Rodgers’ poor game management at Leicester examined

Leicester City boss Brendan Rodgers’ choice of lineup and tactics were questioned for a conservative approach to close out their midweek fixture with Tottenham Hotspur, which saw them sacrifice a late lead into a loss.

Heading into the 81st minute of their Premier League fixture with Brighton & Hove Albion, there was a similar feel to the game. Leicester had a narrow lead, and they’d dropped into a defensive low-block following a few substitutions from Rodgers; adjusting their back-four into a five.

Ultimately, the end result was fairly similar. Danny Welbeck’s goal a minute later ensured the Foxes dropped more points, and the Seagulls onslaught to close out the fixture could’ve mirrored that of Spurs’ to see a win convert into a loss. Thankfully, Rodgers’ side held onto a point — but why are they sacrificing so many leads?

With everything in football, you need to add context. Leicester City is amidst a serious injury crisis and is missing a lot of integral players, instead, there’s a reliance on youngsters and squad players to fill out the starting XI. But, why is this important? Well, a reserved approach can be a little bit more understandable when the quality of the side isn’t at its top level. Burnley isn’t discredited for sitting in a low-block at Manchester City, it’s integral to them attempting to claim points in difficult fixtures. However, this doesn’t run true with the Foxes at the moment.

Even with a depleted squad, the Foxes have a lot of quality available to them. Not to mention that their opponents, Brighton & Hove Albion, had injury problems of their own. Reverting into such a defensive structure and attempting to hold onto their slender lead made very little sense. So, with the context of the fixture added, why else would Rodgers want to play in this fashion?

This is a question I’m struggling to answer. The fundamentals of this approach are to limit your attacking intent — focusing on counter-attacks and transitions, to ensure that you’re defensively resolute. Of course, if you’re already winning a game, does going for extra goals help you secure the three points (potentially?) but does conceding goals ensure you definitely don’t win (absolutely).

With this in mind, defensive approaches can make sense, but you’re enabling so many more attacks for your opponents by dropping deeper into your shape and limiting the chances of scoring extra goals yourselves to solidify points. It feels like a loss-loss approach, because frailties in the Foxes backline have been widely documented this season, putting extra pressure on them, especially in the closing stages (high-pressure situations), makes such little sense. Who should know this more than anyone? Brendan Rodgers.

There’s also the argument that if you do concede, you’ve also removed some of your best-attacking players to add defensive solidarity, and thus cannot respond in the appropriate manner. For all that it’s worth, I can see the purpose of this approach, but struggle to fathom the positives of it. Currently, all it’s doing is outlining the negatives for the east Midlands team.