A point is better than many of us could have hoped for. Against Ipswich Town, the East Midlands team could have been expected to roll over, but they performed about as they needed to in-order to secure points, although perhaps the we would have liked to have seen them retain the advantage.
As a matter of context, Leicester secured the advantage at the 39th minute following a cross from Luke Thomas finding Patson Daka, who reacted well to the moment; Ipswich - who were not themselves for much of it - salvaged a point at the 76th minute, as they found themselves with little challenge in the box. Eitherway, Rowett’s Foxes got what they needed from this fixture. Moving on, there are a few things I noticed about the set-up, possible future set-ups, and individual players during this critical fixture.
What we learnt from Leicester City’s latest draw
Gary Rowett seems to be less interested in forming a statistically more lethal side (otherwise Divine Mukasa should have started), and more concerned with a particular stylistic cohesion. This does mean many players who have been signed recently were out of the starting XI, despite good performances from them. Although, I suspect Jordan James’ omission was more to protect him.
For example, looking at our midfield: Oliver Skipp, Harry Winks, and Bobby De Cordova-Reid. On paper, it is not bad obviously: Cordova-Reid has been a fairly consistent if not flashily attacking-midfield option, often setting up others, Winks is renowned for being our best progressive passer and instrumental to our tempo, and Skipp has been decent of late at tracking back. This makes the midfield sound quite balanced, rather than weighted towards the necessary creativity and progression that we desperately need.
However, in practice, Winks and Skipp both arrive late on the outskirts of the box when the team can sustain pressure, when unable to sustain that pressure both stay quite far back to help cover. What this ends up meaning, is we have a non-defensive midfielder (Winks) playing like a box-to-box defensive midfielder while not particularly tracking his man or defending, while Skipp then leaves one side of the pitch to Winks, creating a space where the Foxes are less able to respond actively to defensive challenges. This is more acute in the centre of the pitch, where Skipp and Winks both seem to not track the ball-holder and BCR does not go to cover.
This set up from Rowett could arguably be improved by focusing on a real role balance, rather than two similar talents playing in similar roles, with another slower and defensive-minded attacking-midfielder also played. I contend Skipp was the right choice, Jordan James could have possibly started and helped the East Midlands outfit score a couple in that first half we were playing well, and Mukasa should have been a no-brainer. A more defensive/disruptive player, a more energetic box-to-box tempo machine, and a creative playmaker who actually plays that role.
Equally upfront, we saw Rowett again rely on a more versatile set up. What I mean by that is not looking specifically for one type of attack. On paper, again, this is principally sound. However, this does not mean it is realistically the best course of action. Stephy Mavididi, Abdul Fatawu, and Patson Daka are all three capable of tracking back, capable of some level of hold up play, and some level of playing in-behind off the defensive line. This means Rowett’s system allows for constant rotation and for players to track back without leaving the side minus a specific kind of player on the counter.
Again though, without diversity, we lack vision. We can progress in any direction and the passage of play mostly continues along the same trajectory and tempo, giving us few options when we get into those central positions, and weakening us when we are trying to utilise width. I have stated previously, I would prefer De Cordova-Reid on the left-flank, as he would trend to the narrow position, pulling in the right-back or - if the right-back does not fall into a compact block - creating a small overload in the centre of the pitch; this would also allow a marauding left-back actual space to overlap and get a whipped low cross to some runners in the box.
With Jordan James having returned from injury, and Hamza Choudhury also on the same track - appearing in the fixture later - the pair have both proven to be more passionate in both defence and attack, and could offer Rowett real choices in the next fixture. In my opinion, James has to start, which will force an alteration to the system we have been discussing. A higher tempo, more direct, but much more emphasis on energy and passion to achieve results, which could work well for Choudhury.
Supporters have now seen this system and set of players struggle to maintain clean sheets. When in winning positions, they struggle to take the advantage further and then retain it, often conceding late in a half, then proceeding to portray a mental collapse as if they just witnessed themselves going three-nil behind with 10 minutes to go. Heads drop. Even in this tie, only a small few showed passion and energy after the equaliser went in: James always tries hard, Mukasa may not seem electric but he is consistent, and someone like Fatawu just keeps on running no matter the position, always looking to score and create something. Too many of our players do not keep on showing that energy.
Therefore, it is crucial for Gary Rowett’s Leicester City to learn that their versatile and overly similar selection of roles in a team is not what will drive the team forward. They need to choose those players that are both statistically sound, but equally offer something different stylistically during the match, and I believe the head coach will alter the system for the next fixture, including both James and Choudhury.