Post Match: City 0 - 1 Cardiff

[chris_lcfc_85]

39 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?

Agree mate. I'd of started vardy and iheanacho or vardy and okazaki yesterday 

[chris_lcfc_85]

Adrien Silva must be laughing at the distinct lack of creativity in midfield 

[oadby.fox]

Two things surprised me about the line up yesterday:

 

1. The regression back to the midfield pairing of Ndidi and Mendy.

 

2. The lack of rotation elsewhere (maybe another striker to support a less fresh Vardy, could've had Fuchs in for Chilwell, maybe even Simmo for Ricardo, Hamza should have started!) 

 

In my mind Puel should have tried to keep the team as close as possible (in terms of the shape) to the one that beat both Chelsea and City. It might have been slightly negative but at least we are hard to beat. Out of Ndidi, Mendy and Hamza, why rest the latter who has shone in recent performances and who would arguably be the most fresh out of the three? The midfield three has looked so much better and if he was going to revert back to a two why not include Hamza who has simply looked a class above? Likewise if you want to tinker with a winning side and formation then why not at least go for something more positive? Like bringing Shinji or someone else in to support Vardy. 

 

It should be clear to everyone that the 4231 that we have become so accustomed to simply isn't working for the team or the team isn't working for it. It's so frustrating because after the last two games I really felt like maybe Puel has found something and that we might have a chance in setting ourselves up to be so hard to beat. To revert back to a failed type is just so disappointing and it produced exactly what we would've expected - a dour home loss to a side fighting relegation, a side without an away win all season. Puel can't be blamed for Maddison missing that penalty (although we all knew he would miss it) but it's mind boggling to go backwards in such a dramatic fashion. It makes you feel like the wins against Chelsea and Man City were just pot luck and that really we shouldn't read into them.

[Fosse93]

10 hours ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

Been to 3. I saw Man City and Burnley

 

Hate to bash Vardz but he missed a very good chance against Burnley aswell

 

Man City we did alright

He's missed some good chances this season granted, but more often than not he's left isolated upfront.

 

Of the 3 matches you've been to, yesterday was the best representation of what matchdays are like at the minute... the atmosphere, the performance... it's just, meh.

 

You're absolutely entitled to your opinion and I respect it, I just get frustrated when people are so 'pro-puel' yet they don't experience what the majority of matchdays are like nowadays.

 

On paper we're sitting pretty in the league, have got a promising squad filled with youngsters and are TRYING to play a more possession based style of football... for me it's the matchday experience, 'entertainment value' if you like, which is the real problem and this can't be quantified on paper.

Edited 30 December 2018 by Fosse93

[Happy Fox]

39 minutes ago, chris_lcfc_85 said:

Agree mate. I'd of started vardy and iheanacho or vardy and okazaki yesterday 

 

We knew what Cardiff were going to do, they were going to sit with 11 men behind the ball and hit us on the counter, we played like the away side at home. We needed two strikers up front, and I dare say we would have won that game comfortably.

[Foxxed]

More than half say sack Puel but how would we improve in these matches with someone else?

 

Richardo, Chilwell and Maddison seem decent to break down teams and Maguire should be a threat at corners.

 

Vardy is a striker who's great at counter attacking but not ideally suited to breaking down bus parkers and our wingers are hardly the best.

 

Ndidi is trying to improve into more than a defensive mid but do we play Silva and Iborra instead of Ndidi and Mendy?

 

Even without Puel I think we'd struggle but obviously after three transfer windows (albeit with two at Jan) he needs to take some blame.

 

Our squad doesn't seem to suit bus parkers. The tactics didn't seem too bad on paper: three attacking mids, a striker, two wing backs and DMs that can cover for CBs who get forward.

 

I can't help think we're tired, we missed a penalty and our team is trying to be more technical but we do need to win these games.

 

I hope he pulls it around by the summer because if he can start winning these matches we have a very good manager against the top teams and a great manager for the academy.

[Sunbury Fox]

The thing is that we are what we are. A solid mid table team that will roughly win 1, draw 1 and lose 1 of every 3 games. It's what mid table teams do. Yes, it can be frustrating and even boring sometimes but what is the alternative? We just simply don't have the financial backing to compete with the Big 6 consistently, so would people seriously prefer an "exciting" relegation battle?

