Post Match: City 0 - 1 Cardiff

[Nickfosse]

59 minutes ago, Bob Hazels shorts said:

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

I think you make a excellent point here regarding that team being more able to be successful versus Cardiff, however most of those criticising Puel seem to be saying he makes too many changes, especially to winning teams. 

Im not so bothered whether we keep Puel or not, I will back the owners whatever their decision. I’m more bothered that we are becoming unmanageable with our fan base criticising everything and anything a manager does. 

[Babylon]

Just summed up once again how desperate we are for a high energy CM, who can actually pass forward and create whilst helping out with the dirty work. A top class winger and a good striker.

 

Vardy and Albrighton with hindsight should have been rested, although Puel can't win there. He rests them and he'll get slaughtered for it. Their first touch was woeful, with Vardy being the main culprit. The ball went anywhere near him he presented it straight back to Cardiff or gave them time to get at him. Gray was terrible, ponderous in possession, slow to make decisions. Having watched Barnes and how quickly he moves the ball and trys to be positive, he has to come back. 

 

Because the CM's can't create, Maddison has to drop back too often leaving a chasm between Vardy and the midfield. Chuck in N'didi being totally incapable of passing forward, Gray being slow to do anything and Albrighton and Vardy looking tired it was a recipe for disaster.

Edited 31 December 2018 by Babylon

[inckley fox]

31 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

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.

This is just nonsense though. His performance wasn't 'incredibly poor'. You say I don't know what scapegoating is, and that I'm scapegoating people (who, exactly? I've not blamed anyone for anything, other than pointing out that Puel has possibly made a few mistakes and Vardy didn't have a great game), but I'm not sure you know what 'incredibly poor' is either. He had one decent chance and a couple of other sniffs yesterday, one of which was entirely his own work. That's not enough for a quality striker to be involved in the game, and this isn't just a one-off, it's symptomatic of what's happened to all of our strikers, and all of Puel's strikers in general at his past two clubs. 'Incredibly poor' would be a striker awash with opportunities, blazing them all left, right, centre.

 

A barely involved striker - isolated, kept on the fringes of play game-in-game-out - who doesn't look especially effective in a game does not represent 'incredibly poor', or 'woeful', or 'lacking in effort', or 'abysmal', or 'shit'. There were plenty of poor performances out there, equal to that of Vardy, and partly responsible for his performance, and you're choosing to focus on the most basic possible analysis of what went wrong: namely, we lacked a cutting edge up front, therefore the striker - regardless of his quality - is the most obvious person to blame.

 

I've not blamed anyone. I've not absolved Vardy. I'm simply trying to point out that you, in your keenness to excuse Puel for a key and ultimately unsuccessful decision in yesterday's game, have chosen to absolutely lambast a player who wasn't necessarily the worst culprit out there.

[Babylon]

8 minutes ago, inckley fox said:

This is just nonsense though. His performance wasn't 'incredibly poor'. You say I don't know what scapegoating is, and that I'm scapegoating people (who, exactly? I've not blamed anyone for anything, other than pointing out that Puel has possibly made a few mistakes and Vardy didn't have a great game), but I'm not sure you know what 'incredibly poor' is either. He had one decent chance and a couple of other sniffs yesterday, one of which was entirely his own work. That's not enough for a quality striker to be involved in the game, and this isn't just a one-off, it's symptomatic of what's happened to all of our strikers, and all of Puel's strikers in general at his past two clubs. 'Incredibly poor' would be a striker awash with opportunities, blazing them all left, right, centre.

 

A barely involved striker - isolated, kept on the fringes of play game-in-game-out - who doesn't look especially effective in a game does not represent 'incredibly poor', or 'woeful', or 'lacking in effort', or 'abysmal', or 'shit'. There were plenty of poor performances out there, equal to that of Vardy, and partly responsible for his performance, and you're choosing to focus on the most basic possible analysis of what went wrong: namely, we lacked a cutting edge up front, therefore the striker - regardless of his quality - is the most obvious person to blame.

 

I've not blamed anyone. I've not absolved Vardy. I'm simply trying to point out that you, in your keenness to excuse Puel for a key and ultimately unsuccessful decision in yesterday's game, have chosen to absolutely lambast a player who wasn't necessarily the worst culprit out there.

