Transfer Rumours

[MPH]

2 hours ago, Finnegan said:

 

I don't understand why that would be a bad thing, he's probably better than all of our current mess. 

 

Being not good enough for Man City hasn't suddenly made him shit. 

 

Plus, isn't he actually pretty good in both boxes from set pieces? 

Jannik scored 3 headed goals last year..

 

 

 you’re right that someone can be good at one club and not at another… I’m just scarred by defenders right now! 

Edited 9 December 2021 by MPH

[coolhandfox]

35 minutes ago, MPH said:

Jannik scored 3 headed goals last year..

 

 

 you’re right that someone can be good at one club and not at another… I’m just scarred by defenders right now! 

It may not fit in with people's opinions, but Vestergaard was 8th in the list of defenders for Aerial duels won and 14th overall in 2020/21.

 

 

[NaijaFox]

5 hours ago, Mike Oxlong said:

Nathan Phillips reportedly looking for more game time. Haven’t seen enough of him to form a view as to whether he might be worth a look 

[Finnegan]

1 hour ago, Dahnsouff said:

Then sell him

 

I've spoken before about how I think football clubs have a responsibility to their own academy prospects. I think if you develop a footballer from the age of 9 or 10 years old, you're not just a business you're also an educator and I think you have an obligation to look after their best interests. If that means letting them go cheaply and below their value so they can advance their careers then so be it. 

 

I have no such belief when it comes to senior players. This isn't a charity, Iheanacho signed a contract to be paid millions a year to have his dream job. He's our asset to use as we see fit for that duration. If he's unhappy with his game time he can hand in a transfer request or run out his contract and leave for free. 

 

He's an extremely effective reserve and impact sub, as he's proven with an amazing return in goals per minute when the need has arisen. 

 

I'm not sure why people can't just acknowledge he's been used exactly as he should be to get the best out of him. He's often used as a stick to beat Rodgers with but personally I think it should be the opposite. Rodgers picked up an off form, off confidence and broken young player and turned him in to an absolutely potent weapon despite not really having room for him in his best 11. 

 

Surely that's great? For far too long we've had literally zero game winning options off the bench. We should be applauding the fact we have options in reserve. Especially now the number of named subs in the Prem is higher. 

 

In rugby, Eddie Jones is one of a number of coaches in the game revolutionising the way we think about the bench. He's pushed the term "starters" and "finishers" instead of "first team" and "subs." A game can often be won off the bench and there's no harm in having specialists that can do that. 

[NaijaFox]

7 minutes ago, coolhandfox said:

It may not fit in with people's opinions, but Vestergaard was 8th in the list of defenders for Aerial duels won and 14th overall in 2020/21.

 

 

Bully for Southampton then!
 

Meanwhile, here at Leicester City, “opinion” or not, he’s consistently playing shite at the moment, which is some accomplishment on a team where almost everyone else - apart from Vardy perhaps - have contrived to put in multiple shitty performances.

 

Edited 9 December 2021 by NaijaFox

[sm1]

Wijnaldum on loan?

[FoxyLeon]

On 07/12/2021 at 12:07, BKLFox said:

But so is FT, reading most of the threads especially the over achieving 1 people want success now & therefore would need established players meaning they are in the 26-29yr old bracket & not the younger with promise for the future type players which has been the profile, although you do need both.

 

Schmeichel, Ricardo, Castagne, Evans, Soyuncu, Ndidi, Tielemans, Barnes, Vardy, Iheanacho etc etc....All established players, proved they can perform very well for us over the years, we have more than enough 'older' players.

 

The problem is, Rodgers isn't getting a tune out of them.

 

The further we get away from our old model, the more we're going to continue to decline.

We need rid of Rodgers sharpish.

[volpeazzurro]

18 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

I've spoken before about how I think football clubs have a responsibility to their own academy prospects. I think if you develop a footballer from the age of 9 or 10 years old, you're not just a business you're also an educator and I think you have an obligation to look after their best interests. If that means letting them go cheaply and below their value so they can advance their careers then so be it. 

 

I have no such belief when it comes to senior players. This isn't a charity, Iheanacho signed a contract to be paid millions a year to have his dream job. He's our asset to use as we see fit for that duration. If he's unhappy with his game time he can hand in a transfer request or run out his contract and leave for free. 

 

He's an extremely effective reserve and impact sub, as he's proven with an amazing return in goals per minute when the need has arisen. 

 

I'm not sure why people can't just acknowledge he's been used exactly as he should be to get the best out of him. He's often used as a stick to beat Rodgers with but personally I think it should be the opposite. Rodgers picked up an off form, off confidence and broken young player and turned him in to an absolutely potent weapon despite not really having room for him in his best 11. 