 

Let's face it, yesterday's game was dull but we had more than enough chances to win despite the "turgid" football and "lack of creativity" that everyone is complaining about. I actually think we've not had the rub of the green in lots of home matches against the strugglers. It happens. In the same way we got the rub of the green v Man City and Chelsea.

 

But overall we are likely to end up winning 1 drawing 1 and losing 1 of every 3 games and getting around 45-50 points over the season. Everton have invested £250m in their team and are still at roughly the same level as us, showing how hard it is to make the mythical "next step up". Based on wage bill, attendances, etc we are where we should be. 

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

53 minutes ago, Fosse93 said:

He's missed some good chances this season granted, but more often than not he's left isolated upfront.

 

Of the 3 matches you've been to, yesterday was the best representation of what matchdays are like at the minute... the atmosphere, the performance... it's just, meh.

 

You're absolutely entitled to your opinion and I respect it, I just get frustrated when people are so 'pro-puel' yet they don't experience what the majority of matchdays are like nowadays.

 

On paper we're sitting pretty in the league, have got a promising squad filled with youngsters and are TRYING to play a more possession based style of football... for me it's the matchday experience, 'entertainment value' if you like, which is the real problem and this can't be quantified on paper.

I get that. It wasnt a great watch, but i think its just where we are. We are a cut above teams like Cardiff, so they will park up behind the ball, but we are a bit lacking in quality to break them down often. 

 

I think its just where we are as a club atm. We're 8th in the league and our goal difference is 7th best. Signs to me and performances point to us needing a couple more of the right players to kick on. Squad is young, the players we have should improve

 

This season is what it is. The ship has been officially steadied. Next season I expect us to kick on.

[Dr The Singh]

Hats off to Colin and Cardiff, they were expected to sit back but in the second half they came back at us.

 

[Ceirboy]

4 minutes ago, Dr The Singh said:

Hats off to Colin and Cardiff, they were expected to sit back but in the second half they came back at us.

 

That was because he saw how scared our players were of coming forwards, so he took the free hit!

 

[Col city fan]

9 minutes ago, Ceirboy said:

That was because he saw how scared our players were of coming forwards, so he took the free hit!

 

I agree with this. He is a wily old fox and could see they might snatch one. Then again, we could see it too tbf.

[Cadno'r Cymoedd]

I hate to say this but reflecting on yesterday, my first ever visit to the KP, it was a tad disappointing being honest. Not just the result but the atmosphere was poor. 

 

I know the stadium can rock not just from reports, including on here, but from others who have been as home and visiting supporters. 

 

After two wins against Chelsea and Man City, I expected the atmosphere created to be much better from our supporters. Admittedly the football wasn't exactly electric but the Cardiff supporters were noisy throughout which should have generated a response. I travelled up from Cardiff and was in the services with their fans who were really up for it. I know away support is different and in their position, there is a 'laager' mentality that is spurred on by Warnock. 

 

I'm a great believer that a vociferous support can help. But it was largely flat. I fully get it there is some disgruntlement at the style of play. But the team still needs vocal support. As for the booing at the Vardy/Nacho substitution, whatever the target (and I didn't think it was personal to Nacho) that is counterproductive during a game. 

 

Sorry for a negative post. I look forward to getting to more games this season and a rocking stadium. 

Edited 30 December 2018 by Cadno'r Cymoedd

[Dr The Singh]

30 minutes ago, Col city fan said:

I agree with this. I love his willy, the old fox could see they might snatch one. Then again, we could see it too tbf.

Weve been so predictable against poorer sides.

 

 

[5waller5]

11 hours ago, mad biker said:

Luckily for you being based in Quorn you can piss off and support the tricky trees or the sheep shaggers, seeeeeya !!

Yes, Because that's how it works......  Passionately support my local team for the whole of my life (49 years), but swap over to a local rival because:

 

A. I live in Quorn

B. I don't agree with a French manager's tactics and lack of ability to change them

C. Some muppet on a forum tells me to

 

 

 

[Dorkingfox]

I here where you are coming from, but the new age supporter wants success, just like any long term one, their expectations are different due to the way the Prem league is now and the money available, as we are fairly well off now it is only natural that supporters want the club to take advantage of this as it may not always be the case, but who is to say things may not change the top teams may not always be the top ones, football and society changes, as a club we need to stay in touch with the wealthier teams.

