Time for Puel to go

[volpeazzurro]

1 hour ago, KingKoala said:

So far he's only good with promoting young players and that is about it..

Good manager should get best out of current squad but unfortunately I don't see him doing that since he was appointed..

For example many of us know lone striker role don't suit any of our options and he is still persisting with that..

Perhaps you over rate the quality of our squad? There's some bright promising young kids out there alongside, at times, some ill bought mediocrity, yet we're still 12 points above the relegation zone and 4 below 6th which I think is quite good with what we've got. Anyone actually expecting 6th and above with this lot I believe is fooling themselves whoever the manager may be.

 

I do see your point regarding the lone striker, of which we have just one really at this point in time and even he's carrying an injury! I say that because mostly when we persist with Iheanacho he appears to contribute very little and is a passenger, thereby in effect leaving us one player short and the mostly defensive midfield have to take up the slack. The old 442 for us became redundant and persisting with it with the makeup of our current squad had seen us in the relegation zone. There are calls for 352 and I'm sure that this has been considered and indeed,  when Armarty was playing, Puel did at times float into that sort of system during a game at times tactically. However, I just presume he's persisting with a long term plan and is trying to get the team to play in a particular long term system. Some of the players struggle possibly due to age, learning ability, skill levels and confidence. Players I believe will adapt in the longer term along with some being sold and replaced that are deemed unsuitable/adaptable. The squad itself in depth is very weak. I don't personally see short termism and experimentation as the way forward.  On here alone you'll find a dozen different teams selections with a recommendation of who should be experimented with and whereabouts every week for every game. Clearly not everyone can be right and of course, if we lose, it's the manager that's wrong and all of those dozen would be managers can claim that they were right all the way along.

 

There are times when particular tactics or systems are employed for one particular game but I also think a singular effective way of playing is also important for the most part. It can be a slow process and keep changing it week in week out on a whim can be damaging and I'm sure there'd be criticism for that also if it was done with claims of he doesn't know his best team or players. This was all entirely predictable from day one of the season and I'm surprised anyone's surprised and expected anything more. I believe in the new sustainable  long term plans for youth,  recruitment and an achievable effective style of play. There didn't appear to be a definitive plan before other than the buying of expensive individuals and just praying they'd fit in just like many of our mid table competitors. This approach for me has led to a Premiership elite with finances and pulling power, a poor three or four teams at the bottom and then a much of a muchness mid table mediocrity. Sometime I think you have to think longer term and dare to be different from the crowd. It may not work, but it's a coherent plan to aim for and lower risk than some others.

Edited 21 December 2018 by volpeazzurro

[volpeazzurro]

1 minute ago, breadandcheese said:

Except Puel completely dropped Vardy, our best forward for the game. 

 

If Puel plays Soyuncu, Simpson and Hamza against Chelsea, I'll agree, but there's no debating that Puel put out what he perceived as reserves. He's been trying to get rid of Simpson.

Vardy is carrying a re-occurring groin injury which the club, including coaching/medical staff are trying to manage in order to stave off an operation. This also goes for all other players who's bio stats are comprehensively monitored by medically qualified staff on a consistent basis. For example, we know that Chilwell was injured as is Armarty. Wes has been carrying a knock and Evans suspended. It was therefore not entire surprising that Soyuncu (who many on here have been calling for) and Simpson were played. Pereira was on the bench and just because we haven't been informed of a reason why doesn't mean that there wasn't one. Mendy has also been playing with a knock hence Iborra who some have also been calling for. Choudhury and Soyuncu played well imo. It's called squad rotation and some at least with very good reason. 

[gw_leics772]

18 minutes ago, volpeazzurro said:

Perhaps you over rate the quality of our squad? There's some bright promising young kids out there alongside, at times, some ill bought mediocrity, yet we're still 12 points above the relegation zone and 4 above 6th which I think is quite good with what we've got. Anyone actually expecting 6th and above with this lot I believe is fooling themselves whoever the manager may be.

