Jump to content

inckley fox

  • Post count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


inckley fox last won the day on 31 January 2015

inckley fox had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,326 Excellent

About inckley fox

  • Rank
    Key Player
  • Birthday 04/09/1979

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. inckley fox

    Yerey Mina

    There aren't many. With Kramaric we made a small profit (600K if I remember rightly), Lawrence we must have at least tripled our investment and we doubled it with Chris Wood. But nothing to the extent that Mina's value has exploded.
  2. inckley fox

    I’m disappointed

    We don't help ourselves. After the Panama game the hyperbole of the fairy-tale ending set in; the line-up was set in stone whereas WC winners tend to tweak and develop things as they go along, the nation's narrative was established as 'football coming home', and we failed to notice the fact that we'd beaten two nothing sides, drawn with an extremely average Colombia (minus their best player) and beaten a Swedish side that had performed admirably, but in terms of quality was lacking. We lost to the only two world class sides we played. So, yes, well done for Tunisia, Panama and Sweden, but they're hardly the sort of famous victories World Champions are made of.
  3. inckley fox

    Danny Amartey

    Someone mentioned Schlupp, but there aren't too many more from recent times, unless you count some of the youngsters sent out for a taste of football (Moore, Chilwell and so on). Years back there were a few examples, Kevin Russell and Tony Cottee being the first to spring to mind. Mendy might be in with a shot this year too.
  4. inckley fox

    The owners.......

    There are lots of people we couldn't have won it without. Had Peter Hodge not turned us into a proper club in the 1920s, instead of the one that kept being bankrupted and was going the way of Glossop, we wouldn't have. Had Jock Wallace not turned us around in the late 70s, we were set for a very different trajectory. The same goes for Brian Little who, on a shoestring, made us contenders again in the 90s at a time when we had a poorer team and equivalent attendances to Plymouth, Port Vale, Millwall, Cambridge United, Luton etc. We could have followed their path instead. You can even credit Tony James for averting that disaster. Or you can credit Micky Adams for keeping heads above water and ensuring we could pay the bills by winning a short-lived promotion. Without that, without Mandaric later, we might not have had a club. I'm sure couldn't have won it without the current owners. They invested very well for the second tier and amended some of their earlier Eriksson-era errors. That enabled Pearson and Walsh to build. And they were right to bring in Ranieri, it turned out. But the bigger contribution would seem to lie not in the amount they spent on the league winning side, but rather those who spent it and managed to uncover the best part of 200m in talent (in Vardy, Mahrez, Drinkwater, Kante) for just 8m. They weren't Jack Walker or Roman Abramovich, they were modest investors with - for a while - great managers in charge, one of which had been great for us some time before they turned up. Pearson's set-up was largely responsible for this recruitment of talent, and he took us up two divisions and kept us up too. So if you want a figure who was, above all else, essential for our finest hour, I'd look at him. Or, perhaps, Vardy and Mahrez themselves, who turned out to be much better than he'd have imagined. That said, I've always been clear that - from a leadership perspective - Ranieri won the league. Others had a bigger role in making it possible, but he won it.
  5. inckley fox

    George Thomas

    Yes, I remembered that from Robins too and wondered whether Thomas might look back and have regrets. He'll be disappointed not to have even managed a cup outing, but from the club's perspective they're probably glad to have seen some promise, integrated him and worked on his attributes for a year with the top level coaching which he might not have received at Coventry. If they can now offer him a few months or a year at FLC level, they and he will probably come to the conclusion that things have thus far gone to plan. If he breaks into that Birmingham side and adapts well, he'll have an experience which he wouldn't necessarily have got had he stayed.
  6. inckley fox

    Felipe Anderson - West Ham

    We aren't going to be able to buy anyone with the calibre, and especially not the proven calibre, of Mahrez. PFA players-of-the-year, guys in top leagues who bang in 10+ goals and assists in multiple seasons, won't come to Leicester. Not at the peak of their career. The realistic options: Take a risk with an apparent has-been, someone no longer at their peak but who stands a chance of rolling back the years. Take a risk with a kid who's shown top potential and could one day become a 10+ goals and assists man. Or even, don't try to replace Mahrez at all, forget about building your new-look side around a talismanic flair player, and instead build elsewhere. I suspect we may well go for a bit of all three - look for promise of the Grealish, Maddison, Roberts variety; keep an eye open for a veteran with a point to prove and, finally, try to bolster our creativity in other positions. But it's a bit hopeful if you're expecting us to uncover what would be, if he were a '10 goals and assists' man 'more than once' in his career, one of the world's better attacking midfielders. And our chances of being disappointed with a like-for-like replacement would be huge.
  7. inckley fox

    Allardyce gone - Shaky, Walsh and NP available?

