Golden Fox

I know... Pereira has signed, Morgan doesn't look he's going to be back to 16/17 form with the club seemingly actively looking for a replacement and the Mahrez deal looking more likely, so that's 3 of those spots that aren't going to happen. Which would leave this as... Schmeichel Simpson Pereira Morgan Drago/Evans Maguire Fuchs Mahrez Gray/Diabate Ndidi Iborra Albrighton Okazaki Vardy Given squad rotation & the changes Puel likes to make, you can replace Fuchs with Fuchs/Chillwell and Okazaki with Okazaki/Iheanacho And you are only an Albrighton replacement signing away from Tanners' 11 anyway...

Funnily enough, this was the exact line up going through my head... Swapping out 2 or 3 players, this team sheet has the makings of a side that could win the league and get into the Champions League Quarter Finals... But obviously as we are all constantly being told, what worked 2 or 3 years ago won't work any more because it won't!

Interesting comparison, and the article reaches the right conclusion although is a but disingenous to the Golden Knights in getting there. The fact is that expansion drafts in US sports have never been particularly fair to new teams and many have struggled for years. The NHL which along with most leagues has been striving for more parity between teams and with a rather sizable $500m expansion fee from the Golden Knights gave them a more favorable draft than any expansion team in history. This was then helped by GMs of other teams panicking and cutting side deals with the Knights with some lopsided trades, and some salary dumps for players that could still contribute. Despite this more generous draft most predictions were still for the Golden Knights to struggle - but they have had a phenomenal season. They have had career years from the majority of their roster, and some of the older players (particularly the goalie Marc Andre Fleury which is probably the most important player on the team) had just been written off by other teams whereas they clearly still had plenty to contribute. They started off on a hot streak (early schedule seemed to be weighted towards home games against lesser teams), and got confidence, and just kept going. They flirted with the best record in the league for a while but ended up 5th overall in the standings while winning their division. They have now won 3 rounds of playoffs - the first 2 were in their division against teams they finished ahead of, and now 1 round against Winnipeg who although were the stronger team on paper had never reached a conference final either, and they just simply outplayed them. (The loser point the article refers to is a bugbear for many people but actually has little impact in the standings, and the playoffs are not a crapshoot. they play best of 7, and upsets do happen, but the better team does win more often than not.) However, what the article doesn't mention is the wider picture in the league. If you look at the last 20 years or so of the Premier League and who has finished in the top 4, it is the same 5-6 clubs year after year. You get the occasional Everton sneaking into 4th, but that is it. Teams from outside the elite don't finish in the top 4 and non "big teams" never do. It was pretty much unprecedented over the last 20 years for a club like Leicester to finish in the top 4. Let along win the damn thing. You look at the NHL in the last 20 years, and there are different teams getting to the Stanley Cup Final and winning the Cup every year. There is no elite handful of clubs. The playoff system also helps teams who come good at the right time. The LA Kings won the cup from the 8th seed in 2012 when they had a hot goalie and ran into form at the right time. A team coming from nowhere to make the Cup Final is far from unprecedented, so the odds of 200-1 for the outsiders reflect this, and it is just not in the same ballpark. And they have only just got to the final at this point not actually won it...

@fuchsntf - I'm new here, but I had been under the impression this was a football forum specifically for discussing our views on football? Have I got this wrong? If you feel this strongly about people posting their views about football, this looks to be an odd place for you to spend a lot of time!

It says it all that in response to some well researched statistics, rather than trying to make counter-arguments you resort to put downs! Which is more likely to stink the place out? Football is cyclical. You have good times and bad times: but you have to take each season as it comes. Each year can see you neck-a-neck with different clubs and them being the first results you look for: I remember seasons where that has been the case with the likes of Cambridge United, Tranmere, Millwall, Peterborough, MK Dons etc. but we are not in that place at the moment, so lets not pretend we are. When you have a good period, you need to make the best of it. The fact that this season we have only matched the worst MON Premier League points return doesn't seem like we are making the most of a good period. This is the best platform we have ever had. The fact we are spending millions on a training ground intended to put us on a par with the very best shows where our current level of competition should be. I remember when we were about to go into administration that people were carrying buckets at the ground to try and get ever penny to save the club's very existence: for you to be quoting the past and comparing now to periods such as that as yardstick doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to me. One final point: if you view achievement through the prism of knowing where your club should finish (knowledge you can only gain from supporting a team for a long time apparently) then given that I can't remember Burnley finishing above us in over 30 years of supporting the team, surely our place in the pecking order is above Burnley, so by your measuring stick of success, does finishing below them count as good times?

