Home  »     »   Leicester v Birmingham: Chance for Foxes to end wretched run

Leicester v Birmingham: Chance for Foxes to end wretched run

| 12.03.2013

Having failed to win any of their past eight matches, punters could be forgiven for considering Leicester’s 4/6 odds to beat Birmingham with scepticism.

However, the visit of the 13th-place Blues represents the perfect opportunity for Nigel Pearson’s men to get back on track, given they have avoided defeat in nine of their 11 games hosting lower-half opposition this term.

And punters searching for increased value should look at match betting in company with both teams finding the net in this match.

Whilst the Foxes sport the division’s best defensive record, only two sides have registered more times on the road this term than Lee Clark’s visitors, so simply backing both teams to score will appeal to many at 17/20.

For greater returns though, it appears punters could do far worse than to back a home triumph in which both defences are breached at 13/5, especially in light of the hosts failing to keep a clean sheet in their last eight.

Those who fancy the Foxes to rediscover their defensive solidity though, can have 6/5 about a clean sheet for the King Power Stadium inhabitants, and 17/10 that the hosts win without conceding.

Meanwhile, with strikes aplenty expected, it could pay dividends to invest in total result markets on this match, which entails punting on the total number of goals along with the match result.

8/5 is available regarding Leicester triumphing in a bout featuring in excess of 2.5 goals, and given that four of Birmingham’s last seven games have seen the net bulge at least three times, those odds tempt.

As do the 9/2 first scorer odds regarding Foxes marksman David Nugent, who has outscored his team-mates by notching 14 times so far this season.

Wesley Thomas may prove the most tempting option to break the deadlock for the visitors meanwhile, as a big 9/1 shot on the back of three goals in his past five outings.

All Odds and Markets are correct as of the date of publishing.



John Klee