    A lot of people said that in 2011 too. Thank god we ignored them. We are living proof that you can find a solution in the past which takes the club forward. Our title win was the eventual consequence of us understanding this. If we reunited NP, Walsh and Shaky with a view to being more effective at building for the future, then that wouldn't be a conservative or backward-thinking decision at all. Pearson is one of the most radical managers you'll find. I have my own reservations - is he still up for the rough-and-tumble of the PL? Could we reunite the three of them? Shouldn't Puel be given a little longer? Is there the faint possibility of finding someone who has more experience of forging a top six side? - but simply saying 'stop living in the past' is hardly an argument.
  8. inckley fox


    The board wants us to compete for top 6, so if that's where we're hoping to go we should plan accordingly, rather just being glad that we're not in League 1 any more. I certainly wouldn't discount the occasional season when a seventh team pipped one of the Big 6 to 6th, but it will only happen if we look up rather than down. That doesn't mean to say we have to throw a strop if we finish 9th, of course. Over the course of the season we did fine this year, considering the circumstances (beginning to restructure the squad, the exit of Drinkwater, the Silva fiasco, the Mahrez fiasco, change of boss etc. etc.). The questions surrounding Puel are about whether he's getting across how it is that he wants us to play. It's easy to believe, hearing his English level, that he might have a communication issue. He's made changes before he has the personnel to implement those changes and as a result our form slumped in the second half of the season. It's recoverable (the final two games were a good sign) but fans know what happened when we suffered a second-half-of-the-season slump in 1977, before my time, and 2001. Fans of other clubs would have their examples too. It won't necessarily happen, but we have to be careful if we're to embark on an expensive long-term project. As for the 'old guard', the evidence is: (i) We played badly for a prolonged period of time, which every mid-table side does and which can't always be attributed to a rebellion. (ii) Players were accused of betraying Ranieri a year ago, though Ranieri said this wasn't true himself and so did a lot of inside sources. The likelihood is he paid for a combination of the title hangover and his own errors. Nobody can seriously say anyone betrayed either his predecessor or his successor. (iii) Rumours of 'player power' again this year. But all reliable sources (e.g. Percy) stated that the problem players were specifically not the 'old guard'. So by all means give the new manager a fair crack of the whip, but not if the price is demonising the most legendary players in our history without proper justification. Move them on - yes, okay, they're getting older now - but don't join in with the ill-informed pundits whose agenda is largely to make the fairy-tale a more interesting fairy-tale by throwing in a few traitors and villains.
  9. inckley fox


    It's a shame you stopped reading there because I addressed some of this later on. I know it was a bit long, mind. What's happened three times in 15 months is that our form, with an ageing squad which hasn't always been expertly handled, has slumped. The board have changed managers, or thought about it, when others wouldn't. Nearly every slump in form at every club is confused for a lack of effort by fans but it happens to every mid-table side and we can't go around assuming that there must be a mutiny every time it does. Maybe the board can take more care over which bosses they appoint, or stop firing them, that's up for debate. If you insist on believing the newspaper stories of behind-the-scenes unrest (and if we're honest, there's unrest at any given club at any given moment in time) then they focus on a different group of players to the ones accused of downing tools for Ranieri. I don't think anyone downed tools for Shakespeare, contrary to your suggestion. And those stories from the Ranieri era were largely discredited. So where does that leave us? One group of players possible questioned Ranieri and, just over a year later, a different set of players at the same club questioned the methods of another manager. It's hardly the unignorable 'time after time' implosion you suggest it is. I know a little patience with managers important, but it shouldn't come at the expense of our support for the players. Especially not the ones who won the league for us. Low confidence leads to dispirited performances and it's easy to confuse this with a team not being bothered. I agree that the form over the second half of the season hasn't been up to scratch, but to me it seems more likely that it's down to (a) players being asked to perform a function they're struggling to function (b) a manager struggling to communicate how best to rectify this and (c) a loss of confidence, partly caused by a and b, partly caused by the Riyad Mahrez situation. If you wanted to add a (d), I'd consider Morgan's comments about oppositions 'sussing' the style we've played under Puel (they're noticeably sitting deeper, cutting out the spaces we need to pass into and recognising that we're not all that comfortable on the ball). All of this is more probable than the squad getting together and deciding it's going to screw over whoever's in charge for the third time in a year or so. It's a shame to see you believing this sort of tripe just a couple of months after a very good post of yours in which you declared your love for this team - the league-winning set of players - and said how sad it would be to see them fall apart. It's odd that a collapse in form would cause you to question this sentiment more than it causes you to question the club's latest manager, who managed to do pretty much exactly what he's doing now at his last club too. Maybe I'm misreading you there and this isn't your take on things, but it's certainly the case with some people. However, Puel hasn't been getting a response out of them for quite some time and one result alone isn't necessarily proof that this has changed. Instead of needing to focus on nefarioius, shadowy forces at play, I think you can pinpoint where he's gone wrong (just as you could pinpoint where Ranieri went wrong) and, as we embark on a new long-term squad building project, we have to be careful whose image it is that we shape the team in. That said, needless to say I would love him to stuff Spurs, build a fine team and prove us all wrong next season. And it's true that team-building will be a hell of a lot easier if Puel turns out not to be rubbish. We'll see.
  10. inckley fox


