Corky

Bit random but I was watching the Chase yesterday and a contestant called KEVIN! looked familiar. Turns out it was Kevin Dean, former Derbyshire bowler. Left arm seamer.

Big news is who will be the commentary line-up on BT. Fletch and Macca are the big boys so may be saved for Tottenham v Liverpool tomorrow. Ian Darke did Southampton's match and that's a long trek the next day.

It'll be Savage, won't it?

West Brom have conceded three goals or more in five consecutive home league matches. Must be a record?

I take it Karren Brady won't be calling for the season to be declared null and void this time?

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/mar/14/west-ham-karren-brady-calls-for-premier-league-cancellation-coronavirus

8 hours ago, Voll Blau said:

Love seeing Pakistan back playing Tests in their own country.

 

Side note, but do any of you who actually subscribe to Sky Cricket feel short changed by how few internationals are actually on there? They seem to have the rights to so few series.

 

This Pakistan v Saffers game is today, granted, but they've also whacked it on Sky Sports Mix so even also fans like me can watch it without paying extra. 

They haven't got as much cricket as they used to. BT have taken the rights to the Australia and New Zealand home series recently which Sky usually had.

Sky had the South Africa v Sri Lanka series a few weeks ago.

I think we should rename it Agnew Arena to see how he reacts when a club he wouldn't mind seeing disappear gives him the prestige of his name on the stadium address.

8 hours ago, Koke said:

Uncle Harry and Cousin Jamie are working overtime defending their nephew/cousin 

 

 

As opposed to finishing with fewer points than Gary Rowett managed the year before?

The Government are stepping up the guilt-tripping by showing people needing oxygen and "telling them you don't bend the rules".

I mean, only a few months ago quite prominent people were prepared to shake their hand. Times really have changed.

16 hours ago, UpTheLeagueFox said:

The same senior players who Rodgers has found it very easy to work with, who bought into his vision straight away, has got fabulous results with, making him the best performing manager (results wise) in our history?

The players were not the big problem during Puel's tenure.

Had he worked with them rather than pursuing his own flawed and stubborn ways, he could easily have found some success.

That's what really frustrated me - he had no flexibility, he wanted to move on all the immortals, he could have made few simple tweaks to keep players on board but his way of working alienated him from players, the backroom team and other club staff. The way certain people (players and otherwise) were treated by him was an utter disgrace and it leaves a bitter taste.

I wanted him (as with every manager) to be successful because that means the team I support is doing well.

Only had himself to blame for his own downfall.

 

And when he did subsequent interviews he said he "wouldn't change anything" about how he did things with us, that tells you plenty about his mentality.

That bit you quoted wasn't my view but in a wider piece about the perception of the club when we were looking to appoint before choosing Puel.

I've no doubt Puel alienated a lot of people.

4 minutes ago, sacreblueits442 said:

....I agree that Puel was acquired at short notice as Shakespeare's  ability was being called into question!!!

But I do not agree that Puel was seen as a stop gap before we could find a manager we could entrust with a 5 year contract and all the backing that he needs.

  I am not aware that Rodgers had already being lined up for the role and just as right now he is being linked with the Chelsea vacancy and I suspect that too will be perceived as him being previously lined up for the Chelsea job. There is always speculation in regards availability of managers to fill a potential managerial role and names are constantly being put forward by journalist and supporters alike, the mere fact that one of these speculative figures is given the role does not mean that any previous agreements were already in place.

Puel and Rodgers were initially given a similar length of contract, Rodgers signed his new deal 10 months in. They were both given a three year deal give or take a few months with the appointment dates. Maybe not a stop gap but certainly not someone who would stick around for a long time. We seem to give each manager the same type of initial deal, let's not forget Shakespeare was given three years to begin with. It's probably as much to do with giving yourself some protection should they do well and are approached by other teams.

When I say lined up, I mean that he was the first choice and they were probably making plans to move for him during Puel's first year. I think they wanted to wait until the summer after he actually joined before going to get Rodgers but the loss of form and toxic atmosphere hastened it all.

Rodgers seems like a manager they want to build everything up whereas Puel was someone to do the original transitioning.

3 hours ago, sacreblueits442 said:

...not sure the club saw Puel as a short term manager!!!

