Is Boring Football the worst kind of Football?

[BenTheFox]

40 minutes ago, Fox92 said:

I think people forget it was shit under Shakespeare and during Ranieri's second season.

I'm not going to defend Puel after performances like that, but this has happened under the last three managers. Maybe these players need to take responsibility too?

[hejammy]

20 minutes ago, StriderHiryu said:

Why post this today though when the match was anything but boring!?

 

The game had a sending off, a penalty, we had 23 shots, 6 on goal and 10 corners. We threw everything we had at Southampton who camped in their own half to get the three points, and credit to them for digging in. The result was crap, the individual performances poor, but boring?! We were going hell for leather until the end of the game.

 

To answer your question, yes boring football is the worst kind. Like the sort of shit we had to endure at the beginning of last season under Shakespeare against West Brom, Huddersfield and Bournemouth. Or the shit that we endured after winning the title when every team sat back to counter our counter attack and we kept hoofing the ball up aimlessly to Vardy for 90 minutes. Or any one of the seasons when we were on the decline after entering the doldrums of the lower reaches of the Championship.

 

At least under our current management we are trying to pass the ball around. We might be crap at it, but we at least we are trying to move in the right direction.

Not sure if you were at the game bud, but it was hardly 'hell for leather' it was still lathergic and slow (except for 1 or 2 moments) only reason we had so many shots was because Southampton decided to sit back and soak up whatever we gave them, which got to a point where we just started taking pot shots from outside the area (maddision was the biggest culprit for this) and the shots were no where near! 

[Gubbins]

9 minutes ago, StriderHiryu said:

Why post this today though when the match was anything but boring!?

 

The game had a sending off, a penalty, we had 23 shots, 6 on goal and 10 corners. We threw everything we had at Southampton who camped in their own half to get the three points, and credit to them for digging in. The result was crap, the individual performances poor, but boring?! We were going hell for leather until the end of the game.

 

To answer your question, yes boring football is the worst kind. Like the sort of shit we had to endure at the beginning of last season under Shakespeare against West Brom, Huddersfield and Bournemouth. Or the shit that we endured after winning the title when every team sat back to counter our counter attack and we kept hoofing the ball up aimlessly to Vardy for 90 minutes. Or any one of the seasons when we were on the decline after entering the doldrums of the lower reaches of the Championship.

 

At least under our current management we are trying to pass the ball around. We might be crap at it, but we at least we are trying to move in the right direction.

Hell I totally agree with you, 2nd half today was frustrating but not boring. I also find aimless hoofing much worse than our current possession play. Plenty of people have described us as  boring in the post match thread though and it has come up time and again this last few months. Im just interested in why some people find it more objectionable than actually playing God awful full stop.

[StriderHiryu]

2 minutes ago, hejammy said:

Not sure if you were at the game bud, but it was hardly 'hell for leather' it was still lathergic and slow (except for 1 or 2 moments) only reason we had so many shots was because Southampton decided to sit back and soak up whatever we game them, which got to a point where we just started taking pot shots from outside the area (maddision was the biggest culprit for this) and the shots were no where near! 

OK I'll grant you I might have been over exuberant in my assessment of our attempts to get something from the game!

 

But point is that I don't think today was boring. We were crap not boring IMO. There's a difference!

 

When we won the title we were boring in many games. Newcastle at home, Watford away, Southampton at home, Sunderland away, etc, etc. But people didn't complain then because we were winning games and grinding out results.

 

 

[hejammy]

1 hour ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

If anyone thinks our current standard of football is the worst they've ever seen, they clearly haven't been watching us for many seasons.

 

 

I don't think people are saying that, I think with the type of players we have now (and how much they are worth etc) we should be much better. No point in comparing to when we were in league 1 or championship as we didn't have the calibre of player compared to now. Its all relative. 

[Kopic]

Our current "boring" football is better than conference football.

[cropstonfox]

After we hounded Bloomfield out we had Frank Mclintock-boring and crap and relegated. I lean towards Puel out but lets be cafeful what we wish for.!

[Fox92]

10 minutes ago, BenTheFox said:

I'm not going to defend Puel after performances like that, but this has happened under the last three managers. Maybe these players need to take responsibility too?

Definitely. I mean, it’s always down to the manager but players take blame too. Not everything is because of “tactics”.

