MoN team or this team?

[Jimbo]

This team would beat O'Neills team if O'Neill wasn't in charge of that team, if that makes sense.

This team is better but Martin knew how to get the best out of that team.

[Thracian]

This team would beat O'Neills team if O'Neill wasn't in charge of that team, if that makes sense.

This team is better but Martin knew how to get the best out of that team.

 

 

I may be wrong but I can't remember MON ever having a points return like we've had this last few months. MON managed like Cloughie gettng specialist players to do particular jobs. Today's team is more flexible, adaptable and faster in the main for all that Guppy and Heskey could get a move on. I also think they're fitter. In fact arguably the fittest and fastest I've ever seen a Leicester team over a whole game.   

[Jimbo]

I may be wrong but I can't remember MON ever having a points return like we've had this last few months. MON managed like Cloughie gettng specialist players to do particular jobs. Today's team is more flexible, adaptable and faster in the main for all that Guppy and Heskey could get a move on. I also think they're fitter. In fact arguably the fittest and fastest I've ever seen a Leicester team over a whole game.

Most definitely agree with you. Martins team was, in my opinion looking back, quite limited really. With a sprinkle of real quality of course.

[bovril]

It'd be high scoring. I'd go 3-3. Cottee and Elliot (2 from set pieces) for 99/00 vs Vardy (2) and a last minute Ulloa tap-in.

[Nick]

Next time somebody posts anything along these lines I swear the kitty gets it.

 

We were nothing like fvcking Stoke. We played very entertaining football. You did realise our 'boring boring Leicester' chants were ironic?

We had our moments but didn't play the sort of football we are playing today. I'm not suggesting it was hoofball just that we were more the 'set-piece' kings of the league rather than a purist footballing side.

Put the kitty down.

[4everfox]

I was lucky enough to witness the O'Neill era and I have to say that if 2000 Leicester had a match with 2015 Leicester they would be in deep trouble. We are better now but it is also harder to win trophies now then it was back then. If this team was in the Premier League in 1999 they would finish in the top 6.

[Guest Col city fan]

I have added a poll as I always like them.

The poll is rubbish. Let me know if you want advice on creating polls.

Ps...equal...the two teams are now about as good as each other.

[Fox92]

I was lucky enough to witness the O'Neill era and I have to say that if 2000 Leicester had a match with 2015 Leicester they would be in deep trouble. We are better now but it is also harder to win trophies now then it was back then. If this team was in the Premier League in 1999 they would finish in the top 6.

 

Really? I think it's "easier" now. Look at the league cup, for instance, and the top clubs don't take it serious anymore. It's just a chance to run out the younger players. In recent years we've seen Bradford, Cardiff, Birmingham, Middlesbrough, Bolton and Wigan all get to the league cup final.

 

I would also suggest the PL in 1998/1999/2000 was tougher... Manchester United were simply brilliant, as were Arsenal who had the likes of Bergkamp, Vieira and Adams. Liverpool and Leeds were solid too. In 1999 Liverpool finished 7th and between about 1995 and 2000 Villa finished top 6 every season, including 4th for two seasons running. There's no way this team would finish in the top 6.

 

I don't know how people can vote this team. We've played four months. O'Neill finished top 10 and guided us to three league cup finals (and Europe), winning two, and that is incomparable. It's O'Neill's team easily.

[Beliall]

Christ, granted you may not like Savage but to suggest Savages team in which he played, would be bottom of the current premier league really is laughable.

I will remind you three top ten finishes in the premier league, three cup final appearances winning two losing one, players like, Izzet, Lennon, Guppy, Heskey, in his prime, Collymore, Walsh, Taggart, Elliot, etc to name but a few. They would not be even near the bottom of the current premier league.

As I have alluded to yes, it was different times era, but it was still the premier league. I believe a lot of people have voted for the fact they hate Savage not realistically comparing the two teams and what they have achieved.

If we can keep the nucleus of what we have now together, nothing horrendous hits us like a tidal wave, then maybe the current

Crop can go onto achieving more than Oneals and Savages team did.

 

 

fair enough, i was angered by the "savages team" bit and formed my post like a rant, the current team is far better though i think, it might be fairer to say the old squad would be in the bottom third of the league

[Arriba Los Zorros]

We had our moments but didn't play the sort of football we are playing today. I'm not suggesting it was hoofball just that we were more the 'set-piece' kings of the league rather than a purist footballing side.

Put the kitty down.

I'd go as far as saying the MON team played football primarily to win free kicks and get the set pieces which allowed the big boys to get in the box. No where near as dynamic as current team. 

[Arriba Los Zorros]

I was lucky enough to witness the O'Neill era and I have to say that if 2000 Leicester had a match with 2015 Leicester they would be in deep trouble. We are better now but it is also harder to win trophies now then it was back then. If this team was in the Premier League in 1999 they would finish in the top 6.

