inckley fox

Awful ref. I defend them normally, but he was abhorrent.

I've never been a fan of Faes. He'd already put in several of the worst performances at CB that I've seen. And yes I remember Brian Carey vs. Wolves in '93. But today he's breaking new ground. The manager is nuts if he puts that guy in ahead of Souttar or Coady. It's self-sabotage; an easy decision to make. Mavididi and Justin also dreadful. Hamza and Jamie doing well, principally because they seem to appreciate the importance of the occasion more than anyone else. The manager needs to stop being so nice to these players if he wants to finish top two. And stop over-complicating everything.

Do we know if Vichai was one of those who opposed FFP in the FLC back in 2012 or 2013 or whenever it was?

Yep, you're right. I clearly hadn't done my homework! The point I should have been making, then(!), is that it looks like we've infringed and, while we can guess at where the responsibility lies (does JR involve himself much in the financial side of things? Does SW outrank him, or have any footballing responsibilities? Was there a failure to communicate the predicament to BR or Enzo which pulled the rug from beneath them?) ultimately it'd be the owners' responsibility. I suppose we'll just have to wait and see whether that's the case, or we get over the line. I know it's not a very enlightening assessment, but it just seems like a statement of the obvious. It's interesting to learn that their hands are clean, however, when it comes to the advent of PSR. Which is a crock of crap, for what it's worth.

I hope I didn't break any rules earlier when I said we seemed to have broken rules which we'd previously voted for. There was a response by a fine poster (most likely explaining why I was wrong) which has, along with my message, also vanished! So, if either the mods wish to explain why I'm being daft, or Coolhandfox wishes to reiterate why I'm wrong in my conclusions, then I'd be grateful! I know how careful we all have to be in what we say, but I didn't think there was anything too serious, edgy, contentious and definitely not libellous (I mean, how can any of us have a clue in that regard, one way or the other?) in the message. So, as a middle-aged man muddling through the gripes and grievances of 2024, and who has quite possibly missed something right in front of me, I'd be grateful for any enlightenment!

Weirdly, among people I know, the ones whom I'd class PL hangers-on are actually far more positive than the rest of us! I keep thinking that the complacency, and the 82nd minute exoduses at home, come from that direction, whereas a lot of the dye-in-wool fans are less cocksure. But there may well be some confirmation bias on my part when it comes to backing up these suspicions!

I'm not sure we are, as a rule, as in control of games as the rhetoric suggests our aim to be. There are a lot of risks taken in our own half, trying to capitalise on spaces as they open up, and some of our players are better in those tight moments than others. It means the opposition are always a loose touch or an interception away from an opening which they don't deserve. We also have a habit of sitting on the ball deep and waiting, waiting until the opposition apply pressure. I understand why, but if when you play the ball it goes backwards and then backwards again, eventually it comes to someone with no options on at all, and necessitates a long or a reckless ball. If everything's about control, then move it a tad faster, bring in the midfielders, and don't allow a mere 2-3 pressing players to force you into conceding possession. That said, these things didn't lose us the game last night. And there are a whole load of other things we could say about how these tactics have got us into a dominant position in the league, and got us into one last night. But there are vulnerabilities to it which don't need to be there, and give openings to opponents. On top of that, I'm among those who think it'd be suicide to go on playing this way, or anything closely resembling it, at a higher level. Now, Enzo's failure to keep up with the opposition as they adapt and tweak things to exploit our weaknesses is far more annoying and costly. Conceding so many late goals can't simply be put down to tiredness (I thought we were the ones who were meant to benefit from that with this style of play) or players failing to take chances. And those subs last night were unhelpful once again, being as late and - when they came - questionable as they were. Try making minor alterations while we're on top, especially with younger subs, and staying ahead of the game while the advantage is ours. Overall, though, I think valid concerns about the style of play, and whether it's really that tactically ingenious to be playing pretty much the same way with the same shape every game, have been drowned out at times by the repeated mantra of 'we have x points' / 'we're going for the record' / 'he's turned this place around' / 'stop being so negative' when, in truth, points totals are all relative, the expectation was that we'd be exactly where we find ourselves now, and there were many other ways that we could have gone about this and still been where we are now. Nothing has been achieved and we're still in the thick of the battle. It'd be arrogant not to reflect a bit.