Vardy was poor, shit, crap, not good enough, a weak link, out of sorts, however anyone wants to phrase it. He had just about as many touches as Gray and Albrighton, so he wasn't that on the edge of the game. What he did have to do, he did it poorly, it's as simple as that. His heavy touches gave defenders time to intercept or made our moves break down. He wasn't the worst on the pitch, Gray takes the award for that one. But he was nowhere near his normal standards and deservedly came off.

[l444ry]

5 minutes ago, Babylon said:

Vardy was poor, shit, crap, not good enough, a weak link, out of sorts, however anyone wants to phrase it. He had just about as many touches as Gray and Albrighton, so he wasn't that on the edge of the game. What he did have to do, he did it poorly, it's as simple as that. His heavy touches gave defenders time to intercept or made our moves break down. He wasn't the worst on the pitch, Gray takes the award for that one. But he was nowhere near his normal standards and deservedly came off.

Vardy and Albrighton weren't at their best, like so many of the others. However, not convinced that bringing Iheanacho and Ghezzal made things any better. In fact Cardiff seemed to have an easier route to goal as even the knackered pair of Vardy and Albrighton work far harder than their replacements off the ball. I don't have an issue with taking tired players off but replacing them with those two was asking for trouble Babs.

[Babylon]

2 minutes ago, l444ry said:

Vardy and Albrighton weren't at their best, like so many of the others. However, not convinced that bringing Iheanacho and Ghezzal made things any better. In fact Cardiff seemed to have an easier route to goal as even the knackered pair of Vardy and Albrighton work far harder than their replacements off the ball. I don't have an issue with taking tired players off but replacing them with those two was asking for trouble Babs.

I can understand that perspective, but we won a pen after they came on and we should have wrapped the game up. Rachid looked about our best bet to create something when he came on to be fair, if he or the others took the chances he presented then we'd be sat here saying it was a decent change.

 

N'didi, Soyuncu and a few others are as much to blame second half as they just kept presenting the ball back to Cardiff in our half. It gives the opposition momentum and possession in dangerous areas and just isn't good enough. I'm about done with N'didi, he's a great defensive asset but we need to put him with someone who can take responsibility as he hinders us with the ball.

[inckley fox]

7 minutes ago, Babylon said:

Vardy was poor, shit, crap, not good enough, a weak link, out of sorts, however anyone wants to phrase it. He had just about as many touches as Gray and Albrighton, so he wasn't that on the edge of the game. What he did have to do, he did it poorly, it's as simple as that. His heavy touches gave defenders time to intercept or made our moves break down. He wasn't the worst on the pitch, Gray takes the award for that one. But he was nowhere near his normal standards and deservedly came off.

But there's the point - he certainly wasn't the only culprit out there. I've not argued he was good, I've just pointed out that, given the slightest bit of context, his poor performance was to an extent understandable. To point the finger at a striker in a Puel side requires the person doing so to pause for a moment. And I say that as a fairly firm supporter of Puel.

 

Maybe it's just me who prefers not to call a player who's struggling 'shit', 'crap' or however fans wish to describe their own, struggling players. I haven't been so blunt in my assessment of Puel either, who has to take his share of criticism, and I suspect that you'd have more of a problem with me if I said Puel's match-day management yesterday was 'shit', 'crap', 'woeful', 'abysmal' and 'lacking in effort' than if I said it about a player. I may be wrong.

 

Now, I've said no such thing - I said Vardy was poor (understandably so, in my view, and to nowhere near as extreme a degree as some are claiming), and Puel has got some stuff wrong, even though I support him. And, regardless of what you say, that particular substitution - deserved though it was (as it would have been if he'd taken off Ndidi or Gray, for instance) - didn't work out. Are you arguing that it did?

 

I'm sorry but people pinpointing Vardy as the principal, or even secondary factor in what happened yesterday are pursuing a very flimsy argument, even more flimsy than the subsequent argument that the success of decisions can't be measured by looking back at whether they work out or not afterwards. The boss made a call, it made sense, it didn't work out. Is that so hard to grasp?

[Guest]

43 minutes ago, inckley fox said:

This is just nonsense though. His performance wasn't 'incredibly poor'. You say I don't know what scapegoating is, and that I'm scapegoating people (who, exactly? I've not blamed anyone for anything, other than pointing out that Puel has possibly made a few mistakes and Vardy didn't have a great game), but I'm not sure you know what 'incredibly poor' is either. He had one decent chance and a couple of other sniffs yesterday, one of which was entirely his own work. That's not enough for a quality striker to be involved in the game, and this isn't just a one-off, it's symptomatic of what's happened to all of our strikers, and all of Puel's strikers in general at his past two clubs. 'Incredibly poor' would be a striker awash with opportunities, blazing them all left, right, centre.