    I can accept this and I can accept that it's not entirely his fault that we're not doing it. However we have to be careful of looking at just 1 / 2 games. Instead, look at a whole second half of the season. We ignored this sort of evidence under Taylor because of a single, misleading 4-2 over Spurs and there are various examples of a side not paying proper attention to a sustained slump, or being distracted by one or two red herrings near the end of a campaign, or even kidding themselves that all is well because there are lots of other sides out there playing badly. It's easy to blame players for poor form. Poor confidence, the belief that you simply aren't going to win that 50-50, can easily be mistaken for lack of effort. If you want a culprit I'd look at management recruitment. If poor clarity of instruction and communication was a reason for Ranieri leaving, why appoint someone who was clearly a poorer communicator? Why appoint him largely on the strength of what he did at Southampton, then fire him for replicating what he did at Southampton? There's been a lot of speculation. But much of it has stated that the old guard (Mahrez aside) isn't responsible for this unrest, so if it's true it's likelier to stem from Nacho, Iborra, Silva, Jakupovic ec. Are minds being cast back to allegations against Vardy, Huth, Schmeichel and co. a year ago, which were supposed to be largely unfounded? Are we listening too much to people saying that they've 'downed tools again', when the players you're speculating about aren't the same players as the last set? And you can pinpoint some of Puel's problems, before you focus on the players. Team selections, in-game changes, the apparent difficulty expressing himself, the fact that we can't play an effective front-foot passing game because quite a few of our players (Ndidi, Simpson, Morgan etc.) aren't comfortable with it and, of course, questions from his Southampton tenure about whether what worked for him in France will work for him in the EPL. Of course, if the rumours about the dressing room are true then it's impractical for him to carry on. If Puel's exit was known before the game - a little unfair, given that he supposedly had until the end of the campaign to turn things around - then it might have been a reaction to Puel going, rather than an attempt to save his bacon.
  11. inckley fox

    Puel - what about now

    If people have changed their decision based on a single positive result against a side with 10 men and Arsenal's away record then I'll be stunned, unless they genuinely believed that the players were losing on purpose because Puel was their manager. If we do well at Spurs too it may suggest that progress has been made. Of course, we don't know what the nature of that progress is - it could be that a decision has been made, everyone knows and this is the positive reaction from the players. On the other hand, it may mean that Puel lost the support of a few players, made some mistakes, suffered a few injuries but then pulled things back around, in which case there's a debate to be had. But we'll have a clearer idea on Sunday. One thing which is very important is that we don't get fooled by a single result. End of season form has often been an indicator of how we'll start the next campaign, but there's always been a danger that we're distracted by a sole errant scoreline. For instance we beat Spurs at the end of 2000-01, leading many to soften their line on Taylor when his position was being seriously considered. Had he gone, we might have stayed up. There are plenty of one-offs which have gone against the grain at the end of a season, but often the grain tells you more about what's coming next than the one-off does. That said, the board decided to wait until the end of the season. If Puel had had any sort of serious chance of keeping his job, then a win over Spurs and 6 points from those 3 games would be as good as they could realistically have hoped for. I doubt that'll happen but you never know.
  12. inckley fox

