inckley fox

Okay, but he was still a translator. And a PE teacher before that. I'm well aware that he had some background in the game and that these things are irrelevant to whether or not he was a good manager. That's the point isn't it? Being an ex-PE teacher is neither here nor there for him or for Skubala. Huxley was a teacher too - did that mean he should have stuck to teaching literature? It's an utterly pointless observation.

I think Mourinho was also a PE teacher! I don't see any relevance in that whatsoever, and it makes people look a bit silly to keep bringing it up. I wasn't a fan of Cooper, but I found his frequently-referenced Forest links and physical attractiveness about as relevant as his failure to pick Will Alves. And the idea of Russell Martin horrifies me, but I couldn't care less about him being a Buddhist or a vegan. The semi-nude calendar shots, or whatever they were, grate on me a bit more (and probably shouldn't!) but generally we don't need to go down that road of raking up totally immaterial reasons for not wanting someone. Martin's very, very dodgy record and Skubala's inexperience... Okay, we can talk about that. But Skubala being an ex-PE teacher is completely uninteresting to me, much like Rodgers having worked in a warehouse or O'Neill as a salesman. I'd need to look into Skubala a bit more to fully form an opinion, but - as with Smith - perhaps the issue is more whether he'd want to touch us with a forty foot pole, or whether we'd pay the compensation, rather than whether or not we should be interested.

I'm astonished people aren't okay with it, if it's a serious option. I think he might be out of our league right now rather than the other way round. Perhaps some would prefer Coleman (who went down from this league and never won a promotion from it), Rowett (who went down from this league, was on his way to going down a second time, and has never won a promotion from it) or Martin (who has won a widely expected promotion from this league, but also done some very middling jobs in it, and been downright awful at any level since his sole career highlight). I understand that when a club is in trouble, your options often look a bit like this. But if you add Dean Smith - who has generally done a decent job at most levels, won a promotion from this division and then laid the foundations for future success by keeping that club up - to the pool, it looks a bit better to me. Okay, he's not quite the Big Nige figure so many crave. And okay, he went down with us in 2023, albeit after only six weeks in charge, with the club already in the drop zone, and with a ppg which, if he'd been given the two extra games he should have been given, would have kept us up. But he's the right sort of profile, and might stand a chance at getting us more organised, and demanding more of the group. We don't have to be negative about everything! I think we'd stay up and potentially be able to build beyond that with him.

Our results have been considerably worse when he's started than when he hasn't. And he's been an absolute nightmare for the last three managers. But he comes on and does kind of alright in a dreadful team performance, and people are calling for us to welcome him back all over again. This mentality, and unwillingness to learn from past mistakes, is a huge part of our problem. Boardroom issues aside, on the field our biggest problem has long been the culture and the standards around the place. That's painfully obvious. Ruud may have been an awful manager but he has enough standing in the game for it to be worth listening to him when he says that our standards are nowhere near high enough. Winks has probably been one of the most culpable when it comes to that side of things. People want a Pearson-type figure to come in and kick arses. Sideline the time-wasters and the piss-takers. The notion that we should start building the side around Winks again - based on today's game, and nothing else - when he's coming to the end of his deal and clearly doesn't want to be here, is massively at odds with that. You can't want both a Pearson-esque overhaul and to see Harry Winks play any sort of significant role. These things can't possibly co-exist. And we shouldn't want them to either.

I've never been able to tolerate him, at any club. I don't think, given what he's supposed to offer a side (as much as I don't get it), that he's been as bad as some say. I simply think he's about as far removed from an archetypal Leicester City player as anyone could be. As a fanbase we just don't appreciate the qualities that people like Ayew bring in the same way as other fanbases might. Or might have half a decade ago. Maybe. And, of course, on top of all that he's not been very good. But it's the nature of the player himself which is indicative of a very serious problem at the club. LCFC has a culture which long precedes Top and King Power. Our fans have always responded to blood, thunder, power, pace, a never-say-die spirit. Ayew can never embody that. But Top's vision, going back to when KP allegedly pushed Pearson out in 2010, has always been to reinvent us as a purist's team. We were told, a year or two after we won the title by playing very Pearson-esque football, that Top's vision of the game was the only way to be a 'sustainable' PL force. And it's coloured our recruitment for years. From Vestergard to Faes to Soumare to Winks to Ayew, we've inundated ourselves with players that Matt Elliott might term as 'strollers' - technically gifted, but easy to get at, and unable at times to perform basic functions. When he was interviewed on Sky, Top literally credited himself with creating our title-winning success in his first sentence. It's that failure to understand that, no you didn't and, no, you as an owner don't get to dictate what the culture of a 142-year-old football club is - and that your notion of footballing culture was never responsible for any of our success - which has got us where we are today. And, inevitably, this disconnect and delusion leads to people like Jordan Ayew donning the shirt.