I can't believe the people on here settling for 47 points / 9th and saying we should be happy with that... On the basis that after beating Watford 2-0 on 20th January we were 7th in the table with 34 points, (and having played 9/12 of our games due against the top 6), we had very valid expectations of an excellent season. To break down the pre-20th Jan and post 20th Jan tables: Non-top 6 Played Won Drawn Lost Points Pre-20th Jan 15 8 5 2 29 Post-20th Jan 11 2 4 5 10 Top 6 Played Won Drawn Lost Points Pre-20th Jan 9 1 2 6 5 Post-20th Jan 3 1 0 2 3 Before 20th Jan, we were rattling along at 2 points a game against non-top 6 teams. Had we carried on at that rate over the last 11 games, we would have collected 22 points: an extra 10 finishing on 59 points: not far off challenging Arsenal for 6th. That shows the ability of our squad this year and where our expectations were. We may never know whether it was the Mahrez factor that happened at that point, the Puel factor, (or possibly management telling Puel to experiment, find out about his players and maybe not to push to hard for 7th with a view to gearing up for a big push in 18/19 without the Europa league - not that anyone would come out and admit to that) - but I think those stats show it was a wasted season.

I should post in this thread more often... 13 minutes later & all done & dusted!

Deja Vu.... Current 9th wicket partnership worth 58 & counting...

One thing I meant to highlight in my post, was that on reading through the causes of the Hillsborough disaster, standing was not listed anywhere as a cause. The main causes were ticketing issues, high spiked fences and poor policing, but standing was not among these. This is why I was interested as to why all-seater stadia was a recommendation of the scheme. I think the ticketing issue was by far and away the main driver behind this recommendation, was to do with numbers entering the ground, reducing hooliganism also an alternative measure to reduce pitch invasions which would enable the high spiked fences to be removed. It always frustrates me that in any conversation on standing, the media always needs to reference Hillsborough whereas it was not a cause, and I think busting this myth with the politicians is the key to this whole debate.

The Taylor report which was used as the basis of the legislation is available for anyone to read at: http://www.epcollege.com/EPC/media/MediaLibrary/Knowledge Hub Documents/F Inquiry Reports/Hillsborough-Taylor-Report.pdf?ext=http://www.epcollege.com/EPC/media/MediaLibrary/Knowledge Hub Documents/F Inquiry Reports/Hillsborough-Taylor-Report.pdf? Having read through as to why the recommendation was for all-seater stadiums, the reasons for this were: 1) Supporters will not be in close physical contact with those around them and will not be jostled or moved about by swaying or surging. The seated spectator is not subject to pressure of numbers behind or around him during the match. 2) Seating has distinct advantages in achieving crowd control. With the assistance of CCTV the police can immediately zoom in with a camera and pinpoint the seats occupied by the trouble-makers. Numbered tickets matching numbered seats mean those monitoring numbers will know exactly how many are there without having to count them in or assess the density by visual impression. 3) Sitting for the duration of the match is more comfortable than standing. Comfort is a personal choice, so this aside, I'd fully agree with the report that the main 2 reasons as to why terraces were dangerous in the 80s were that there could be big movements back and forward crushing people, and that more people could enter the stand (or a section of the stand) than were ticketed to and this would not be identified as people didn't have an allocated space. Both of these factors are demonstrably answered by the rail seats: they provide barriers in front and behind to give personal space and avoid surges. They give people an individual space & will show if someone is in the wrong place. (Plus, the technology involved in ticketing is a world away from when the report was written). Unfortunately, our politicians fear being on the end of a backlash if they stick their necks out to support standing, and their reputations are more important to than facts, so it is not a risk I can see any of them taking. (Although I did sign the petition, so at least it helps the possibility of it getting traction). Yes - I believe the 3 year rule still applies to them. However, I understand that rail seats can be locked into the seat position to satisfy the requirement of all-seater stadia: which I believe is what is done for rail seats in the Champions League.

I actually agree that it is a very interesting table: I just object to the headline and then the skewed commentary to fit the story, trying to put a spin on it, rather than just portraying it as a "this is where clubs currently are compared to their 50 year average" which wouldn't get as many readers, but would do what it says on the tin. Notice that too I also find the following site, which is the all-time premier league statistics an interesting read. http://www.myfootballfacts.com/All-TimePremierLeagueTable1992-93to2010-11.html In the Premier League era, we'd be sat in the relegation zone, but we should overtake Bolton next year, but Sunderland will probably be out of reach after the last few months...

I think this may be somewhat simplistic data... I think we can all applaud Swansea for a fantastic 2017/18 season, over-achieving by 32 places! Stoke can also be proud of their over-achievement... Blackburn need to have a long think about what they could have done better this year, with a 22 place under-achievement. Strangely, none of these clubs were mentioned in the commentary...

