Post Match: City 0 - 1 Cardiff

[inckley fox]

58 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

This is rather blinkered defence of him, Vardy was very poor today, and you could argue has been all season. It's not about continuing superhuman form, it's about underperforming now according to the average striker. Look at his xG tally. After today it's 8.79: https://understat.com/team/Leicester/2018, he's scored 6. This is underperforming based on what you'd expect the average striker to finish. His big chances missed tally is at 10, compared to six in each of the past two seasons - although there is an alternative argument, that missing more big chances is an artefact of having more big chances and it's conversion rate that matters, one that'd be bore out looking at who's up there with him - Aubameyang and Salah - and the 22 he missed in 15/16. But, that relies on the notion that actually he's getting more service than before (which can be defended as an argument, with more shots per game and a higher xG per 90 than recent seasons). Frankly, it's really stretching to see him miss another 1v1, to see another game where he's underperforming and blame it on Gray and Maddison. Neither were great, Maddison struggled against Gunnarson, Gray didn't get involved, but neither stood out as much as Vardy did. That performance was shocking and frankly you've put more work into defending it than he did in producing it. 

Oh, so it's the 'stats argument' rather than the 'nobody for any side ever scores prolifically for Claude Puel argument'! We can all play at that.

 

You're placing a lot of faith in this xG rating. It has Martial, Pedro and Schurrle down as three of the PL's most clinical players, ahead of Aguero, Firmino, Jesus (all of which have negative ratings, like Vardy), and Aubameyang, Sterling, Kane and Hazard.

 

It also has literally the whole Leicester squad (including, say, Ndidi) down as being more clinical than Vardy. So how good a measure it is of a striker's performance, I'd doubt.

 

There are other measures too. He has a better shots on target ratio than Aubameyang, Aguero, Sane, Ings, Firmino, Murray, Mitrovic, Sigurdsson, Wilson and Lacazette. He has a better goals per minute rate than Firmino, Lacazette, Anderson, Sigurdsson, Mitrovic, Pereyra, Lukaku and Jimenez.

 

In the grand scheme of things, and no matter how hard you try, he's hardly a disaster. At the very worst, he kept Puel in a job until the summer and since then he has, like every other Leicester striker, failed to provide much of a threat. Of course, you can keep blaming all of the strikers if you want.

 

But your theory is that Vardy was our single biggest problem today, and that he has been poor all season. That he lacked effort, was abysmal, and more so than anyone else. That the lack of supply which he overcame last season (but hasn't quite managed to this season), which has affected whichever striker we select, and whichever striker Southampton selected in the latter-day Puel era, isn't the problem. Vardy is. That Maddison and Gray - and the general lack of creativity from our midfield - weren't, aren't, haven't been as big an issue as Vardy, not only today but over the course of the campaign.

 

Even though, in today's case, our principal failure to score a goal, and our conceding of a goal, occurred when Vardy was off the pitch and Maddison, Gray and the rest of them were left to their own devices. Even though lots of people failed to produce the goods. Even though nobody created anything after he left the pitch. Even though we'd most probably have scored within minutes had he stayed on. Even though his stats (xG aside) aren't clearly worse than the average, or even most of the PL's top scorers. Even though very few players, either our own or anyone else's, score goals for Puel's teams in this country (except Vardy, that is). Even though he won us the game a week ago, has played out of his skin on more than one occasion recently in spite of his injuries, and has basically kept Puel in a job in the first place.

 

I'd say, in response to your point, that I don't really need to put the effort into defending Vardy. You need to do a lot better, however, if he's to be your scapegoat. 

 

When I say that those of us who want Puel to stay need to argue our case better, this is what I mean. If we turn it into a Puel vs. The Old Boys debate, which is totally unnecessary, Puel will lose.

Edited 30 December 2018 by inckley fox

[jim5000]

7 minutes ago, foxfanazer said:

It worked because neither Chelsea or Man City had 9 men camped in their own box. Also we created enough chances to win the game and if Maddison converts the penalty we're talking about a different result. I agree that we need to find a way to make these types of games easier to win but playing the way we did against Chelsea and Man city isn't viable against the likes of Cardiff etc

Second half against both Man City and Chelsea we were on the front foot and created loads of chances. We're weak in the middle of the park and can't get the ball through to the forwards, regardless of who they are. When we reinforced this area, we saw results.

