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
 Share
StriderHiryu

Kelechi Iheanacho / Nacho Man

By StriderHiryu, in Leicester City Forum

Recommended Posts

funkyrobot

funkyrobot

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

Are you talking about when Nacho stepped over the ball and left it for Ghezzal but Ghezzal didnt read it? Either way, all footballers hold their arms out and glare a bit when stuff like that happens

 

Lots of speculative slating of the guy there and stuff about his touch is just plain wrong. Dont know why the vitriol, i've never seen anything to suggest he is arrogant. He's taken a step down to actually play football. Lots of players dont do that

Taken a step down ffs. Pep didn’t want him and they got rid.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
volpeazzurro

volpeazzurro

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

Are you talking about when Nacho stepped over the ball and left it for Ghezzal but Ghezzal didnt read it? Either way, all footballers hold their arms out and glare a bit when stuff like that happens

 

Lots of speculative slating of the guy there and stuff about his touch is just plain wrong. Dont know why the vitriol, i've never seen anything to suggest he is arrogant. He's taken a step down to actually play football. Lots of players dont do that

That may be the one but for me people in glass houses etc etc (meaning Nacho). It's been of comment on here before regarding the raising of his arms etc which is for park football, I don't recall anyone doing it to him yet they've had ample reason to. For me his touch is poor for a striker. What really annoys me, as an example that's happened on more than one occasion is if the opposition take a corner and he situates himself halfway between our penalty area and halfway line, if the ball gets cleared up field towards the opposition half, whilst he ambles in the general direction,  he is in variously overtaken by one sometimes two of our midfielders from our own penalty area! He's often overtaken  in other circumstances, he's bone idol. When he came on in the final minutes against Chelsea, when an all hands on deck attitude was required, I was admittedly not there and only listening to the radio. The first mention of his name was by Matt Piper who commented that Puel was having to scream at him and gesticulate for him to run round and get stuck in. His next two mentions were the ball boucing of his shins to the opposition and then a powder puff shot to the goalkeeper, again giving possession away. I see no redeeming features. In fairness, he doesn't touch the ball too often thankfully because he's usually nowhere near in a suitable position to receive it.

 

Finally, he didn't actually take a step down to play football did he. He wasn't playing any where he was and was highly unlikely to,  he clearly is nowhere near good enough for them. So, the very good option of signing for and playing regularly for a Premiership club is a great step up! So great, he's not even good enough to get a regular game here as well.

Edited by volpeazzurro
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
turtmcfly

turtmcfly

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, inckley fox said:

Oh come on, where does that leave us?! Every outcome can be affected by any action, obviously. We accept it was right for Ranieri to drop De Laet and bring in Simpson as right back, and that the outcome was greater defensive strength, and eventually the title. But what if De Laet had stayed at right back? Maybe Mahrez would have improved defensively, evolved into an even greater player, we'd have hit 90 points and he'd have been sold for 150m. And we accept that Ranieri setting a 79 point target in December 2015 was one of his great managerial masterstrokes, but what if he hadn't done it? Who's to say we wouldn't have done even better?

 

On the flipside, we accept the signings of Musa and Slimani were mistakes, because they performed poorly for us and missed chances we'd have expected other players to bag - but what if we'd never made those signings, and signed even worse players? Or nobody? Maybe it would have been even worse... So therefore how can anyone judge these signings to have been mistakes.

 

Our judgement of the success of decisions over the course of all history is based on an assessment of what happens, and a 'best guess' of how those decisions affected them. 

 

In this case, it's not especially complex. We took a goalscorer off, working on the principle that we'd be better served by preserving his fitness, and that we wouldn't be at any great disadvantage because he wasn't proving especially effective on the day. The decision made sense, even if we didn't all agree with it. But what happened after that was that we won a penalty and our expert penalty taker wasn't on the pitch to take it, and we subsequently missed the penalty. It's as clear-cut an instance of a decision backfiring in football as you'll ever find. If your argument against this, in earnest, is that no decision can possibly be viewed positively or negatively in retrospect because we don't know what would have happened if it wasn't taken, then literally the entire study of world history would have to be abolished.

 

The only way you can say that decision was anything other than a mistake, according to your argument, is literally to argue that it's impossible to ever say a decision was a mistake because you never know what would have happened if it wasn't taken.

 

How about we admit that, while it was a perfectly sensible decision, it didn't quite work out for us? Isn't that easier?