The margin between success and failure is very narrow, we were not at our best against Cardiff, City were flat and disappointing, they were so hell bent on playing a passing/offensive style of football, that they left the defence wide open for a counter attack, the strategy  that won us the league, they used it against us! The passing football we adopted didn't work in breaking down a high defensive line, we probably need to get a target man, if Puel wants to play this way, as Vardy was really exposed again, but he still went for every lost cause, but he needs support.

[inckley fox]

5 hours ago, The Doctor said:

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.

I prefer not to call players shit, personally, especially when I can see that the circumstances of the game didn't benefit them. Indeed, I think most people who have seen us play of late would accept that our style of play doesn't benefit Vardy but would accept that by and large he's served Puel well, and would understand that after three games in a week he was pretty tired. Calling him 'shit', 'woeful', 'abysmal' and lacking in effort, as you have, suggests you are more aggressive and critical than those people. He didn't play well, I've said that numerous times, I'm just not as keen to lambast him, or anyone else, as you are. I hope you see, in your impassioned defences of the manager and criticisms of those who are unfair towards him, that by repeatedly implying that certain players are to blame, and aggressively slating them, you are actually encouraging a blame culture yourself. It's certainly not a case of being a good, patient, balanced fan by throwing your support behind a manager (a manager who I also support, by the way). 

 

I do watch the games, thanks very much, and my statement that we'd probably have scored a few minutes later was based on my very own statistical analysis that Vardy is a proven, dependable penalty taker and Maddison isn't. And he missed, so that particular debate should end there, I'd have thought, even if there's a good debate to be had about Vardy's performance, and the wider flaws in our game. But therein lies the risk in removing your proven goalscorer, regardless of how tired he is, and regardless of the fact that a manager can't possibly know when a penalty is going to come along. Yesterday, whether it was a sensible decision or not, it didn't work out.

 

This doesn't mean Vardy is playing great, or had a good game, or that Puel is awful, or that someone else has to be strung up for what happened. It simply means that, no, Vardy wasn't the principal reason for what happened yesterday, nor is he one of the main reasons for the questions that are asked of Puel. 

 

And do you seriously think nobody defends Iheanacho for his performances? I think I did just that in my previous post! Of course, if he isn't as eagerly defended as Vardy, there are reasons for that too. The same reason why, when there's a question mark over whether the supply for Vardy (from players who have struggled to create for anyone this season, who are in some cases unproven at this level, and who play under a manager who has a track record of struggling for goals) is the problem, or Vardy himself (proven to be one of the PL's best strikers over the past few years, who did more than most to keep Puel afloat last season, and who won us the game just a week ago), some will look at the evidence over time and come to a different conclusion to you.

 

Of course you can keep saying 'why don't you admit Vardy had a bad game?' (which I have) and throwing easily-contradicted statistics around to prove that Vardy is dreadful, but I'm not sure what any of that is designed to achieve. There are deeper problems afoot than Vardy failing to convert one chance in his third game of the week. I mean, the game was lost after he left the pitch for a start, and it happened by our side becoming completely, predictably impotent, surrendering possession in dangerous places and failing to close down in midfield. Which, if you really want to draw conclusions, suggests that the absence of Vardy is a much, much bigger problem than the man himself.

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

I just knew we would lose this one. Two great wins, and then do the usual thing of losing to a rubbish team.

[The Doctor]

34 minutes ago, inckley fox said:

I prefer not to call players shit, personally, especially when I can see that the circumstances of the game didn't benefit them. Indeed, I think most people who have seen us play of late would accept that our style of play doesn't benefit Vardy but would accept that by and large he's served Puel well, and would understand that after three games in a week he was pretty tired. Calling him 'shit', 'woeful', 'abysmal' and lacking in effort, as you have, suggests you are more aggressive and critical than those people. He didn't play well, I've said that numerous times, I'm just not as keen to lambast him, or anyone else, as you are. I hope you see, in your impassioned defences of the manager and criticisms of those who are unfair towards him, that by repeatedly implying that certain players are to blame, and aggressively slating them, you are actually encouraging a blame culture yourself. It's certainly not a case of being a good, patient, balanced fan by throwing your support behind a manager (a manager who I also support, by the way). 