Is this serious? We go out onto the pitch expecting to lose 12 games? This season, maybe I can buy that argument against a Man City team with 32 wins, but the rest? We beat Spurs & Arsenal at home & were beating both away. We drew with Man U & Chelsea, and were beating Liverpool away. Just because the media spouts this myth of the "Big 6" doesn't mean we have to believe it. (For years, it was the Big 4 with the same teams always getting into the CL so these things change). However, if you were to discount those 12 games, our record would be won 10, drew 9 and lost 7. 1.5 points per game: not terrible, but not great. The big problem is that the 8th of those wins came on 20th January, and its been pretty poor since...

I agree at the extremes: if there is something at stake, such as winning the league or relegation, then the points become largely irrelevant (although Man City's quest for 100 points shows there is still more to it than just finishing position), but in the middle ground, I think looking at how many games you have won or lost (as well as finishing position) is a pretty good measure as to whether season has been successful or not. If we are looking back at how well we did this year, the fact we won 12 games and lost 15 doesn't sound that successful to me...

My post wasn't a comment direct on Puel, but the season as a whole. However, given how tough our start was, and given what the last half a season has been like (the last 2 "training sessions" aside), I'm not convinced we'd have had more than 47 points had he been here for the whole season! I stand by what I said that this season is a disappointment. However, I would fully accept that if Puel continues as manager and if he is able to turn his vision into more points, that we could retrospectively look back as 2017/18 as a transitional season, and that the 47 points and 9th place was part of the process, and be happy with it. I follow a lot of NHL hockey & teams are quite happy to openly talk of transitional periods so the fans can buy into poorer seasons. However, that sport is a very different scenario with no threat of relegation so teams can go through longer term plans. I just have very little faith that if we have a poor start to next season that the owners won't hesitate to sack Puel & we'll start all over again with a different manager and a different philosophy. Against that background and the short-termism in the Premier League, I find it very difficult to take a long term view.

I think the big issue here is that 9th place is a flattering position, and the 47 points is the better indicator of the season: Just looked at the last 10 years & what 47th points would get you: 08/09 - 11th 09/10 - 11th 10/11 - 10th/11th 11/12 - 10th-12th 12/13 - 9th 13/14 - 11th 14/15 - 11th/12th 15/16 - 11th/12th 16/17 - 8th 17/18 - 9th Apart from 16/17 (where the main beneficiary was a certain Mr Puel), 9th place is flattering, and more often than not, this would be a bottom half finish... if the yardstick is what money have we spent, what resources do we have and what is the quality of our squad, then I can't see 47 points as anything other than a disappointment. The other that has been made is how this stacks up against MON's teams: Over his 4 years, points tallies were: 47 (+ league cup), 53, 49 (+ league cup final), 55 (+ league cup) ...all of which outperform this season. I don't think that classes as having delusions of grandeur.

When Man City were 2-0 down in the tier 3 play-offs in 1999, did any of their fans believe within a few years they would be winning Premier Leagues by record margins and disappointment would be not winning the Champions League??? Money transforms the landscape. I take the point on Financial fair play rules, but these can change over time (or be creatively manipulated...). I'm not saying I expect us to win the Premier League again in my lifetime, but the current focus on building the training ground, possibly building the stadium and attempting to reshape the squad to a more possession based style in line with other top teams (rightly or wrongly) is all about gearing the club to be able to aim for better things, so I don't think 'we can categorically state we won't win it again in a generation.

Our owners think big and have big plans for us as a club. To do this would be to admit we are not planning to challenge again, and that is not their style, and not the mindset we should have. Having supported the club and seen the ups and downs over more than 30 years, 2 seasons doesn't seem much of a period of time to make this comment on, and a top 10 finish doesn't seem a million miles away considering where we've been over those 30 years! Frankly, winning the league was an incredible event, but we need to move on and look to the future, otherwise we'll be Nottingham F***st...

Last night's game: particularly the 2nd half had a bizzare feel to it: more like a five aside knock about. Arsenal were locked into 6th place whatever and only had 10 men, so it developed into a back & forth more of a training match than a Premier League game. The fact that for 75 minutes against 10 men - until the final breakaway - we could only manage 1-1 thanks to a penalty doesn't strike me as anything to shout about particularly. The only thing the result does for Puel is enable him to take credit for a top 9 finish and beating one of the top 6, which I'm sure will be top of his report when he goes to the owners at the end of the season. If the comments on body language are true, it might not make a difference, but I really hope yesterday's kickabout doesn't end up being counter-productive in the longer term.

Greetings all!!! Have been active on some other forums in the past, but reached my limit recently, so have been browsing for a while & seeing the lay of the land (& recognize a few names from other places), so am ready to get settled in. Usual username is taken, so have a nice shiny new one! Couldn't have picked a better time to join with the way things are going and the end of the season upon us...