 

A barely involved striker - isolated, kept on the fringes of play game-in-game-out - who doesn't look especially effective in a game does not represent 'incredibly poor', or 'woeful', or 'lacking in effort', or 'abysmal', or 'shit'. There were plenty of poor performances out there, equal to that of Vardy, and partly responsible for his performance, and you're choosing to focus on the most basic possible analysis of what went wrong: namely, we lacked a cutting edge up front, therefore the striker - regardless of his quality - is the most obvious person to blame.

 

I've not blamed anyone. I've not absolved Vardy. I'm simply trying to point out that you, in your keenness to excuse Puel for a key and ultimately unsuccessful decision in yesterday's game, have chosen to absolutely lambast a player who wasn't necessarily the worst culprit out there.

Nah he was really bad mate. Regardless of how effective we were at providing for him, his touch and hold up play were terrible. He was released in behind a couple of times in the first half, once when he was so slow to get going that Bamba caught him and once when he shot straight at their keeper's face. In the second half he had chances to turn and drive at their back line but miscontrolled. Iheanacho looked better at controlling the ball and linking the play when he came on but yet again had no chance to score.

 

With regards to strikers who are barely involved and kept on the fringes of play being labelled abysmal, lazy and shit, I see no reason why these standards should be applied to Kelechi and not Vardy. I know one has infinitely more credit in the bank than the other but when Vardy underperforms it's because he's isolated and the setup doesn't suit him, when Iheanacho turns it comparable performances it's because he's useless and lazy.

Edited 30 December 2018 by Guest

[Babylon]

7 minutes ago, inckley fox said:

But there's the point - he certainly wasn't the only culprit out there. I've not argued he was good, I've just pointed out that, given the slightest bit of context, his poor performance was to an extent understandable. To point the finger at a striker in a Puel side requires the person doing so to pause for a moment. And I say that as a fairly firm supporter of Puel.

But this has little to do with being isolated, plain and simple when the ball came to him he wasn't good enough with his own performance. Previously he's been more than capable of playing whilst isolated but still doing what's asked of him when the ball does arrive with him. He's not to blame for the loss or the performance, no single player is. But if I think a player has been crap I'll say it, and I think he was.

 

[LiberalFox]

We have effectively 1 striker at the club who is over 30. If we had someone vaguely premier league quality to replace Vardy he might not play so many games tired and not fully fit.

[inckley fox]

Just now, Guest said:

Nah he was really bad mate. Regardless of how effective we were at providing for him, his touch and hold up play were terrible. He was released in behind a couple of times, once when he was so slow to get going that Bamba caught him and once when he shot straight at their keeper's face. Iheanacho looked better at controlling the ball and linking the play when he came on but yet again had no chance to score.

 

With regards to strikers who are barely involved and kept on the fringes of play being labelled abysmal, lazy and shit, I see no reason why these standards should be applied to Kelechi and not Vardy. I know one has infinitely more credit in the bank than the other but when Vardy underperforms it's because he's isolated and the setup doesn't suit him, when Iheanacho turns it comparable performances it's because he's useless and lazy.

Come on, I saw Ade Akinbiyi, Trevor Benjamin and Ahmed Musa up top for us in the top flight, I know what 'really bad' and 'incredibly poor' are. That's when players cost you games with their constant wastefulness - 2, 3, 4 chances gobbled up by inability. It's not when a guy is on the fringe of a game, struggling a little with his touch, a yard off his normal pace, crafting a couple of half chances, missing another reasonable opportunity. Vardy was disappointing, intermittently involved - nothing worse than that. Had it been a new player, or a youngster, we'd have excused them and pointed to the lack of supply which has blighted us season-long, and sensibly so.

 

And I'm not applying any standards to Kelechi that I wouldn't to Vardy. I've gone out of my way not to do so. I think they're both victims of the same, wider lack of creativity, just as every other Leicester striker, and every Southampton striker who has played under Puel has been. As I keep saying, I'm a fairly firm Puel supporter and believe there's a sense of direction, a grand plan, but you have to see the recurrent flaws. If you refuse to, you're simply seeing every game and every individual display without any kind of context.