Had he the rapport with the players and they had bought into his ideas, his tenure would have perhaps continued to the end of his contract. Why would you be looking into appointing another manager when all we were looking for was stability at the time.

The whole process was thrown out due to Ranieri's second season. The ideal scenario was for Ranieri to give us a couple of comfortable years after the title win and drift off into the sunset leaving us a settled Premier League team. Clearly that went by the wayside and the Shakespeare experiment looked forced rather than natural.

We therefore had to find somebody at short notice to drag us out of the poor form we were in and get us stabilised. Let's not forget that at the time the options were limited- reputationally we were poor having been seen as the villains who binned a league winning manager ruthlessly and the squad needed tweaking. There was no Maddison, no Ricardo, no Soyuncu, no Tielemans. Barnes was still raw. The senior players supposedly led the place and weren't easy to work with.

Puel had finished 8th and reached a cup final (which he should've won) and could offer temporary respite whilst we looked longer term. Of course, had he been a better man manager and a suitable fit he may've stayed longer but his tenure of seeing in younger players and getting us to mid-table allowed the club breathing space to look for the next appointment and it seems Rodgers was lined up long before he arrived. Rodgers inherited a much better set-up than Puel and has delivered more with it, thankfully.

The only cricket that should be shown on a Mickey Mouse channel is The Hundred.

According to Henry Winter, Lampard leaves Chelsea in the last 16 of the Champions League, in the fifth round of the FA Cup and had been top a few weeks ago.

Which is a neat way of avoiding saying they are 9th with five defeats in eight league games and got past Morecambe and Luton at home in the FA Cup.

Reminds me of Jeff Stelling's outrage at our sacking of Ranieri, citing he left us on the verge of the Champions League quarter-finals. Again, did very well to avoid saying we'd lost the first leg 2-1, were 17th, hadn't scored for six games, lost the previous five and been knocked out of the FA Cup by League One Millwall. 

1 hour ago, oxford blue said:

If this stat from the Guardian is correct, it is nearly 13 months since City, playing without Vardy, won a game against a PL side. Can any other player be so crucial to City maintaining their current position?

How many matches has he missed in that time, though?

We've won the last three without him scoring which is encouraging.

Players and managers seem to really respect and value the people behind the scenes.

RIP Sheila, she was clearly loved around the place.

Hell of a victory, any win in Asia is a huge effort.

Enjoying the shock that a club who routinely sack managers have routinely sacked a manager. Only this time it would be different because it's Frank and he's a legend and they deserve time etc. Only change this time is that he's not been sacked after winning a trophy.

I don't think they ever really wanted him but it suited to go through the transfer ban and losing Hazard.

For however poor and toxic it was with Puel, Rodgers wouldn't have taken the job when Shakespeare left. We needed a go-between.

We've clearly upgraded massively, Puel was never a long-term thing but we brought in players during his time that have allowed us to attract top coaches.

He's gone and nobody wants him back. Every single one of us would choose Rodgers any day.

1 hour ago, The Bear said:

Kaiser Chiefs are Leeds fans too. 

One time their fans started chanting "Oh my God I can't believe it, we've never been this good away from home" which I liked. I think it was when they started in League One.

Can't believe we've missed out Lembit Opik for our celebrity fan. He was in FourFourTwo an all.

EDIT- Been mentioned.

1 hour ago, Mark said:

Not ideal Liverpool going out with us due to play our 5th round game on Wednesday then at half 12 on the Saturday after they’ve had the week off.

Unlike Klopp, Rodgers will just get on with it.

Perez. Though clearly both well behind Vardy in the quality and effectiveness stakes.

We may need the others to contribute goals as they've been doing.

Jenas- "I don't even know what day it is"

I wouldn't worry, you'll probably be on TV somewhere.

Started well, conceded a poor goal and didn't look good until half-time afterwards. Stepped it up in the second half and turning it around quickly put us in control, just needed the third after that.

Tielemans, Under, Maddison all excellent in the second half, Under was good throughout. Soyuncu looked better later on, Amartey looked shaky in the beginning and Ward had a mixed day, couple of good saves but poor near the end.

Glad we're through and with a home match in the next round.

Can't have been the only shouting GET UP when Ndidi went down.