Better Squad now than when we won the Title?

[Legend_in_blue]

Better squad?  Possibly.  

 

Better football?  Definitely imo.

[Dan]

I think the squad is stronger but it's missing a certain someone to say it's a better team. He really was the absolute perfect midfielder for our system under Ranieri.

 

I feel like growing as a side in a more sustainable way under Puel though. Ranieri never really hit a slump in his first year, yet once he hit it he never really recovered. We've had a bit of one under Puel yet I think under him we're continuing to play good football and will come good over time.

 

I feel like Puel's a safe pair of hands.

[themightyfin]

Better squad?

yes 

 

better first 11? No

 

Remember our 15/16 back 4 were imesnse and all 2 years younger than they were now so All have probably lost half a yard of pace.

 

The back 4 now although solid and room for improvement given their age are not the same standard as the 15-16 back 4 two years ago. 

 

Any team loosing Kanke and Drinky are going to be worse off and as much as I love Vardy he deffo does not run around and hastle  quite as much as he did back then and has lost half a yard of pace although still lightning.

 

But we deffo have a better bench to call on although that was not much of a factor as we hardly had any injuries or suspension issues anyway.

 

 

[fuchsntf]

2 minutes ago, GaelicFox said:

Any squad losing Kante will always be poorer 

 

too many turkeys from Portuguese league as well  

The Key Word ist Squad..Kante ,If He had Been injured for 3-5games,or had frequent

Single Game outages,I dont believe we would of taken the title.

Has many posters have stated He was irreplacable..

However Our present Squad Imho for the First time in 5-6 years,including the title year 

has a better 14-17 high Potential First teamers.

 

Across the whole Pitch,defence/midfield/forwards all the Lines are adequetely

Covered ,These Last 6wks alone has added and given us a totally different

Squad Perspective for the present and  future Potential.

Thats Not forgetting,including yours and Others Observation,there are players

considered dead Wood or waste of Space.

 

Not only Puel + His staff,are Finding they are building something worthy,

but the fans are smelling something Special could be in the making

[sylofox]

2 hours ago, kyleolly said:

Our reserve team today had 3 players combined worth nearly £70m so certainly a better squad

What has money got to do with it. As we have seen transfer fees have gone silly. Last seasons 10m player is now 20 +m but the players are the same not twice as good. Did we not prove money = fvckall

[Kitchandro]

33 minutes ago, Legend_in_blue said:

Better squad?  Possibly.  

 

Better football?  Definitely imo.

laughable. Sleep it off.

Edited 28 January 2018 by Kitchandro

[foxes_rule1978]

Just now, Kitchandro said:

laughable

It is similar football but we are binding our time better now, it is what I think CR was hoping we would do 

[Kitchandro]

I think there is a bit more depth in the squad.

 

But the sum of the parts of the entire squad? It's definitely weaker.

 

This argument that the squad is stronger but the first 11 is weaker doesn't make any sense. The squad includes the first 11, and players who don't play as regularly are of less value to the squad. Have we compensated for losing Kante? No, we are still worse off without Kante.

 

I'd trade every single player we've bought in the last 2 years for one Kante and the good version of Drinkwater.

 

 

[Kitchandro]

7 minutes ago, foxes_rule1978 said:

It is similar football but we are binding our time better now, it is what I think CR was hoping we would do 

Only it patches. Against Chelsea we played like 'the old Leicester', and in the odd half every few weeks. Today we seemed to do it albeit against a lower league team with an experimental side out.

 

In the majority of games this season, under Shakespeare and Puel, we have played ponderous (I assume that's what you mean by 'binding our time'), unambitious, dull football. I know people around me at games have been just as bored as me on many occasions.

 

People (drunk people) are once again confusing good football with keeping possession. These 2 things are not remotely linked. We are better at keeping possession, but not in effective areas, and are still prone to panicking under pressure in our own half and having to 'get rid' - thus, our possession comes to nothing.

 

Good football involves a commitment to scoring goals (this being the aim of the sport) and this is something we have only done sporadically up to this point since May 2016.

[foxes_rule1978]

4 minutes ago, pmcla26 said:

Better squad now, we seen that with last season's squad how they faltered in the league, would like to think this side is way to strong to slump like that again.

 it is an exciting time in terms of sustaining a long future in being a top 7-8 side, maybe going further even. The type of football we play now is closer to what you want in terms of long term success it is less taxing on the players. 

[foxes_rule1978]

1 minute ago, Kitchandro said:

Only it patches. Against Chelsea we played like 'the old Leicester', and in the odd half every few weeks. Today we seemed to do it albeit against a lower league team with an experimental side out.

 

In the majority of games this season, under Shakespeare and Puel, we have played ponderous (I assume that's what you mean by 'binding our time'), unambitious, dull football. I know people around me at games have been just as bored as me on many occasions.