 

The current system hasn't worked since the beginning of the season, and very few watching the match today would have been surprised at the result or pattern of play when they saw the team before kickoff.

 

Maybe staying the same as the Chelsea\Man City matches wasn't the correct approach, but neither was changing back to the system that lost 0-1 to Palace and has struggled to produce results all season. I'd rather the manager rolled the dice and stuck with the winning team, it couldn't have been much worse that what we were served up.

[foxfanazer]

Just now, jim5000 said:

Second half against both Man City and Chelsea we were on the front foot and created loads of chances. We're weak in the middle of the park and can't get the ball through to the forwards, regardless of who they are. When we reinforced this area, we saw results.

 

The current system hasn't worked since the beginning of the season, and very few watching the match today would have been surprised at the result or pattern of play when they saw the team before kickoff.

 

Maybe staying the same as the Chelsea\Man City matches wasn't the correct approach, but neither was changing back to the system that lost 0-1 to Palace and has struggled to produce results all season. I'd rather the manager rolled the dice and stuck with the winning team, it couldn't have been much worse that what we were served up.

Fair do's mate, I disagree but I respect your opinion. I don't think you'll find a team in England that has managed to play all of these Christmas fixtures without some minor rotation to their team

[jim5000]

2 minutes ago, foxfanazer said:

Fair do's mate, I disagree but I respect your opinion. I don't think you'll find a team in England that has managed to play all of these Christmas fixtures without some minor rotation to their team

Choudhury is probably the one player in those winning teams that isn't knackered though.

 

Anyway, I've had too many beers and will probably disagree with what I typed tonight in the morning. Hopefully Puel finds the right balance, whatever that may be, by the time we play Everton. COYF

[MPH]

26 minutes ago, foxfanazer said:

Or an old one 

 

 

manager swap!

[foxes_rule1978]

We played well enough to win, just was unlucky... Cardiff defended well and took the points but we did dominate. The frustrating thing though is we just aren’t positive when moving the ball forward, we should have created more golden opportunities against them. We have such flair players that we could have created more

[TeaMen Tom]

8 hours ago, Crazy Kop Corner said:

The substitutions cost us. He took off Vardy, Albrighton and Gray - on came iheanacho, Ghezzal and Shinji - absolute suicide. It just doesn’t feel as though he’s up to the job.

Vardy's been dealing with a groin problem. He goes nearly 90 vs Chelsea on Saturday. 3 days later nearly 90 vs City, and then 4 days later he's right back out there. I wouldn't necessarily question taking him off unless we want him to break down. Same with Albrighton who's doing even more running.

These guy's aren't machines. 

 

I have a bigger issue with him running out the Mendy/Ndidi combo yet again and not even including Choudhury in the 18.  Predictably, they were sluggish at a time when the team needed to push the ball forward.  Ricardo looked pretty much gassed at the end himself.

[Tom12345]

1 hour ago, lgfualol said:

3 cdms against a team that barely attacks? Puel is getting ripped for playing 2 cdms..

 

He only changed one player by choice, an attacking change and we should have won comfortably but somehow didnt. It happens.

It looks like that you have missed a lot of what many of us have said on this board. It is a losing formation when we have 2 CMs where one consists of Ndidi. It is a regression. Having 3 CMs actually reduces the negative impact Ndidi has on our attacking football which is why it is ironically more attacking.  Better still, rest Ndidi so he can take some time to reflect.

[Tom12345]

56 minutes ago, jim5000 said:

Second half against both Man City and Chelsea we were on the front foot and created loads of chances. We're weak in the middle of the park and can't get the ball through to the forwards, regardless of who they are. When we reinforced this area, we saw results.

 

The current system hasn't worked since the beginning of the season, and very few watching the match today would have been surprised at the result or pattern of play when they saw the team before kickoff.

 

Maybe staying the same as the Chelsea\Man City matches wasn't the correct approach, but neither was changing back to the system that lost 0-1 to Palace and has struggled to produce results all season. I'd rather the manager rolled the dice and stuck with the winning team, it couldn't have been much worse that what we were served up.

Agree. My point too precisely. 

[lanefox]

I don’t think we were poor just didn’t create chances, etheridge kept them in that game with some smart saves and i know iit is a if but maddison puts the penalty away we come away winners

[reynard]

The last three matches pretty much sums up everything about us at the moment. Given the time and space to counter attack teams and with the correct personnel on the pitch we can be pretty decent but against teams that set up defensively we simply don't appear to have a clue.

