Some good points in both these posts.
I haven't seen the first goal, so can't really comment, apart from we are often poor defending free kicks, and give free chances away too often. The second goal was pathetic for all the reasons described, though for me Otamendi going to ground was the biggest error, and less than a minute earlier he'd done the same thing and they nearly scored, two attempts at a challenge, that wouldn't have looked out of place on the Sunday park between two pub teams.
I made the point on Saturday, how every time we attacked Leicester they had 8 or 9 players in their box, and all knew what they were doing, whilst we rarely had more than three attackers in their box. Every time they attacked us we had 4 or 5 back defending, often against 4 or 5 attackers, its little wonder with these numbers that they looked far more likely to score, and did score. Other than our late goal, we only had 2 notable chances, if you ignore blocks a few feet away from the shot.
We were very poor for me, defensively from front to back, and only improved defensively when Kelechi and Bersant came on, who both worked properly, and gave us some energy. Attacking wise we've morphed into Arsenal of 3 or 4 years ago, constantly trying to slowly walk the ball through a packed defence, and often looking clueless when, after 20 passes, we lose the ball easily, and then come under a counter attack, with half our team in the wrong half, for most of the game we literally had no midfield.
Yes 2ice in the first. But other names too.could it be a certain serbian by any chance?
What goal were you talking about?
You can't say Yaya and Ferny doesn't work when it in fact has? That is just arguing against facts. I'd grant you that it is suicide doing it when we have multiple games a week. But notice how Yaya has been consistently subbed early in this period. The goal is to save his aging legs.
Again, take Sunderland for example we started with what most fans here wanted. If you remember the ' 'play Kelechi' whinning from our fans. So he did. We looked shaite and he quickly pulled Kelechi at half and inserted Fernando.
Sunderland was a galant effort to win, but that was actually very poor work from Pellars. His decisions against Leicester were superior, and how we played showed that.
Good stuff Saddle,Some interesting stuff there Dax.
First goal, the ball in from Mahrez was not well defended. There was a huge gap with no one positioned to block that Huth attacked and it was immediately a 1on1 which we lost. Better defensive set up would have made that far more difficult to score.
Second goal, I agree with your analysis. I watched carefully the significant difference in intensity between the two teams transition play. Leicester invariably, at full pace, in numbers. We were noticeably slower, sometimes literally jogging back with no intensity, something you highlight with Delph. Is that the players fault or is it something that could have been and should have been addressed by coaching. Are our players really just lazy- do they train at intensity and then suddenly change to lazy buggers for a big game. No, I don't think so.
Third goal, agree, it's another 1on1 battle lost.
You didn't say anything in your analyis about our attacking play. Have a good look at that and see how easy we were to play against. Watch Leicester completely dominate the space we are attacking with superior numbers. Look at how slowly we developed the attack, backwards, sideways, sideways backwards in a u shape. Leicester didn't have to defend that cleverly for most of the time, they simply kept their shape and moved from side to side closing down the space we were attacking. There superior numbers, invariably 4 or 5 vs 3 were why they were able to recover the ball so many times and launch counter attacks. So is that the fault of the players or is it how we are set up and coached to play?
Mate, I get your argument about players performance but I still think a lot of what is wrong is down to a lack of variety and intensity in coaching and set up and a lack of a plan b,c or d from Pellers when things don't work. Of course injuries are hurting us but an elite coach would be getting more from what is available IMO.
Not at all. He doesn't make his decisions based on the clamourers wishes. Just tot once they finally got what they wanted. I.E a '442 with Kelechi starting!!!' Very few turned around and admit that didn't work so well.The implication there is that he picks particular players because of clamour from the fans, which I'm pretty sure isn't the case, and if it were then he shouldn't be managing a kid's team never mind a Premier League one. The team selection at Sunderland was fucking shite. Silva wasted down the left flank, Ya Ya in a two again, and 4-4-2 in a game when the opposition were always going to pack the midfield and graft. I'd be interested to know how many other managers have made half time substitutions with the frequency Pellers has this season, to compensate for the initial selection errors
Again, you are being general. I'm watching the game as we chat here. Perhaps for the 4th time
Don't see much of anything you've claimed. Yaya and Ferny looked pretty good.
I can give you an every five minute summary. We were looking good. Can tell you who made mistakes on each and every counter they had.
Who lost us the ball on our good restarts. Who lost our momentum with a bad pass etc.
Here is a clue. It wasn't the central midfielders.
If you hold a position before hand, off course during the course of the whole game, you'd find instances that support your position.
I watch it try to, with an impartial mind. I don't presume any one thing is good or bad. For what it's worth, Kolarov was pretty good defensively. It was Zab that was the weaker defensive fullback, yet every moan has been about Kolarov and not Zab.
Which says the obvious. The moan was gonna happen regardless of the facts. Zaba had a worse time defensively but I am yet to read anyone suggest Sagna should have started over Zab. Yet every one points to Clichy over Kolarov, even though Kolarov was often positionally superior
Good stuff Saddle,
Yours and Cleavers responses are the 1st 2 I've read that deals with the facts.
I didn't get an opportunity to delve into our offensive woes, coz I was mostly responding to claims about our defense and the selections there.
Offensively, Leicester on most occasions had 8 players back. Only Vardy stays around the half line and Okazaki chances the Ball around while the other 8 just stay in position and challenge the ball hard.
The ref also let them get away with some egregious play. But that's neither here nor there.
Offensively we weren't as pedestrian going forward. You simply can't run at 8 men, Aguero tried 2ice and promptly lost the ball both times. Our passing was quite good.
And while they defended well, some of our miscues were self inflicted. Aguero overplaying witj the ball a lot, sometimes rather than giving it up quickly. Silva's passes being off on thru balls twice. Poor positionally football, mostly Silva never staying in his position.
When Aguero drops of the from his striker position, his decisions on the ball were awful. Soft passes, overdribbling, and ignoring the quick advantage.
When plays don't involve Aguero unt the final touches we are better off most of the time.
But there in lies the problem, if a big part of our problem in the game are Aguero's excessive dribbling and Silva's positional play, you wouldn't realize it reading this thread.
But our biggest problem I believe is positional rigidity. We need more of it. And our biggest stars, are the worst at it.
I hate the fact that that I called what would happen if we played a high line and didn't deal will Mahez and Vardy but at least 8 posters on here called it. So not that difficult then.Yes, I agree. And Leicester is in the Prem, and the game is at home. Why would anyone assume we play differently?
Yaya, Silva, Aguero, Fernandihno, Zab, Ota, and MD. Seven of our better possession players were available. So why would we not possess the ball? And we did a good job of it too. We just failed to score.