 

People (drunk people) are once again confusing good football with keeping possession. These 2 things are not remotely linked. We are better at keeping possession, but not in effective areas, and are still prone to panicking under pressure in our own half and having to 'get rid' - thus, our possession comes to nothing.

 

Good football involves a commitment to scoring goals (this being the aim of the sport) and this is something we have only done sporadically up to this point since May 2016.

I disagree we are biding our time better, it is less taxing and actually using the ball well. In terms of long term success this is good for us. I would say we are better at creating goals from every side of the pitch, making us harder to defend against... Puel has got the defence right as well but hasn’t taken anything away from our attacking play. 

[Kitchandro]

22 minutes ago, pmcla26 said:

I would say Silva, Ndidi and Iborra are as good as replacements tho for Drinky and Kante as LCFC could get - Silva is a better player than Drinkwater also for sure, especially for the style Puel is trying to employ now.

Perhaps, but not quite good enough if we're directly comparing them.

 

As for Silva, I'm hopeful based on what I've seen so far but I think people forget just how good Drinkwater was when we won the title. Silva has a long way to go to reach those levels, though admittedly Drinkwater was not performing at all by the time he was sold.

 

I think you're going to have to explain to me a) what style Puel is trying to employ (specifically, calling it 'possession football' is not nearly descriptive enough), b) in which particular games they have seen this style take place (our best performances certainly haven't been in matches where we've played a 'new brand' of football) and c) why that makes Silva so much more suited than Drinkwater considering I don't see them as vastly different types of players?

[foxes_rule1978]

Had we had Puel from the off and a pre-season with him we would be a lot closer to that top four, even with 5 of our teams progressing to the last 16 of the CL and arsenal going well in the Europa ... 

[Kitchandro]

21 minutes ago, foxes_rule1978 said:

I disagree we are biding our time better, it is less taxing and actually using the ball well. In terms of long term success this is good for us. I would say we are better at creating goals from every side of the pitch, making us harder to defend against... Puel has got the defence right as well but hasn’t taken anything away from our attacking play. 

Well, firstly, those things can't be true, because if they were we'd be better than Arsenal, Man Utd & Tottenham again, who are worse teams than they were when we won the title. Basically, what you're saying has to be nonsense because the league is weaker and yet we are 7th, not top (I'll accept Chelsea and Man City have improved, but we should still be better than those other teams). And let's not kid ourselves by saying we're playing catch up after a poor start under Shakespeare - we're clearly not as good as any of the teams in the top 6. So there's that.

 

Reading this forum is strange sometimes - to a lot of people it appears we have a stronger squad, a better style and more effective tactics than when we won the league yet both on a statistical and common sense level we are clearly nowhere near the standard of that side.

 

I don't agree we use the ball well, not regularly. We keep the ball well sometimes, but again, this is totally meaningless on it's own. For every game where we look on fire there are 2 games when we look totally impotent. You need to be consistently causing a threat game after game, but I think without even going through a list of our matches since the start of last season, and also since Puel came, you can see that this is not the case.

 

I feel like I'm making these points every week but if you can't see that there is no particular tactical innovation here, or that there hasn't been a consistent stream of good performances, or that we're just an average side with potential, then well, there's not many other ways to say it.

 

The defence has improved in recent games though, so credit where credit's due.

 

Anyway, I certainly won't be entertaining the idea that we play better football than when we won the league, I'm a bit sick of arguing with people who talk such total nonsense.

 

Edited 28 January 2018 by Kitchandro

[foxes_rule1978]

8 minutes ago, Kitchandro said:

Well, firstly, those things can't be true, because if they were we'd be better than Arsenal, Man Utd & Tottenham again, who are worse teams than they were when we won the title. Basically, what you're saying has to be nonsense because the league is weaker and yet we are 7th, not top (I'll accept Chelsea and Man City have improved, but we should still be better than those other teams). And let's not kid ourselves by saying we're playing catch up after a poor start under Shakespeare - we're clearly not as good as any of the teams in the top 6. So there's that.

 

Reading this forum is strange sometimes - to a lot of people it appears we have a stronger squad, a better style and more effective tactics than when we won the league yet both on a statistical and common sense level we are clearly nowhere near the standard of that side.

 

I don't agree we use the ball well, not regularly. We keep the ball well sometimes, but again, this is totally meaningless on it's own. For every game where we look on fire there are 2 games when we look totally impotent. You need to be consistently causing a threat game after game, but I think without even going through a list of our matches since the start of last season, and also since Puel came, you can see that this is not the case.

 

I feel like I'm making these points every week but if you can't see that there is no particular tactical innovation here, or that there hasn't been a consistent stream of good performances, or that we're just an average side with potential, then well, there's not many other ways to say it.

 

The defence has imrpoved in recent games though, so credit where credit's due.

