Theoretical football

[Ric Flair]

Do you mean objectively or subjectively?

It's the "success" argument all over again.

Seeing as this discussion is concerning several players, I would take the objective approach, in which case then we don't have many players who have "made it", which is about right for where we are, and the season we have had.

Do you agree with what i'm saying though? Forget making it or not, that will take care of itself (to quote Kelly). Have the players from our academy in the past season been worthwhile? Have they improved our team in the positions they play in?. If the answer is yes, then that's my point. 4 have played this season, 3 have done well and 1 has had a mixed bag. That's a good return. I believe there are 2 or 3 more amongst the academy that could improve our first team squad, that's been my argument as in i'd like to see them given the chance.

[Manwell Pablo]

This arguement is quite blatent tosh any way if you ask me, we're reading far too much into this. Three academy players are now pretty much members of the first team squad, offer us options, aren't by far the weakest players in our starting XI and obviosuly are continuelly improving.

At the same time If youth team players prove they are good enough they wont be ignored. Rob Kelly quite blatently doesn't ignore his young players, and has a good idea on how fast our younger players should be brought through.

[Guest]

Do you agree with what i'm saying though? Forget making it or not, that will take care of itself (to quote Kelly). Have the players from our academy in the past season been worthwhile? Have they improved our team in the positions they play in?. If the answer is yes, then that's my point. 4 have played this season, 3 have done well and 1 has had a mixed bag. That's a good return. I believe there are 2 or 3 more amongst the academy that could improve our first team squad, that's been my argument as in i'd like to see them given the chance.

I don't agree entirely. We've had to use these lads out of necessity, rather than choice. It's hard to quantify how they improve the team, certainly on league position, then no they haven't (16th cf. 15th).

It's been a weird few years, we've had Mickeh's 'Dad's Army', and we have had so many players coming and going it's unbelievable. We've just started to see a more settled line-up. I think some of the performances are more enthusiastic, and encouraging, but the lack of experience shows.

I also think that some people are pinning too many hopes onto players whilst forgetting how young they are. No doubt someone will use Rooney or Walcott as an example, but look at who they have had/got around them. We have a lot of young players, and this shows.

If we are anywhere near the play-offs next season I will be surprised, delighted but surprised. Good sides have balance, and we haven't quite got there just yet.

Don't get me wrong, we need as much success from our Academy as possible, whether it's with the team, or elsewhere, but I'm not that excited yet.

[Ric Flair]

This arguement is quite blatent tosh any way if you ask me, we're reading far too much into this. Three academy players are now pretty much members of the first team squad, offer us options, aren't by far the weakest players in our starting XI and obviosuly are continuelly improving.

At the same time If youth team players prove they are good enough they wont be ignored. Rob Kelly quite blatently doesn't ignore his young players, and has a good idea on how fast our younger players should be brought through.

Correct. The only point I will make is that if Kelly continues with his selection policy next season it will be extremely hard for youngsters to break through as he isn't one for chopping and changing. That isn't a bad thing by the way when adhered to correctly, i.e. players picked on merit and players being dropped when performing badly, etc. Just because a team wins matches doesn't mean it cannot improve.

But you are right, it's a stupid argument that's taken place.

[Ric Flair]

I don't agree entirely. We've had to use these lads out of necessity, rather than choice. It's hard to quantify how they improve the team, certainly on league position, then no they haven't (16th cf. 15th).

It's been a weird few years, we've had Mickeh's 'Dad's Army', and we have had so many players coming and going it's unbelievable. We've just started to see a more settled line-up. I think some of the performances are more enthusiastic, and encouraging, but the lack of experience shows.

I also think that some people are pinning too many hopes onto players whilst forgetting how young they are. No doubt someone will use Rooney or Walcott as an example, but look at who they have had/got around them. We have a lot of young players, and this shows.

If we are anywhere near the play-offs next season I will be surprised, delighted but surprised. Good sides have balance, and we haven't quite got there just yet.

