Kitchandro

Personally I’ve always thought him extremely lazy and unprofessional. You know like when he can’t be bothered to show any urgency to close down shots or track back. That’s aside from his poor behaviour off the pitch.

As an aside, blue shorts were almost never a fixture until 1992 and white socks were used for so long they could definitely be considered traditional. Personally I still hate the all blue.

Sorry but that’s just not correct, you could argue 1994/96 has a goldy yellow / yellowy gold. We had some yellow away kits, again some at a stretch could be considered yellowy gold. No other home kit had gold on it. This metallic gold colour was purely introduced by King Power in 2013 and I entirely associate it with them.

It seems to be getting worse these days. For a spectator sport it’s kind of a big deal. I can’t imagine it helps the players either, not that I’m making excuses for us.

Perez against Chelsea just after we beat them in the cup final is another one. He had so many horrific games for us where he was the weak link, but that one stands out for missing the absolute sitter in the last minute which cost us the Champions League place. Also Nathan Dyer had a really good start with us but there was a home match where he kept kicking it straight out of play, after that we didn’t really see him until he was front and centre for the trophy lift 😆 Musa and Kane stick out as having some of the most anger-inducing performances for us but I can’t remember which games. Kane because he was so lazy on top of being poor and Musa just because he was so embarrassingly bad on a technical level.

The badge should always be the colours that are on the badge. It never looked odd in the old days when we had the same badge on various colour kits, it looked like our badge was on a kit. Sometimes, it’s like football changes things purely to wind fans up. The colours are the badge should be sacred because those are our colours. Blue and white go with any decent colours anyway.

Do you actually think this? I ask because it’s a constant narrative parroted by the media and message boards that’s completely false. It’s what they call a ‘straw man’. People want to see the ball passed quickly, not hoofed. It’s very difficult to score without moving the ball quickly and impossible to win without scoring. It’s entertaining to see the game played at pace. The masses want entertainment and goals. Keeping possession does not decrease the chances of conceding and it does not get the ball in areas that statistically generate the most chances. You’ve seen enough of Leicester to know that passing it around the back for 5 seasons is not the area where you create goal scoring chances. Most goals are scored within 3 passes, statistically - making the obsession with possession football not backed up by the most important and directly relevant data. That statistic also indirectly suggests something we also know from watching football, that pressing high and winning the ball in the opposition’s half leads to a lot of goals. So, keeping possession at the back, against high pressing teams, gives you a larger risk of conceding than scoring, unless you are far superior to them both individually and as a unit. Speaking of false narratives and overused phrases, there’s this constant black-and-white argument that the long ball game is pragmatic and possession football is beautiful and some managers don’t strike the right balance. Long balls aren’t pragmatic unless there’s a specific plan that goes with it, and possession football is the most dull, ugly thing on earth if not done at a fast tempo. I’ve said before, better players make better teams, better players win more games and better teams will invariably have more possession. The latter is not fundamentally a bad thing. But moving the ball slowly is a flaw. Inviting teams onto you, assuming they are going to both press and be bad at pressing, is not the most likely way to score or win games. Getting promoted last time was down to having the best players and the same ideas got us (under Rodgers with a squad that should never have gone down) and Southampton relegated (in double quick time). And let’s not even get started on Puel. How can the defence of slow possession football still exist?

Unless of course they are top managers who haven’t made it to the top yet. I know little about this guy and I’m willing to see how it pans out and what kind of football we play, but there aren’t many people suggesting he has loads of potential. Again, maybe we just don’t cast our net wide enough or do enough research (not maybe in fact, we definitely don’t). If we all thought we left no stone unturned to find the best up and coming manager all the replies would be a lot more positive even in the exact same circumstances.

If that’s the case I would be inclined to think Rohl would have been the right choice.

Perhaps, but signing for Forest would be unacceptable. I mean he’s untouchable but let’s not take the Mickey.

I can’t say this excites me, but it makes me a lot less angry than the idea of O’Neill, Wilder, Martin and Dyche. And that’s purely because I don’t know how good or crap he is. If our club was reliable and thoughtful about hiring managers I would be more optimistic that they’d really done due diligence. But I’m more inclined to believe he’s being hired because he’s cheap and recently managed in the division. Since everyone on here believes we should walk the league with the squad we’ve got, I won’t be expecting a load of excuses for this guy if we struggle. I’m not nearly as confident, but as always I just want to see a manager play positively and bring some enjoyment to watching football, which we haven’t had a commitment to for a long time.

