Inler

[Guest Col city fan]

He might 'come good', but for anyone to say that so far he ain't even been bad is bizarre. He's been dross.

Inler joined us and ill be honest I thought you'd see a player that oozed class. For the older generation, a Glenn Hoddle type..controlling, spraying the ball around and gliding over the pitch.

Kante has been the one so far. He's gonna become a fans favourite.

[Thracian]

More to the point, how much more first team playing time can you give him when that stat, as much as it might over-simplify matters, is staring you full in the face? Namely, that over 180 minutes he's played 105 of them in which we've conceded 4 / scored 0, while in the other 75 we've scored 5 / conceded 0?

 

Like I say, it's a huge over-simplification of matters - Inler has by no means been our number one culprit over those games - but when you're a side like Leicester and a player appears to be costing you, you can't mess around either. If he were 23 that could be a little different. But you don't sign 31 year-olds, as a rule, who are going to need half a season in the side before they look the part.

 

There's time yet, but not much.

 

More to the point, how much more first team playing time can you give him when that stat, as much as it might over-simplify matters, is staring you full in the face? Namely, that over 180 minutes he's played 105 of them in which we've conceded 4 / scored 0, while in the other 75 we've scored 5 / conceded 0?

 

Like I say, it's a huge over-simplification of matters - Inler has by no means been our number one culprit over those games - but when you're a side like Leicester and a player appears to be costing you, you can't mess around either. If he were 23 that could be a little different. But you don't sign 31 year-olds, as a rule, who are going to need half a season in the side before they look the part.

 

There's time yet, but not much.

 

 

I do wish you'd throw those stats away - they make me sound optimistic about the guy!

 

Me I've seen a wonderful servant of our club - statistically the best midfielder in our history - dumped on the sidelines for no playing reason other than to accommodate an expensive import  who didn't want to come here, hasn't deserved his place, doesn't look fit or fast enough can't see or be bothered to track runners, and has twice presided, less than imperiously, over the worst chapters of form in our season so far.    

 

Yes, I do want him to succeed as it happens but to do that he'll need to show the same commitment, determination and pride that so many often nationally unheralded heroes have shown in lifting us to the proud heights we currently command.

 

A free gift of a player or £50 million superstar? I couldn't give a toss. They should both be picked and judged on merit.       

[HighPeakFox]

Do we ever know the half of it? When we're slapping Big Nige or Claudio on the back for a tactical masterstroke or whatever, do we know the half of it then? We can only ever go on the half of it, or whatever fraction, that we do know. And if we didn't voice an opinion on that we wouldn't need a forum!

 

Technically, we DON'T need a forum

[inckley fox]

He's had about 200 minutes, so yeah, bit out there. Apart from his cameo against Spurs he's been mediocre and at present I don't want him to start ahead of Kante or Drinkwater. That's not to say he won't come good eventually but right now he isn't our best option.

 

Yes, it's too soon to be damning the poor guy. All we're saying, as you point out, is that currently he doesn't deserve to be in the side.

 

And Thracian's point was valid too - lots of other players are consigned to the reserves for months on end with less game time. While I've not seen nearly enough to go about saying that he's over-rated or never going to be good enough, we - and managers - tend to make judgements on 200 odd minutes of football, and less.

 

But there's plenty of time for it to work out yet. So long as we make our judgements based on how he plays for us and not his sparkling career in the distant past for someone else - otherwise we'd probably have signed up the likes of Kirkland, Bednar, Kamara and Fernandes ahead of Schmeichel, Nuge and Drinkwater.

 

Look at it this way - he supposedly cost less than 4m. By Premier League standards, that's on a level with the acquisition of Taylor-Fletcher. If it works he's a bargain, if he doesn't it won't bankrupt us either, though we might discover in the process that struggling Serie A veterans don't necessarily take the Premier League by the scruff of the neck.

Technically, we DON'T need a forum

 

Okay, fair enough!