 

I rewatched the game today, and noticed from the commentary (for what it's worth) that Vardy wasn't at all singled out for his failings. The emphasis was on all the things I expected it to be - our sloppiness in possession, our slackness in closing down, the poor touch of virtually everyone who wasn't in the back four - and when Vardy screwed up the language of the commentators went along the lines of 'and even Vardy isn't quite at the races today'. So poor, yes, but exceptionally poor - I'm not having that at all.

[volpeazzurro]

28 minutes ago, l444ry said:

Vardy and Albrighton weren't at their best, like so many of the others. However, not convinced that bringing Iheanacho and Ghezzal made things any better. In fact Cardiff seemed to have an easier route to goal as even the knackered pair of Vardy and Albrighton work far harder than their replacements off the ball. I don't have an issue with taking tired players off but replacing them with those two was asking for trouble Babs.

I think they had to come off partly due to performance but mainly due to fatigue. Vardy just isn't fit and the coaching staff, not the Guadiola's on here, are in full possession of the facts regarding what is or isn't going to be detrimental to him. Albrighton always gives of his best and the last two games had clearly got to him. The manager, let's be absolutely honest, hasn't got a lot to choose from. Nacho isn't even worth a place on the bench for me and Ghezzal would have been a better bet in the strikers role if push comes to shove, though I do think he's a potential good fit in the number 10 role.

[l444ry]

1 minute ago, volpeazzurro said:

I think they had to come off partly due to performance but mainly due to fatigue. Vardy just isn't fit and the coaching staff, not the Guadiola's on here, are in full possession of the facts regarding what is or isn't going to be detrimental to him. Albrighton always gives of his best and the last two games had clearly got to him. The manager, let's be absolutely honest, hasn't got a lot to choose from. Nacho isn't even worth a place on the bench for me and Ghezzal would have been a better bet in the strikers role if push comes to shove, though I do think he's a potential good fit in the number 10 role.

Far points. All easy after the event but maybe Simpson on at right back and move Ricardo forward might have been better. Leaving a workhorse like Hamza out altogether looks questionable as well. The manager talks about intensity and tempo but Ghezzal and Nacho are poor examples of those attributes,

[inckley fox]

15 minutes ago, Babylon said:

But this has little to do with being isolated, plain and simple when the ball came to him he wasn't good enough with his own performance. Previously he's been more than capable of playing whilst isolated but still doing what's asked of him when the ball does arrive with him. He's not to blame for the loss or the performance, no single player is. But if I think a player has been crap I'll say it, and I think he was.

 

I'm not for a moment arguing that Vardy was good. I'm saying he wasn't the worst player out there, which you've agreed with, and that the substitution didn't work out in the end, which you've not bothered to argue with either on the grounds, I'd imagine, that both of us accept that the change broadly made sense at the time.

 

Where we differ is that you're arguing that a striker being isolated doesn't impact on his performance. That players don't warm to a game by getting more touches, that strikers don't look better when they're receiving supply. That isolated, under-fed strikers don't tend to look poor, lose confidence in front of goal and suddenly appear a lot more effective when a style is adopted that better suits their game. That's simply wrong, on your part. And the lack of supply is frankly undeniable.

 

But good for you that you say a player's 'crap' when you think he is. I think I said the same thing, in nicer words. I don't object to the language either. I try to be a little less damning, personally, and think those who are very kind about other players and the manager should be more consistent too when it comes to those they're less fond of, but I don't mind bluntness if it's fair. So I suppose I can look forward to your brutal slating of Ndidi, Gray, Iheanacho, Ghezzal, Maddison and Puel.

[Guest]

21 minutes ago, inckley fox said:

Come on, I saw Ade Akinbiyi, Trevor Benjamin and Ahmed Musa up top for us in the top flight, I know what 'really bad' and 'incredibly poor' are. That's when players cost you games with their constant wastefulness - 2, 3, 4 chances gobbled up by inability. It's not when a guy is on the fringe of a game, struggling a little with his touch, a yard off his normal pace, crafting a couple of half chances, missing another reasonable opportunity. Vardy was disappointing, intermittently involved - nothing worse than that. Had it been a new player, or a youngster, we'd have excused them and pointed to the lack of supply which has blighted us season-long, and sensibly so.