 

I do watch the games, thanks very much, and my statement that we'd probably have scored a few minutes later was based on my very own statistical analysis that Vardy is a proven, dependable penalty taker and Maddison isn't. And he missed, so that particular debate should end there, I'd have thought, even if there's a good debate to be had about Vardy's performance, and the wider flaws in our game. But therein lies the risk in removing your proven goalscorer, regardless of how tired he is, and regardless of the fact that a manager can't possibly know when a penalty is going to come along. Yesterday, whether it was a sensible decision or not, it didn't work out.

 

This doesn't mean Vardy is playing great, or had a good game, or that Puel is awful, or that someone else has to be strung up for what happened. It simply means that, no, Vardy wasn't the principal reason for what happened yesterday, nor is he one of the main reasons for the questions that are asked of Puel. 

 

And do you seriously think nobody defends Iheanacho for his performances? I think I did just that in my previous post! Of course, if he isn't as eagerly defended as Vardy, there are reasons for that too. The same reason why, when there's a question mark over whether the supply for Vardy (from players who have struggled to create for anyone this season, who are in some cases unproven at this level, and who play under a manager who has a track record of struggling for goals) is the problem, or Vardy himself (proven to be one of the PL's best strikers over the past few years, who did more than most to keep Puel afloat last season, and who won us the game just a week ago), some will look at the evidence over time and come to a different conclusion to you.

 

Of course you can keep saying 'why don't you admit Vardy had a bad game?' (which I have) and throwing easily-contradicted statistics around to prove that Vardy is dreadful, but I'm not sure what any of that is designed to achieve. There are deeper problems afoot than Vardy failing to convert one chance in his third game of the week. I mean, the game was lost after he left the pitch for a start, and it happened by our side becoming completely, predictably impotent, surrendering possession in dangerous places and failing to close down in midfield. Which, if you really want to draw conclusions, suggests that the absence of Vardy is a much, much bigger problem than the man himself.

It's not just a "circumstances of the game didn't benefit him" issue. You can excuse that in terms of having few shots and touches, being on the periphery if they're isolated. Consistent miscontrolling and getting outpaced by Sol bloody Bamba is not, that's not a "circumstances of the game", that's not a "well, look at the service", that's just a really poor personal performance and trying pin that on the rest of the team is the actual scapegoating going on here. 

 

Yes, a manager can't predict when a penalty is going to come along, but that doesn't support your argument at all. The manager can't predict a penalty is going to come, so has to haul off, make no bones about it, the worst performing player on the pitch.

 

I'm not throwing around stats to show he's dreadful, I'm pointing out that what anyone could see this season - he's not really found any form, missing several good opportunities you'd expect him to bury, and penalties are masking a poor return for a lead striker. Yet, he escapes criticism from most parts. If Iheanacho was having the season he's having (missing a big chance every other week), this forum would have locked him in a Wicker Man by now, yet with Vardy he draws little criticism and the defence about service (even though his return in terms of shots per game and xG per 90 suggest that's not that big a defence). This is no doubt because he's got credit in the bank after the previous 5 years but no player should be immune to criticism no matter how poor their form.

[Leicester_Loyal]

14 hours 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.  

Vardy is definitely missing a lot more 1v1s and snapping at other chances I'd expect him to do better with. Yes he's been a great servant and is our best player when on form, but he shouldn't be exempt from criticism. I think 3 games in a week is too much for his body now though unfortunately, but we don't have anyone else who will come in and do a job for us, as Okazaki and Iheanacho are both poor (either in form or in general)

[The Doctor]

10 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

. I think 3 games in a week is too much for his body now though unfortunately,

Honestly, I think he's not even recovered properly from that groin injury against Colombia, it seems to keep cropping up again. I'd say he needs dropping for a while and allowed to recover/get surgery if necessary, but given the reactions of our fans I'd expect Puel to be tarred and feathered if he dared do that

[mad biker]

4 hours ago, 5waller5 said:

Yes, Because that's how it works......  Passionately support my local team for the whole of my life (49 years), but swap over to a local rival because:

 

A. I live in Quorn

B. I don't agree with a French manager's tactics and lack of ability to change them

C. Some muppet on a forum tells me to

 

 

 

Yep 100% this !!!!!