[Fox92]

5 minutes ago, Kopic said:

Our current "boring" football is better than conference football.

Probably because conference sides don’t buy players for £20m+.

[dooflip]

12 minutes ago, baldeagle said:

And for parts under Pearson 

A lot of people look back on the Pearson period romantically and think he was gods gift.

 

he did a solid job for us and rebuilt from a very low point which I will forever be grateful for, and built a good side, many of whom won the league after he left.

 

but he wasn’t without his faults, and it was hardly rosy all the time. Some of it was downright awful. - his post match interviews rival puels haha. Also he was tactically clueless at times.

 

and he was so stubborn. I’ve still not forgiven him for freezing out knockaert and letting him go on a free?

[Pete from the USA]

Here's the cold truth: We're one of the best counterattacking teams around, but our players aren't skilled enough to do the slick passing needed to break down packed-in defenses. We can beat any team that come out and attack, even Chelsea or Man City, but we're powerless against teams that sit deep, even League 2 sides like Newport County. We look boring against these teams but we really just lack talent.

 

The only ways to fix this are (1) spend £500M in the transfer market or (2) bring in a bunch of youngsters and develop them over 3-4 seasons. Man City famously took option 1. Puel is taking option 2. This is why I don't favor sacking him. Hiring another manager isn't going to make this go faster. 

[inckley fox]

There's an argument that after 8 or 9 mostly exciting years the entertainment value is suffering. Maybe it's a reasonable criticism of Puel (there's no doubt that there's limited attacking intent early in games). Or maybe we're having to get used to the drudgery of being established in the EPL. Certainly, it's possible that fans who got involved on the back of our success from 2014-2016 are saying 'this isn't as much fun as it used to be.' They might not recall Hamilton, Taylor and Bassett, or the chaos that was 2003-04. And they might not recall that we lost to lowly sides under O'Neill, struggled for goals under Bloomfield, and suffered cup upsets under great managers from Wallace to O'Neill.

 

If you look at Puel's reign we've averaged 1.4 goals per game, only 1.2 this season. There have been 2.8 goals either way each game, on average, and only 2.3 this season. 

 

To compare his record with past managers, we scored 1.6 per game under Shakespeare, with 3.2 goals each game, which is a bit wild.

 

Other than that, Puel's stats aren't too far from any of other managers. We scored 1.5 per game under Ranieri, with 2.7 goals each game. And we scored 1.5 per game under Pearson (1.2 in the EPL), with 2.7 goals each game (2.7 in the EPL). If we want to focus solely on Leicester's top flight managers, we scored 1.3 per game under O'Neill, with 2.5 goals in each game. Under the great Bloomfield entertainers we scored 1.1 per game, with an average of 2.3 goals per game, which, depending on your point of view means one of three things: That goals aren't everything, that those who were around in the 1970s remember it with rose tinted specs, or that we're being very harsh on Puel.

 

Yes, this is a relatively dull season in terms of goals and Puel might be a relatively, though by no means exceptionally, dull manager by Leicester standarrds. But we're 11th for goals scored, 13th on the expected goals table and 8th for shots on target, which isn't bad considering we're 6th best for expected goals against. It's not all doom and gloom.

 

So while a greater attacking intent is needed and there's a serious risk that things could go from bad to worse - bringing Puel's role into further question - it's still not true that he's an outstandingly dull manager by mid-table EPL standards, or necessarily Leicester City standards. Not in terms of the goal threat his sides provide, or the goalmouth action in games. I'd have thought today was a good example, even if things went against us, of how entertaining some of our matches can be for neutrals.

 

It was still crap, obviously, but you get the point.

[Gubbins]

18 minutes ago, inckley fox said:

There's an argument that after 8 or 9 mostly exciting years the entertainment value is suffering. Maybe it's a reasonable criticism of Puel (there's no doubt that there's limited attacking intent early in games). Or maybe we're having to get used to the drudgery of being established in the EPL. Certainly, it's possible that fans who got involved on the back of our success from 2014-2016 are saying 'this isn't as much fun as it used to be.' They might not recall Hamilton, Taylor and Bassett, or the chaos that was 2003-04. And they might not recall that we lost to lowly sides under O'Neill, struggled for goals under Bloomfield, and suffered cup upsets under great managers from Wallace to O'Neill.

