What Ruud van Nistelrooy naively admitted in Leicester City pantomime amid transfer smokescreen
In true festive fashion, the pantomime rolled in to Leicester City for their final game before Christmas, with moments of slapstick and boos for the villain of the piece.
But, in a twist, the ‘villain’ was, in fact, a forlorn, down-on-his-luck protagonist, and the heroes didn’t win out. The audience, having turned on one of the leading men, went home zapped of Christmas cheer.
There cannot have been many afternoons in football more difficult for an individual than the one Danny Ward endured on Sunday, one where he made costly mistakes and his weaknesses were shown up, and where those who are meant to support him instead mercilessly mocked him.
READ MORE: Gary Lineker sent message as Leicester City calamity taken apart
READ MORE: Xmas gifts and poppadum wrists - Danny Ward decision questioned in Leicester City vs Wolves fallout
Ruud van Nistelrooy kept his cool but it was clear to see he was unhappy with the treatment his goalkeeper received, where his touches were booed, where routine keeping was greeted with ironic cheers, and where one second-half save was met with a full-on celebration.
The manager sensibly did not criticise supporters – rarely a good move, especially less than a month into a job – but he would not have been out of order to question why the crowd acted the way they did. While fans should be free to express their views, subjecting one of their own players to such humiliation is odd. It puts more pressure on the individual, creating a nervousness that leads to more mistakes, and actively damages the team’s chances of getting a result. It’s the antithesis of support.
For the first goal, Ward did not get down quickly enough. But would he have made the major error in communication for the second goal if he’d not been trying to tune out the boos? While James Justin would have been helped by a shout of ‘he’s behind you!’, his reaction suggested Ward had actually called to claim the ball, hence the full-back letting it run through to Rodrigo Gomes.
For the third goal, it was a poor attempt at a save from the Wales goalkeeper, given the tight angle for Matheus Cunha. But by then, the boos had grown to an unavoidable level. If he was anxious, it would not have been a surprise.
But van Nistelrooy and the club do not avoid blame. The decision to play Ward was naive. There was always a chance the game could go this way.
This was not a case of the fans turning on Ward in the spur of the moment. The damage to his reputation was sustained in the relegation campaign two seasons ago. He is, unfortunately, viewed by supporters as a liability. Confidence would have dropped among fans the moment they saw his name on the teamsheet.
Asked if he knew of Ward’s reputation in the stands, van Nistelrooy admitted: “No, I didn’t. What happens in recent years is something I don’t know. You (the media) can explain better and the people within the club can explain better. But still, it must be difficult for him to experience it.”
But it’s something van Nistelrooy should know. It is important for him to be aware that one of the players he picks could generate an adverse reaction from the crowd and damage the atmosphere to the extent that getting a result is less likely. That he didn’t know does not reflect well on his research of the City players, nor does it reflect well on the club, who clearly didn’t brief him.
Maybe such knowledge wouldn’t have changed his mind. Even if van Nistelrooy was aware of the risks of the crowd getting on Ward’s back, he may still have wanted to give every player a clean slate, he may still have valued above all Ward’s ability with his feet, which is better than Daniel Iversen’s.
Even in hindsight, it’s difficult to say the game would have panned out much more successfully had Iversen been selected. He’s not played a senior match in 18 months, so he would have been rusty.
But had the Dane started, it would not have drained fans’ confidence before the match. Had he conceded the first Wolves goal in exactly the same fashion, he would not have been booed, it would not have generated a toxic atmosphere, and the game would not have devolved into a pantomime. Maybe that would have been enough for City to get a result.
Smokescreen on defender transfers as mistakes made
But if shots at goal are conceded, it’s likely there are faults in the defence. Indeed, before Ward erred, there were mistakes for each of the goals, with Jannik Vestergaard and Conor Coady culpable for the first, Justin and Jordan Ayew for the second, and Victor Kristiansen and Boubakary Soumare for the third, all to varying degrees.