 

Surely that's great? For far too long we've had literally zero game winning options off the bench. We should be applauding the fact we have options in reserve. Especially now the number of named subs in the Prem is higher. 

 

In rugby, Eddie Jones is one of a number of coaches in the game revolutionising the way we think about the bench. He's pushed the term "starters" and "finishers" instead of "first team" and "subs." A game can often be won off the bench and there's no harm in having specialists that can do that. 

The fact that he was our top scorer last year despite less game time for me speaks volumes. Quite rightly imo, that he is used as a stick to beat Rodgers with because he only picked him because he had absolutely no choice through injuries. He scored so freely and contributed so much that Rodgers would have looked a complete nob in the media had he dropped him and I certainly wouldn't credit the manager so much with the players form either because there appeared a reluctance to even play him in the first place. 

 

Roll over to this season and last seasons top scorer and overall very good contributor languishes on the bench yet again, spooky eh? Meanwhile,  Rodgers consistently plays a very mediocre Lookman and even serial underperformer Perez in front of him. Had we been taking the league by storm it could be justified perhaps but we're not,  we're regressing badly under Rodgers and have been for nearly a year now.

 

I do totally agree regarding your view on academy players however. 

Edited 9 December 2021 by volpeazzurro

[volpeazzurro]

17 minutes ago, NaijaFox said:

Bully for Southampton then!
 

Meanwhile, here at Leicester City, “opinion” or not, he’s consistently playing shite at the moment, which is some accomplishment on a team where almost everyone else - apart from Vardy perhaps - have contrived to put in multiple shitty performances.

 

Whilst I fully agree with your assessment I do wonder whether he too suffers because of the defensive tactics Rodgers currently employs, in particular, the zonal marking issues for one? On a couple of goals conceded recently I've seen a previously reliable, physical up for a challenge Soyuncu looking very frustrated at seemingly trying not to move out of a regulated zone to do a job. The latter is also poor when required to cover wide left in a 3. 

 

When Kante left us, Huth and Morgan looked increasingly uncomfortable and were often exposed for pace when asked to play a role slightly further up the field. Could it be similar with Vestergaard, one because he's more comfortable attacking a player than covering a zone and two, playing a higher line doesn't suit him? I don't know really but it's a consideration?

[coolhandfox]

28 minutes ago, sm1 said:

Wijnaldum on loan?

In a heart beat, but I think he will have better offers.

[FOXYTALK]

Any actual transfer rumours? 😂

[coolhandfox]

46 minutes ago, NaijaFox said:

Bully for Southampton then!
 

Meanwhile, here at Leicester City, “opinion” or not, he’s consistently playing shite at the moment, which is some accomplishment on a team where almost everyone else - apart from Vardy perhaps - have contrived to put in multiple shitty performances.

 

 Of the last 12 PL goals we have conceded, 50% have been due to our inability to win aerials duel in the box.

 

So we discount anyone that has a poor start to City career?

 

Do we keep picking the same players and making the same mistakes?

 

Not his biggest fan, but after conceding 12 goals in 6 games, you have to look at changing something, and we aren't flush with options. 

[An Sionnach]

26 minutes ago, coolhandfox said:

 Of the last 12 PL goals we have conceded, 50% have been due to our inability to win aerials duel in the box.

 

So we discount anyone that has a poor start to City career?

 

Do we keep picking the same players and making the same mistakes?

 

Not his biggest fan, but after conceding 12 goals in 6 games, you have to look at changing something, and we aren't flush with options. 

Thing is , Benko is good in the air but dare Rodgers dare pick him and leave Jannick out.

[Long Eaton Fox]

Think Vestegaard had a cunning plan to give all the other centre backs covid. He just made one small error.

[coolhandfox]

6 minutes ago, An Sionnach said:

Thing is , Benko is good in the air but dare Rodgers dare pick him and leave Jannick out.

Why would he? What evidence is there that Benkovic can play at this level?

 

He has had one decent spell at Celtic in 18/19. Since then, he has struggled to get a game on loan at Cardiff City, Bristol City and Leuven. 

 

Hardly a glowing CV.

[An Sionnach]

1 minute ago, coolhandfox said:

Why would he? What evidence is there that Benkovic can play at this level?

 

He has had one decent spell at Celtic in 18/19. Since then, he has struggled to get a game on loan at Cardiff City, Bristol City and Leuven. 

 

Hardly a glowing CV.

It is a strange one, Benko is a total mystery. He has played so little its hard to judge him.What we do know is that he is deceptively languid in style and yet covers ground quickly. He is fond of the long ball and that is where he falls foul of Rodgers. His great height and good leap means he wins most things in the air in a one on one. I would like Rodgers to try him in a back three with Jonny and Dan in a less important match , trouble is we don't have many of them.