[inckley fox]

1 hour ago, The Doctor said:

It's not just a "circumstances of the game didn't benefit him" issue. You can excuse that in terms of having few shots and touches, being on the periphery if they're isolated. Consistent miscontrolling and getting outpaced by Sol bloody Bamba is not, that's not a "circumstances of the game", that's not a "well, look at the service", that's just a really poor personal performance and trying pin that on the rest of the team is the actual scapegoating going on here. 

 

Yes, a manager can't predict when a penalty is going to come along, but that doesn't support your argument at all. The manager can't predict a penalty is going to come, so has to haul off, make no bones about it, the worst performing player on the pitch.

 

I'm not throwing around stats to show he's dreadful, I'm pointing out that what anyone could see this season - he's not really found any form, missing several good opportunities you'd expect him to bury, and penalties are masking a poor return for a lead striker. Yet, he escapes criticism from most parts. If Iheanacho was having the season he's having (missing a big chance every other week), this forum would have locked him in a Wicker Man by now, yet with Vardy he draws little criticism and the defence about service (even though his return in terms of shots per game and xG per 90 suggest that's not that big a defence). This is no doubt because he's got credit in the bank after the previous 5 years but no player should be immune to criticism no matter how poor their form.

You keep saying the same thing again and again - no matter how many times you say it, I am criticising Vardy, I have said he didn't have a good game - so how on earth is he immune from criticism? Is it blood you want?

 

Unlike you, I won't use the words 'shit', 'woeful', 'abysmal', nor accuse him of a lack of effort, nor accuse him of being 'the worst player on the pitch for both sides' - all of which is far too extreme for a guy who wasn't played in nearly as much as he should, ideally, have been. You are doing a great job in these posts, and with this sort of language, of backing up my point that you and some of our manager's other supporters want to make a scapegoat of some of the old guard, and specifically Vardy. 

 

I don't tend to use words like yours for any player, especially when I see that there were other circumstances to consider whether you like it or not. Namely (1) That no striker has ever thrived, for Leicester or Southampton, under Puel other than Vardy. (2) That he was receiving scant supply on the day, just like the guy who replaced him. (3) That he'd played three games in a week at almost 32 years of age, with an injury (winning one of them for us) so he wasn't at his best.

 

You can keep throwing stats about. I've thrown stats at you too which contradict your argument. The single biggest, and most relevant stat is the one that involves common denominators: Vardy is a proven goalscorer. Puel has a proven record at this level of his midfields struggling to supply strikers. Vardy overcame that for a while, now he's struggling. Your conclusion, based on these undeniable truths, is that Vardy is the problem. Mine is that, while I'm in favour of Puel, his approach also has a lot to do with it. I support the manager, but I see the errors. I support the players, and I see their shortcomings too. Am I really the blinkered one here, as you suggested?

 

And why you keep dragging Iheanacho into this as some sort of victim is beyond me. If he is a victim, it's of the same scant supply as Vardy, or Okazaki, or Slimani, or Gray, or whoever else has gone up front for us. And I've consistently acknowledged this, without slating him in the way you've slated Vardy, throughout the season. Iheanacho hasn't, however, been anywhere near as effective as Vardy recently, which is why some people have been critical. Should he be booed onto the pitch? No, of course not. If you have a serious objection to any of these points, please elaborate, because I can't even see a thread of a sustainable argument in what you're saying.

[Bob Hazels shorts]

I keep reading Vardy was booed or iheanacho, fairly obvious neither were.

 

I don't believe even the most staunchest of Puel fans would not agree that he made several cock ups yesterday.

 

More sense-  Simpson + Fuchs releasing Riccardo and Chilwell and an early addition of an extra striker for Gray or lborra for Mendy.

 

A loan striker against a wall of fat blokes was never going to work

[BKLFox]

8 hours ago, Fosse93 said:

He's missed some good chances this season granted, but more often than not he's left isolated upfront.