 

5 teams in last 16 arsenal going strong in Europa league... Puel has he been here with a pre-season I’m almost certain we would be maybe 10-12 points better off than we are now. Forget the bad start with shakes, we are up with those teams mentioned since he took charge. How can you say Man City and Chelsea’s have only improved Man U aren’t doing too badly and Liverpool too. This weaker league stuff boggles my mind given the performance of our teams in Europe 

Edited 28 January 2018 by foxes_rule1978

[TheLittleBigMan]

Definitely better for me. Although if the title winning squad had Gary Taylor - Fletcher in it they'd just shade it. 

 

 

[HighPeakFox]

I say this semi-tongue in cheek, but the fact that Kitchandro is contributing so heavily to this thread is proof that it should not exist.

[Tommy G]

Think the key this summer will be holding onto Mahrez. If we do and bring in one good CB ala Maguire, an attacking RB and offload some deadwood I think we will have a very capable squad going into next season. This year I expect we will finish 7th, with a bit of luck 6th. Can’t complain city fans...

[hackenbacker]

was watching BeIN sports on Thursday night and they had a segment on CP. All are stats like:

• % of possession
• Shorts on goal
• Passing accuracy
• number of passes
• can't remember the others
• etc

are all better now then when we won the PL

 

BTW assuming Chelsea and Man C win today in the FA cup and Harry Kane United beat Newport we will be the 5th ranked team (in terms of PL table) in the draw. BUT if they all lose we will be 2nd behind Man U. 

 

Happy days!

[EnglishOxide]

We've got a better squad, no doubt about it.

 

Better starting 11?

 

Strikers = Equal. Vardys form has slightly dipped, but Shinji is playing better than 2 years ago IMO.

 

Midfielders = James and Silva can do what Drinkwater did. And there is a very good case for saying Ndidi can do what Kante does. I'd say equal.

 

Defence = I'd say we have gone backwards. Give it until the end of the season until deciding this one. Amartey, Dragovic, Maguire and Chilwell are not there (yet). They still make too many individual errors and we don't really know our settled back four when all fit as the others are getting on a bit.

 

Goalkeeper = I'd say equal. Kasper is not having a great season (although not bad either, form is temporary class is permanent, etc) and we've signed nobody to challenge his position.

 

 

So by my calculations, that puts our current starting 11 slightly behind the title winning starting 11. And it's due to the defence. The new one needs to continue to prove itself.

 

 

[Koke]

6 hours ago, Kitchandro said:

Only it patches. Against Chelsea we played like 'the old Leicester

 

Wait, what?

 

Against Chelsea we dominated them first half and by half time we had close to 60% possession. It was only when Chilwell got sent off we lost control of the game. At no point in 15/16 did we ever dominate possession away from home. The Chelsea performance is totally opposite to the 15/16 style. 

 

I'd say the home win over Spurs there were patches of the old Leicester.

[Nalis]

Better back up: Yes

 

Better 1st team: No

[Liam0308]

8 hours ago, Kitchandro said:

I think there is a bit more depth in the squad.

 

But the sum of the parts of the entire squad? It's definitely weaker.

 

This argument that the squad is stronger but the first 11 is weaker doesn't make any sense. The squad includes the first 11, and players who don't play as regularly are of less value to the squad. Have we compensated for losing Kante? No, we are still worse off without Kante.

 

I'd trade every single player we've bought in the last 2 years for one Kante and the good version of Drinkwater.

 

 

Do not disagree with the kante point. However, of course theres a logic to the argument. Would you rather have 12/13 players capable of playing in the first team without a massive reduction in quality? Or would you rather have a marginally weaker starting 11 but have around 18 players able to play? 

Of course in a one off match you would choose the former but as a squad for a season? I know id take the latter. Thats the point people are trying to make. 

 

The title winning season squad is over rated because it won the title. Im not saying that season we were crap, i bloody loved it, as did every other leicester fan. But it was a freak season. Once in a lifetime. If we had even 2 long term injuries to any of that starting 11 we probably wouldnt have won the title. Now we are in a better position to deal with that. Meaning the SQUAD has improved even if the starting 11 hasnt. 

 

Putting it simply (even if the point is exaggerated) which squad is stronger a) premier league quality 13 and 12 championship standard players or b) prem standard 18 and 7 champ standard?

[Dandy king]

12 hours ago, NewEnglandFox said:

The time for these threads is not after we drubbed a league one side. That goes for the other I-told-you-so thread about Puel as well. Three weeks ago we failed to record a shot against another League One side. Any time we get a couple good performances in on the bounce the Foxestalk consensus is that we can take on the world and a poor performance is unforeseeable. We're still very capable of getting smashed by Everton or Swansea and will probably be thrashed by Man City. Temper your enthusiasm.

Yes mate we all follow football so we can be really realistic and not get carried away ?

[Lionheart10]

With the youth we are bringing in it will be an interesting next 5 yrs,they are obviuosly building for the future if we manage to keep them all!