Rafa Benitez

[The Doctor]

17 minutes ago, MPH said:

 

i was never bored of Liverpool when Rafa was in charge... they were willing to financially back him... the Rafa of Newcastle has not been financially backed. Only so much you can polish a turd...

Liverpool under him were still a defence minded team. As were every other team he's managed. It's not about backing, that's his philosophy.

[MPH]

Just now, The Doctor said:

Liverpool under him were still a defence minded team. As were every other team he's managed. It's not about backing, that's his philosophy.

 

 

quite enjoyed watching liverpool whilst Rafa was in charge.

 

If anything, he shows the way Puel should do it- with a supposed defensive set up yet still able to get the supply/ support his attackers needed...

[Jimmy]

2 minutes ago, MPH said:

 

 

quite enjoyed watching liverpool whilst Rafa was in charge.

 

If anything, he shows the way Puel should do it- with a supposed defensive set up yet still able to get the supply/ support his attackers needed...

well if Puel had a prime Gerrard, Alonso and Torres he might

[The Doctor]

4 minutes ago, MPH said:

 

 

quite enjoyed watching liverpool whilst Rafa was in charge.

 

If anything, he shows the way Puel should do it- with a supposed defensive set up yet still able to get the supply/ support his attackers needed...

Not going to disagree, but then I enjoy watching us under Puel. Doesn't change that he is from the school that embodies all the criticisms of Puel. 

[Leicesterpool]

6 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

Liverpool under him were still a defence minded team. As were every other team he's managed. It's not about backing, that's his philosophy.

Still won him the champions league in 2005, come back from what 0-3 down was it? Also winning the Europa League in 2013 in Chelsea despite getting a lot of stick from his own fans. 

[The Doctor]

25 minutes ago, Leicesterpool said:

Still won him the champions league in 2005, come back from what 0-3 down was it? Also winning the Europa League in 2013 in Chelsea despite getting a lot of stick from his own fans. 

Yes, he had success playing that way but do you want to go back to the actual point? That he's a pragmatic, defence first manager who'd rather keep it tight and sit on a 1-0 than look to stretch it to 3 or 4? That his philosophy is what Puel gets criticised for?

 

People who want Puel out because it's a bit dull, and want to replace him with Rafa, are barking.

Edited 28 January 2019 by The Doctor

[Corky]

No one is doubting his quality as a manager but I thought the main argument against Puel was his style of play, not his previous work?

[Leicesterpool]

16 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

Yes, he had success playing that way but do you want to go back to the actual point? That he's a pragmatic, defence first manager who'd rather keep it tight and sit on a 1-0 than look to stretch it to 3 or 4? That his philosophy is what Puel gets criticised for?

 

People who want Puel out because it's a bit dull, and want to replace him with Rafa, are barking.

Difference is Rafa got the best of his players, they took there chances when they got them. At the moment he's trying to keep a championship squad in the top flight. Puel on the other hand has squad full of good players that are underachieving under him. 

 

Let's take it from another angle right, if Puel had won the league cup in February, Would anyone be calling for him to go?... 

Edited 28 January 2019 by Leicesterpool

[Jimmy]

2 minutes ago, Leicesterpool said:

Difference is Rafa got the best of his players, they took there chances when they got them. At the moment he's trying to keep a championship squad in the top flight. Puel on the other hand has squad full of good players that are underachieving under him. 

how is he underachieving we have a midtable, 7th at best squad and we are in midtable within touching distance of 7th

[fuchsntf]

2 minutes ago, Leicesterpool said:

Difference is Rafa got the best of his players, they took there chances when they got them. At the moment he's trying to keep a championship squad in the top flight. Puel on the other hand has squad full of good players that are underachieving under him. 

Or fans overeating the squad...

[Foxhateram]

6 hours ago, filbertway said:

In a sick sort of way it'd be funny to see the same fans foaming at the mouth when we're not scoring 2 or 3 a week and dominating games. At least under Puel we have some control in games, Benitez would have us backs to the wall and lumping it long again. Although that's apparently the Leicester way so maybe he'd be popular.

For god sake, we never 'lumped it long' we played direct counter attacking football, and not only was it far more entertaining, it also get better results than our current style of play. 

 

Some are so unbelievably quick to scrap the playing style that won the league and is adopted by many currently successful teams.

[Jimmy]

6 minutes ago, Foxhateram said:

For god sake, we never 'lumped it long' we played direct counter attacking football, and not only was it far more entertaining, it also get better results than our current style of play. 