 

I do see your point regarding the lone striker, of which we have just one really at this point in time and even he's carrying an injury! I say that because mostly when we persist with Iheanacho he appears to contribute very little and is a passenger, thereby in effect leaving us one player short and the mostly defensive midfield have to take up the slack. The old 442 for us became redundant and persisting with it with the makeup of our current squad had seen us in the relegation zone. There are calls for 352 and I'm sure that this has been considered and indeed,  when Armarty was playing, Puel did at times float into that sort of system during a game at times tactically. However, I just presume he's persisting with a long term plan and is trying to get the team to play in a particular long term system. Some of the players struggle possibly due to age, learning ability, skill levels and confidence. Players I believe will adapt in the longer term along with some being sold and replaced that are deemed unsuitable/adaptable. The squad itself in depth is very weak. I don't personally see short termism and experimentation as the way forward.  On here alone you'll find a dozen different teams selections with a recommendation of who should be experimented with and whereabouts every week for every game. Clearly not everyone can be right and of course, if we lose, it's the manager that's wrong and all of those dozen would be managers can claim that they were right all the way along.

 

There are times when particular tactics or systems are employed for one particular game but I also think a singular effective way of playing is also important for the most part. It can be a slow process and keep changing it week in week out on a whim can be damaging and I'm sure there'd be criticism for that also if it was done with claims of he doesn't know his best team or players. This was all entirely predictable from day one of the season and I'm surprised anyone's surprised and expected anything more. I believe in the new sustainable  long term plans for youth,  recruitment and an achievable effective style of play. There didn't appear to be a definitive plan before other than the buying of expensive individuals and just praying they'd fit in just like many of our mid table competitors. This approach for me has led to a Premiership elite with finances and pulling power, a poor three or four teams at the bottom and then a much of a muchness mid table mediocrity. Sometime I think you have to think longer term and dare to be different from the crowd. It may not work, but it's a coherent plan to aim for and lower risk than some others.

All very well reasoned and reasonable, however the main difference is that you appear to have complete faith that it is all a part of the long term masterplan, as did i.

 

Unfortunately, when one starts to question that belief, the same facts lead to polar opposite assumptions when filling in the blanks.

 

I hope you are right, and that it will all turn out for the best, however, whilst nkw wavering from the puel in camp, im not yet ready to join the puel out's, but will also not lose any sleep if the do decide to get rid.

[fuchsntf]

11 hours ago, Foxboy said:

Transfer windows were hardly pathetic mate, summer wasn’t one of the best windows we’ve had in years.

Not too sure ,what you want to say....But the Summer gone was never going to be a major window...

We had to believe Iborra,Silva would start to perform at an higher grade..We couldn't expect Ndidi to suddenly

either lose form,or reach his end level!!!  

We invested in Maddison,and have Choudry,who might get a 1st team look-see!!

Nacho was going to start to realise his potential..I

Vardy was going to be our Mr reliable,injury put a stop to that....

I really don't understand,how then Puel is blamed on team choice!!

 

Maddiso n is showing potential,but is not yet a 90minute player

Ricardo..was 1st doubted (typical of this forum). but starting to prove a decent investment..

Mendy ,has rekindled his career and playing decent,if not great...

Amartey,was beginning to realise his potential

All CBs,and FB, and a wobbly/reds/inconsistent start...but any grouping is ok by me,The defence is more than decent...

 

Again with our injuries,has they have come,with the above points..I don't understand the attacks on Puel..player selections

Then the BS,that he plays weaken teams,just proves the individual posters are screaming first,before finding out avai!ability!!!I

Then shouting someone must go,because a or more fans don't like his selection...laughable!!!

 

[breadandcheese]

53 minutes ago, volpeazzurro said:

Vardy is carrying a re-occurring groin injury which the club, including coaching/medical staff are trying to manage in order to stave off an operation. This also goes for all other players who's bio stats are comprehensively monitored by medically qualified staff on a consistent basis. For example, we know that Chilwell was injured as is Armarty. Wes has been carrying a knock and Evans suspended. It was therefore not entire surprising that Soyuncu (who many on here have been calling for) and Simpson were played. Pereira was on the bench and just because we haven't been informed of a reason why doesn't mean that there wasn't one. Mendy has also been playing with a knock hence Iborra who some have also been calling for. Choudhury and Soyuncu played well imo. It's called squad rotation and some at least with very good reason. 

But the point is that when it comes to managing the injuries/fitness, such as Vardy, Puel chooses to rest him in a quarter final, rather than Chelsea away.  Do you not think that is wrong?

 

I'm not against squad rotation, but it's about the priorities of the games.  If Puel plays Perreira, Wes, Mendy and Vardy for the Chelsea game and we don't come away with a point, then I think it's valid to be asking why the priority was not the quarterfinal of the cup.