Individual errors were the story of the day for van Nistelrooy, who believed, as a team, City defended better than they had done in previous games on his watch. Even while acknowledging it sounded “weird”, it was a brave thing for the manager to say after such a scoreline. The fans watching on would not have said their team defended well. In fact, it’s the area of the side they deem most in need of January signings.
Van Nistelrooy’s selections and assessments obscure whether he thinks the same. City did only concede eight shots to Wolves, the fewest they’ve given up in any game this season, and he wanted to stress that. Plus, despite making changes in attack, the Dutchman has stuck with the same back four for all of his fixtures in charge. He’s seen no need to try to find a solution. He’s spoken of the “great luxury” he has with his centre-back options.
But maybe that's a smokescreen. Because he's recognised the individual errors, with all of the back four at some point guilty of a mistake. He knows that conceding seven goals in two games is not good enough, and that giving up an average of more than 20 shots a match is not conducive to keeping clean sheets.
He’s up on his stats too. He will know the data shows Mads Hermansen has been the best-performing goalkeeper in the Premier League this season, and that his rate of excellent saves is unlikely to be sustainable.
There’s a lot of evidence that City need to improve in defence, but then there’s a lot of evidence that improvements are required all over the pitch, and they can’t go out and buy a whole new 11. But as far as fans are concerned, at least one new centre-back and one new full-back would provide a source of optimism.
Bizarre Buonanotte absence in back-to-back blanks
There are clearly issues to resolve in attack too. That’s now twice that City haven’t scored in four games under van Nistelrooy, something they only failed to do once under Steve Cooper.
And this was against the worst-performing defence in the league too. City mustered nine shots against Wolves, the joint-fewest any side has had against them, despite chasing the game for 70 minutes.
It’s strange then how little Facundo Buonanotte has been used in the past two games. He came on at Newcastle just before City shut up shop and settled not to let the 4-0 scoreline get any worse. On Sunday, he came on with just five minutes to play, despite Jordan Ayew offering very little in attack.
Before van Nistelrooy’s arrival, Buonanotte had been City’s best outfield performer this season. He’s the club’s second highest scorer after Jamie Vardy, he’s created more chances than any other player in the team, while he dribbles the ball extremely well and does more than his fair share of pressing. There seem to be very few reasons to leave him out, especially when others are not performing.
The best City have looked in attack under van Nistelrooy were when Buonanotte and Bilal El Khannouss were on the pitch together against West Ham. They’re creative, they’re dangerous, they’re good in tight spaces, and should they play together more often, they will make each other better. Especially now, after two blanks, Buonanotte needs to start.
Comebacks beyond City as never-say-die attitude slips away
The further disappointment was that the qualities shown in van Nistelrooy’s first two games, and for much of the season, have been lost in the past two outings too. For much of the campaign, a result has never felt out of reach for City, no matter how badly they’ve started.
But this was another low-energy second half. The determination and never-say-die attitude was not on display. Even though there would have been a fragility to Wolves, knowing they were on course for a rare victory, City didn’t put that to the test.
The ability to produce a comeback was a bonus for City, rather than a sustainable tactic. It’s still better to get the first goal and force the opponents to chase the game.
In the 13 matches they’ve conceded first, City have earned seven points. In the four matches they’ve scored first, they’ve earned seven points. They have to begin games more brightly and not allow opponents to get as comfortable as they let Wolves get.
City still in the better position – just
It will be a much merrier Christmas in Wolverhampton than in Leicester after Sunday’s result, but City are the ones sitting outside of the relegation zone. They are still in the better position.
Losing 3-0 at home to a relegation rival feels like it should be fatal, punished by an instant return to the Championship. But there are teams who suffer such results every season and still survive. The key is washing them out of the system quickly.
The problem City have is that they have what appears to be their most difficult fixture next. Liverpool are in exceptional form and City could be heading to Anfield with their heads hung low.
Nobody of a City persuasion will expect a result. But they will expect signs of hope that they can come out on top in their battle to stay above Wolves, Ipswich and Southampton.