[st albans fox]

Claudio will give him a run out on Tuesday to show some form. If he doesn't, I'd be surprised if he starts against arsenal. But you could argue that the type of players in the arsenal side will suit him better. He seems decent at getting a foot in and disrupting in a tight midfield. That will probably be next Saturday defined. Going back to last autumn, Esteban made a really good impression as a sub at Stoke, then shone in our second half v Man U. After that, palace, Newcastle, west brom, soton etc etc - I don't recall him shining much and he was preferred to kingy.

Why the rush to chuck him aside? it's not like we're floundering at the foot of the table next looking for an answer. If AK isn't playing every week, he'll be fresher when we need him. and we will need him. maybe next Saturday.

As regards Inler, how often has he been playing in a central two in a side with our style of playing? it's got to take him some time. Claudio clearly thinks it's worth sticking with it and rather than most of you lot on here, I'm inclined to side with our current manager.

[Thracian]

All that really matters is what we see on the pitch.

Gradel didn't get much sympathy on here for all the problems he had at home at the time.

In fact there was briefly more demand for Kaebi to be accommodated in our team than there ever was for our own Academy product.

Sometimes I really don't get it with fans.

It seems that the graduates who cost us nothing by way of fees have to be three times as impressive as any expensive import to get any chance of wholehearted support.

With Kingy its the same. Lots of begrudging acknowledgement but, just like Rooney as England's top scorer - very little real belief in the guy.

I suppose it's a bit like shopping in the High Street ahead of anywhere else...."The greater the glamour the better the value."

Well, I've no intentions of badmouthing anyone in the retail market except to say "it ain't necessarily so". Good impressions can mask all sorts of things. 

[inckley fox]

Claudio will give him a run out on Tuesday to show some form. If he doesn't, I'd be surprised if he starts against arsenal. But you could argue that the type of players in the arsenal side will suit him better. He seems decent at getting a foot in and disrupting in a tight midfield. That will probably be next Saturday defined. Going back to last autumn, Esteban made a really good impression as a sub at Stoke, then shone in our second half v Man U. After that, palace, Newcastle, west brom, soton etc etc - I don't recall him shining much and he was preferred to kingy.

Why the rush to chuck him aside? it's not like we're floundering at the foot of the table next looking for an answer. If AK isn't playing every week, he'll be fresher when we need him. and we will need him. maybe next Saturday.

As regards Inler, how often has he been playing in a central two in a side with our style of playing? it's got to take him some time. Claudio clearly thinks it's worth sticking with it and rather than most of you lot on here, I'm inclined to side with our current manager.

 

Well, the rush would be because we have suffered in games that he's played in, and only recovered when he's been removed from the side - and to quite dramatic extremes (turning around two goal deficits for two weeks running).

 

And if you look at Cambiasso's ratings, as given by us (see the History section on the forum), he was very much our best performer during the period you've mentioned. No, he might not have hit the heights of Man U or Stoke, but others have to be looked at before him.

 

And I'm not sure people aren't siding with Ranieri. It was he who removed Inler from the side for two games running, at half time on the second occasion, immediately before we overturned those two deficits. In other words, when Ranieri has made the decision to play Inler it hasn't worked out, but when he's made the decision not to it has. We have two sets of decisions concerning Inler, as regards Ranieri, one being to play him and the other not to play him. One hasn't worked, the other has - spectacularly. So I doubt anyone would argue with the latter, but you might have a job on your hands to argue in favour of the former.

[GaelicFox]

Could be Leicesters Diago Maradona fvck me Inler must be CR's love child

Scary shit isnt it

[st albans fox]

Well, the rush would be because we have suffered in games that he's played in, and only recovered when he's been removed from the side - and to quite dramatic extremes (turning around two goal deficits for two weeks running).

 

And if you look at Cambiasso's ratings, as given by us (see the History section on the forum), he was very much our best performer during the period you've mentioned. No, he might not have hit the heights of Man U or Stoke, but others have to be looked at before him.

