After a rise in results in recent weeks, Leicester City’s campaign of underperformance returned with a dismal display away at the Emirates Stadium, ending in a comfortable 2-0 win for the hosts, Arsenal.
Despite signs of improvement in recent matches, there was an air of familiarity to Brendan Rodgers’ side, even with an uncharacteristic XI for the trip to London; Nampalys Mendy started as the deepest-midfielder, James Maddison replaced Youri Tielemans, and Kelechi Iheanacho led the line ahead of Patson Daka. Did the changes disrupt the rhythm? I’m unsure, but there are a few things I noticed during the game that I’d like to write about.
The difference between Nampalys Mendy and Wilfred Ndidi, and why we missed the latter
Perhaps the biggest change in the starting XI was in the defensive-midfield position. After not starting a single Premier League game this campaign, Nampalys Mendy was selected to play at the base of the midfield — with Wilfred Ndidi among a few crucial players who were rested, as Brendan Rodgers juggles both the Premier League and the UEFA Conference League competitions. The profiles of the two defensive-midfielders are drastically different, with Mendy you have a possession-orientated retainer of the ball, whereas Ndidi’s focus is on reclaiming possession from the opponents.
With this in mind, I still thought we missed the Nigerian’s positioning in possession. When deployed as the defensive-midfielder, Ndidi rarely strays from the base of midfield, sitting centrally and always offering a reserved passing lane. At times, it’s best that the Foxes ignore his option — especially if he’s going to receive under pressure — but, his positioning is always fixed and enables players to understand where he is at all times.
Contrast this with Mendy, who’s constantly on the move to receive possession, even dropping between the two centre-backs to selflessly allow others to advance up the pitch. Against Arsenal, there was a lack of a fixed defensive-midfield presence in the building stage of possession, as Mendy made these varying movements to unlock others, he removed himself from an area of great importance for the Foxes. When he receives, he’s much more astute and is capable of taking the ball despite being pressured by the opponents, but without a fixed positioning in the core of the midfield, a lot of the building phase was spent recycling the ball across the defensive line awaiting an opportunity to play vertically.
I’m not suggesting Ndidi would’ve offered this retention and passing lane versus Arsenal. But, he would’ve sat in the central avenue of the pitch and that provides a platform for the two roaming box-to-box players to position themselves in relation to the defensive-midfielder.
The issues of fielding both Kelechi Iheanacho and James Maddison
In a recent article, linked here, I spoke about the inherent benefits of adding either Kelechi Iheanacho or James Maddison into the Leicester City starting XI. Without them, there’s a lack of progressive passing lanes staggered through the pitch — as both players enjoy manipulating the spaces between the lines. However, my caveat was that they shouldn’t play together, and the performance this past weekend further illustrates my point.
To start the match, the Foxes seemed to play in an attacking 4-4-1-1 formation, which had Iheanacho as the striker and Maddison operating just behind him. With the two of them offering similar roles, albeit, in different positions, neither could get into the game. Unsurprisingly for a striker in Rodgers’ system, Iheanacho had the fewest touches in the side and was closely followed by Maddison.
In an attempt to fix this issue, Rodgers reverted to the 4-3-3 structure and moved the Englishman to the right-side of the midfield-three. In essence, he became a box-to-box, but with little regard for defensive qualities, especially considering he’d adjust his positioning to aid the 4-4-2 defensive shape the Foxes used. By moving him away from the central areas, Iheanacho had room to drop into the areas he likes, and there was a period of twenty minutes (closing out the first-half) where the game’s momentum shifted into the away-sides favour.
Unfortunately, it wasn’t enough to change the outcome of the fixture, and it also forced Maddison into playing a role he isn’t best suited to. It’s been a season of circle pegs in square holes and playing Kelechi Iheanacho as the single forward with an attacking-midfielder of James Maddison isn’t the solution, all it does is force one of the individuals to drastically change their natural style of play, instead of fielding them both as square pegs in their correct positions.
Leicester City are influenced massively by the game state
The biggest difference between this match and those mentioned previously is that Leicester conceded the first goal, which was also very early into the fixture.
I’ve noted before that the Foxes are an emotional side, varying their performances depending on the “game state” (winning, drawing, losing), as they’re reliant on confidence — which obviously deviates throughout the change in the scoreline, to perform. It’s a byproduct of being a youthful team, there isn’t the experience in the differing game state situations, and therefore the correct reaction isn’t always prepared. During the games against; Burnley, Leeds United, and Stade Rennais, LCFC didn’t concede. This gave the players confidence, especially after their frailties at the back this season.
Hence, when Thomas Partey easily found space to score from, you guessed it, a corner, the confidence began to drain from the squad. The players are aware of this weak underbelly, and having it exposed again sapped the belief — if you’re easy to score against, it makes it difficult to attack with full intent (always scared of the reaction from your opponents).
It’s a really simple thing to suggest, but if the Foxes remained in the fixture with Arsenal for a longer period at 0-0, I think the overall performance would’ve been considerably better. There are clear correlations between conceding early goals and abject performances this season — an area Rodgers will look to fix during his rebuild of the squad.
As all the attention shifts to Thursday, it’s worth noting that Rennes are likely to find at least a goal in the game. They managed four in their match this weekend with Olympique Lyonnais, and have one of the best scoring returns in Ligue 1. If the Foxes concede early into the fixture and allow the same snowballing of mistakes resulting in further losses of confidence, then I’m reluctant to suggest the East Midlanders will be fighting in the next round of the competition.