 

If you look at Puel's reign we've averaged 1.4 goals per game, only 1.2 this season. There have been 2.8 goals either way each game, on average, and only 2.3 this season. 

 

To compare his record with past managers, we scored 1.6 per game under Shakespeare, with 3.2 goals each game, which is a bit wild.

 

Other than that, Puel's stats aren't too far from any of other managers. We scored 1.5 per game under Ranieri, with 2.7 goals each game. And we scored 1.5 per game under Pearson (1.2 in the EPL), with 2.7 goals each game (2.7 in the EPL). If we want to focus solely on Leicester's top flight managers, we scored 1.3 per game under O'Neill, with 2.5 goals in each game. Under the great Bloomfield entertainers we scored 1.1 per game, with an average of 2.3 goals per game, which, depending on your point of view means one of three things: That goals aren't everything, that those who were around in the 1970s remember it with rose tinted specs, or that we're being very harsh on Puel.

 

Yes, this is a relatively dull season in terms of goals and Puel might be a relatively, though by no means exceptionally, dull manager by Leicester standarrds. But we're 11th for goals scored, 13th on the expected goals table and 8th for shots on target, which isn't bad considering we're 6th best for expected goals against. It's not all doom and gloom.

 

So while a greater attacking intent is needed and there's a serious risk that things could go from bad to worse - bringing Puel's role into further question - it's still not true that he's an outstandingly dull manager by mid-table EPL standards, or necessarily Leicester City standards. Not in terms of the goal threat his sides provide, or the goalmouth action in games. I'd have thought today was a good example, even if things went against us, of how entertaining some of our matches can be for neutrals.

 

It was still crap, obviously, but you get the point.

Top statting there! The Shakespeare era stats are particularly interesting as lots of goals but still ended up in the relegation zone and a lot of the football was awful hoof based stuff. Maybe the reduction of goals from this period is what people are referring to when they talk about Puel sucking the life out of us. It surely can't be the quality of football decreasing.

 

[inckley fox]

26 minutes ago, Pete from the USA said:

Here's the cold truth: We're one of the best counterattacking teams around, but our players aren't skilled enough to do the slick passing needed to break down packed-in defenses. We can beat any team that come out and attack, even Chelsea or Man City, but we're powerless against teams that sit deep, even League 2 sides like Newport County. We look boring against these teams but we really just lack talent.

 

The only ways to fix this are (1) spend £500M in the transfer market or (2) bring in a bunch of youngsters and develop them over 3-4 seasons. Man City famously took option 1. Puel is taking option 2. This is why I don't favor sacking him. Hiring another manager isn't going to make this go faster. 

I agree with a lot of what you say, and tentatively agree on the last part too, but there are multiple ways of breaking sides down that pack defences without spending 500m.

 

A good start is obviously not to concede an early goal with needless errors, because then they'll sit even deeper. Another is to give yourself more of an outlet - perhaps not playing so many DMs, or not defending corners with 11 men are possibilities.

 

And we have to remember that we're exceptionally poor right now at breaking down weaker sides - regardless of what side we put out - to the extent that we can't find a cutting edge against sides from the fourth tier, or sides with ten men. It begs the question 'what makes other sides better than us at breaking teams down?'

 

And a quick glance through the league will show you that sides don't necessarily need to be slick passers, or play elaborate slow build-up football in order to break down packed defences. A strong physical attacking presence when crosses are whipped in (did someone say we had 44 crosses today, of which 6 were met?) could help, and taking the positive forward pass, committing men forward, having a greater attacking intent early in games all play a part.

 

So we don't need to sack him, and yes we should build a long-term project, but I can't accept that we don't have the talent on offer to break down Newport, or ten man Southampton. And the answer might not be to buy or develop players suited to Puel's game, it might be for Puel to tweak what his game actually is.

[Foxaholic ME]

1 hour ago, lcfc sheff said:

Feck me sideways, when do teams play attractive football consistently outside the top 6? 

 

I think people overexaggerate as we’re now an established prem team, who are stuck in the middle; no fear of relegation to make things interesting nor are we guaranteed Europe. I can understand frustration; but the reality is the football style is not gonna change much unless we invest in the big players; which as we are all aware isn’t how we do things nowadays. I personally think it’s the quality of players who cost us at the moment; which isn’t something easily changed contrary to belief.

