Lillehamring

I think the officials deserve extra credit for not just missing the blatant pull back on vardy, but following it up with not seeing Ruddy catch the ball reaching an arm's length outside his box.

Just noticed that southampton also dropped points.

well done....

can't remember who posted it, but someone here pointed out that daka is great when he's not off-balance, but hopeless when he is - and it's true.

I started doing my collection on discogs but it was taking ages for each disc so i gave up...

There's a good Phil Spector biography i have, called 'Wall of Pain'.

Possibly - i can see the risk involved here, but the other way of looking at it is that if norwich were going to hit us on the break it would be from us giving the ball away, the advantage of playing so advanced (and why we were so good when we were good) is that it gives us a much better chance of winning the ball straight back. the reason we've struggled with quick counters in recent games is because we were giving the ball away from deeper in our own half, rather than from that front 5.

I'm not so sure this is really true - it's a pretty commonly stated opinion that 'you're at your most vulnerable after you've scored', both because it's easier then to lose focus and that the opposition are instantly fired up to respond to having conceded. Going full tilt after scoring seems to be asking for a responding opposition to take advantage of the scoring teams over-confidence. Enzo is generally pragmatic about his approach to the game, it is no surprise to see that after scoring he reinforces this; to me it seems less a case of being complacent and allowing the opposition to get back into the game, and more a standing firm and focused while the opposition get their inevitable response out of their system. It would be interesting to see how many goals we've conceded within say 5-10 minutes of scoring.

Personally that sounds far more patronising than anything i've actually posted! besides, i don't have the time or energy to post stuff like that every time i disagree with someone - we're all adults here, we're all leicester fans, i'm not being personal i'm just arguing, like you and every other poster here, about football - if you need someone to talk to you like that, put me on ignore cause i'm not going to patronise you (yes, that's right) by talking to you like you're a litttle boy. That said, I'm sorry if you felt me to be patronizing, but far from being oblivious, it's true, i don't post with any sensitivity to people's felings on this board because, frankly, no one posts replies to my comments with sensitivity - it doesn't feel like the nature of this place - FWIW, I didn't say "I think you like the idea of this being the case rather than it actually being the case" to patronise you, i said that because that's exactly how your comments came across - as i explained, i felt that you're argument seemed to completely dismiss the way we'd played for the first 30-odd games and, crucially, what the manager himself had said. You seem set on the idea that we had played a brand new non-enzo ball tactic, despite the fact that it seemed to contain all the elements of enzo-ball (lots of possession, slow patient passing around the defenders/pivot players (the four players with the most touches - doyle vestergaard winks and faes - very enzoball) - i could go on) AND maresca clearly stating that he hasn't and won't abandon his system. So, yes, if i disagree with your opinion, as i do, i will give my reasons why, as i did...

The feeling i got about the 'calm down' gesture was less about becoming complacent and easing off and more about staying focussed and not letting the adrenalin of scoring cause us to make rash decisions; that, great, we've scored, but there's still work to be done.

I'm sorry, i'm not sure what to make of this. No, we don't change the system, that's what i said - what has 11 danny wards got to do with the side we'll have next season? - the point being, with maresca, it doesn't metter who we end up with next season we'll be targeting players who can play in the system, thus it is sensible to persevere with the system How is having a philosophy about football 'gambling the future of the club'? Maresca is less than a season in and so far we've seen that he is capable of changing things for certain opponents and when faced with unexpected tactics - he has a philosophy and from that comes his system - no one knows how that will develop but it seems to me a perfect approach to securing longevity rather than being a gamble - i'm honestly not sure what you're point is with that assertion. If you think we 'ditched' enzo ball today then you haven't been paying attention, or have forgotten how we have played (not every game, not for 90 minutes) throughout the first 30-odd games of the season - this, today was enzo ball at it's very finest - patient controlled possession football and then - bam! - attack. Yes, we were spreading balls across the park but, again, this is something we've seen throughout the season when the tactics/set up of our opponents allow it - you seem to be inferring that we've suddenly decided to play cross field balls, but we've always done that when teams have left space out wide, in fact that was one of our most common tactics early on before doyle got injured and teams started to double up on our wingers. And, i'm sorry but this comment: "stubbornly played a system that his players can’t play very well" - can you explain how and when this has happened - if we're so incapable of playing this system how have we ended up with a 67% win rate?

Because the system stays, only the players change - much better than changing the system every time you have new players.

Well, because i'm making the same argument as enzo (who was at the game for what ever difference that makes) and also is, um, the manager - so with all due respect to your 'first hand' opinion - i'll trust his understanding of his tactics over some guy who seems to think that was the first game we've played cross field diagonals.

Wes Morgan built himself into a legend by just getting the ball out of play - conceding a corner (softly or otherwise) shouldn't be considered as a negative - daka falling asleep and KDH allowing himself to be manhandled certainly are.

I think you like the idea of this being the case rather than it actually being the case. We played an awful lot of pragmatic, patient build up play today - the noticeable difference to the last 6 games was that we did it much higher up the pitch and that our final product was more effective - and this wasn't because we've changed the style or abandoned the system, it was because we had progressive players like doyle, ricardo & ndidi playing rather than hamza, justin and praet; also because norwich did very little in the way of pressing compared to recent opponents. Add to that that they seemed a lot more fired up and determined. These are the differences, not switching from Enzoball. I'll leave the final word with Enzo:

Taggart gave him MOTM

To be fair, though, Justin has been very poor defensively in recent appearances.

I think doyle made the difference there - his passing is so much more progressive than JJ's safety first approach - so they not only got more possession today, they got it in much better positions.

I think the real difference of what doyle offers was reflected in how well KDH and mavididi played compared to recent games with JJ behind them. Doyle is so much more progressive, none of JJ's endless knocks back to vestergaard, and the result was those two getting way more service in much better positions.

Oh FFS - it was just the easiest thing to find, it was an off hand reply to a strange and unfair accusation - i honestly wish i hadn't bothered, the mentality of posters on here beggars belief.

So getting the 11th highest points total in the history of the EFL* would be a disgrace because we happened to have a great start, a solid middle, and a disappointing end, rather than accumulating points at a regular and even pace? If we get 97 points and come third it will mean that the two teams above us would have had two of the top 10 highest points tallies in EFL history - and you'd be fuming over missed opportunities. Have some humility and accept that this was never going to be a cakewalk, that swings like this happen and not simply because we are atrocious (which we certainly aren't and certainly wouldn't be even if we 'only' come third on 97 føkking points.) * https://www.statista.com/statistics/1427151/efl-championship-most-ever-points/

Because most of them were rubbish last season, a few of them were rejects who had fallen from grace and a few of them were completely unproven. Nothing at the start of the season pointed to us being on track to be top of the league with 80% of the season gone and on track to break the league points record - if you genuinely saw that coming, i take my hat off to you and ask you to kindly share your choice of lottery numbers.

I haven't said i want or expect us to finish outside the top two. But equally i don't believe the value of our squad determines that we should finish in the top 2. A top 2 finish will belong to the team that works the hardest, not that gets paid the most.

I think your just looking to find fault, now - rather than actally making any constructive argument. Yes, we played ipswich twice - an anomaly i overlooked (apologies for that 'bollocks') Again 1 loss in 16 games - i apologise for saying no one got near us, Coventry, with their man advantage got near us. but we BEAT twelve teams in 16 games, i think the point that we are a good team is more important than how i've phrased it. Leeds's run shows that it's impossible to have a run of games showcasing your talent by playing superior opposition every other week - it was to counter your suggestion that we 'got lucky' with our fixtures.