[That_Dude]

6 minutes ago, breadandcheese said:

But the point is that when it comes to managing the injuries/fitness, such as Vardy, Puel chooses to rest him in a quarter final, rather than Chelsea away.  Do you not think that is wrong?

 

I'm not against squad rotation, but it's about the priorities of the games.  If Puel plays Perreira, Wes, Mendy and Vardy for the Chelsea game and we don't come away with a point, then I think it's valid to be asking why the priority was not the quarterfinal of the cup.

That's not how it works. He has played last Saturday and a repetition of a high level physical effort in such a short time-span increases the risk of aggravating his injury.

 

I know you want him out but you just picked the wrong reason.

[breadandcheese]

24 minutes ago, That_Dude said:

That's not how it works. He has played last Saturday and a repetition of a high level physical effort in such a short time-span increases the risk of aggravating his injury.

 

I know you want him out but you just picked the wrong reason.

In which case, Puel prioritised the league over the quarter final.  Players could have been rested last Saturday in preparation of the cup.  He chose to play the strongest eleven and relegate the cup to a sideshow.  I don't accept that as the correct decision.

[volpeazzurro]

37 minutes ago, breadandcheese said:

But the point is that when it comes to managing the injuries/fitness, such as Vardy, Puel chooses to rest him in a quarter final, rather than Chelsea away.  Do you not think that is wrong?

 

I'm not against squad rotation, but it's about the priorities of the games.  If Puel plays Perreira, Wes, Mendy and Vardy for the Chelsea game and we don't come away with a point, then I think it's valid to be asking why the priority was not the quarterfinal of the cup.

We aren't in a position to say whether it's right or wrong because we've clearly not got the full knowledge regarding his injury and the decision making process. You're merely looking at it from a match priority perspective. Vardy had just had his first game back after injury at the weekend I think and would have been closely monitored and assessed for any reaction and the game had only been a short time previous. The player has to be the priority not the cup. If there was a perceived risk that he could have agravated something and then be out for a  number of games then the cup match is not worth it potential semi final or not. With only one decent striker at the club, to potentially go without him for six weeks could be a big threat to us in the  Premiership and that for me and i think the club would always come first and always will do for good solid sensible reasons. 

[HKFox]

40 minutes ago, volpeazzurro said:

We aren't in a position to say whether it's right or wrong because we've clearly not got the full knowledge regarding his injury and the decision making process. You're merely looking at it from a match priority perspective. Vardy had just had his first game back after injury at the weekend I think and would have been closely monitored and assessed for any reaction and the game had only been a short time previous. The player has to be the priority not the cup. If there was a perceived risk that he could have agravated something and then be out for a  number of games then the cup match is not worth it potential semi final or not. With only one decent striker at the club, to potentially go without him for six weeks could be a big threat to us in the  Premiership and that for me and i think the club would always come first and always will do for good solid sensible reasons. 

That is true. But at the same time surely it is better to prioritise a uater final and a chance to go to wembley than a premiership game v Palace or Chelsea. For longevity premiership should always come first i certainly get your point, but at the moment we are one of those teams who will not get european football from the league and are far too good to go down. Cup should have been a priority this season especially after the helicopter disaster would have been wonderful for a wembley day for Top and the supporters. 

[Babylon]

1 hour ago, breadandcheese said:

In which case, Puel prioritised the league over the quarter final.  Players could have been rested last Saturday in preparation of the cup.  He chose to play the strongest eleven and relegate the cup to a sideshow.  I don't accept that as the correct decision.

We've prioritised the league for about two decades. Spurs rested Kane aginst Arsenal, pretty much every team around rests players in the league cup. Making this is Puel issue is just bonkers. Plus, if he'd not played Vardy against Palace and we lost the same people moaning now would absolutely be moaning about him not focusing on getting three points against a team lower in the league.

[TMELcfc]

1 minute ago, Babylon said:

We've prioritised the league for about two decades. Spurs rested Kane aginst Arsenal, pretty much every team around rests players in the league cup. Making this is Puel issue is just bonkers. Plus, if he'd not played Vardy against Palace and we lost the same people moaning now would absolutely be moaning about him not focusing on getting three points against a team lower in the league.

I can see why he did what he did in the cup... But more importantly, with our best team out (according to Claude) we had one decent chance against palace. That performance was pathetic (like so many this season and back end of last season) but you keep defending him... just don’t get it. 