The point is that Vardy staying on would have meant all the little bits of play that led up to the penalty would have been different. For a start, the touches Iheanacho had (and thus any leading from them, and those from them, and so on and so on) by definition just wouldn't have occurred. The specific move that caused the penalty is incredibly unlikely to have happened. 

 

That sad, we could have had a penalty earlier. Or more than one. Alternatively we could have not got one at all.

 

It's basically Chaos Theory. In a complex system even very small changes can have huge effects over time. And Vardy coming off is not even a small change.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
inckley fox

inckley fox

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, turtmcfly said:

The point is that Vardy staying on would have meant all the little bits of play that led up to the penalty would have been different. For a start, the touches Iheanacho had (and thus any leading from them, and those from them, and so on and so on) by definition just wouldn't have occurred. The specific move that caused the penalty is incredibly unlikely to have happened. 

 

That sad, we could have had a penalty earlier. Or more than one. Alternatively we could have not got one at all.

 

It's basically Chaos Theory. In a complex system even very small changes can have huge effects over time. And Vardy coming off is not even a small change.

If we apply this standard all of the time it's hard to assess success or failure in football, history and life in general. We never know what would have happened if things had been done differently - we can only look at decisions, their consequences and draw logical conclusions with the benefit of hindsight. If Iheanacho had scored the winner yesterday we'd have credited Puel for winning the game with his change, rather than asking whether Vardy might have bagged one too. In the event, the opposite happened. Iheanacho didn't score the winner but we did get a penalty and, without our usual taker on the field, missed it and lost the game.

 

Maybe the penalty would never have happened without Vardy on the pitch. Maybe if King Richard hadn't ordered the execution of Lord Stanley's brother, he wouldn't have switched sides and massacred him. Or maybe he would have anyway. A historian still says it was a misjudgement. If they couldn't say something as clear-cut as that was an error, then they'd end up never saying very much at all.

 

But yes, I get your point, obviously!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
turtmcfly

turtmcfly

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, inckley fox said:

If we apply this standard all of the time it's hard to assess success or failure in football, history and life in general. We never know what would have happened if things had been done differently - we can only look at decisions, their consequences and draw logical conclusions with the benefit of hindsight. If Iheanacho had scored the winner yesterday we'd have credited Puel for winning the game with his change, rather than asking whether Vardy might have bagged one too. In the event, the opposite happened. Iheanacho didn't score the winner but we did get a penalty and, without our usual taker on the field, missed it and lost the game.

 

Maybe the penalty would never have happened without Vardy on the pitch. Maybe if King Richard hadn't ordered the execution of Lord Stanley's brother, he wouldn't have switched sides and massacred him. Or maybe he would have anyway. A historian still says it was a misjudgement. If they couldn't say something as clear-cut as that was an error, then they'd end up never saying very much at all.

 

But yes, I get your point, obviously!

That example tells me you don't really get my point (your comparing micro and macro outcomes) but I'll leave it there for everyone's sake. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nicolo Barella

Nicolo Barella

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, inckley fox said:

If we apply this standard all of the time it's hard to assess success or failure in football, history and life in general. We never know what would have happened if things had been done differently - we can only look at decisions, their consequences and draw logical conclusions with the benefit of hindsight. If Iheanacho had scored the winner yesterday we'd have credited Puel for winning the game with his change, rather than asking whether Vardy might have bagged one too. In the event, the opposite happened. Iheanacho didn't score the winner but we did get a penalty and, without our usual taker on the field, missed it and lost the game.

 

Maybe the penalty would never have happened without Vardy on the pitch. Maybe if King Richard hadn't ordered the execution of Lord Stanley's brother, he wouldn't have switched sides and massacred him. Or maybe he would have anyway. A historian still says it was a misjudgement. If they couldn't say something as clear-cut as that was an error, then they'd end up never saying very much at all.

 

But yes, I get your point, obviously!

The point is more like - maybe if Hitler's paintings had been judged by a different master at the school he applied to, he wouldn't have instigated World War II. Tiny, tiny margins, not just big decisions. It's the butterfly effect. Trying to compare things like football games especially is very difficult because a single touch, run, pass can change the game completely.

 

That's why it boils my blood when people (not you) say things like - if we hadn't subbed off Vardy he would have took the penalty and scored. No, he wouldn't have, because everything in this other hypothetical situation would have been completely, utterly different. Maybe we would have had 3 penalty shouts, maybe he would have got a red card and got sent off. Whether it was the wrong decision to make or not is another story, of course, with multiple valid arguments for both sides, but it really grinds my gears when I see comments like "Puel out, Vardy would have scored that penalty another example of Puel's poor management"

Link to comment
Share on other sites
turtmcfly

turtmcfly

Posted
Posted
51 minutes ago, Nicolo Barella said:

The point is more like - maybe if Hitler's paintings had been judged by a different master at the school he applied to, he wouldn't have instigated World War II. Tiny, tiny margins, not just big decisions. It's the butterfly effect. Trying to compare things like football games especially is very difficult because a single touch, run, pass can change the game completely.