Don't get me wrong, we need as much success from our Academy as possible, whether it's with the team, or elsewhere, but I'm not that excited yet.

I'm struggling to understand what you've just put. They have been used out of necessity rather than choice? I don't think that is the case at all. Stearman has played because Maybury was seriously off form, now I suppose you could argue than was a necessity given that Maybury was letting the side down rather than choice. But let's be fair, once Maybury did regain a little bit of form he then had to be put in another position because Stearman had nailed down the right back spot as his own and rightly so given the performances he's had bar a few dodgy ones. Wesolowski unfortunately hasn't played that much but on the basis of the appearances he did make, he had a massive bearing on the upturn in results. At QPR he was instrumental along with Stearman in getting us that vital 3 points, against Wolves he marshalled the midfield and gave Ince a master class in playing football and rightly deserved the man of the match award many papers had him down for and against Brighton he help dig in and grind out a result, although he did get injured after an hour or so. Judging on that as a benchmark for his influence on our team, he's certainly improved it.

It's pretty simple for me. If these players are given a chance and prove they are better than than the current players in their position then that is brilliant, that is a success for Leicester. As it's an improvement, which is what we are desperate to see at this club. I totally agree with you that we'll struggle to get within reach of the play-offs next season, but if these youngsters improve our team even only slightly that is better than not doing surely? We do need a balance and i'd like to see 2 or 3 experienced players bought in but still have something to offer on the pitch not just off it as such unlike Tiatto or Brevett can give us.

Part of me has always taken great pleasure in seeing home-grown players come through the ranks and go on to play for the first team, that's why i'm passionate about utilising the academy as much as we can. Our record on producing youngsters over the years is poor, this is the first time in many years that the club have got a good set of academy players and are in a situation where they have very little money and any player that can strengthen our team is a bonus to us.

We are so far away from premiership football it's scary, we won't get there and stay there without using everything we have at our disposal.

[Manwell Pablo]

I don't agree entirely. We've had to use these lads out of necessity, rather than choice. It's hard to quantify how they improve the team, certainly on league position, then no they haven't (16th cf. 15th).

It's been a weird few years, we've had Mickeh's 'Dad's Army', and we have had so many players coming and going it's unbelievable. We've just started to see a more settled line-up. I think some of the performances are more enthusiastic, and encouraging, but the lack of experience shows.

I also think that some people are pinning too many hopes onto players whilst forgetting how young they are. No doubt someone will use Rooney or Walcott as an example, but look at who they have had/got around them. We have a lot of young players, and this shows.

If we are anywhere near the play-offs next season I will be surprised, delighted but surprised. Good sides have balance, and we haven't quite got there just yet.

Don't get me wrong, we need as much success from our Academy as possible, whether it's with the team, or elsewhere, but I'm not that excited yet.

Now that first paragraph is a very harsh statement. It's nowhere near as cut and dry as that and I think you know that.

The three players coming through the academy have a little to answer for us ending up in the relegation zone, which was what ultimately lead us to our 16th place finish. Richard Stearmen was one of the more solid players, James Welsowski had a broken leg and Christ O'Grady was playing for Rusheden.

The reason we were lucky enough to finish 16th was more down to our change in managment and approach. Joe Hammill/Sylla ploding down the wings, Elvis Hammond misssing one on one after one and one, Patrick Kisnorbo attempting to be the next Claude Makelele, Dion being a general liabilty, Williams doing nothing, and save the best till last, Nissa and Maybury belting the ball 60 yards up the field to a certain stocky Dutchmen who can't the head the ball is how we ended up 16th.

[Guest]

I'm struggling to understand what you've just put. They have been used out of necessity rather than choice? I don't think that is the case at all. Stearman has played because Maybury was seriously off form, now I suppose you could argue than was a necessity given that Maybury was letting the side down rather than choice.