 

I don't want to disrespect Cardiff, who played to their strengths and fully deserved to win in the end, but yet again we were simply set up too defensively and our approach was just to passive. The first half was just incredibly dull to watch and after around an hour we simply started to panic.

If we are to persist with Puel he needs to find a way to break down teams like Cardiff and to get his side playing with more intensity and pace and this is especially so at home where frnkly 12 goals in 10 matches isn't good enough. So he either needs to change his approach, is this likely?, or we need a very significant investment in players in Janaury and July.

 

Did we really need two holding midfielders yesterday? Do we always have to play with just one striker at home against so-called weaker or similar opponents?

 

There was so much wrong with yesterday but the main two points for me were yet again we lacked movement. We simply don't have players who are comfortable with taking the ball with their back to the opponents goal. Midfielders don't move at all most of the time with the possible exception of Maddison. We wait for the ball to come to us far too much. What on earth do we do on the training pitch?

Yert again we were ponderous and slow in moving the ball in the transisiton phase when at times we had plenty of opportunites to do so. Both these points feel like I'm listening to a stuck record. So either the players are not capable or Puel isn't capable of coaching them to do this.

Our tempo and intensity were non-existent. Now had this been a one-off I could have put this down to a hectic festive programme but unfortunately it is lacking in most games we play, especially at home.

We have a big problem up front. Vardy is almost our only striker and certainly by far our best. Yet, yesterday 80-90% of the passes to him were either in the air or bouncing to his feet with his back to goal. He isn't, never has been and never will be this type of striker. He's feeding off scraps and because we play only one up front spends much of the game isolated. Puel either needs to develop a system and style of play that better incorporates our best player or needs a completely new striker.

 

The big question is really where do the club truly want to be. Are we happy to accept mid table playing pretty dull uninspiring football? If so then Puel can probably deliver that. Or do we want to seriously attempt to compete regularly at the top end of the table? For the latter we will need significant investment and possibly a manager with a more dynamic style of football though who that might be I haven't a clue.

Edited 30 December 2018 by reynard

[Dorkingfox]

We need to get away from the turgid dull football, I would sooner watch attacking football, were we take risks, we may loose games, but at least they would have had a go and it would be entertaining!  At least if you are attacking you can develop around the positive mind set.

 

[The Doctor]

6 hours ago, inckley fox said:

Oh, so it's the 'stats argument' rather than the 'nobody for any side ever scores prolifically for Claude Puel argument'! We can all play at that.

 

You're placing a lot of faith in this xG rating. It has Martial, Pedro and Schurrle down as three of the PL's most clinical players, ahead of Aguero, Firmino, Jesus (all of which have negative ratings, like Vardy), and Aubameyang, Sterling, Kane and Hazard.

 

It also has literally the whole Leicester squad (including, say, Ndidi) down as being more clinical than Vardy. So how good a measure it is of a striker's performance, I'd doubt.

 

There are other measures too. He has a better shots on target ratio than Aubameyang, Aguero, Sane, Ings, Firmino, Murray, Mitrovic, Sigurdsson, Wilson and Lacazette. He has a better goals per minute rate than Firmino, Lacazette, Anderson, Sigurdsson, Mitrovic, Pereyra, Lukaku and Jimenez.

 

In the grand scheme of things, and no matter how hard you try, he's hardly a disaster. At the very worst, he kept Puel in a job until the summer and since then he has, like every other Leicester striker, failed to provide much of a threat. Of course, you can keep blaming all of the strikers if you want.

 

But your theory is that Vardy was our single biggest problem today, and that he has been poor all season. That he lacked effort, was abysmal, and more so than anyone else. That the lack of supply which he overcame last season (but hasn't quite managed to this season), which has affected whichever striker we select, and whichever striker Southampton selected in the latter-day Puel era, isn't the problem. Vardy is. That Maddison and Gray - and the general lack of creativity from our midfield - weren't, aren't, haven't been as big an issue as Vardy, not only today but over the course of the campaign.

 

Even though, in today's case, our principal failure to score a goal, and our conceding of a goal, occurred when Vardy was off the pitch and Maddison, Gray and the rest of them were left to their own devices. Even though lots of people failed to produce the goods. Even though nobody created anything after he left the pitch. Even though we'd most probably have scored within minutes had he stayed on. Even though his stats (xG aside) aren't clearly worse than the average, or even most of the PL's top scorers. Even though very few players, either our own or anyone else's, score goals for Puel's teams in this country (except Vardy, that is). Even though he won us the game a week ago, has played out of his skin on more than one occasion recently in spite of his injuries, and has basically kept Puel in a job in the first place.