 

Some are so unbelievably quick to scrap the playing style that won the league and is adopted by many currently successful teams.

we didn't play the style that won the league after we wont the league and cannot play that way without Kante, what we ended up doing was having Drinkwater so deep he may as well have been playing in a back 3 or Wes twatting it long.

 

and as soon as we came up against someone that sat deep we were lost with no clue how to attack, we might not be that good at it yet but at least what have a bit of a clue, where as some people think counter attack is a golden bullet that would win every week again, it won't, you cannot counter a team that doesn't attack

[MPH]

44 minutes ago, Jimmy said:

well if Puel had a prime Gerrard, Alonso and Torres he might

 

 

well we wont be challenging for them prem and he DID aquire those players so we can’t really judge him on what players he may or may not sign for us..

[MPH]

1 hour ago, The Doctor said:

Not going to disagree, but then I enjoy watching us under Puel. Doesn't change that he is from the school that embodies all the criticisms of Puel. 

that’s probably my biggest complaint -I find watching football under puel is awful... painful to watch

[Foxhateram]

25 minutes ago, Jimmy said:

we didn't play the style that won the league after we wont the league and cannot play that way without Kante, what we ended up doing was having Drinkwater so deep he may as well have been playing in a back 3 or Wes twatting it long.

 

and as soon as we came up against someone that sat deep we were lost with no clue how to attack, we might not be that good at it yet but at least what have a bit of a clue, where as some people think counter attack is a golden bullet that would win every week again, it won't, you cannot counter a team that doesn't attack

We scored more goals the season after we won the league than we are now.... 

 

Admittedly we conversed more too, but our league position was similar time. Can't have been that bad. 

 

 

[Guest]

25 minutes ago, Foxhateram said:

For god sake, we never 'lumped it long' we played direct counter attacking football, and not only was it far more entertaining, it also get better results than our current style of play. 

 

Some are so unbelievably quick to scrap the playing style that won the league and is adopted by many currently successful teams.

Do you remember what happened when we tried to continue playing that style after we won the league, after having lost the most important player in that team? Lingering on the edge of a relegation battle under Ranieri and Shakespeare wasn't what I'd call entertaining. You can only counter attack when there's actually an attack to counter. We haven't scrapped it at all, as evidenced by the way we've played against some of the better, more attacking teams this season. But the club obviously recognise the need for us to become more well-rounded and have more tricks up our sleeve than countering with Vardy, hence the aim to become better at looking after the ball and controlling the game against teams who turn up looking to stifle rather than attack. Puel himself has said this, though you could obviously argue he's not doing a brilliant job of it.

 

"We won the league playing that way so why don't we go back to it?" ignores the fact that the circumstances and players available to us are now completely different to then. No Kante, no Mahrez, no Drinkwater, no Huth, everyone else three years older and less effective. Away teams aren't turning up to the relegation favourites and rubbing their hands together, they're coming to the home of the former champions and a solid top half side. I wish it was as simple as flicking the switch, playing on the break and watching the good times roll - no doubt everyone at the club wishes this too - but it isn't. 

 

 

 

 

[HighPeakFox]

12 minutes ago, Guest said:

Do you remember what happened when we tried to continue playing that style after we won the league, after having lost the most important player in that team? Lingering on the edge of a relegation battle under Ranieri and Shakespeare wasn't what I'd call entertaining. You can only counter attack when there's actually an attack to counter. We haven't scrapped it at all, as evidenced by the way we've played against some of the better, more attacking teams this season. But the club obviously recognise the need for us to become more well-rounded and have more tricks up our sleeve than countering with Vardy, hence the aim to become better at looking after the ball and controlling the game against teams who turn up looking to stifle rather than attack. Puel himself has said this, though you could obviously argue he's not doing a brilliant job of it.

 

"We won the league playing that way so why don't we go back to it?" ignores the fact that the circumstances and players available to us are now completely different to then. No Kante, no Mahrez, no Drinkwater, no Huth, everyone else three years older and less effective. Away teams aren't turning up to the relegation favourites and rubbing their hands together, they're coming to the home of the former champions and a solid top half side. I wish it was as simple as flicking the switch, playing on the break and watching the good times roll - no doubt everyone at the club wishes this too - but it isn't. 

 

 

 

 

Don't be so bloody reasonable.

[Mehrez]

1 hour ago, Foxhateram said:

For god sake, we never 'lumped it long' we played direct counter attacking football, and not only was it far more entertaining, it also get better results than our current style of play. 

