Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
coolhandfox

Comparing O'Neill LCFC Vs Ranieri LCFC sides

Recommended Posts

I wouldn't choose any players from either era. There is only ONE team worth having

 

                               Barry Hayles

 

Barry Hayles  Barry Hayles  Barry Hayles  Barry Hayles

 

Barry Hayles  Barry Hayles  Barry Hayles  Barry Hayles

 

                     Barry Hayles  Barry Hayles

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not only decided by a comparison of achievements. Whereas the hallmark of an O'Neill side was gritty determination I thought that the title winning side displayed that but also a considerable amount of flair and positive intent which made watching us a real pleasure. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Steve_Walsh5 said:

Nah I remember Matt Elliott escape a booking for putting Michael Owen unconscious. 

lol

I don't think they'd get away with that nowadays 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, coolhandfox said:

In another thread someone was comparing Lennon and Drinkwater, got me think about who would be in my combined 11. Hard to pick a formation but, I've gone for a 4-4-2, only one I'm not sure about it right back. 

 

------------Kasper-----------

Simpson Elliott Huth Guppy

--------Kante  Lennon-------

Mahrez ------------------ Izzet

-----Heskey-------Vardy------

 

Manager: Martin

Bell ringer: Claudio

 

Maybe me realise we haven't been blessed at RB! Not sure Guppy could be a out and out LB but couldn't leave him out! 

 

Interest see other people options! 

 

 

 

 

I think Lennon and Kante would be the better comparison....

 

And i never thought id say this about Lennon who WAS my favorite ever Leicester Midfielder , but Kante is twice the player Lennon was...

 

Im drawn to the combative style midfielder...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Babylon said:

More people who were about 10 at the time slating a team that had some top quality players. lol

That never reached the heights that we did two seasons ago, when you consider the money involved in the game from now to then with the fact that in the 90's it was only ever a two horse race for the title, whereas these days you could have a strong argument for at least 5 teams. 

 

You don't need to be so condescending all the time, just because people were a certain age at the time of the O'Neill era certainly doesn't mean that you instantly know more than them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Bert said:

That never reached the heights that we did two seasons ago, when you consider the money involved in the game from now to then with the fact that in the 90's it was only ever a two horse race for the title, whereas these days you could have a strong argument for at least 5 teams. 

 

You don't need to be so condescending all the time, just because people were a certain age at the time of the O'Neill era certainly doesn't mean that you instantly know more than them. 

I can absolutely cast iron guarantee that my perception of that era will be far greater than people who were 9 at the time. Just as people older than me are going to know more about the era when I was going down at 9 or 10. As I said the other day, 9 year olds are still learning to spell and add up, can barely eat without dropping it down themselves. Are you actually trying to argue that a grown adult who has got lets say, at least 10 years greater experience in watching and understanding football, isn't far better place to grasp what the hell they are watching? It's ludicrous.

 

It's not condescending when I'm happy to admit the same goes for me when I was 9, when I wasn't going every game, my knowledge was limited, I didn't really know who or what I was watching. I'd get distracted every 5 seconds. I couldn't possibly suggest my knowledge or understanding matches up to someone twice my age who has been going home and away for years. Christ my mum was still buying my clothes, telling me when to go to bed and when to have a bath. lol

 

The notion that no players from back then could get into this team, just because it happens to have won the league is laughable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Babylon said:

I can absolutely cast iron guarantee that my perception of that era will be far greater than people who were 9 at the time. Just as people older than me are going to know more about the era when I was going down at 9 or 10. As I said the other day, 9 year olds are still learning to spell and add up, can barely eat without dropping it down themselves. Are you actually trying to argue that a grown adult who has got lets say, at least 10 years greater experience in watching and understanding football, isn't far better place to grasp what the hell they are watching? It's ludicrous.

 

It's not condescending when I'm happy to admit the same goes for me when I was 9, when I wasn't going every game, my knowledge was limited, I didn't really know who or what I was watching. I'd get distracted every 5 seconds. I couldn't possibly suggest my knowledge or understanding matches up to someone twice my age who has been going home and away for years. Christ my mum was still buying my clothes, telling me when to go to bed and when to have a bath. lol

 

The notion that no players from back then could get into this team, just because it happens to have won the league is laughable.

What I'm saying is just because you are older doesn't instantly make you know more on your say so. Just because you got distracted every 5 seconds that goes for everyone else does it lol 

 

i I do agree with you on your final point to be fair. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Bert said:

What I'm saying is just because you are older doesn't instantly make you know more on your say so. Just because you got distracted every 5 seconds that goes for everyone else does it lol 

 

i I do agree with you on your final point to be fair. 