Apart  from lately gates were much better when fighting relegation  chasing promotion  rather than mid table. Like West Ham I think Leicester put entertainment before results that is why the Bloomfield era was so popular  although you could argue we were mid table then  but then possiblly now people liked heavy wins and a few heavy losses  . When we won the league I have heard numerous people say that the Arsenal 5-2 defeat was a great game  few said that when we beat Norwich 1-0

[Trav Le Bleu]

1 hour ago, lcfceaves said:

It’s not the worst obviously, however we’ve all seen worse because we had worse players... a lot worse... this group and manager should be doing more

Should?

 

Should be competing on a regular basis with teams who play in stadia that are practically twice the size of use from cities even more than twice the size of us, (though in that last respect... Birmingham, Bristol, Leeds, Newcastle... we're not doing too bad)?

 

And let me make it quite clear, by competing, I mean regularly beating the top six, expecting to beat them and other people expecting it too. 

 

But obviously, being able to sometimes beat the best teams in the world just isn't good enough for City fans any more.

 

I like could rather than should. It's far more exciting.

[An Away Move]

The only thing I miss about being in League One is the absence of the nuts fans we seem to have now. They have barely had it so good but they’d have the current manager on a pitchfork if they could. 

[filbertway]

What is exciting football? Weve had 24 shots on goal. A shot every 3 ot 4 minutes.

 

Its not gonna change till the summer. Limited footballers are limited.

[nepa fox]

No. The worst football is losing football. With a bit of underachieving mixed in. Boring i can handle, if we r winning games we can/should be winning. Jose has been doing it for years. It can be successful even if its not all that interesting to view

[TheLittleBigMan]

Mods. enough of these objective threads please. 

[Nicolo Barella]

6 hours ago, Gubbins said:

It's been posted many times by many posters over the past year about how boring our football is and how they no longer want to go because of it. Often with the addition of saying they've never felt like that before in X years of support. Now regardless of your feelings on Puel I think nearly all of us agree we've seen far worse city sides play a lot worse than we are currently. Is it just hyperbole or was it actually more exciting watching some of our poorer sides struggle in the past? If you are one of the people I've mentioned why didn't you want to stop going when we were being turned over the majority of the time as opposed to sporadically now?

I'm not Puel out but I will try to empathise. I think people are so upset about this football because there seems to be no end in sight to Puel's "style of football", no quick fix like there was for Ranieri or Shakespeare.

 

Before when we played awful, there was the hope of managers getting sacked. But if a 5-0 loss to Crystal Palace was not enough to convince the board to abandon the project, I doubt anything would be (barring longer term failure to meet the management's criteria, which could be a long way away depending on the board's goals), and it seems that we're stuck with a very slowly improving, inconsistent style of football.

 

For some people, short term entertainment (watching the games) is too big a part of the experience of supporting a club to look past, and that is fair enough, especially if you are paying to go to matches. 

 

It's the seemingly long term period of mediocre football that people are more upset about resigning to, not the fact that it's poor now. 

[dayday]

It is boring at the moment as we just don’t have the players, hopefully now with Harvey back and a few more additions we will be a different team.

 

I would love us to sign a Andy Carroll type player, it’s to easy for the supposedly weaker sides when we go a goal behind, we can ping 50 balls in the box and with Vardy as our only striker, it’s to easy for the opposition defences.

 

 

[Monk]

8 hours ago, Mint23 said:

Losing football isn’t the worst kind, boring football is. 

 

I recall sitting watching us lose at home to Colchester in our championship relegation season. It wasn’t just losing football - it was hopeless, insipid, disorganised and just awful to watch, boos through the game boos at the end. An incapable squad and incapable manager. 

 

Maybe these things are easily forgotten - but a bad game against Southampton where we have periods of the game where we might have got a draw or more, we have an exciting squad and are playing for 7/8 position in the premier league. 

 

Its not not even a comparison to make - yes neither are much fun on the day but be grateful for what we have. This era of the club won’t last forever. 

[FrankieADZ]

boring football for me is losing and lack of effort from the players ala like we've had a good few times this season

[Mark 'expert' Lawrenson]

The seemingly obsession with possession of the ball and yet doing very little with it is so dull, we learnt during our title winning season a high possession stat is the most pointless stat going, its what you do with the ball that counts and we do very little with it.