[volpeazzurro]

3 minutes ago, HKFox said:

That is true. But at the same time surely it is better to prioritise a uater final and a chance to go to wembley than a premiership game v Palace or Chelsea. For longevity premiership should always come first i certainly get your point, but at the moment we are one of those teams who will not get european football from the league and are far too good to go down. Cup should have been a priority this season especially after the helicopter disaster would have been wonderful for a wembley day for Top and the supporters. 

Yes a cup would of course be great,  particularly an FA cup and I would be an absolute liar to deny that I would also love to go to Wembley ? I honestly do see your point, but the  manager can't win either way he plays it with some. Some,  prior to the difficult fixtures we have coming up might have seen Crystal Palace and a seemingly entirely possible 3 points as a priority. Possibly at the time it was felt that Vardy was capable of playing in the next two fixtures,  who knows. We lost anyway but if we'd have lost without Vardy,  Puel would have undoubtedly been slagged off for not playing him if fit enough and losing 3 points. I don't think he was going to win whatever he did on here. Me, if he was fit,  I'd have played him against Palace also and hoped he was well enough for at least a place on the bench in the cup. I  take their word for it that unfortunately the cup game came to soon and he needs nursing carefully through this.

[oadby.fox]

 

1 hour ago, volpeazzurro said:

We aren't in a position to say whether it's right or wrong because we've clearly not got the full knowledge regarding his injury and the decision making process. You're merely looking at it from a match priority perspective. Vardy had just had his first game back after injury at the weekend I think and would have been closely monitored and assessed for any reaction and the game had only been a short time previous. The player has to be the priority not the cup. If there was a perceived risk that he could have agravated something and then be out for a  number of games then the cup match is not worth it potential semi final or not. With only one decent striker at the club, to potentially go without him for six weeks could be a big threat to us in the  Premiership and that for me and i think the club would always come first and always will do for good solid sensible reasons. 

 

Well that's the point that people are making isn't it - why play Vardy at Palace away and then most likely at Chelsea away the week following (the former game we lost and the latter we are likely to lose). Moreover why not start with Ricardo, Albrighton and perhaps Maddison as well? The more patient Puel supporters have already written off our premier league campaign so why not have a go at the cup seeing as we were in the quarter-finals and had a good route to a final? Instead we went out again, against the same opposition in the same way, two seasons in a row under the same manager. It doesn't feel like much progress has been made or that lessons have been learnt. 

 

It would make a little more sense if Puel was rotating to try and find his best team (although you have to admit it's a little late for that) and that based on their performances, he now includes Soyuncu and Choudhury against Chelsea. But we all know that he will revert back to type. And that won't have a positive effect on their development at all. Especially in Choudhury's case who has come into the starting 11 out of nowhere and put in a MOTM performance only to be relegated back to the U23s (again). 

[Babylon]

8 minutes ago, lcfceaves said:

I can see why he did what he did in the cup... But more importantly, with our best team out (according to Claude) we had one decent chance against palace. That performance was pathetic (like so many this season and back end of last season) but you keep defending him... just don’t get it. 

I'll defend him (and any manager) against what I think is either over the top or unwarranted critisism.  I've posted plenty of critisism and agreed with plenty as well. If people don't want me to defend him, stop posting loads of old bollocks, going looking for problems and trying to pin the direction of the wind on him. There is plenty to critisise without needing to do that.

 

I've made my position clear a long time ago, unless we fall into trouble then he gets until the end of the season to show us some improvement. Yes the Palace game was shit, but one game isn't going to change me opinion. I'm totally unsold on the bloke in terms of performance, but I think he has the right ideas. I've always been someone to give the manager a minimum of 18 months unless we're up shit creek and so far we haven't been. I'm also massively against changing manager in the middle of the season as it reduces your choice of manager considerably as anyone performing well is likely to stay with their club.

[oadby.fox]

18 minutes ago, Babylon said:

We've prioritised the league for about two decades. Spurs rested Kane aginst Arsenal, pretty much every team around rests players in the league cup. Making this is Puel issue is just bonkers. Plus, if he'd not played Vardy against Palace and we lost the same people moaning now would absolutely be moaning about him not focusing on getting three points against a team lower in the league.

But in the past we have either been battling against relegation or battling for promotion. A lot of fans this season have come to a consensus that we aren't playing for anything in the league and more ardent supporters of Puel suggest that we shouldn't expect to be playing for 7th in the league until he has had a few more years. Given that this is the case why not go for the league cup, it could be a way to brighten up what is otherwise a very dull season. Kane came on against Arsenal to set up Ali didn't he? And they won so it worked.