At half-time we had a slender lead and knew Leeds would come back into it at some point. Everything hinged on us being ahead of the game. Issues presented themselves throughout, but they weren't addressed. The subs came after the impetus had been surrendered, and they didn't improve us. I can't see how Kasey ever improves us to be honest, and to me the game seemed made for Albrighton or Yunus. In fairness to the subs, they came in at the arse end of a phase in which we'd failed to capitalise, instead of being able to impact on our spell of superiority. Overall, though, I'd agree that the loss of discipline among several players, the poor officiating, and the failure to convert chances - all of which were crucial - aren't issues which are easy for a boss to address. But, just as he rightly takes credit for our current position, he's also played his part in it going wrong tonight. The failure to take any initiative, or even keep up with the initiative thay they had taken with the subs, is cause for concern.

I thought the manager failed to read the game. Fatawu offered nothing, lacked composure - why not address issues as they crop up, and before others start to lose their discipline? As for bringing Kasey on... Well... For the boss to be that far off the pace of what was going on - acting too late, then still managing to make changes which actually weakened our hand - obviously puts you at an unnecessary disadvantage. The lack of character was alarming. I thought players who'd performed well earlier in the evening - Choudhury, Vestergard, Ricardo - appeared to have lost all sense of discipline, both in terms of positioning and conduct. But if I were Enzo, I'd pick tonight as the night when I grabbed all the headlines for laying into a ref. A) because the ref was demonstrably awful from start to finish, and b) because it might distract from the way in which he and his players weren't up to it.

Fatawu has been poor. He lacks composure and today he's seemed unprepared to receive the ball. We also need to stop giving Mads the ball in situations where he's got no options. Vestergard, who's been excellent otherwise, has played him into trouble several times when there has been a simple ball on into midfield. KDH, Daka and Winks all good. Ricardo has grown into the game, but is walking a tightrope because of one of the most depressing and incompetent refereeing decisions (from one of the most consistently incompetent refs) you're going to see. I wouldn't be surprised to see Leeds offering more of a threat second half. Red card(s) wouldn't be a shock either.

My word, Faes is going to get destroyed if we get out of this league. Praet is a waste of everyone's time and energy. The wingers have also been awful. Apart from that, it's splendid.

Attacking midfield... The two wide players have been poor. Praet is in and out of it. Nelson has been turned a few times but, apart from that, they've been alright. I'm not sure I agree with the commentators that the ref has been consistent. Overall, it just feels that we've lacked the creativity to make our superiority tell. But we're a goal up, so I shouldn't moan!

Yes, I've listened post match. Quite a bright analysis. If it weren't for the current Sky love-in for inarticulate morons (which makes you wonder what people look for in their commentators!) you'd say he'd have a career ahead of him in punditry.

Take McAteer off, remind Ricardo that he's a full back when we're out of possession. We've lost our discipline a bit, both positionally and in terms of our conduct. And I'd be livid with Kasey. But we've also been very good value for the lead, and I think we'll be fine if we're even remotely sensible.

Fair enough. But let's see if our disregard for this competition pays dividends on Tuesday. If it doesn't, I suppose a question or two could be asked. I also suspect people are frustrated to see some of the first team characteristics which aren't particularly beneficial being so counter-productively echoed by fringe players. And, of course, there are players who are supposed to be first team options looking pretty woeful. That's another valid concern.

Where do I begin? How many games has he played? That'd be very close to the answer to the question.

I've heard a whole load of things said about Obama the person, and his past. Both good and bad. Ultimately the only thing of any real importance is what you make of his period in office.

On the ref, I think the penalty was the right decision. A red would have been harsh, but if you're as quick with the red for dangerous play with Fatawu - which, again, was an understandable decision for a totally dumb challenge - then you have to be consistent. There were one or two other out of control tackles which could have been punished more severely. And there's a serious argument that Palmer needed a second yellow too, so on balance the big decisions didn't favour us. The occasion got to England, as it did one or two of our players. Mavididi and Faes (who had an absolute stinker, for me - and was responsible for both surrendering possession for their third AND failing to get back to defend the ball in) were sloppy from the off. Just not awake and alert enough. I wouldn't be surprised if Stephy had an ear-bashing and was taken off because he simply hadn't been up for it. Regarding Maresca - he basically nullified our countering threat by removing the last of our pace and then our only remaining attacker (unless you count Kasey as a serious threat!). The decision to introduce Hamza seemed slow in coming, though I have to say that he was very poor when he did come on.

Personally I thought Faes was sloppy. But he's not alone. Cesare and Fatawu aren't at the races either. But yes, Winks is looking good. Justin also.