 

Of the 3 matches you've been to, yesterday was the best representation of what matchdays are like at the minute... the atmosphere, the performance... it's just, meh.

 

You're absolutely entitled to your opinion and I respect it, I just get frustrated when people are so 'pro-puel' yet they don't experience what the majority of matchdays are like nowadays.

 

On paper we're sitting pretty in the league, have got a promising squad filled with youngsters and are TRYING to play a more possession based style of football... for me it's the matchday experience, 'entertainment value' if you like, which is the real problem and this can't be quantified on paper.

I know what you mean, I've not once seen Puel start a chant or sing along or is that because it's up to us fans to create an atmosphere? 

To steal a line from you and no not a dig Fosse as I understand where you are coming from but I just find it so frustrating that anyone anti-Puel blame him for everything.

 

The whole match day experience is a 2-way street, I know people will say the plays so boring so we don't sing but the players could argue they need the singing to get them going.

For me the whole day is the experience not just the 90mins, from getting ready, to a few beers on the train, meeting up with mates for a drink and greasy burger...then beers after win lose or draw, trouble nowadays some treat football like a Take That concert just turn up and Expect a glitzy show for 90mins before going home feeling all fluffy inside.

[The Doctor]

1 hour ago, inckley fox said:

You keep saying the same thing again and again - no matter how many times you say it, I am criticising Vardy, I have said he didn't have a good game - so how on earth is he immune from criticism? Is it blood you want?

 

Unlike you, I won't use the words 'shit', 'woeful', 'abysmal', nor accuse him of a lack of effort, nor accuse him of being 'the worst player on the pitch for both sides' - all of which is far too extreme for a guy who wasn't played in nearly as much as he should, ideally, have been. You are doing a great job in these posts, and with this sort of language, of backing up my point that you and some of our manager's other supporters want to make a scapegoat of some of the old guard, and specifically Vardy. 

 

I don't tend to use words like yours for any player, especially when I see that there were other circumstances to consider whether you like it or not. Namely (1) That no striker has ever thrived, for Leicester or Southampton, under Puel other than Vardy. (2) That he was receiving scant supply on the day, just like the guy who replaced him. (3) That he'd played three games in a week at almost 32 years of age, with an injury (winning one of them for us) so he wasn't at his best.

 

You can keep throwing stats about. I've thrown stats at you too which contradict your argument. The single biggest, and most relevant stat is the one that involves common denominators: Vardy is a proven goalscorer. Puel has a proven record at this level of his midfields struggling to supply strikers. Vardy overcame that for a while, now he's struggling. Your conclusion, based on these undeniable truths, is that Vardy is the problem. Mine is that, while I'm in favour of Puel, his approach also has a lot to do with it. I support the manager, but I see the errors. I support the players, and I see their shortcomings too. Am I really the blinkered one here, as you suggested?

 

And why you keep dragging Iheanacho into this as some sort of victim is beyond me. If he is a victim, it's of the same scant supply as Vardy, or Okazaki, or Slimani, or Gray, or whoever else has gone up front for us. And I've consistently acknowledged this, without slating him in the way you've slated Vardy, throughout the season. Iheanacho hasn't, however, been anywhere near as effective as Vardy recently, which is why some people have been critical. Should he be booed onto the pitch? No, of course not. If you have a serious objection to any of these points, please elaborate, because I can't even see a thread of a sustainable argument in what you're saying.

You really aren't reading anything before waffling are you? Let's be quite frank, criticism is about his poor touch and his lack of energy yesterday. I've already said I think that's down to injury and he shouldn't be playing, but you've got to stop trying to change the subject to service, it's not a question of service in terms of not being able to beat a player with the ball at his feet and room to run into, it's not a question of service when passes come into his feet, and bounce off like they'd hit a brick wall. This is not scapegoating, and you need to learn what scapegoating is, because the only one engaging in it is you. Scapegoating is not criticising a player for his contribution, scapegoating is blaming one specific player for the overall game, absolving others of their fault. Scapegoating is looking at Vardy failing to control passes to feet, and not outpacing players and saying "midfields fault". I've not said, as you're suggesting I have, that he's the problem with the team, but that yesterdays performance from him was incredibly poor by any strikers measure, not just his past form.