inckley fox

People kept saying we're a better side with him in the team. They failed to look at how dreadful, even relatively, our results have been with him in the side. We are literally, statistically demonstrably worse, and by a margin, with him playing. Another totally daft, ill-considered assertion by fans that anyone not in the team is the potential saviour. Okay, I understand that that's going to happen from time to time, but after the last couple of years anyone maintaining that Harry ******* Winks is the saviour really should keep their fantasies to themselves.

We've lost considerably more games when he's started.

Well, there are a few fairly obvious reasons.

What I found most unbelievable about it wasn't the racism - I've come to expect that - but the fact that the moderate US media barely reported it while the post was still up. They reported the backlash rather than the incident itself, as if they were thinking 'is this really a story?'

Honestly, I think this is unfair. There are some real dye-in-the-wool supporters of King Power who won't admit any criticism of the way our club is run whatsoever. Babylon certainly wasn't that. In fact, back in the days when nearly everyone banged the pro-KP drum, he was often one of the few who'd seriously question their actions. I was a little surprised by the energy he put into deflecting criticism of Rudkin, but I think his point was more 'Look, he isn't necessarily the one to blame here'. And it's worth remembering that Rudkin, for years, was the easy target for people who had bought into the KP myth so much that they simply wanted to point the finger at anyone other than Top. Clearly the debate has long since moved on from this. It's impossible to defend Rudkin or Top with any credibility any more, and Babylon perhaps didn't pick the right moment to say 'alright, screw him then'. But he was one of the best posters on here for a decade or two, and not only did his stance on Rudkin make more sense that what the many pro-Top fans believe, but actually made more sense than those who were rabidly anti-Rudkin due to their past (and in some cases on-going) allegiance to Top. Yes, of course King Power played an important part in our rise as a club, but it was always hugely overstated, and I'd give Babylon some credit for engaging in criticism of them at times when others were still very much on board. Plus, even if people do wish to defend Top, I'd like to them to do it here on this forum, taking part (and losing!) reasoned debates. Otherwise Foxestalk gets to the point where it's just 'the anti-KP' forum, a no-go zone for those who disagree, and not representative of the full spectrum of opinions. Bring back Babylon, I say! AND Rudkin Out!

I think we're pretty much in agreement on everything. I've seen, on paper, what he's done at Lincoln, which is decent rather than earth-shatteringly good. The inexperience strikes me as a major risk factor, as it does you. I'd have to watch him more closely and look at his interviews to start to form an opinion on whether or not he's got it in him to make the step up. From what little I know, there's nothing to suggest he can't and, as I said, he's rated highly enough to be able to pick and choose a bit. As with Smith, the compensation and the fact that we're not an especially attractive option right now, may be more significant than whether or not he's the right man for the job.

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.