QPR v Leicester: Why Charlie Austin is still the man to watch
Published:
With Leicester City in freefall following a fine start to their return back to the big-time Harry Redknapp will be out to take full advantage of a fragile Foxes side with QPR enjoying some solid form at home of late.
The Rs are the 5/4 favourites with Ladbrokes to pick up all three points here, following some good results at Loftus Road, with the draw available at 12/5 and a Leicester City win offered at odds of 11/5 with the bookmaker.
But with few things guaranteed in the world of Premier League football we have found at least three bets that look a little bit more reliable ahead of kick-off.
We’ve crunched the numbers at Ladbrokes towers and by our reckoning, this game has got one of two outcomes – so we’ve handily gone for both. All seven of Leicester City’s competitive defeats this term have come by a scoreline of 1-0 or 2-0.
And when you factor in that QPR’s two wins thus far this term have come by the same score, it seems logical that a similar outcome is on the cards at Loftus Road.
No one has been banging the drum for Charlie Austin louder than us, with Roy Hodgson guilty of overlooking the Rangers hotshot in favour of some rather less worthy individuals in his England squads of late.
The 25-year-old has scored six goals in the Premier League already this term, which is a remarkable return when you consider the Rs’ poor form. He’s also enjoyed himself at Loftus Road, with four goals in five top-flight home outings this term, including last time out in London against Manchester City.
While Austin continues to prosper for Rangers, one man at the opposite end of the scale is Leonardo Ulloa. The Argentine may have started well with the Foxes in the top-flight but the last seven games have seen the 28-year-old fail to score, with Leicester drawing a blank in six of those outings.
With QPR keeping clean sheets in their previous two wins at home in the Premier League, the visitors could be in for another afternoon to forget.
All Odds and Markets are correct as of the date of publishing.