 

And I'm not sure people aren't siding with Ranieri. It was he who removed Inler from the side for two games running, at half time on the second occasion, immediately before we overturned those two deficits. In other words, when Ranieri has made the decision to play Inler it hasn't worked out, but when he's made the decision not to it has. We have two sets of decisions concerning Inler, as regards Ranieri, one being to play him and the other not to play him. One hasn't worked, the other has - spectacularly. So I doubt anyone would argue with the latter, but you might have a job on your hands to argue in favour of the former.

We were bossing the second half against villa WITH Inler. I assume rainieri took him off because he thought he was tiring. He was making the change before we conceded the second.

as far as yesterday was concerned, I didn't see a stream of the first half. Watched sky last night and all the bad things he did must have been cut out of the edit,

The biggest beneficiary of us signing him seems to be Jeff who is has dropped well down the pecking order behind RDL.

If we are scapegoating so spectacularly whilst we are unbeaten wtf is going to happen on here when the defeats begin??

[inckley fox]

We were bossing the second half against villa WITH Inler. I assume rainieri took him off because he thought he was tiring. He was making the change before we conceded the second.

as far as yesterday was concerned, I didn't see a stream of the first half. Watched sky last night and all the bad things he did must have been cut out of the edit,

The biggest beneficiary of us signing him seems to be Jeff who is has dropped well down the pecking order behind RDL.

If we are scapegoating so spectacularly whilst we are unbeaten wtf is going to happen on here when the defeats begin??

 

I did see it and he was very poor, as he was against Villa. Ranieri may have wished to take him off before their second, but he was on the field and partially responsible when it happened.

 

You will have to explain your third paragraph to me again, I'm afraid, as I'm not sure what you're saying. I don't know who the biggest beneficiary of him signing is, though I'm not sure how it could be Jeff Schlupp. With many more performances like his last few it will surely be Andy King who, if competing with a credible replacement for Cambiasso in a 4-4-2, would struggle for a place but - if competing with Inler on current form - should be one of the first names on the team sheet.

 

There's no scapegoating here. He hasn't played well, he must do better. Hopefully he will. I, along with many others, have gone to pains to point out that in neither game has he been solely responsible for what has gone wrong. If I'd waited until we started losing to say it I would have (a) been ignoring something which is clear to everyone, including the manager who has hauled him off in both of the last two matches when we were clearly struggling, after which we've benefited enormously and (b) been accused of jumping on someone's back the second we lost a game, with everyone left right and centre saying 'well, you didn't have any problem with Inler when we were winning games'.

 

People comment on what they see. Inler has been poor, but will probably get better. I'm not sure what else there is to say.

[st albans fox]

Jeff is the beneficiary on here incks.

He has dropped right down the pecking order of club scapegoat

[Father Ted]

Inler reminds me of the centre midfielders we had between 05-08, the likes of Andy Johnson, Stephen Hughes, Gareth Williams and Stephen Clemence who all came with so much promise and evaporated with slow and lethargical performances into the footballing wilderness. They even went as far as to make Jason Jarrett and Danny Tiatto half decent footballers simply because they played in the middle and got themselves about a bit.

[Wymsey]

Thought he did ok yesterday.

Didn't do much but protected the defence quite well.

He's starting to get out of his shell.

[ozleicester]

I said in the match thread that he looks good on the ball (sadly moments before their first goal) He put some quality passes through on saturday and he was always ready to receive. He is a long way from the quality i had hoped for, but imo he looks to have it, just not yet picked up the pace and physicality. I could be glass half full, but i think he will come on very well with a few more minutes on the park.

 

Comparing him to Kante seems pointless, Kante's game is perfectly matched for the game we are playing at the moment, he is fast, hard running and will to throw himself at anything. It may be that in the coming games, when instead of chasing the game we are trying to control it, that is when we will see the value of Inler, and Kante may become a liability?

 

Either way im happy to have both of them in our squad.