 

That's why it boils my blood when people (not you) say things like - if we hadn't subbed off Vardy he would have took the penalty and scored. No, he wouldn't have, because everything in this other hypothetical situation would have been completely, utterly different. Maybe we would have had 3 penalty shouts, maybe he would have got a red card and got sent off. Whether it was the wrong decision to make or not is another story, of course, with multiple valid arguments for both sides, but it really grinds my gears when I see comments like "Puel out, Vardy would have scored that penalty another example of Puel's poor management"

Tbh I think your analogy is too much like that of @inckley fox

 

It's more like saying 'if Hitler's paintings had been judged by a different master at the school he applied to he wouldn't have killed himself in his bunker'. 

 

So regardless of the macro outcome (WW2 or not - a reasonable debate akin to 'if Vardy had stayed on we would have scored') it's utterly improbable that the specific events leading up to Hitler's suicide would have happened with one tutor or another giving different judgements.

 

But ultimately, it's madness to berate the manager for taking off a player who could have taken a penalty no-one knew was coming which only happened after (and thus in the sense of that specific penalty, because) he'd been taken off the pitch. And you'd still have to ignore the fact that Vardy misses pens too!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Del Najan

Del Najan

Posted
Posted

Nacho proved with City that he can convert when given the chance and with the right build up play. He played alongside Aguero and even ahead of Sterling for many games.

Any Striker will struggle with this current set-up with players like Ghezzal, and Gray...who has never seen a shooting opportunity he didn't like...always electing to balloon the ball over the upright than pick out a good pass. 

I don't care if you recruit Lewandowski to this current team, it will be the same story. You need service to thrive as a striker.

For all the minutes Vardy gets, how many has he scored? Of those he scored...how many has been penalty shots? And of the remaining how many has been clear cut chances anybody in this forum who's played football can also easily convert.

Not denying the greatness of the great striker, just saying that this current team as it is...is very difficult for strikers to demonstrate their prowess.

Even Aguero, one of the best in the premier league era, would find it difficult to thrive under this prevailing conditions.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Doctor

The Doctor

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, TamworthFoxes said:

Does anyone else get annoyed by his stupid pose on the picture they show on the screens?

His smug pose and stupid hands?

Just adds to my anger at the money we have wasted!

No but then I'm not a 70 year old man with a hand full of pearls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
marbles

marbles

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Del Najan said:

Gray...who has never seen a shooting opportunity he didn't like...always electing to balloon the ball over the upright than pick out a good pass. 

 

Dont know why, but I giggled for 5 minutes over this one line

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ARTY_FOX

ARTY_FOX

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, TamworthFoxes said:

I boo him every week.

Mostly because he is useless.

He’s not though is he. He proved at the end of last season (if you even bothered watching) he needs a run of games to get the best out of him.

 

There was a point after vardy our fan base decided they’d be patient with players. What happened to that? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AjcW

AjcW

Posted
Posted

Is it not possible that collectively, were all just capable of admitting that a player isn’t very good/isn’t right for us.

 

Rather than laying out dos and donts, rules around booing and how not to hurt little delicate footballer flowers!!

 

He doesn’t help himself with the way he handles himself on the pitch. He’s paid an absolute fortune and is therefore very much open to and allowed to be criticised. 

 

Its not not working for him here. He doesn’t seem to care. And I can’t stand a player that thinks he can turn up to our club and act the way he does.

 

I’ve said it a million times before, all any leicester fan will ask for is effort. I don’t think he’s ever given us more than 50% and I don’t think he ever will. 

 

He’s a tap in merchant who landed at Man City at the perfect time to tap in the end of their majestic moves... there’s nothing else there for me.

 

Replace him and move on. But as a closing point; any fan should be allowed to boo a player on or off if they’re not happy, because they’ve paid money to be impressed/entertained and they haven’t received what they came along for! 

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shaqq

Shaqq

Posted
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, TamworthFoxes said:

I boo him every week.

Mostly because he is useless.

Will never see a reason to boo one of our own players, especially when they haven´t done anything outrageous.

Edited by Shaqq
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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