 

I'd say, in response to your point, that I don't really need to put the effort into defending Vardy. You need to do a lot better, however, if he's to be your scapegoat. 

 

When I say that those of us who want Puel to stay need to argue our case better, this is what I mean. If we turn it into a Puel vs. The Old Boys debate, which is totally unnecessary, Puel will lose.

Just as well I'm not trying to scapegoat him then. I'm not blaming him for Maddison missing a penalty, or Ghezzal giving the ball away and just giving up immediately before their goal. I'm not blaming him for the errors of others (the definition of a scapegoat), I'm just saying he performed very poorly yesterday. However, people clearly start with a conclusion pre-match and then ignore what happens if it doesn't suit that conclusion if they're looking to defend Vardy after yesterday rather than saying, yeah he was poor and deserved to come off.

 

As for xG, yes Martial, Pedro and Schurrle are more clinical than most. Being clinical is not about sheer volume scored, Salah scored 32 last season but missed 23 big chances. He wasn't clinical, he just had a high volume of chances and scored some of them. Clinical is basically a low shots per goal ratio. Vardy has not been it this season, he's missed several 1v1s, against Everton, against Crystal Palace, against Man City, against Cardiff, he's missed several golden chances (free space in the box) against Burnley, against Man Utd, against West Ham. 

 

You say even though if he'd stayed on we'd have scored but this is frankly a ridiculous argument, which suggests you don't watch the matches. He was rightly taken off because he was very poor, you cannot justify leaving a player having a shocker on in case we get a penalty (with 5 awarded in 20 games, hardly a bankable chance with most of the game gone) and the only real defence of him is his name, let's be quite clear - Iheanacho and Okazaki in the 20 odd minutes they got looked more of a threat than Vardy did, and if either had put in the performance he did, they'd be getting a lot more slating and no-one going "but but but muh scapegoat". He was shit yesterday, have the basic footballing awareness to admit that.

Edited 30 December 2018 by The Doctor

[SouthStandUpperTier]

15 minutes ago, Dorkingfox said:

We need to get away from the turgid dull football, I would sooner watch attacking football, were we take risks, we may loose games, but at least they would have had a go and it would be entertaining!  At least if you are attacking you can develop around the positive mind set.

 

Sorry, I don't mean this to come across like I'm picking on you, but I just don't believe people when they say this. We could play like the Brazil '82 team, lose 5-4, and our fans would still have the raving hump. Heck, we could win 5-4 and I'm convinced most of them would still moan. Our fans are the biggest bunch of malcontents going. And they'll be just the same with whoever eventually replaces Puel. Rinse and repeat. Ad infinitum.

[Bunyip]

13 hours ago, turtmcfly said:

You're just making random sh*te up now. Absolute black cab driver drivel.

Nice to know you have it in you for a reasoned argued response. How old are you ?

[Bunyip]

6 hours ago, foxes_rule1978 said:

We played well enough to win, just was unlucky... Cardiff defended well and took the points but we did dominate. The frustrating thing though is we just aren’t positive when moving the ball forward, we should have created more golden opportunities against them. We have such flair players that we could have created more

Yes, we have flair players that are hamstrung by a manager who would not know flairs if he wore them.

[Happy Fox]

When will Puel learn against shithousery teams play 2 upfront, the set up was wrong for me, should have gone 4-4-2, Vardy was isolated for the majority of the game barring one or two spells. It just shows we are lacking quality in certain area, Ndidi looks fatigued out, surely Iborra could step in for a game or two?

[Dorkingfox]

12 minutes ago, SouthStandUpperTier said:

Sorry, I don't mean this to come across like I'm picking on you, but I just don't believe people when they say this. We could play like the Brazil '82 team, lose 5-4, and our fans would still have the raving hump. Heck, we could win 5-4 and I'm convinced most of them would still moan. Our fans are the biggest bunch of malcontents going. And they'll be just the same with whoever eventually replaces Puel. Rinse and repeat. Ad infinitum.