I think you're probably a much more intelligent and balanced individual than I am. I remember watching a horrible film called 'Salo' years ago, and couldn't for the life of me think why it came to mind at some point in the first half. Then I reflected a bit. Not only was 'Salo' more enjoyable than what I watched today, but I found myself half-wishing for similar punishments to be administered to many of our players. And directors. While I'd never seriously wish harm on anyone, Luke Thomas included, you should probably check 'Salo' out before going back to Leicester City.

The facts don't back you up. We've won three, drawn five and lost six of the games he's started. Over quite a large sample of games, we're worse with him in the side than without. A half-decent sub appearance really shouldn't distort our analysis to this degree.

Then we've learnt nothing.

If he's right about the next manager too, should we abide him putting in half-arsed performances and causing unrest behind the scenes? If all of the last three managers have been the problem, and not the application of the players they inherited, then is manager number four likely to be any different? At some point we not only have to acknowledge that the manager isn't the biggest problem, but also grasp what that means. Good players will have to be excluded because they don't apply themselves, and occasionally they will come on and look better than the people who have supplanted them. But it doesn't stop said individuals being a fundamental part of the core problem, which is a cultural issue at the club, rather than one of technical ability. Winks, like several others, has already shown himself to be a part of that problem. A relatively respectable display in a dreadful team performance shouldn't be enough for people to start saying 'the problem was manager a, b and c all along, and not Harry Winks.'

True, but we've been down this road before more than once. It's not tended to end well. Culture and application are our biggest problems. Bringing someone back in who's widely seen as the biggest of the culprits is probably not the answer. He might have done alright in an awful game, when he's looking for a move out and to put himself in the shop window, but history tells us to be cautious.

I've not seen anything of him yet, so wouldn't know whether someone so inexperienced can handle a very difficult job which typically might require a good bit of experience. Of course, we probably only need a short--term fix to avoid relegation and promoted interims often pull that off. One of many dangers is that a useful interim becomes a not-so-useful long-term project. Whether that's King or not. But if we're looking at Coleman, who secured Sunderland's relegation to L1 in 2018 or whenever it was, or Rowett, who was involved (though not especially culpable) in Birmingham's two years ago, then we really are ticking all the wrong boxes, both short and long term. So maybe King isn't such a dumb option.

I think the over-emphasis on KIng Power's role in our success, all along, has been massively unhelpful. You'll inevitably get the 'KPFC' cult when people fail to see that sensational budget recruitment was responsible for our rise as a club rather than huge investment, or Buddhist monks for that matter. People bought into it way too much and now there's a sense of shock and horror, when it was fairly obvious from start to finish that boardroom nous wasn't the reason for our emergence. Vichai was a good chairman, but the architect of our success, from before he turned up, was Nigel Pearson.

I'm not sure it's preferable to give free rein to the people who have governed our recruitment for the past few years. And by that I'm not only referring to Glover. I have no reason to believe that any of our managers since Puel have any great pedigree as team-builders. But if you look at our recruitment since the FA Cup win, under five different managers, it's been abysmal. It's also a myth that it was any good under Maresca, when the money was spent on Coady/Winks/Cannon and a host of others who have shown glimpses of quality without consistently looking likely to make the transition to top level football. It's hard to argue that a group of people, none of which have ever managed and most of which have questionable credentials in the game, are the ones who should have a greater say on recruitment than any one of five different managers. Some of which have had decent careers in management and whose input at least carries some weight. I'm utterly underwhelmed by Cifuentes. I wouldn't want to say he's never going to make it at this level (he kind of did, more or less), just that he's no more likely to be successful with us than anyone else who's going to be interested in the job right now. But we can't keep dismissing all of these managers as total no-hopers whose input should be discarded in favour of Rudkin and co. continuing to run amok with our recruitment. Yes, there are managers out there who could do a lot better - but hardly any of them would want to come, and if they did, our board would fail to identify them. It's hard to adapt to this reality because until recently we were a club capable of attracting top manager. Now, Cifuentes is the calibre of boss we can expect, give or take a little. Yes, he looks like he's flailing, but when that applies to so many consecutive bosses you have to start looking for the common denominators. And, preferably, not encourage them to carry on doing as they see fit with the club.

Fair enough. I've heard the name often enough while going off on a rant like this one!