I’ve said it before but this only applies if you are trying to hire a name. Well run clubs don’t hire names with experience. They hire people based on talent, potential, ideas, philosophy. You know full well a German 2nd division manager, South American coach in their mid 30s or a Spanish assistant coach doesn’t think we are an unattractive proposition. Otherwise Wilder and O’Neill wouldn’t even be on the shortlist. They’re on the shortlist because we’ve not tried to hire the best manager, we’ve tried to hire the best known manager.

I was in the Kop and it was Vichai for us. So yes, it definitely did happen.

Why are people trying to justify this? ‘I would take him over so and so…compared to so and s he’s a solid appointment…he’s not that bad’ We don’t owe the club permission to appoint someone because you can think of a worse manager in the world. This is a professional football club with a scouting network, we’ve been relegated for months and our shortlist is a parody. I don’t accept any of O’Neil, Wilder, Dyche, just as I didn’t accept RVN, Cooper or Martin. None of them deserve or will deserve the benefit of the doubt. This is my football club, we don’t exist to give some millionaire ‘a chance’. This isn’t a Saturday night game show. I want a serious manager with a future and there’s absolutely zero excuses for not having someone like that in place by now. If Rohl isn’t possible for some pathetic reason, I expect at least 3 managers on the shortlist far, far better than the ones named.

The way things have gone it can’t go any worse if we just let the players democratically pick the team and tactics.

Also because more modest clubs are now established in our place. It was the same when Wigan were winning the FA Cup and Bolton were in Europe etc. We can hardly say this is our level if Brighton, Brentford, Bournemouth are where they are. Our fanbase is top 15 and most clubs our size have won the league and cup anyway. Our success just happened 30-40 years after everyone else’s.

If we get promoted and recruit like we did in the summers of 2003 and 2024 then it will be worse than not getting promoted. We will continue to decline in the long run until we can’t bounce back and will then be further crippled like we were 2004-08. We cannot, cannot continue to bring ageing players in for high fees and on high wages. Finding bargains, players with potential, is something we’ve done before whilst balancing the books. The style of play and type of player we bring in to suit that style absolutely is important. If Dyche goes down the Cooper route it will be a poisoned chalice even if we go up.

So experience for the sake of experience? Yeh because we’re really short on that in the squad…

Not sure why anyone feels sorry for him. He acted like he didn’t want to be here. He didn’t change things up, never looked angry with defeats / thrashings, continued to play the old boys whilst saying he was planning for the future, never acknowledged the fans, did no homework whatsoever on our squad (leading to him playing Ward). Slaughter the club for how they treat us, not multi-millionaire managers.

I just think it’s incredibly unimaginative as usual. People say ‘who can we realistically attract’ - well, if you don’t narrow your options down to obvious names then there’s 100s of managers out there who would come. The problem is, if you’re picking from only established managers / names / ‘experience’ then you are going to be limited to coaches whose ceilings are already known. Obviously I’d rather a manager picked purely on tactical philosophy and man-management skills. Dyche only seems acceptable to some people because of the very short list our club would pick from. Yeh compared to Martin or RVN it would be a relief but if I’m lowering myself to the standard of actually saying I’m ‘pro-Dyche’ then what on earth has this club come to. If we still demand LCFC to be a professional sports outfit (which we should fgs) then a has-been like Dyche is completely unacceptable.

We signed some good players under him but that’s as much to do with the backroom staff under him. He was a poor manager and for me, the sort that was only here for the money. He was less manipulative than Rodgers but equally disrespectful of the club, saying we couldn’t expect to compete with Wolves at one point. He never had any ambition to get the best out of the players we had. He was happy to sit midtable, play weak sides in the cup and just coast along, playing down our potential to make himself look better. It was a genius move by Rodgers to come in after an underperforming and unpopular manager had just left. He knew that team couldn’t do much worse.

In time the delusion and emotion would fade and people would be forced to look at things as they are. Fans are sentimental whilst people are here and less so after they leave. People defended Kermorgant, Puel, Sousa, Megson and probably even Akinbiyi and Tater Peeler once. Once you’re in the past and have been painted the villain it’s almost Impossible to reverse it. And there’s just no way Top’s reputation can withstand what’s happened in the long run. But whilst he’s here, he’ll have his loyal followers.

I would love Bielsa here. His reputation in England outside of Leeds is strangely bad but they love him and so would we. I think I read he didn’t want to manage another English club though.

If we get -12 and keep Ruud we will be going to League One.

It’s this one. The font is much better and all the details are spot on. The Fox & Crop is the next best.