 

You're totally right about the fact that a lot would be moaning about leaving Vardy out against Palace if we lost, but we lost anyway and I don't think anyone was hoping for anything more than a bore-draw from that game. What if he did leave him out and then played him against Man City and we went through? Then people would be calling him a genius. 

 

We already know that Puel won't be targeting any points from any games for the rest of this month so who cares if we play weakened sides in them and lose? It seems to me as though he won't be expecting to win those games anyway and will go out with a negative side/attitude and just try and contain Chelsea/Man City. 

[breadandcheese]

23 minutes ago, Babylon said:

We've prioritised the league for about two decades. Spurs rested Kane aginst Arsenal, pretty much every team around rests players in the league cup. Making this is Puel issue is just bonkers. Plus, if he'd not played Vardy against Palace and we lost the same people moaning now would absolutely be moaning about him not focusing on getting three points against a team lower in the league.

I don't see your comparison with Spurs.   Spurs are competing to finish top four and in the last 16 of the European Cup. We are a mid-table team, with little chance on current form of finishing top 8.  The cup competitions are the only thing we're competing for. 

[volpeazzurro]

6 minutes ago, oadby.fox said:

 

 

Well that's the point that people are making isn't it - why play Vardy at Palace away and then most likely at Chelsea away the week following (the former game we lost and the latter we are likely to lose). Moreover why not start with Ricardo, Albrighton and perhaps Maddison as well? The more patient Puel supporters have already written off our premier league campaign so why not have a go at the cup seeing as we were in the quarter-finals and had a good route to a final? Instead we went out again, against the same opposition in the same way, two seasons in a row under the same manager. It doesn't feel like much progress has been made or that lessons have been learnt. 

 

It would make a little more sense if Puel was rotating to try and find his best team (although you have to admit it's a little late for that) and that based on their performances, he now includes Soyuncu and Choudhury against Chelsea. But we all know that he will revert back to type. And that won't have a positive effect on their development at all. Especially in Choudhury's case who has come into the starting 11 out of nowhere and put in a MOTM performance only to be relegated back to the U23s (again). 

Think we're going in circles now. See your point but others would equally prioritise differently either way the manager is wrong. As for Man City, I felt under the circumstances his team selection was good. As another poster put it re Maddison etc, it's not always the case you put your so called best 11 out and hope they get on with it. A game is played tactically over 90 minutes which may mean you do otherwise and as it happens, if it wasn't for the crap penalties he could of got it right. Ferguson used to do pretty similar away in Europe ie contain first half and try and snatch a goal in the second. It's been explained in more depth elsewhere but in the end it's all a matter of opinion. I thought Puel tactics and team selection in the circumstances was ok and the team, after a poor but tactically played first half did well after the subs came on which I don't think was haphazard and was part of a game plan.

[WestLothianFox]

14 hours ago, funkyrobot said:

Funny enough my missus screamed at me  ‘Puel Out!’ last night in bed and she’s not that fussed about football. 

That was nothing to do with football, she said 'Pull Out' as she was tired and wanted to go to sleep

[oadby.fox]

7 minutes ago, volpeazzurro said:

Think we're going in circles now. See your point but others would equally prioritise differently either way the manager is wrong. As for Man City, I felt under the circumstances his team selection was good. As another poster put it re Maddison etc, it's not always the case you put your so called best 11 out and hope they get on with it. A game is played tactically over 90 minutes which may mean you do otherwise and as it happens, if it wasn't for the crap penalties he could of got it right. Ferguson used to do pretty similar away in Europe ie contain first half and try and snatch a goal in the second. It's been explained in more depth elsewhere but in the end it's all a matter of opinion. I thought Puel tactics and team selection in the circumstances was ok and the team, after a poor but tactically played first half did well after the subs came on which I don't think was haphazard and was part of a game plan.

You are right insofar as the team selection managed to get us through to penalties, and that we did see some good performances, I thought Choudhury and Fuchs were decent and that Soyuncu will get increasingly better with more game time. I do think that we could have been a little more positive in the first half with our selection though, their back 4 looked vulnerable all game and we were playing at home but didn't really make the advantage count until the second half. At the end of the day we weren't playing away in Europe for an away goal because a draw would never have been enough to take us through and we were knocked out by them on peno's last year. I think with the right team and tactics we could have won the game within 90 mins, and that as a manager, you shouldn't really be aiming to win by taking it to penalties but it's in the past now. 