 

And I'm not applying any standards to Kelechi that I wouldn't to Vardy. I've gone out of my way not to do so. I think they're both victims of the same, wider lack of creativity, just as every other Leicester striker, and every Southampton striker who has played under Puel has been. As I keep saying, I'm a fairly firm Puel supporter and believe there's a sense of direction, a grand plan, but you have to see the recurrent flaws. If you refuse to, you're simply seeing every game and every individual display without any kind of context.

 

I rewatched the game today, and noticed from the commentary (for what it's worth) that Vardy wasn't at all singled out for his failings. The emphasis was on all the things I expected it to be - our sloppiness in possession, our slackness in closing down, the poor touch of virtually everyone who wasn't in the back four - and when Vardy screwed up the language of the commentators went along the lines of 'and even Vardy isn't quite at the races today'. So poor, yes, but exceptionally poor - I'm not having that at all.

But the wider context isn't really relevant when discussing his performance in that one game. He was shit - and that's fine, by the way. There's not a player in the world that doesn't have the sort of game he had yesterday. I don't think anyone's trying to make him a scapegoat for anything, or blaming him for the defeat. Nobody is saying "Vardy is shit", they're saying that, in that game, he was shit, which he was. He wasn't the only one by any means, but we're not talking about the collective performance, we're talking about him. If it makes you feel better, I also thought Gray and Albrighton were shit.

 

Ideally yes, he'd be more involved, he'd have more chances, but I can't judge him hypothetically. I can only judge him based on what I actually saw him do - not the midfield, not Puel, just him. And the things he did were, on the whole, not good i.e. missing one of our best chances, wasting good attacking opportunities with poor control, getting roasted for pace by big Sol. When he was played in behind, he wasted his opportunities. When it was played into his feet, he stumbled or miscontrolled. It was an all-round poor performance from him.

 

I agree completely that there are wider problems and we don't get anywhere near enough supply or support to the forwards. Better strikers than him would also struggle in this team. 

[inckley fox]

Just now, Guest said:

But the wider context isn't really relevant when discussing his performance in that one game. He was shit - and that's fine, by the way. There's not a player in the world that doesn't have the sort of game he had yesterday. I don't think anyone's trying to make him a scapegoat for anything, or blaming him for the defeat. Nobody is saying "Vardy is shit", they're saying that, in that game, he was shit, which he was. He wasn't the only one by any means, but we're not talking about the collective performance, we're talking about him. If it makes you feel better, I also thought Gray and Albrighton were shit.

 

Ideally yes, he'd be more involved, he'd have more chances, but I can't judge him hypothetically. I can only judge him based on what I actually saw him do - not the midfield, not Puel, just him. And the things he did were, on the whole, not good i.e. missing one of our best chances, wasting good attacking opportunities with poor control, getting roasted for pace by big Sol. When he was played in behind, he wasted his opportunities. When it was played into his feet, he stumbled or miscontrolled. It was an all-round poor performance from him.

 

I agree completely that there are wider problems and we don't get anywhere near enough supply or support to the forwards. Better strikers than him would also struggle in this team. 

I agree with pretty much all of this. The one thing I'd add is that some people are making this a wider issue about Vardy's contribution, and some of my earlier posts in these threads (which you're better off not bothering to review) were arguing against that.

[volpeazzurro]

20 minutes ago, l444ry said:

Far points. All easy after the event but maybe Simpson on at right back and move Ricardo forward might have been better. Leaving a workhorse like Hamza out altogether looks questionable as well. The manager talks about intensity and tempo but Ghezzal and Nacho are poor examples of those attributes,

Yes, Simpson etc is a good alternative I think. The Choudhury one is odd as he wasn't even on the bench? However he had taken quite a knock shortly before he was taken off against Man City. I'd also heard (gossip only) that he was carrying a slight injury but should be fit for Everton. Puel said something slightly different in interview so who knows. Possibly, knowing that he only wanted to field two midfielders, he picked who he considered to be his best two having evaluated all three's fitness (in line with certain individuals on here saying he should pick his best team). The team we fielded in fairness should have been good enough to win but also shows how short of quality we are in some positions.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, inckley fox said:

I agree with pretty much all of this. The one thing I'd add is that some people are making this a wider issue about Vardy's contribution, and some of my earlier posts in these threads (which you're better off not bothering to review) were arguing against that.