We're the better side, but you do have to actually try to score from time to time - get the ball in, take a risk etc. We recycle possession again and again and end up generating openings which are inferior to the initial ones. And we're in trouble the moment that any side presses. As soon as we're pushed back into the final quarter of the pitch, we invariably fail to carry the ball out of our own half. If we do, it's via a fairly direct counter. And yet we encourage the press and, at the same time, are reluctant to seek the counter-attack. We should still win though, for all my gripes! It would take a masterclass in failing to assert your authority, or a whole lot of bad luck, for us to do otherwise.

How on earth would I be approving their opinions? By just belonging to a community that one moron also happens to belong to? It's entirely unrealistic and would be incredibly exhausting to expect people to feel responsibility for the actions of everyone in their community. The implications are also absurd - that every Catholic, Jew or Muslim has to expressly show their disregard, publicly, for anything which anyone who belongs to the same group does. That I would have to worry about what other Leicester fans get up to, or say. That every time a drunk fool batters someone because they're a Forest fan, that's also on me. Come on. And how is there any similarity between me simply being a Leicester fan at a time when some other Leicester fan, somewhere, said something horrible, equatable with a fan wearing their colours in a place where it would obviously be insensitive to wear them? (Quite apart from the fact that, regardless of how inevitable it might be, it would also have been wrong for Belgian fans to have considered all Liverpool fans to be responsible for Heysel). I approve the opinions that I choose to approve, and feel little need to advertise it most of the time. Being British doesn't mean I advocate all of the things that have been carried out in the name of Britain. I wouldn't glower at someone for saying they were a Sheffield Wednesday fan, and failing to quickly disavow the Bradley Lowery incident, either. It would be crazy to do so. I can't decide whether this is the modern equivalent of people demanding self-flagellation or other public shows of atonement for things which, on a global scale, we just can't expect people to take responsibility for. The problem here is that people are craving that hollow, token response to something which doesn't warrant a response, as if it will make something better which can't be made better. As if it will prove that we're all among the good guys when, in truth, there's no need whatsoever for everyone to be reminding the world that, in case you hadn't noticed, I'm not a **nt. All it achieves is to make that idiot the centrepiece of everything, while everyone else flails around trying to prove that they're above that sort of childishness. Me clapping on the 22nd minute, when most people won't have a clue what they're clapping for, or joining in in the public lynching of some prat who isn't worth the merest of considerations, isn't going to absolve our fans of anything, nor prove that I care, nor make either the tragic loss or the offence caused any better. All it does is add to the sense of shock, alarm and outrage at something which should have achieved nothing whatsoever.

Personally - and I know I'm contradicting myself by even posting in this thread - I have to go along with those who say that we're getting on the 'social media action-reaction pirate ship ride' by even feeling the need to bite when some cretin posts a load of brainless rubbish. There's no need to apologise just because someone behaving abhorrently associates themselves with your club, or anything else that you support. Plenty of dreadful people follow our club, and even if you consider that they're pretending to act 'in our name', then why should you feel remorse for that? I don't believe that followers of a religion should protest their innocence when others purport to commit atrocities in their name. I wouldn't shudder if I saw a serial rapist arrive in court with an LCFC scarf draped over his shoulder. And when I'm in a foreign bar and an English person tells the waiter that, being a silly foreign sort, they'd do well to take in some British wisdom, I don't feel the need to proclaim 'not all English people are like that - see?' It'd be as daft as a Beatles fanatic feeling the need to be overly-nice to victims of the Manson family. That sort of reaction shows that you feel that, in some way, these people do represent you. They don't represent us, though. And instead of being guilt-tripped into reminding people that I'm a human being, I'd prefer to get on with the job. A young person died. That's extremely sad. It truly is. Someone made jokes about this, and they hurt someone. That's awful. But any argument that the rest of us should feel responsibility for those jokes is obviously fatally flawed.