In the absence of any other right back, Stearman was utilised in that role. Seems like necessity to me.

The three players coming through the academy have a little to answer for us ending up in the relegation zone.......

The reason we were lucky enough to finish 16th was more down to our change in managment and approach.......

So is it the management or the players then?

[Manwell Pablo]

In the absence of any other right back, Stearman was utilised in that role. Seems like necessity to me.

So is it the management or the players then?

are you just argueing for the sake of it?

The management picked the right players, motivated them properly, and togther they turned it around producing form that would be more resemblant of a play off chaseing team then that of one stareing relegation in the face. That team included three accademy players, and alot of changes in both the personal and attitiude departments, differnt to the one that left us 21st in the championship.

Rob Kellys team didnt manage to finish higher then Mickys/Leviens mis fits but to be fair, they started off handicapped.

[Ric Flair]

In the absence of any other right back, Stearman was utilised in that role. Seems like necessity to me.

Not really though was it? If we go back further to when Stearman broke through which was the season before we had Maybury, Canero, Makin and towards the end Kenton who could play at right back. The fact that Stearman was given the chance ahead of a couple of these due to his performances for the reserves then led to Levein making a decision on who to retain the following season. We then went in to this season with 2 right backs and one of them was Stearman due to Levein thinking he was good enough to either be first choice or competition for Maybury for that spot.

I would always like to think that managers would give these youngster a chance by choice and not by necessity but as you are aware it's often the case that youngsters don't get a chance until injuries, suspensions or if a team is seriously under-performing, etc. Then it's their chance to show what they can do and sometimes they hit the ground running and command a first team spot for there onwards.

I can't see what difference it would have made had we chosen these players out of choice rather than from necessity, it still comes down to the fact than when both Stearman and Wesolowski have played they have 9 times out of 10 played well for us.

The good thing is whatever the circumstance behind how they first got their chance is that we have 2 great prospects that not only have improved our squad but added value to it, which is essential for a club in our situation.

[Guest]

are you just argueing for the sake of it?

The management picked the right players, motivated them properly, and togther they turned it around producing form that would be more resemblant of a play off chaseing team then that of one stareing relegation in the face. That team included three accademy players, and alot of changes in both the personal and attitiude departments, differnt to the one that left us 21st in the championship.

Rob Kellys team didnt manage to finish higher then Mickys/Leviens mis fits but to be fair, they started off handicapped.

The only real significant changes, that have made the most impact for myself was playing Kisnorbo in defence, and bringing back Johannson, to be fair. Nothing to do with the academy players being particulalry exceptional. But hey ho, that's just my opinion.

Oh, and the introduction of the Fryatt and Hume partnership.

[Guest]

Not really though was it? If we go back further to when Stearman broke through which was the season before we had Maybury, Canero, Makin and towards the end Kenton who could play at right back. The fact that Stearman was given the chance ahead of a couple of these due to his performances for the reserves then led to Levein making a decision on who to retain the following season. We then went in to this season with 2 right backs and one of them was Stearman due to Levein thinking he was good enough to either be first choice or competition for Maybury for that spot.

Stearman played a few games because of injuries. He was used this season because the above went. The fact that Stearman was kept and the others released was more likely (cynical me) financial, or perhaps even (shock horror) the players themselves didn't want to stay.

I would always like to think that managers would give these youngster a chance by choice and not by necessity but as you are aware it's often the case that youngsters don't get a chance until injuries, suspensions or if a team is seriously under-performing, etc. Then it's their chance to show what they can do and sometimes they hit the ground running and command a first team spot for there onwards.

Perfectly understandable.

I can't see what difference it would have made had we chosen these players out of choice rather than from necessity, it still comes down to the fact than when both Stearman and Wesolowski have played they have 9 times out of 10 played well for us.

I disagree there. Weso is by far the more accomplished player of the two. When he has played, you forget how young he is, and that is a good sign. Stearman, on the other hand, has me shaking my head, and "putting it down to inexperience" at times. This is the whole thing about this "potential" argument; he certainly has it, but he is nowhere near the finished article.