He has his qualities. There's an occasional decent delivery, long throws with pace, and when he's told to stay tight to his man he sometimes shows a bit of aggression. And, to be fair, I didn't think he was as bad as some suggested in the first half. But he's so, so unreliable. You knew that second half was coming. I've always thought him to be a third tier standard defender and couldn't for the life of me make sense of the contract extension, but I'm beginning to doubt whether he's even League One level. I've watched a few lower league games recently and I think there are several better FBs in the top half of L1, and even lower. He gets outmuscled, frequently sets up counters by surrendering possession (often through blindly trying to clear his lines, smashing it against the winger's shins, and finding himself out of position as they maraud down his flank) and lacks pace, strength and anything resembling nous. It's a shame because as a youngster he did well as a deputy, but sadly he's turned into one of the worst LBs I've ever seen at the club (which is amazing when you consider that Kristiansen is still on the books). Thomas had his FA Cup Final and Tony Spearing did a fine job when we beat Oxford in May 1991, so it's a tight call between them on which one lays claim to the golden turd.

We really do need to get out of this habit of thinking that the solution to our problems (in this case, repeatedly appointing managers who look like poor fits for the club) is to repeat them (by, with regard to your suggestion, appointing someone else who is obviously a poor fit for the club. And at considerable expense, once again).

You can see how he's growing as a player, getting stronger, more composed, but still full of running. A great example for Monga who, understandably enough, is struggling to make an impact right now. Though I should add, regarding Monga, that what you tend to look for from youngsters is a bit of raw enthusiasm and energy, and I'm not sure we're getting enough of that from him. I hope the hype hasn't got to him, because he looks a tad too cocky at times. It's Page, for me, who has earned the minutes, and when things stopped working for Mavididi in the second half I thought - some time before the 72nd minute or whenever it was that we finally made a change - that we might have considered shifting Reid out wide for a bit and bringing Page on as the ten, instead of going for Monga. Things get a bit stagnant sometimes and when you have an option who's as effective as Page has been, the manager could perhaps look to a tweak or two at an earlier stage rather than waiting too long and making a flurry of them. Of course, there's a lot of growing up to do for both of them. There'll be times when we have to be patient. Look at Nelson, who's four or five years older - even at his age we have to accept that there'll be off days, like today.

It looked around a third full to me. Piper said he'd been told it was 12,500.

Gotta love a bit of Coxon. I'd also recommend 'Yoga Town' from Superstate, Blur b-side 'Sticks and Stones', and some of the stuff with his missus in The Waeve. Oh, and 'Be Mine'. But you probably already know all of this.

Extraordinary. And I thought I'd seen it all. Silly me. Obviously taking the piss, I should add. If not...

Like others, you've made some strong points. I'd just add a few caveats. First, the whole notion of what a good 'tactician' means. It used to be a manager who was knowledgeable of different styles / systems / shapes, found the one which best suited their personnel, and would then occasionally make the tight tweaks for the right occasion. Now it often seems to mean much the opposite - someone who has a specific and often distinct system which is their own trademark, and which they unvaryingly impose on their players until it's well-learnt. There's no 'horses for courses' to it. And to be honest, I'm not sure how effective a tactician you are if you're so inflexible. O'Neill certainly found systems which suited his players, and it wasn't always the same shape or style from one club to the next. It didn't tend to vary much from there on in (unlike, you could argue, Pearson who went from an industrial, direct 4-4-2 to a 4-3-3, then later from a more possession-based 4-4-2 to a whole raft of experiments upon promotion, finally settling on a quick and quite attacking 3-4-1-2). Where O'Neill got himself a name for being old school and tactically unstudied was in (a) actually getting old and (b) using his platform to decry modern footballing jargon, and point out that terms like 'high press' / 'between the lines' / 'transitions' were just flashy names being applied to old concepts. I think some people mistook that for him rejecting the worth of modern changes in the game when he was really just pointing out that, for instance, the recent popularity of the long throw isn't an innovation. The second point is about fitness. You're right in what you say, but some of his 'old school' notions weren't actually too unhelpful back in the day. Part of this relates to a conversation I had some years back with a coach who'd worked in La Liga, when I mentioned that a lot of our players seemed less fit nowadays than the old O'Neill era side which Izzet once called 'the best pub side in England'. Be that as it may, they were renowned for their running and their ability to claw back results late in games, and with very little rotation. He said that it was very, very possible, simply because some managers spent so much time working on shape that fitness was largely left to other departments. This was the accusation under Sousa - every session was shape, shape, shape with fitness issues left for individuals and the sports science department to fret over, with hefty rotation the answer to any problems which came up. Consequently players complained that we spent no time working on the basics and couldn't last ninety minutes either. O'Neill might not have dedicated a great deal of time and energy to fitness either (from what I heard, Robertson / Walford spent more time coaching set pieces than anything else) but they were literally dropped off at a military base at the start of pre-season for a couple of weeks of sheer hell to make sure they were fit. That's no use to us now, but it demonstrates that even a bunch of boozers can be fitter than a set of players with cutting-edge sports science at hand, if priorities get lost. The third is when it comes to players like Winks. Yes, O'Neill could get players back on board, but it's worth remembering that they had to want to. The likes of Corica never wanted to and were quickly cast aside. As for Parker, the story went that - before the point where he got on famously with O'Neill - he 'threw the tea' at him during a half-time bust-up, and was stripped of the captaincy and even briefly transfer-listed in the aftermath. So there are no guarantees that Faes, Soumare and Winks would have the strength of character to deal with that in the way Parker did. As for whether it would ever work, or could ever happen - that's very debatable. Do we need someone to try to bring those players back on board or, given that there isn't a great deal of time left on some of their contracts, do we need to be putting any potential short-term benefits to one side and moving on from them? And, given that they've fallen foul of several consecutive managers, should even a short-term fixer be wasting time on them? O'Neill, as we all know, is capable of a very slow start when the squad needs a lot of work, so is he the right man for the task? Would he even entertain the idea when his Celtic stint makes a higher level SOS job a real possibility for him? Indeed, might the only way of attracting him to the job be to offer him a longer-term option, if he makes good progress?

