Sparrowhawk

All reasonable points. But - we have scored five in three games, and it's not as if we're taking every chance we make. I know stats are pretty much meaningless so early on, but that is nearly two goals a game. If whoever plays as striker is involved in the play, and if the chances are made, and if enough of them are scored, does it matter who gets on the end of them?

I've always assumed it's a combination of being in a tin box and surrounded by 30000 other people all trying to use their phones. I've never noticed any problems outside the ground. Inside is impossible though.

If anyone is being wilfully blind for ideological reasons here, it isn't the Doc, and your last but one sentence shows it. They used the word 'potential' completely correctly, because in any individual case there is only a potential advantage. Any actual advantage depends on the individuals involved and the nature of the sport in question.

Agree completely! Disagree completely! He's showing he can be just as dangerous, but in a different way. I imagine Maresca would love a squad full of players as intelligent, versatile, and comfortable with the ball as Ricardo.

I agree that having won four out of four and shown plenty of very encouraging signs, it's a bit early to put the boot in on a brand new manager. Singing 'F*** off Enzo Maresca' would be a tad premature at this stage. Even for Leicester fans. Although we are only second, so I wouldn't put it past some of us.

It's a tricky one. Sending them in the post later seems a bit joyless, and obviously a football match can't work like the Olympics where they all come out a couple of hours later for the medal ceremony. To be honest, part of the problem is that they have to wait around so bleeding long these days! In the old days, about five minutes after the match, the runners up would get their medals, the winners would get theirs, the trophy would be presented and everyone would go on their way. Whole thing would take about five minutes. The thing I've always found to be utterly pointless is the third place play-off. A match that nobody really cares about, and which the two teams playing in are massively disappointed to be in. A total waste of time.

If they quietly take them off a few minutes later, that's fine. Who'd even notice? Some of the England players were snatching theirs off their necks as soon as they got them. It was just plain rude.

I have no scientific evidence, no intention of offending anyone, and may well be talking through my hat, but aren't more men than women further along the autism spectrum? And there's a lot about being really good at chess that seems to match up quite well with ASD...

I'll be very surprised if we don't see quite a lot of both these teams in the semis and finals of major tournaments over the next decade...

Absolutely. I would maintain it would be better to not give it to her now, though, like the runners-up medals. I don't think anyone would receive such an award at this time and be happy about it in the same circumstances. I was very impressed with her to be honest. Having been in tears a few minutes earlier, she accepted it with enthusiasm and a smile. Also the women were so much classier getting their runners up medals than some of the England men. None of them took their medals off as soon as they got them in a stroppy sulk!

Maybe it's just because he's about twelve, so a bit shy with the grown ups.

Young ones who don't even go, by the sound of it.

I give up. Which part of 'you can easily have two keepers and two (or three if you want) strikers on the bench' is so hard for people to understand?

tbh the main point is that the lack of strikers on the bench is just as much because it's full of defenders and midfielders as because there are two keepers sat on it.

Do you not think that goalkeeper is a slightly more specialist position than striker? I know which of the two I'd rather have a midfielder have a go at doing for half a match in an emergency.

Two keepers. Two defenders. Three midfielders. Two attackers. Simple. I know (and said) that you're almost certainly never going to need them. But seeing as you can have seven other players on the bench, why not just be ready for the one time in a thousand that you need three keepers in a match?

If I was a manager with 9 sub places, I'd always pick two goalies. Unlikely as you are to need them, you're otherwise only a tweaked hamstring and a bang on the head away from having to put an outfield player in goal. With seven other spots on the bench for outfield players, why take the risk - however small it is?

So international players such as Castange and Daka are not ready for the Championship so never ever going to play Danny Ward is a better option to have warming a spot on the bench? Nah I don’t buy it. That was an answer to your suggestion that he fill the bench with academy players. As I'm sure you're well aware.

Or perhaps he simply sees no point in filling the bench with players he doesn't think are ready. I can't see any particular 'coincidences and inconsistencies' in his choices of substitutes.

So do people seriously believe that a new manager would cut off his nose to spite his face by weakening his options in his first few games to 'make a point?' If it was back in the days of three subs, or even five, maybe there would be no other explanation. But seeing he'd have more outfield subs than he could use even if he put three keepers on the bench, do you not think it's more likely he's just keeping people involved so they aren't coming in so cold if they're needed? Especially as he seems to be varying who's on the bench?

Nothing shameful about it! I'm only ever interested in whatever division we're in, and currently have no interest in the Premier League.

Ah. Yes, fair enough then. I imagine a lot of coaches wouldn't touch that with a barge pole.

This has to be the most niche and obscure furniture design reference ever posted on Foxes Talk!

Who'd wanna manage that lot? Someone who's won everything they can win in their current job, fancies a change, and likes the sound of being paid enormous amounts of money to rebuild a squad that has loads of good players available? No idea whether she'd fancy it or not, but it's hardly a ridiculous idea.

Why? I can't imagine not backing anyone playing for Leicester. (I mean, assuming they hadn't done something truly awful, like punch a sleeping team-mate, breaking their cheekbone.)