No doubt about it. I'd say top 4

[Guest MattP]

Savage wasn't even in the best team MON created, our midfield trio of Parker, Lennon and Izzet was divine.

I do agree with him that the PL was stronger back then though, we had 3-4 teams in it that were genuine Champions league challengers, a West Ham team containing Ferdinand, Lampard, Di Canio and Joe Cole got relegated.

Who would win? No idea, Vardy would cause serious problems for Elliott and Taggart but I think our current team would be absolutely murdered on set plays by those two plus Marshall Heskey etc.

Let's win some trophies anyway, they can't be held in the same regard until they do

[jayfox26]

At the moment it's difficult to compare. MON's team was built on a shoestring budget and today's team has cost quite a bit more but it's probably relative in the way transfer fees and wages have rocketed since the MON days. We had some very good hard working players back then and we still have that kind of ethos and mentality but we have far more exciting players now like Vardy, Mahrez etc. If I was to pick 11 players using our current squad and mon's squad it would be this.

Keller

Morgan Elliott Walsh

Albrighton Guppy

Izzet Lennon Drinkwater

Mahrez

Vardy

Morgan may be a controversial pick but i personally think he's been a great captain for us. I thought about Taggart but decided to stick with wes. Fair to say our defence was much better then but our attack is much better now.

Ps it's a wing back formation with Guppy and Albrighton as wing backs and mahrez just behind jv

[Renart]

The poll is rubbish. Let me know if you want advice on creating polls.

Ps...equal...the two teams are now about as good as each other.

 

Dude, the poll is fine; I am an experienced poll maker. Stop following me around causing trouble. Otherwise I will come to the Christmas party to fight you. 

[bovril]

I'd go as far as saying the MON team played football primarily to win free kicks and get the set pieces which allowed the big boys to get in the box.

 

With all respect, I think that someone who never saw that team play really shouldn't make such ridiculous comments. I wouldn't even dream of analysing the Bloomfield team, even after everything I've seen and read about them.

We're talking about a team that, in 3 calendar years, won more cups than we had won in the rest of our entire history. At the very least educate yourself by going on to youtube and watching some of the highlights.

 

Just to add that in 99/00 we scored more goals than Liverpool (4th) and Chelsea (5th). It used to really bug me when the press described us as boring grafters, makes me even more annoyed now to see some of our fans write it.

[fleckneymike]

When this lot win something or finish a season in the top ten then we can have a debate.

[Claridge]

Defence was better back then probably

Not one of our defenders would get a sniff of that team,but pretty well matched elsewhere. Heskey would destroy Morgan and Huth though.

[Captain...]

It depends on what you mean by the league was harder back then, there were some great sides and we were a lot more successful in Europe. But that was all of its time. Players are fitter stronger faster than ever before and with the changes to limits on foreign players there is a much bigger pool of talent to pick from, there is much more talent in the premier league now, the fact we are less successful in Europe doesn't mean they are worse players and teams than the late 90's sides.

The other thing is football has changed a lot, when you think of some of the players that were successful in the top flight back then, particularly old school physical defenders and forwards, Julian Dicks, Ruddock, Fashnu, Quinn if they played today they would be sent off every game. I would say that applies to Walsh, Eliott and Taggert too. Not to take away anything of their ability or importance to our success but if they had Vardy, Mahrez, Albrighton, Schlupp running at them all game they would be fvcked. Teams don't attack down the flanks and whip crosses in, having big strong dominant in the air forwards and defenders is just not all you need these days, defenders need to be able to pass and be comfortable on the ball, have a bit of pace and not dive in.

If the Leicester team of the late 90s played in today's league they would finish bottom.

If this team played in the late 90s it would probably finish bottom getting slaughtered in the air on set pieces and kicked off the park if we tried to play nice one touch football.

[fleckneymike]

It depends on what you mean by the league was harder back then, there were some great sides and we were a lot more successful in Europe. But that was all of its time. Players are fitter stronger faster than ever before and with the changes to limits on foreign players there is a much bigger pool of talent to pick from, there is much more talent in the premier league now, the fact we are less successful in Europe doesn't mean they are worse players and teams than the late 90's sides.

The other thing is football has changed a lot, when you think of some of the players that were successful in the top flight back then, particularly old school physical defenders and forwards, Julian Dicks, Ruddock, Fashnu, Quinn if they played today they would be sent off every game. I would say that applies to Walsh, Eliott and Taggert too. Not to take away anything of their ability or importance to our success but if they had Vardy, Mahrez, Albrighton, Schlupp running at them all game they would be fvcked. Teams don't attack down the flanks and whip crosses in, having big strong dominant in the air forwards and defenders is just not all you need these days, defenders need to be able to pass and be comfortable on the ball, have a bit of pace and not dive in.

If the Leicester team of the late 90s played in today's league they would finish bottom.