Rectifying a mistake by doing something largely in keeping with all of your previous mistakes, and clearly suicidal, is hardly a meaningful way forward. Cifuentes isn't much of a manager. When you know who picked him and under what circumstances, it's no surprise. There are those who would do better out there and many who wouldn't too. While it may make sense to get rid, we can't kid ourselves that the problem is his utter incompetence. We made that assumption with the previous two managers and at some point we've got to see that the more serious problems have no quick fixes. Until there's a boardroom team with some degree of credibility, it's hard to imagine things will get any better, regardless of how fed up I am with Cifuentes. Then again, as little faith as we may have had in Mandaric to pick an effective management team, he still eventually chanced upon Pearson. So there's some hope.

Maresca specifically praised him for being quick. Maybe, like with Big Wes who was quick but didn't always show it, we're missing something. Or maybe Enzo just hadn't been paying attention.

A lot of people have spoken about the issue being that he's denied space in every game. I've not been convinced by this at all, and yesterday I thought that Derby's Brereton Diaz failed singularly to support Callum Elder at LB, Ebou Adams wasn't screening effectively either, and Fatawu was able to pick up the ball in all sorts of decent positions and run at his opponent with plenty of space, and options. He was mostly sloppy and wasteful, albeit with a glimpse or two of what he's capable of doing. There's a real talent in there, but he's got a lot of work to do to go near to fulfilling it. Most flair players don't reach the levels they could. He's a player who needs to match his talent, which is considerable but by no stretch extraordinary, with his work-rate. And be a lot less prissy about it along the way.

I'm not sure what we mean sometimes when we talk about being a good team 'on paper'. With reference to one-time price tags, wages and international appearances, yes, by those meaningless measurements we should be herculean. But almost all of our players in every position have been worse than the corresponding Derby players this season. Isn't that 'on paper' too? And when it comes to how successful our players have been at this level or any other in England, shouldn't that count towards how good we are 'on paper' too? Faes has had one decent season at this level, in contrast to the woeful one he's having now, and two equally woeful ones in the league above. Winks one good and one very bad season at this level and a dire one in the league above. Mavididi hasn't been much better. Soumare has been awful for us at any level over all four seasons, Daka over all five and Kristiansen, and Okoli, throughout their time with us. Ayew and Reid have never been any good for us either, and are pretty much past-it. Skipp has never been any good for us. Vestergard has had one decent season in the second tier and been crap in the others. Ricardo has managed one decent season (again in the second tier) out of the past five, and is also past-it. Carranza has an utterly unremarkable record at any noteworthy level. Thomas has been crap wherever he's been, at any level, for four seasons. Hamza hasn't had a good run of form for us this decade. Our youngsters, for all the hype are - with the exception of Nelson and arguably Jakob - unproven. That leaves Fatawu, with one decent season in the second season, mostly poor performances upto his injury in the league above, and a thus-far uninspiring campaign at this level. And then there's James and Ramsey. Maybe I'm forgetting someone, but surely all of this is 'on paper' too. But I do fully agree that we'll probably get spanked!