The good thing is whatever the circumstance behind how they first got their chance is that we have 2 great prospects that not only have improved our squad but added value to it, which is essential for a club in our situation.

Very true. Without the parachute payments, and without the desired attendances, unfortunately we need to be producing more than 2 great prospects. But that's another argument!

[Manwell Pablo]

The only real significant changes, that have made the most impact for myself was playing Kisnorbo in defence, and bringing back Johannson, to be fair. Nothing to do with the academy players being particulalry exceptional. But hey ho, that's just my opinion.

Oh, and the introduction of the Fryatt and Hume partnership.

Gareth Williams hasn't come back into the team and played well then, James Weslowksi didnt show his promise in the few games he played, Chirs O'Grady hasn't shown any signs of being a good player for this club, ( Plymouth home game espically . Joe Hamill, Momo Sylla, Marc De Vries and Dion Dublin still playing regularly are they?

I understand you may not see some of this as significant, but I think the changes regarding Williams is. On top switching Kisnorbo to CB and bringing back Johanson.

Differnce with Stearmen is he's been fairly good through out the season hence why he has won young player of the season. Weso and O'Grady haven't really had their chances yet, but if Ric is right were going to have the best midfielder this club as seen since Izzet, and a half decent squad player at least.

Like Ric I don't even see what point you are trying to make if you are trying to make one at all. Stearmen has had the odd shocker but he's 18, is going to get better, and has played some blinding games this season.

are you saying he's not improving the team? Do you think its replacing him is somthing we should be looking at?

[Katy]

Now that first paragraph is a very harsh statement. It's nowhere near as cut and dry as that and I think you know that.

The three players coming through the academy have a little to answer for us ending up in the relegation zone, which was what ultimately lead us to our 16th place finish. Richard Stearmen was one of the more solid players, James Welsowski had a broken leg and Christ O'Grady was playing for Rusheden.

The reason we were lucky enough to finish 16th was more down to our change in managment and approach. Joe Hammill/Sylla ploding down the wings, Elvis Hammond misssing one on one after one and one, Patrick Kisnorbo attempting to be the next Claude Makelele, Dion being a general liabilty, Williams doing nothing, and save the best till last, Nissa and Maybury belting the ball 60 yards up the field to a certain stocky Dutchmen who can't the head the ball is how we ended up 16th.

He isnt that good yet Manwell

Seriously though, back to Heskey. I thought at the time his transfer fee was vastly inflated but that was how transfer fees were at that point, paying over the odds for average players (not suggesting Emile was average) was the norm back then and it was a good bit of business, because what exactly has Heskey done since he left us? He's not exactly set the world alight has he?

[Manwell Pablo]

He isnt that good yet Manwell

Seriously though, back to Heskey. I thought at the time his transfer fee was vastly inflated but that was how transfer fees were at that point, paying over the odds for average players (not suggesting Emile was average) was the norm back then and it was a good bit of business, because what exactly has Heskey done since he left us? He's not exactly set the world alight has he?

Thats has to be the best typo of the year.

[Katy]

Thats has to be the best typo of the year.

It is, at least it shows I read your post thoroughly. It could even be used as a cuss as well

[Ric Flair]

I do agree that Wesolowski is the more accomplished player. I'll predict that if he stays injury free he'll go on to be better than any player we currently have at Leicester.

I'd even say he'll properly 'make it' how about that?.

Big season next season for both of them.

[Manwell Pablo]

I do agree that Wesolowski is the more accomplished player. I'll predict that if he stays injury free he'll go on to be better than any player we currently have at Leicester.

I'd even say he'll properly 'make it' how about that?.

Big season next season for both of them.

Depends if his leg stays in one piece or not.

[Guest]

Gareth Williams hasn't come back into the team and played well then

No.