    Nigel Pearson Poll

    There are a lot of posts like this with very little justification to back their views up. When they try to justify themselves, it's all too obvious that they can't. And there's a lot of posts saying the opposite of this trying to explain what should be entirely obvious to everybody. He did a stunning job for us, a key part of which was at this level. He has proven he can form a top EPL side, more so than any other manager in our history, and more so than Silva or Wagner, who are supposedly top of our list of priorities. I'd prefer us to look at other options too, right now. But that's because we may need fresher ideas, may need a boss who's more in-touch with the PL and because Pearson may have lost some of his hunger. It's not because he'd be an insane appointment. You obviously haven't paid much attention to how badly the club has been managed for the bulk of this millennium, other than when Pearson is in charge, or when his set-up is still intact. I hope people realise that when they say they want someone with proven PL pedigree, that they're actually asking for the likes of Moyes, Pardew, Puel and Allardyce. People who can, for the most part, do a steady job but not much more. And have done, more than once. If you want the potential for something more than that then, unless we somehow snare Benitez, there's going to be an element of risk. Wagner and Silva come with risks and Pearson comparably so. We don't know how far they can go, but with Pearson we have at least seen how good a side he can form. And from a starting platform of the third tier. If you're insane for recognising this - which is the actual factual truth rather than emotive bickering and sniping - then good luck to the sane people.
  13. inckley fox

    Nigel Pearson Poll

    I think the poll indicates a lot of people are considering other options first, rather than that they wouldn't be happy to see Pearson back. I wondered to myself 'does YES mean he's my first choice, or that I'd be happy to have him back?' so I suppose others felt the same. Some of the comments, on the other hand, are absurd. Whoever it is who said that most clubs treat their great managers with more respect and pride than we do is right. If some people are so dismissive of (or at times, weirdly, bitter about) what happened between 2008 and 2015, and how that impacted on 2016, then they don't deserve success because they don't recognise what it is or what causes it to happen. And yes, obviously he's demonstrated that he doesn't need to inherit his own players in order to be successful. We should all know that. There would be huge advantages to appointing him. He may not have had a serious chance at finishing high up the PL but he's fulfilled expectations in this league in a way which Silva and Wagner are yet to do, and this was three years rather than a decade ago. He's also put together a side which ended up winning this league, which has to count for something. He'll know over half of the squad well, whereas most candidates would need to study all of their options at a time when recruitment is going to be important. There are one or two key players - Vardy for instance - who may well consider their futures this summer, but most probably wouldn't if he returned, so it could slam the brakes on a complete dissolution of the squad. That said, Pearson may well still want to appraise all of his players, were he to return. He hasn't tended to move people on without taking a good look at them first, so there are 10 or 11 players knocking around who have wasted their first, second, third chances at the club, and may find themselves with an unwarranted fourth chance under Pearson. Whether we have time for this, I don't know, and whether he still has the same drive and knowledge of the EPL I don't know either.
  14. inckley fox

    The Arsenal next, lord help us!

    I've never ever been able to support a side against us, even on those occasions when you wonder if it's for the best. While I suspect Puel needs to go, I'd love him to turn it round. A couple of good end-of-season results with an injury-battered squad might regenerate some belief, and it would lead us with a man in charge who has a long-term project in mind and an idea of how to implement it. I can't see it happening, but it sounds good enough. That said, there's also the danger of a single errant result giving us a false impression of being in good shape for next season. Remember the win against Spurs in May 2001? It's dangerous to put yourself in a position where too much attention is focused on one or two results. A single positive result against a big side may either cause us to make a decision based on that, or fire him anyway and create a rod for the incoming manager's back. In that respect, it's true that some defeats can actually be a good thing for a side if they prompt a necessary action. Had we lost that game to Spurs, Taylor may have been fired. Had we not slumped to Sheffield United in March 1996, it may never have provided O'Neill with the springboard to his side's resurgence, or the motivation to prove his critics wrong. While I won't be able to back the opposition, I can understand why some fans might reflect that one bad result could have positive consequences. Meanwhile I'll cling on to the forlorn hope that Puel can provide the back-to-back wins that demonstrate it hasn't all gone to dust.
  15. inckley fox

    Nigel Pearson Poll

    Based on what. Gut instinct? He never had a realistic chance, not with us or anyone else, to prove otherwise. The side he formed and left behind did alright though, if you want clues.