I've met a few 9 year olds, I'm yet to meet one who had a greater understanding of anything than an adult, except perhaps playing the recorder or how many times a day the school rabbits hump each other. I met a 9 year old only the other day, dressed up in his full Leicester kit running around like a loon dabbing and chasing bees. He got stung and cried for about two hours. I'm not trying to suggest I've ever been Einstein, but I'd back myself over a 9 year old. lol

 

I'm sure there are people who were 9 back then who can recite stats etc far better than I, but it's not like being there and seeing the sheer brilliance of someone like Muzzy week in week out and appreciating his brilliance because you've seen enough shit in the previous 10 years to know how bloody good he is. God I wish there was the access we have today to clips, his youtube video would be unreal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Babylon said:

I can absolutely cast iron guarantee that my perception of that era will be far greater than people who were 9 at the time. Just as people older than me are going to know more about the era when I was going down at 9 or 10. As I said the other day, 9 year olds are still learning to spell and add up, can barely eat without dropping it down themselves. Are you actually trying to argue that a grown adult who has got lets say, at least 10 years greater experience in watching and understanding football, isn't far better place to grasp what the hell they are watching? It's ludicrous.

 

It's not condescending when I'm happy to admit the same goes for me when I was 9, when I wasn't going every game, my knowledge was limited, I didn't really know who or what I was watching. I'd get distracted every 5 seconds. I couldn't possibly suggest my knowledge or understanding matches up to someone twice my age who has been going home and away for years. Christ my mum was still buying my clothes, telling me when to go to bed and when to have a bath. lol

 

The notion that no players from back then could get into this team, just because it happens to have won the league is laughable.

I was an adult in that era and I get where you are coming from but it works both ways though. When you look back to older teams it's easy to just remember the good games and not the bad games. MON's teams were good but they'd still only win 13-16 league games a season and there were tons of rotten and forgettable performances in there that simply get forgotten about because time filters out the shit for the good. Whereas the current players you can remember there bad/average games a lot clearer.

 

Similarly players who scored 11 odd league goals in a season in that era were considered heroes but a player like Ullos who did that in the modern era isn't.

 

I do think there are maybe 2 or 3 players of MON's team who might get into that team but there's also plenty of nostalgia-goggles on about those players and definitely wouldn't be 4 or 5 players from that era in the current side.

 

It's more the secondary players. Our very best payers like Lennon, Elliott and Izzet you could happily debate. It's more players like Guppy, Taggart, Walsh etc. who were very good players for us at the time, but the likes of Morgan, Huth, Albrighton, Fuchs etc. were unquestionably better and more consistent than them and we didn't have any players back then (even our best players) who are on par with the likes of Kante, Vardy and Mahrez.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Babylon said:

I've met a few 9 year olds, I'm yet to meet one who had a greater understanding of anything than an adult, except perhaps playing the recorder or how many times a day the school rabbits hump each other. I met a 9 year old only the other day, dressed up in his full Leicester kit running around like a loon dabbing and chasing bees. He got stung and cried for about two hours. I'm not trying to suggest I've ever been Einstein, but I'd back myself over a 9 year old. lol

 

I'm sure there are people who were 9 back then who can recite stats etc far better than I, but it's not like being there and seeing the sheer brilliance of someone like Muzzy week in week out and appreciating his brilliance because you've seen enough shit in the previous 10 years to know how bloody good he is. God I wish there was the access we have today to clips, his youtube video would be unreal.

I think the people who were 9 back then and can recite the stats will have probably been there week in week out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Bert said:

I think the people who were 9 back then and can recite the stats will have probably been there week in week out. 

You can read stats in a book or online was my point, wasn't entirely clear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Babylon said:

More people who were about 10 at the time slating a team that had some top quality players. lol

Nobody is slating anybody.

 

The team that won the league was better than the team that consistently finished about 9th. Not much to argue about there.

 

I think a lot of people are looking back with tinted specs. You're off your rocker if you honestly think things like Guppy>Fuchs, Lennon>Drinkwater or Elliot>Morgan.

 

That's not to shame Guppy, Lennon or Elliot or whoever else. They're Leicester City Legends for what they achieved with us.

 

But it's not wrong to say that we had better players in the year we won the league

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, AKCJ said:

Nobody is slating anybody.

There have been people suggesting that team would get relegated FFS. They seen the state of teams like Burnley?

 

5 minutes ago, AKCJ said:

The team that won the league was better than the team that consistently finished about 9th. Not much to argue about there.

Nobody has argued that is wasn't a better team.