I thought the decision to bring Cesare in was an attacking move with an eye on getting a second. He's often involved in chance creation even if it doesn't always work out. In hindsight, yes, Hamza would have been the better move. I broadly agree with the other observations. Iheanacho didn't do enough and the subs generally didn't help. Fatawu wasn't nearly as effective as Mavididi. Wilf was more jaded than usual. The defence largely did its job, with Faes rightly singled out for some great interventions (though it's worth adding that his positioning allowed them a lot of room down that flank, and in spite of inviting them to attack us down the right he didn't always get close enough to put pressure on the delivery). Hermansen, I'd agree, wasn't up to standard in his delivery. I thought 1-1 was fair and, on paper, a good result. But if people are saying we have nothing to worry about I'd have to disagree. Firstly, because there's always something to improve on, and secondly because the number of goals we let in late on tells you pretty much what that is. If we want it to be plain sailing, we have to get better at seeing games out. Personally I'd favour leaving two men in more offensive positions when sides are pressing our build-up and occasionally pick out that direct outlet, as we have in fairness shown a greater willingness to do of late. It'd at very least reduce the number of players that they could commit to the press, and give us a better solution than playing through a mesh of players and finally panicking, surrendering possession in a dangerous area. The commentator kept saying how Enzo doesn't like counters because he doesn't like chaos - but I have a feeling that he's going to have to embrace it a tad more often as time goes by. But I'm sure someone on here can explain why I'm wrong!

The hindsight of knowing that we had a large number of PL-standard players, including three top-level talents among our number and in addition to them two of the game's absolutely finest talents, is a stronger testament to the standard of that side than imaginary match-ups, spurious claims about football being more competitive, and comments on points totals are to the quality of this side. As it stands, only one member of this side has ever won the second tier, and he did it with us, as a far superior player to that of today, and in that team, when he was in the early throes of becoming our best ever player. Simply saying that makes any claims that this is the superior side seem a stretch, especially when you add Schmeichel, Morgan, Drinkwater and Riyad Mahrez into the comparison. And beyond that, the like-for-like analysis of the strengths of the players, what they had achieved, what they would in that season - or the next, or the one after that - all seems to undermine any serious argument that the class of '23 is the superior of the Pearson side. Who would beat who in a game? You can debate it all day long - the best way of guessing is to compare the quality of the players rather than imagining that Fatawu would hands-down beat an experienced top flight England-capped LB, as some do. The 2013-14 side probably wins that match-up because (a) it actually won the division and we don't know whether these guys will and (b) the players were exceptionally talented by the standards of any second flight side, and we can't be too sure how many of the current lot are. I'm not sure what a more reliable barometer would look like. But one thing is for sure, and that's that the wider question of which side 'beats' the other in terms of being the better set of players, as opposed to the winner of an imaginary head-to-head, would have to favour the Pearson team.

Do you think the current side could have five players capable of forming the backbone of a future title-winning side? And two of football-as-a-whole's most exceptional talents for the next decade? Maybe some of us didn't predict that in 2014 either, but it happened. And that's a spectacular exception to the rule of what you can expect from second tier-winning personnel, as we ourselves know. Even ones who deliver as well as those guys did in 2014 (and we hope these guys will a decade later). We're talking about the keeper, the CB (and captain), the CM, and the critical attacking partnership, as well as most of the fringe players of a side that would comfortably win the top flight two years later! Weren't all five of them at some point featured in an EPL team of the season? Can you pick out so many individuals from the regular line-ups of any other promoted side who have gone on to those sorts of achievements? As for that attacking partnership, it would become the greatest we've seen in our club's history, and consist of a future golden-boot winner, and a PL Player-of-the-year winner. Mahrez-Vardy alone sets that side apart, even if we didn't fully know it for a while to come and yes, if their 2014 incarnations came up against Vestergard and Justin, I suspect we'd be in serious trouble. Perhaps that's what will become of some of these players too. I hope so. But it's highly unlikely. We've won seven past second tier titles - a club that this team has yet to join - and something really extraordinary and quite unprecedented occurred with that particular batch. Of course, promoted teams often carry some serious talent. We came up with Chandler, Duncan and Adcock in the 20s; with Glover, Nish and Shilton in the 70s, Smith, Lynex and Lineker in the 80s, then Izzet, Lennon and Heskey in the 90s. These are club legends, and I suspect this squad might contain 2-3 of its own too. But that 2014 team gave us - at fear of repeating myself - eight EPL medal-winners, five members of our best ever line-up (with two of the most crucial trio already intact). They won our club's only major trophies, and in some cases went on to earn trophies elsewhere too. I also have a bit of a problem with people so boldly asserting that football is just better now than it was then. What's that based on? Do recently-promoted sides from this league suggest that it's better comparatively? If we're so confidently stating that the school of 2023 is of that calibre, then I do hope expectations get drastically more realistic over months and years to come. Otherwise it could get disappointing!