I am fine with other peoples opinions, I have been a City fan for over 50 years, so know the frustrations of watching the highs and lows, all the false dawns. In the 70's we played great football, but won nothing, but people came back for more because it was exciting, we lost games we should have won and won games we should have lost, but none were as frustrating as watching us draw and loose to Fulham, Palace, Brighton and Cardiff, because now we are the 14th richest club and our expectations are higher and why shouldn't they be?. In the wayward years before O'Neil our expectations were low, so we accepted or got used to poor football, which was due to lack of investment (which is why we lost our best players) and good managers who left or poor managers who did not have a clue.

[foxinsocks]

8 minutes ago, Happy Fox said:

When will Puel learn against shithousery teams play 2 upfront, the set up was wrong for me, should have gone 4-4-2, Vardy was isolated for the majority of the game barring one or two spells. It just shows we are lacking quality in certain area, Ndidi looks fatigued out, surely Iborra could step in for a game or two?

He wont learn coz he wrote it off as "un lucky"  ... i wrote it off as "the manager is bonkers "

[sylofox]

15 hours ago, matty98 said:

The booing when Vardy got taken off was embarrassing, he's managing an injury.

 

Gray isn't good enough, he doesn't make any proper runs, just jogs. 

 

Only positive for me was Ricardo, he's insane, I'd genuinely be tempted to play him CM where he could control the game more.

Nailed it. 

 

I would add an idiot of a ref. Books the keeper for taking a kick out of place. But only talks to the player that put in a leg breaker on Ndidi. 

[Ceirboy]

Having watched the highlights again this morning without the shroud of the disappointment of watching live, we had enough chances to win that game. Etheridge had a decent game, as he is paid to do of course but we had enough opportunities to have put that game to bed. Any other day, or with Pickford in goal, we'd have won that!

I suspect half the issue is that the players are left a little dumbfounded when they get the team sheet and get a bit stroppy when they see their chums being left out and it shows. It could also be a case of knowing that if they are shite and don't do as is asked, they'll be next for the chop, so perform with too much caution. Either way, the performance on the pitch can't all be down to Puel but the players he chooses need to step up a bit.

[st albans fox]

13 minutes ago, sylofox said:

Nailed it. 

 

I would add an idiot of a ref. Books the keeper for taking a kick out of place. But only talks to the player that put in a leg breaker on Ndidi. 

I don’t think he saw the Artur challenge clearly ...........

 

and I had sympathy for their keeper over that issue - no one communicated with him as to what the decision was. no way would he have continued to ‘play dumb’ for that long .......... 

[The Doctor]

Just now, st albans fox said:

I don’t think he saw the Artur challenge clearly ...........

 

and I had sympathy for their keeper over that issue - no one communicated with him as to what the decision was. no way would he have continued to ‘play dumb’ for that long .......... 

Except the linesman clearly signalled goal kick, and was positioned as such. If he couldn't tell it's a goal kick he might well be the stupidest player out there

[st albans fox]

Just now, The Doctor said:

Except the linesman clearly signalled goal kick, and was positioned as such. If he couldn't tell it's a goal kick he might well be the stupidest player out there

No reason he would be expected to have seen the lino’s flag - he would have been following the ball ...... the lino takes up a standard position for goal kick or free kick for an offence in the box so how would he know ? I believe the linesman should stand long enough indicating a goal kick until the keeper acknowledges him..... the move up the pitch level with their last defender. 

[SouthStandUpperTier]

28 minutes ago, Dorkingfox said:

I am fine with other peoples opinions, I have been a City fan for over 50 years, so know the frustrations of watching the highs and lows, all the false dawns. In the 70's we played great football, but won nothing, but people came back for more because it was exciting, we lost games we should have won and won games we should have lost, but none were as frustrating as watching us draw and loose to Fulham, Palace, Brighton and Cardiff, because now we are the 14th richest club and our expectations are higher and why shouldn't they be?. In the wayward years before O'Neil our expectations were low, so we accepted or got used to poor football, which was due to lack of investment (which is why we lost our best players) and good managers who left or poor managers who did not have a clue.

 

Back in the 70s, relegation wasn't as financially punitive, so both teams could come to attack, which led to exciting football. Now you have half the league fearing relegation, shutting up shop and hoping to sneak a goal with their one chance. It's really hard to look good and entertain in today's Premier League outside the top 5.

 

And I think these new found expectations are unreaIistic. We may now have rich owners, but the top players will never come here over the traditional big clubs. Even when we were champions all we could attract was the likes of Musa and Slimani.

 

 

Edited 30 December 2018 by SouthStandUpperTier