If this team played in the late 90s it would probably finish bottom getting slaughtered in the air on set pieces and kicked off the park if we tried to play nice one touch football.

 

One of the most ludicrous statements I've ever seen.

[bovril]

It depends on what you mean by the league was harder back then, there were some great sides and we were a lot more successful in Europe. But that was all of its time. Players are fitter stronger faster than ever before and with the changes to limits on foreign players there is a much bigger pool of talent to pick from, there is much more talent in the premier league now, the fact we are less successful in Europe doesn't mean they are worse players and teams than the late 90's sides.

The other thing is football has changed a lot, when you think of some of the players that were successful in the top flight back then, particularly old school physical defenders and forwards, Julian Dicks, Ruddock, Fashnu, Quinn if they played today they would be sent off every game. I would say that applies to Walsh, Eliott and Taggert too. Not to take away anything of their ability or importance to our success but if they had Vardy, Mahrez, Albrighton, Schlupp running at them all game they would be fvcked. Teams don't attack down the flanks and whip crosses in, having big strong dominant in the air forwards and defenders is just not all you need these days, defenders need to be able to pass and be comfortable on the ball, have a bit of pace and not dive in.

If the Leicester team of the late 90s played in today's league they would finish bottom.

If this team played in the late 90s it would probably finish bottom getting slaughtered in the air on set pieces and kicked off the park if we tried to play nice one touch football.

 

We're talking about 2000. Not 1972. Go back and watch some football from that era, it's easy enough to find on youtube. Wenger's Arsenal won the league three times in this era, not Don Revie's Leeds.

[bovril]

Savage wasn't even in the best team MON created, our midfield trio of Parker, Lennon and Izzet was divine.

 

Good post but I disagree with this. Parker was one of my favourite players of all time, so cultured. But the 99/00 team was the best that O'Neill created, with Savage a near ever-present. But for injuries we would've finished top 6.

[Arriba Los Zorros]

With all respect, I think that someone who never saw that team play really shouldn't make such ridiculous comments. I wouldn't even dream of analysing the Bloomfield team, even after everything I've seen and read about them.

We're talking about a team that, in 3 calendar years, won more cups than we had won in the rest of our entire history. At the very least educate yourself by going on to youtube and watching some of the highlights.

 

Just to add that in 99/00 we scored more goals than Liverpool (4th) and Chelsea (5th). It used to really bug me when the press described us as boring grafters, makes me even more annoyed now to see some of our fans write it.

Let me explain that I'm not trying to criticise MON's team as every style of play is valid if successful. I did watch City play as my dad took me every week when I Ilived in Leicester (yes, fine, I was about 11 or something) and have watched many videos back in nostalgia including full matches, and there is no doubt we were a percentages team who based a lot of our success on set-plays. That's how MON has played retrospectively based on his success at Leicester. To say we were like Stoke a few years is an exaggeration as we had some decent wing play and obvsiouly the CMs could play a bit, however we were in no way an exciting, free-flowing team. To say anything else is a case of serious rose-tinted nostalgia for our most successful (recent) period.

 

again its not criticising as I really liked that team, but I prefer my football free-flowing and thus prefer the current crop, who have more potential - and lets be honest we all want to see them realise it and surpass MONs achievements

[Captain...]

One of the most ludicrous statements I've ever seen.

Which bit? MON's team would finish bottom if they played in this era, the fitness and speed and technical skill of players these days would be too much for any team of that era. Defenders like Walsh don't exist any more because they are too limited for today's game. If you took the players that we had back then and gave them access to the sports science and training and dietary know how we now have then they would do ok, but if you just jumped in a time machine and took MON's team from 1999 and put them in the Prem they would be run ragged every week.

Football was a lot more physical 15 years ago, not to the level of the 70's but the Arsenal team that won the league ushered in the new era of football but it still had Adams, Bould, Dixon, Winterburn, Ray Parlour, Viera they could match teams physically whilst still playing attacking football. Look at the teams like Ipswich, Coventry, West Ham, Wimbledon they were all teams built on being strong physical teams there were a lot of cloggers around and plenty of players who would just wipe you out on the half way line to stop a quick break. Boro got relegated in 97 with Juninho, Ravenelli, Emerson.

Maybe if they jumped in a time machine this side would do really well with superior speed and fitness. Our weakness though is our full backs, getting attacked down the flanks, defending crosses and set pieces and our keeper doesn't dominate the area which would be exploited by many teams from the late 90's, looking back at that era the game was much slower and the pitches were a lot worse it would affect our game.

I will change my statement that if this team played in late 90's they would either win the league or finish bottom.

[Stevosevic]

This team was better to watch, we score good quality goals. MON's wasn't a particularly good brand of football.

Doesn't mean today's team is a better team though.

[Durnerz]

To be fair if it was MON's vs current Leicester side we'd be spanked by O'Neill's set plays.