 

5 minutes ago, AKCJ said:

I think a lot of people are looking back with tinted specs. You're off your rocker if you honestly think things like Guppy>Fuchs, Lennon>Drinkwater or Elliot>Morgan.

Fuchs isn't a wing back and Guppy isn't a left back, depending on what formation you one to choose, one is better than the other. As for the others, you could make a very good case for both of them being better players. You could switch out Morgan or Huth for an Elliott in our league winning team and he'd off no less, but he'd be better on the ball.

 

5 minutes ago, AKCJ said:

But it's not wrong to say that we had better players in the year we won the league

Ok, so every single player that won the league is better than every player that didn't. Using the same logic, that suggests that every single player we had that season was better than every single player that played for every other team. You know and I know that it's just not true. What we had was a perfect system, we didn't have the best players. We had three top class players and the rest functioned brilliantly in the system they were given.

 

There's not a chance on Earth Okazaki was a better player than Heskey. On his day he could rip the best defenders to pieces and got sold for £11m.... which I dread to think what that would be in today's money. £40/50m?+ In this day and age Izzet would be starting for England, back then he had some of the best players in the world to compete against, muzzy could do everything as well as bang goals in. 10 in one season from midfield ffs. You can make the same case for 4 or 5 players from that era.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) One thing is for ****ing certain, it wouldn't get close to winning the league.

 

2) This is about creating a team with the best players from either era isn't it? It's my opinion that no player from that era would improve the starting 11 of the team that won the league. Muzzy and Heskey were better footballers than Albrighton and Okazaki (goes without saying) but I don't think that the team would have improved with those replacements. The League winning team had perfect balance.

 

3) Elliott never played to the levels that Morgan reached in 15/16. The same goes with Lennon and Drinkwater and Guppy and Fuchs although I take your point about wingbacks.

 

4) See my answer to your second point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

O'Neill's team consistently delivered. Never won the league but top 10 season after season and two domestic trophies shouldn't be so easily dismissed.

 

One good season doesn't override consistent seasons. Even more so when you consider O'Neill's budget and we were at Filbert Street.

 

I mean, it's pointless really, just enjoy both sides. But if you offered me Drinkwater and Kante or Izzet and Lennon, for instance, then I'd go for the latter. Consistent success is difficult to achieve - ask Ranieri. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, MPH said:

 

I think Lennon and Kante would be the better comparison....

 

And i never thought id say this about Lennon who WAS my favorite ever Leicester Midfielder , but Kante is twice the player Lennon was...

 

Im drawn to the combative style midfielder...

Kante has mobility and speed over Lennon, his ability to cover ground makes a massive difference, on the ball I would say there not much to choose.

 

 

55 minutes ago, AKCJ said:

Nobody is slating anybody.

 

The team that won the league was better than the team that consistently finished about 9th. Not much to argue about there.

 

I think a lot of people are looking back with tinted specs. You're off your rocker if you honestly think things like Guppy>Fuchs, Lennon>Drinkwater or Elliot>Morgan.

 

That's not to shame Guppy, Lennon or Elliot or whoever else. They're Leicester City Legends for what they achieved with us.

 

But it's not wrong to say that we had better players in the year we won the league

I think your missing the point, in 2015/16 we had a better team dynamic, shape, game plan,  the sum of the parts equal more then the individual pieces. We didn't win the league because we had the best players, if it was about having the best players, Man City, Spurs, Chelsea, Arsenal would l have won it!

 

Its like saying Geoff Hurst is better then Gary Lineker and Alan Shearer because he won the World Cup.

 

It about who you are comparing, Heskey over OkazakI  everyday of the week!  Heskey and Vardy would have been lethal. 

 

I would also have Izzet over Drinkwater, but that's my opinion, Danny blows hot and cold, one good season and one bad, Izzet was superb season after season, 34 goals in 248 PL games. 

 

As for Fuchs and Guppy, Fuches as an out and out fallback defo, but Guppy if you wanted a wing back, 34 assists in 164 games

 

I would also say Kante, Vardy, Kasper, Mahrez, Huth, Albrighton  would walk in to the O'Neill side no question.

 

 


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's a bit of mix and match and it has to take into account how modern day football has changed, what with sports scientists, new rules, different boots and footballs, and all that type of thing.

That said, imo some of the O'Neil players would get into this current squad, no doubt.

Muzzy 

Lennon

wasnt Kamaark an O'Neil signing?

Heskey was head and shoulders over Slim.

Even Stanley Victor....on his day, unplayable.

Id even put Guppy up there with Fuchs personally. I'm still yet to see a City player with such a sweet left boot as Guppy. Imagine Guppy crossing into Slimani now!

 

its all opinion and from a different era though...makes it hard to compare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...