, but Vardy was in the middle and he should have stayed back and wait til Ota switched Roles. But Albrintons ball was early and caught tlineg trying to switch roles. Again this was an individual error, not a tactical one.
Now let's talk about Vardys other chances in our box. The second occurred with 5 players in our box, Albrighton slid a true ball to a cutting Vardy who hit the side net. Good build up by Leicester. Nothing to do with high line though.
On a 3. Vardy on the left, Demi challenges, and Vardy beats him for pace, but Ota blocks his shot, exactly like the over and under is supposed to work.
4 Vardy goes right side, Otamendi challenges him, Vardy beats Ota for pace going towards the line and puts in a deadly cross.
So when I say the high line was not instrumental to the scoreline this is what I mean.
The facts simply don't bare out that claim. Already, 2 or 3 posters have hut on some of the more instrumental factors in the game.
Leicester counter and how knowledgeable they are at what they are supposed to do.
Our meandering build up. Our strikers not attacking the box.
Our leisurely defending by wide players.
Poor positional movement. Again by our wide mids.
But up until around page 10. The moan was about Yaya in a 2, starting Kolarov over Clichy, starting Demi over Sagna and playing a high line. Most of these moans (excluding Demi who's lax defense gave up 2 goals) really missed the key issues by a wide margin.
Contrary to popular opinion, I am not playing clapper for Pellars, just simply trying to be factual about what went wrong and where. Rather than the rinse and repeat dotribe that has too often passed for analysis here.