[volpeazzurro]

54 minutes ago, coolhandfox said:

 Of the last 12 PL goals we have conceded, 50% have been due to our inability to win aerials duel in the box.

 

So we discount anyone that has a poor start to City career?

 

Do we keep picking the same players and making the same mistakes?

 

Not his biggest fan, but after conceding 12 goals in 6 games, you have to look at changing something, and we aren't flush with options. 

You make a reasonable point but I think it's more the system of defending being employed than the players within it. Whether Vestergaard or even Fofana present, I still think it would be happening. It's been happening for so long now, with various defenders present, either the system isn't being taught properly or it is an incredibly flawed system in the first place.

 

I also think that the belief that the eventual return of a young 20yr old defender will solve all our problems is more than a little  fanciful. Last years excuse for some was the injured Barnes. Clutching at straws springs to mind and the real problems I feel are far deeper. There's none so blind as those that refuse to see.

[Lambert09]

5 hours ago, Finnegan said:

 

I don't understand why that would be a bad thing, he's probably better than all of our current mess. 

 

Being not good enough for Man City hasn't suddenly made him shit. 

 

Plus, isn't he actually pretty good in both boxes from set pieces? 

Because he’s a defender that can’t actually defend. He was signed purely as a player who would be useful in possession. Absolutely not what we need right now. 
 

look at the amount of goals Bournemouth conceded. Appalling stuff 

[MPH]

5 minutes ago, Lambert09 said:

Because he’s a defender that can’t actually defend. He was signed purely as a player who would be useful in possession. Absolutely not what we need right now. 
 

look at the amount of goals Bournemouth conceded. Appalling stuff 

 

im pretty sure he was signed with the idea that  he might stick his foot out every once in a while..

[Stadt]

Our midfield is going to need some restructuring. Over the next 18 months you'd expect Praet, Tielemans, Choudhury and Mendy to be off.

 

I've never seen him play and it's not a massive sample size but Santi Comesaña's stats are profiling well at Rayo. Fantastic defensively, seemingly a goal threat and no slouch with the ball at his feet. We should be keeping tabs on him. Been captain a few times this season too. 25 so peak sort of age as well.

[deep blue]

7 hours ago, Finnegan said:

 

Be honest, where would you play him atm? 

 

He's simply not better than Vardy at 9 and with Maddison recovering some good form, he's nowhere near that standard at 10.

 

He's 100% definitely not a wide player, having not the pace, agility, ball control or positional experience to get by out there at our level. 

 

So your choices are to change the whole formation for him or drop him. So he gets dropped and I find it hard to argue with that. He's suffering even now from the same problem he always has here, ultimately we're a one striker team and our 9 is one of the best in the world. 

In 2015-2016 we played 2 strikers, one of them withdrawn, and it worked fine.  The current squad could play a 4-4-2 like that.  True, we would have to dispense with Maddison, but I think it would be worth the experiment. You don't have to play with a number 10.  It doesn't have to be a fixed formation - could vary between games depending on the opposition, form, injuries etc.

[Finnegan]

6 minutes ago, deep blue said:

In 2015-2016 we played 2 strikers, one of them withdrawn, and it worked fine.  The current squad could play a 4-4-2 like that.  True, we would have to dispense with Maddison, but I think it would be worth the experiment. You don't have to play with a number 10.  It doesn't have to be a fixed formation - could vary between games depending on the opposition, form, injuries etc.

 

It's a myth that we played with two strikers in 15/16. We didn't play 442 at all, we played 4411 with Okazaki very much playing as a 10. He was almost like an advanced defensive midfielder to be honest, his main job was harassing, pressing, making space for Vardy and linking up play from the midfield. It was an extremely unorthodox role but it really fit him.

 

If we play 4231 or 4411 again now, I refer you back to my last comment. In current form, he doesn't get in the team ahead of Maddison who's just much better at it at the moment. When Maddison was off form, I advocated playing Iheanacho as a 10, I think he's not bad there. But he's definitely not as good as an in-form Maddison.

[Bptiger]

On 08/12/2021 at 21:48, Reg Vardy said:

Are we saying with Maddison and Tieleman's we don't have those type of players you suggest in the team? If so who would you suggest we could sign, for the right price, who would come to Leicester to replace the pair of them?

 

Look forward to your suggestions....

Look Iam not sure who , but YOURI is brilliant but he loses a lot of ball and he is very slow sometimes, Maddison plays more forward and he is coming back to form but he still loses a lot of ball , maybe we need a Spanish or a Germany midfielder who can shield the ball better

[SecretPro]

The question will be who actually wants to come. Usually it's a queue to get of a sinking ship.

[Guest Chocolate Teapot]

There's no money to spend so we should probably close this thread....