[Nod.E]

I've seen touches of brilliance in there. He's just had a couple of bad games. It happens.

[Dickov22]

He did some really good things , but overall had a poor half. Hilarious that you're all writing him off. Surely he deserves more time.

[Guest]

He did some really good things , but overall had a poor half. Hilarious that you're all writing him off. Surely he deserves more time.

Think he'll get it right. Even Cambiasso wasn't always brilliant in his first few months here. Needs taking out of the time for now though. Kante a must play in the centre.

[Dickov22]

Think he'll get it right. Even Cambiasso wasn't always brilliant in his first few months here. Needs taking out of the time for now though. Kante a must play in the centre.

Bet Ranieri's desperate for Drinkwater to get injured so he can pick Kante and Inler as a midfield two. Playing Kante wide is ridiculous. Just doing that to fit all three in.

[Guest]

Bet Ranieri's desperate for Drinkwater to get injured so he can pick Kante and Inler as a midfield two. Playing Kante wide is ridiculous. Just doing that to fit all three in.

Yep nonsense isn't it. Square pegs in round holes. I didn't have major issue with Albrighton going on the bench if Dyer was available but like you say Kante wide is ridiculous. 

[Grewks]

Yep nonsense isn't it. Square pegs in round holes. I didn't have major issue with Albrighton going on the bench if Dyer was available but like you say Kante wide is ridiculous. 

 

 

Maybe he just thought that as Stoke's threat comes from outwide and kante is our best ball winner then playing him outwide may be an advantage to us..who knows.

 

 

 

It didn't work...but his changes did and we got a solid point.

[Guest]

Maybe he just thought that as Stoke's threat comes from outwide and kante is our best ball winner then playing him outwide may be an advantage to us..who knows.

 

 

 

It didn't work...but his changes did and we got a solid point.

Not knocking Ranieri on whole as think his changes v Villa and Stoke were very good. Just imagine how good we'll be when he gets it right from the start.

[NotTheMarketLeader]

Not knocking Ranieri on whole as think his changes v Villa and Stoke were very good. Just imagine how good we'll be when he gets it right from the start.

Yes it's like he's fighting the obvious, simple remedy. Start Kante, play 3-5-2 to avoid the wing backs having to do so much defending, tell them to press and leave it at that.

No coaching badges needed, or further tinkering should be required to get us finishing well above the 'R Zone' imo.

[Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot]

How can you write a player off after about 180 minutes football? Did he have a pre-season? Also the 90 minutes he had for Switzerland against England he was the best player on the pitch. Think most would agree you'd start Kante and Drinkwater in a 2 at the minute, but how many people who are now writing off Inler said exactly the same or worse about Drinkwater last season? Maybe he'll never come good but for fvcks sake, give the bloke a chance.

[NotTheMarketLeader]

How can you write a player off after about 180 minutes football? Did he have a pre-season? Also the 90 minutes he had for Switzerland against England he was the best player on the pitch. Think most would agree you'd start Kante and Drinkwater in a 2 at the minute, but how many people who are now writing off Inler said exactly the same or worse about Drinkwater last season? Maybe he'll never come good but for fvcks sake, give the bloke a chance.

This is true however I could not countenance starting him above anyone else at this point in the PL, you have said. He should start the West Ham game, and take it from there. As things stand he should be on the bench behind those who have shown some sort of form imo, regardless of how much he is being paid.

[weller54]

How can you write a player off after about 180 minutes football? Did he have a pre-season? Also the 90 minutes he had for Switzerland against England he was the best player on the pitch. Think most would agree you'd start Kante and Drinkwater in a 2 at the minute, but how many people who are now writing off Inler said exactly the same or worse about Drinkwater last season? Maybe he'll never come good but for fvcks sake, give the bloke a chance.

Suppose it was just all the hype surrounding the build up to his transfer and the obvious comparisons to Cambiasso... He's got very big boots to fill so it's not been easy for him.. Really hope he does come good!