Yeah I don't think you can really argue that he's the problem at all. He does seem to have gradually lost a yard of pace but the same was true last season and he scored 20. I don't even think that he's not suited to a possession style because he's good enough to adapt and he's far from the run in behind one-trick pony some people think he is. It's more that he's not suited to a team that creates very little in the way of clear cut chances, just like every other striker in the world. Bring in a quality centre midfielder and winger who can actually create, commit more players forward and I reckon we get much more out of both him and Iheanacho. They're both capable but they need help.

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

Gray has come out in an interview and said the loss to cardiff was just "a bad day at the office" and "things like that happen" and it was "a quality goal"...

 

Lazy little thick c***

 

That instagram-bellend needs to go on loan/sale/holiday to Blackpool

[fuchsntf]

24 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

Gray has come out in an interview and said the loss to cardiff was just "a bad day at the office" and "things like that happen" and it was "a quality goal"...

 

Lazy little thick c***

 

That instagram-bellend needs to go on loan/sale/holiday to Blackpool

You seem a tad angry......

We have no other youngster who can push him off the field then off the bench....

plus ..only IMO ,we should give him this season to prove he can cut it... He's just so inconsistent,and frustrating.

With Albrighton,also showing he gets tired,and can slip out of a game....(still my 1st name on gameda y list )

I would then set up so we see Choudry/ndidi/Mendy playing then with Maddison in the hole,behind......who anyone wants to choose!!!!

 

funny but against Cardiff/last ten game,again it wasn't our defence that s the problem...but the front 6, not taking their chances,or not using the created spaces.

Then not supporting or falling back to cover.   Since October we have given away simple goals,while not converting those same type of chances ourselves!!

Grays up and down form in the same game,is bloody frustrating,but we should push his potential to see if he can find his level...

 

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

37 minutes ago, fuchsntf said:

You seem a tad angry......

We have no other youngster who can push him off the field then off the bench....

plus ..only IMO ,we should give him this season to prove he can cut it... He's just so inconsistent,and frustrating.

With Albrighton,also showing he gets tired,and can slip out of a game....(still my 1st name on gameda y list )

I would then set up so we see Choudry/ndidi/Mendy playing then with Maddison in the hole,behind......who anyone wants to choose!!!!

 

funny but against Cardiff/last ten game,again it wasn't our defence that s the problem...but the front 6, not taking their chances,or not using the created spaces.

Then not supporting or falling back to cover.   Since October we have given away simple goals,while not converting those same type of chances ourselves!!

Grays up and down form in the same game,is bloody frustrating,but we should push his potential to see if he can find his level...

 

Was only trolling mate

 

Goes to show how a lot of fans are though...

 

I like Gray. I think he has improved and could well come good

[deep blue]

3 hours ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

Gray has come out in an interview and said the loss to cardiff was just "a bad day at the office" and "things like that happen" and it was "a quality goal"...

 

Lazy little thick c***

 

That instagram-bellend needs to go on loan/sale/holiday to Blackpool

More tellingly, in my view, he also referred to the differing fitness and fatigue levels in the squad. That, to me, indicates that several of those selected weren't really fit enough to fully compete in a third game.

 

Should Puel have heeded this and refreshed the team more, or would that have weakened the quality too much? It's a difficult question to answer.

[filbertway]

Should have won but we missed a golden chance. That's really all there is right? Make a bigger deal if you want, but you'd be pretty special to do so.

[Monsell1976]

On 29/12/2018 at 21:13, H.a.r.r.y said:

why are the Cardiff fans so obsessed with the English?

 

Why are they even in the English league, and why would their fans want to be if they hate us so much, other than the obvious money

[Monsell1976]

5 hours ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

Was only trolling mate

 

Goes to show how a lot of fans are though...

 

I like Gray. I think he has improved and could well come good

 Agreed with your first post, trolling or not.

 Gray has been here long enough to improve on his alleged promise, but I have seen very little improvement from the player we signed from Birmingham, so how long do we wait for him to come good.

 

 His touch a lot of the times is poor, his decision making most of the time is appalling, and disappears a lot in games.

 Look at chilwell, improved season upon season, with until this season limited opportunities, now made himself first choice, and a England international.

 

 I would personally send gray out on loan, to perfect his game, as he’s not ready to play in the top flight, other than a sub at best, obviously in my opinion 

Edited 31 December 2018 by Monsell1976