CarolinaFox

Thanks for the clarification. I guess where we disagree is on what was realistic to expect this early on. Two points per game is promotion form over the course of a season. That's the end target. If the expectation was that we'd already be averaging two points per game after 10 (ish) matches, that feels a bit harsh to me because his teams have always needed time to get going because of the high learning curve of playing his style of football. You're essentially expecting a new manager, a new squad, and a completely different way of playing to all click immediately. In most sports, when a team is rebuilding and learning a new system, there's usually an adjustment period before you see the best version of that team. That doesn't mean the results don't matter or that Leicester shouldn't be aiming for promotion. It just means I think the expectation of being at full speed by October is probably unrealistic given the fact that his teams need time before performances and results really take off. At the end of the day I'm not saying I wanted Martin, or that I love everything about his football. But I'm trying to stay optimistic. We all love this club and want it to succeed. I think we've sometimes got to embrace change as a process of ups and downs, accept that we aren't in control, and try to stay positive.

You said he would have to "hit the ground running" what would that look like in your eyes? Does that mean winning every game? 80 percent?

Isn't that a bit unrealistic given how his teams typically start off? Martin's bang on form for his style of football. He's never had a team that started winning immediately when he came in. Its not how his brand of football operates. Its has a higher learning curve, that requires time to embed. So I don't think Martin sees an issue with the results right now, which is why he's pointed the fan back to what he's seeing: evidence that we are playing the way he wants and expects will turn into results. You're expecting him to have the same opinion you do of the football we're playing, and he doesn't.

The fact that the "Martin Out" Thread was started in June just proves my point. Some supporters were never going to be convinced by Martin, regardless of what he does. Every decision he makes, or doesn't make, becomes further confirmation of an opinion they've already formed. Winning can paper over that for a while, but the first bad result will see many of those same criticisms return almost immediately. Given how loud that sentiment has been among sections of the fanbase, I don't really have a problem with Martin pushing back. He's a human being, after all. Most people would defend themselves if their work and character were being publicly questioned. The important thing is that he did so respectfully and without personal attacks. And that's what I don't understand about the criticism of this exchange. What was the response people were expecting? For him to say, "You're right, I'm a terrible manager and I should resign"? There was never an answer he could give that would satisfy people who had already made up their minds. So how exactly was he supposed to win that interaction?

Our fans criticized Enzo when he was winning so let's not pretend that RM winning football matches would change anything.

Martin didn't need to engage with the fan and did. He didn't belittle him, he just said they would disagree and gave him his perspective based on the stats he sees. Sounds like RM just can't win in the eyes of some of the fans. If he doesn't say anything he's hiding, if he dodges questions he's got no spine, if he supports his opinion he's arrogant. Personally I like a manager that can back themselves when the critics are being loud.

Too many footballers are basically children whose emotions are too easily hurt. Grow up and show what you've got or be prepared to sit on the bench.

4 shots only 1 on target. Just had no end production today. He played 86 mins, most of them against 10 men and didn't score or really bother the keeper. He wasn't exactly lighting things on fire.

I'm in Charlotte as well!

Alves and Braybrooke should have put the game to bed in the first half. Alves may have been energetic on the ball, but he offered nothing. Should have been hooked at half time.

This one was purely down to tactics - the playing out from the back, slow build up - they are a man down! This was a loss in my book.

Alexander Blessin - former St. Pauli manager. His tactics would dominate league one. Free agent, no compensation fee to pay either. He wouldn't have the team needlessly recycling the ball and passing around the back. Win it back, vertical pass, get numbers forward. He'd be my choice.

Interesting that the analysis indicates he would play much better in a back three. Would we see RM change to a back three?

I wondered the same thing. I think it might depend on the type of ownership stake they have in Leeds. There are rumors its less than 10%, and if its a non-controlling minority stake that might make a difference. But I think yes, long term it would present problems.

Red Bull is an interesting idea...a multi-club organization would see the whole package (men's team, women's team, OH Leuven and Seagrave) as strengthening their overall ecosystem. Seagrave is one of the best training facilities in Europe, it could become a hub for Red Bull's academy system in England. Red Bull also don't have (to my knowledge) a footprint in Belgian football. If they only own about 10% or less of Leeds United it shouldn't be an issue. And as for the name, I don't see them diluting the Leicester City brand. I'd be open to it, but curious to know what everyone else thinks.