You're a counter-attacking side, which you admit to yourself. The amount that you've scored indicates how effective you are at that, not that you're actually an attacking side. As NKNG indicated earlier, you may open up against some of the poorer sides in the division, but even you're saying that you didn't attack us. Not sure why you get offended when someone else points this out.
Look, we get it. You're angry at the referee for giving a 50/50 penalty. You're also clearly angry that the majority of fans supporting a team that enjoyed 75% of possession, the bulk of which was in the opposition's half, can have the temerity to suggest that a draw was deserved. Can we move on now please? I swear to f*** if we have to go through this vicious cycle twice again this month, I'm supporting Chelsea. At least their board is silent
Yes, we're counter-attacking. Yes, we're effective at it. No, we're absolutely not defensive. Yes, we absolutely are an attacking team. You're saying it because it's a bit of an insult, lets not pretend otherwise. You're disappointed you didn't create enough yesterday and are putting it down to us being a defensive team. Which is a pretty poor argument.
So you're a non-defensive counter-attacking side that's actually attacking really, when you think about it? Ok, I'm glad that you cleared that up!
I'm not sure what you're finding confusing... Do you honestly think that a defensive football team that has conceded 25 goals in 20 Premier League matches would be second in the table?
That's why I've repeatedly pointed out that you're a counter-attacking side that opens up a bit against the weaker sides in the division. Nothing wrong with that, but it's not the same as being an attacking side, is it? Not sure what your league position has to do with your style of football, either. Effectively counter-attacking leads to pressure on your defence and leaving gaps when throwing players forward on breaks.
We're also a defensive counterattacking side at heart. Its certainly when we're most effective. We defend mainly from the front by pressing high up the pitch. You also do a bit of that too but have sat deeper more often in my view. Different specifics but same overall strategy. You can't really be a counterattacking team without setting up defensively to either hassle or contain the opposition side. You can't counter attack unless the other team is attacking, and therefore you are defending.
No, it's to counter-attack. Clearly. You give up possession, stay compact and defend for most of the game. That's not attacking.
The last 3 pages of this thread. Can't wait for Wednesday. I've sharpened the box cutters and filled the bath with warm salt water in eager anticipation.
Then we're going to have to disagree, not going to spoil this thread. Just utterly baffling to suggest we're not an attacking side.
Leicester are a very effective counterattacking team given their pace up front and ability to run in behind teams, albeit they're one dimensional. But the nature of counterattacking in this way is to concede possession and territory, encouraging the opposition to commit players forward and leave space in behind.
Oh no no no, please - do continue. The last 54 posts really have been quite riveting stuff. I need a whisky.
Pretty sure PNP isn't the one getting confused. Counter-attacking is different to attacking. To counter attack is to generally allow the opposition control of the game but to thwart their killer instincts with a bid to then gain possession while the opposition has a number of players in your half and then break quickly with the intent on grabbing a goal against the run of play, it's a very effective tactical approach especially when teams - like yourselves with Vardy and Mahrez - have pacey players up top. To attack is to generally send waves of players forward with the intent of overloading the opposition, keeping possession in the opponents half with the idea of making space/ causing opposition mistakes which then leads to goalscoring chances. There's no right or wrong way to go about things though, no one is actually criticising your style of play and I don't see why you seem to take offence from PNP when called a counter-attacking side when you yourself have clearly said you are. If you'd read previous posts on our board you'll find most if not all of us have been very complimentary of Leicester for what you've done so far and how you've played. Vardy and Mahrez - Mahrez especially for me, think he's quality - have been really enjoyable to watch from a neutral perspective and I hope you can keep them past the Summer because no doubt someone like Utd or Liverpool will be looking to throw about £20m at one of them.
I think Luke has summed it up very well. The problem is not having a plan B. If you go behind, then you have to come out. Plus, two counter attacking teams playing each other could get a little tedious!
Not sure why the Leicester poster is getting so argumentative. They have a great story for this season. They are not an attacking side, but very effective in launching counter attacks when they have frustrated their opposition and forced an error. It's a great tactic - one we used at times under AVB with Bale in full flow. But to say they are an attacking side is weird. If I were him, I would celebrate the effectiveness of what they do. Mahrez and Vardy are exceptional. Although we nearly ballsed it up, they are not the same side without them. Anyone know if Vardy is likely to play tomorrow?
