Having been so imperious on the road last season, it’s been a real surprise to see Leicester City struggle on their travels so far this campaign. But the signs point to the handsomely-priced Foxes enjoying victory at Middlesbrough on Monday night.
Claudio Ranieri’s side have enjoyed the upper hand in this fixture for quite some time, winning four of their last five meetings with the Teessiders – and the East Midlands club haven’t lost a single one of their last 13 games against Boro.
They’re also beginning to show some promise away from home, having come from 2-0 down with 10 men to grab a point away at Stoke City in their last away game.
And the visitors will be encouraged by Boro’s poor home form this season, with Aitor Karanka’s men having lost five times at the Riverside already – failing to score on three of those occasions.
That’s a record unlikely to improve as they host the side who demolished title hopefuls Manchester City 4-2 at the King Power Stadium in December – netting three times in the opening 20 minutes.
And you only need to look to their European record this season to confirm that Leicester have plenty of quality. They topped their Champions League group during the club’s first ever European campaign – a feat which included an imperious 3-0 victory at Club Brugge.
By contrast, Boro haven’t beaten anyone outside of the league’s bottom two – Hull City and Swansea City – since the end of October, and have lost four of their last seven matches.
That means Leicester look appealingly priced for victory here at 9/5, with 7/4 for a Middlesbrough win and 19/10 on offer for the draw.
And with Boro having failed to find the net in three of their last five games, the 10/3 for the Foxes to win to nil should prove very popular.
Meanwhile, in the goalscorer markets, the man to back is surely Algerian ace Islam Slimani.
He netted Leicester’s second the last time these sides met in October, as well as netting the winner against West Ham United on New Year’s Eve, and it’s 9/4 for him to score anytime here.
All Odds and Markets are correct as of the date of publishing