 

The only positive for me coming out of this is that the team did show a little bit of fight for the first time in a while. I'd also like to see the players who did well included tomorrow but I doubt that it will happen. 

[Babylon]

2 minutes ago, breadandcheese said:

I don't see your comparison with Spurs.   Spurs are competing to finish top four and in the last 16 of the European Cup. We are a mid-table team, with little chance on current form of finishing top 8.  The cup competitions are the only thing we're competing for. 

That's all well and good, but are you telling me you wouldn't be calling for his head if he went for the cup at the expense of the league and we slipped further down the table. Whether fans like it or not, the club makes more money from finishing one place higher up the league than they do winning a cup. The club simply do not care, those at the top could tell him to go for the cup and tell him that they'll back him if the league for suffers, but they won't. Their remit is league position above all else. It's as simple as that.

 

I don't agree with it personally, but that's how it is. People can talk about we've already had promotion or relegation on the cards etc. But that's simply not the case because we've gone out of the cups so early due to fielding weakened teams, we've not even known what we were fighting for at the time.

[Babylon]

21 minutes ago, oadby.fox said:

But in the past we have either been battling against relegation or battling for promotion.

We've put weakened teams out in the first round and got knocked out against some shite teams before we even knew what we were fighting for.

[TMELcfc]

3 hours ago, Babylon said:

I'll defend him (and any manager) against what I think is either over the top or unwarranted critisism.  I've posted plenty of critisism and agreed with plenty as well. If people don't want me to defend him, stop posting loads of old bollocks, going looking for problems and trying to pin the direction of the wind on him. There is plenty to critisise without needing to do that.

 

I've made my position clear a long time ago, unless we fall into trouble then he gets until the end of the season to show us some improvement. Yes the Palace game was shit, but one game isn't going to change me opinion. I'm totally unsold on the bloke in terms of performance, but I think he has the right ideas. I've always been someone to give the manager a minimum of 18 months unless we're up shit creek and so far we haven't been. I'm also massively against changing manager in the middle of the season as it reduces your choice of manager considerably as anyone performing well is likely to stay with their club.

Wish we’d stop saying “not going to judge him on one game”... sorry was that a first, that performance at Palace? Because it looks pretty much the same week in week out to me... slow ponderous build up, no decent passer in midfield, let the opposition take the lead, flat performance and atmosphere... this isn’t a one off

Edited 21 December 2018 by lcfceaves

[sly1]

Simple lose next 3 bye bye puel

[volpeazzurro]

2 minutes ago, oadby.fox said:

You are right insofar as the team selection managed to get us through to penalties, and that we did see some good performances, I thought Choudhury and Fuchs were decent and that Soyuncu will get increasingly better with more game time. I do think that we could have been a little more positive in the first half with our selection though, their back 4 looked vulnerable all game and we were playing at home but didn't really make the advantage count until the second half. At the end of the day we weren't playing away in Europe for an away goal because a draw would never have been enough to take us through and we were knocked out by them on peno's last year. I think with the right team and tactics we could have won the game within 90 mins, and that as a manager, you shouldn't really be aiming to win by taking it to penalties but it's in the past now. 

 

The only positive for me coming out of this is that the team did show a little bit of fight for the first time in a while. I'd also like to see the players who did well included tomorrow but I doubt that it will happen. 

Yes, the fight towards the end did remind me of the old Leicester too but I think the change of subs and impetus helped that. I don't think it would have worked from the start, who knows eh! ?

God knows who'll get picked tomorrow though I expect to see Pereira back for Simpson. Iborra proved again for me that when there's a bit of pace and runners, he's not up to it. I would see Choudhury as more of a thorn in Hazards side than him. Soyuncu or Morgan? I'm not sure or is Evans back also? If Vardy is back, I'd sooner have Okazaki with him than Iheanacho as at least he'll contribute something to the game.

 

[Babylon]

2 minutes ago, lcfceaves said:

Which we’d stop saying “not going to judge him on one game”... sorry was that a first, that performance at Palace? Because it looks pretty much the same week in week out to me... slow ponderous build up, no decent passer in midfield, let the opposition take the lead, flat performance and atmosphere... this isn’t a one off

You brought up the palace result and performance, not me.