James Weslowksi didnt show his promise in the few games he played

Who said he didn't?

Chirs O'Grady hasn't shown any signs of being a good player for this club

Again, who said he didn't?

Joe Hamill, Momo Sylla, Marc De Vries and Dion Dublin still playing regularly are they?

Your point being?

I understand you may not see some of this as significant

How very big of you.

but I think the changes regarding Williams is.

I think Williams is the biggest waste of talent we've seen for a long time.

On top switching Kisnorbo to CB and bringing back Johanson.

Did I not say that?

Differnce with Stearmen is he's been fairly good through out the season hence why he has won young player of the season. Weso and O'Grady haven't really had their chances yet, but if Ric is right were going to have the best midfielder this club as seen since Izzet, and a half decent squad player at least.

Stearman won young player of the season because he's had the most exposure. I happen to think there's more to come from the lad, and hopefully we will see it. Why does it upset you so much that some people do not think he's the finished article? After all, you said it "he's 18".

Like Ric I don't even see what point you are trying to make if you are trying to make one at all.

Then why respond?

Stearmen has had the odd shocker but he's 18, is going to get better, and has played some blinding games this season.

are you saying he's not improving the team? Do you think its replacing him is somthing we should be looking at?

The team has improved as a whole. One player does not a team make. Comprendez?

[Guest]

I do agree that Wesolowski is the more accomplished player. I'll predict that if he stays injury free he'll go on to be better than any player we currently have at Leicester.

I'd even say he'll properly 'make it' how about that?.

Big season next season for both of them.

As long as he makes it in the blue and white of Leicester City, eh?

[Strokes]

As long as he makes it in the blue and white of Leicester City, eh?

Is that possible with your standard of 'making it' ?

[Ric Flair]

As long as he makes it in the blue and white of Leicester City, eh?

Most certainly.

[Manwell Pablo]

if you think Gareth Williams hasn't improved you can't of been watching very carefully. My point regarding De Vries ect, is quite obvious, but seeing as your having problems grasping it I will make it black and white.

They played, we end up 21st. They dont play, we rise to 16th. It is therefore unfair for you to lay finishing 16th at the feet of the current First XI which include several very big changes in terms of players in and out. Hughes may not be brilliant on the left but he's better then Hamill, Maybury same with Sylla ect. I know you mentioned Kisnorbo ect, which is why there was a full stop and then a "on top of" statement.

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit

[Guest]

Is that possible with your standard of 'making it' ?

Never rule out the impossible!

[Ric Flair]

Have we forgot about Alan Sheehan??

[Guest]

if you think Gareth Williams hasn't improved you can't of been watching very carefully.

Really? I have found his performances to be intermittent, to be fair. Take Norwich away, for example. Fairly anonymous, as per usual, decides to raise his game, raising my hopes, and making me feel guilty about calling him an idle fecker, scores a cracker, only for him to disappear into the abyss again. Don't think I saw him again for the rest of the season. The search party are still looking.

My point regarding De Vries ect, is quite obvious, but seeing as your having problems grasping it I will make it black and white.

Pots and kettles?

I was actually trying to make a point myself, obviously it was a little too subtle....

They played, we end up 21st. They dont play, we rise to 16th. It is therefore unfair for you to lay finishing 16th at the feet of the current First XI which include several very big changes in terms of players in and out. Hughes may not be brilliant on the left but he's better then Hamill, Maybury same with Sylla ect. I know you mentioned Kisnorbo ect, which is why there was a full stop and then a "on top of" statement.

Kelly has worked with the same squad of players as Levein. We could see the cack, and RK obviously saw it too. It wasn't like it was obvious or anything.....

Our improvement is down to a number of factors, mostly playing players in their most natural positions where possible (note the caveat), and by sticking with a consistent team. Either of those were bound to bring results, thankfully, pretty quickly. But again I say, it wasn't down to playing one player.

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit

Usually only said by those who don't understand sarcasm.