 

Some are so unbelievably quick to scrap the playing style that won the league and is adopted by many currently successful teams.

It’s definitely not been scrapped:

2018/19 (to date)

Goals from counter attack = 6 (more than anyone else in the league)

2015/16

Goals from counter attack = 6

 

Edited 28 January 2019 by Mehrez

[volpeazzurro]

3 hours ago, MPH said:

 

i was never bored of Liverpool when Rafa was in charge... they were willing to financially back him... the Rafa of Newcastle has not been financially backed. Only so much you can polish a turd...

With the exception of Torres which was a no brainer you'll find his recruitment at Liverpool was costly and piss poor!  Getting rid of Alonso was a stunning move as well I suppose, he wasn't much of a success elsewhere was he ?

[volpeazzurro]

3 hours ago, StanSP said:

Imagine Puel saying this  

 

Fans would utterly despite Rafa. Careful what you wish for for anyone who wants him in over Puel.

You're absolutely right though on this particular occasion he's right, as was Puel the twice we played them recently with some success.

[MPH]

16 minutes ago, volpeazzurro said:

With the exception of Torres which was a no brainer you'll find his recruitment at Liverpool was costly and piss poor!  Getting rid of Alonso was a stunning move as well I suppose, he wasn't much of a success elsewhere was he ?

 Think he did well in the transfer market. had some great players. certainly wasn’t costly either... i think over the time he was there he only had a net spend of 75 million.

 

And also you use the term ‘getting rid of’ very loosely.... he got rid of him in the same way we got rid of Mahrez.

Edited 28 January 2019 by MPH

[Kitchandro]

2 hours ago, Foxhateram said:

For god sake, we never 'lumped it long' we played direct counter attacking football, and not only was it far more entertaining, it also get better results than our current style of play. 

 

Some are so unbelievably quick to scrap the playing style that won the league and is adopted by many currently successful teams.

Depends what you mean by never - In 2015 -16 you're totally right. Under Shakespeare we just started lumping it long with no idea. They are 2 totally different things and it's important to remember that because there are many ignoramuses on here who seem to think they are the same thing.

 

1 hour ago, Guest said:

Do you remember what happened when we tried to continue playing that style after we won the league, after having lost the most important player in that team? Lingering on the edge of a relegation battle under Ranieri and Shakespeare wasn't what I'd call entertaining. You can only counter attack when there's actually an attack to counter. We haven't scrapped it at all, as evidenced by the way we've played against some of the better, more attacking teams this season. But the club obviously recognise the need for us to become more well-rounded and have more tricks up our sleeve than countering with Vardy, hence the aim to become better at looking after the ball and controlling the game against teams who turn up looking to stifle rather than attack. Puel himself has said this, though you could obviously argue he's not doing a brilliant job of it.

 

"We won the league playing that way so why don't we go back to it?" ignores the fact that the circumstances and players available to us are now completely different to then. No Kante, no Mahrez, no Drinkwater, no Huth, everyone else three years older and less effective. Away teams aren't turning up to the relegation favourites and rubbing their hands together, they're coming to the home of the former champions and a solid top half side. I wish it was as simple as flicking the switch, playing on the break and watching the good times roll - no doubt everyone at the club wishes this too - but it isn't. 

 

 

 

 

You however are totally wrong, and I'm sick of having to explain football tactics to people who seem intent on rewriting history.

 

Let me preface this by explaining what 'that style of play' was when we won the league, because there's a lot of nonsense spouted about it being a long ball game or simply counter attacking football. Counter attacking football was just one element of it. It was based around a high press and both attacking and defending as a team. It was also based on individual players doing specific job. It mostly revolved around winning the ball high up the pitch and attacking with speed and numbers.

This is obviously the total opposite to how Puel plays. And yes it is also worth saying that this style is very similar to what both Liverpool and Manchester City play now - top teams with forward thinking, modern coaches. In our case particularly, the philosophy was clearly to get the ball and our players forwards as quickly as possible in order to prevent the opposition from getting organised. And sometimes this involved accurate, early long balls (often towards Vardy).

 

Now, getting back to you being wrong. We DID NOT, I'll repeat that, DID NOT try to play that style the season after we won the league. That is a fact, you can watch a re-run of the very first match against Hull if you like. That is why we were dull and poor that season, it's why we were dull and poor under Shakespeare and it's why we are dull and poor now.

 

Ranieri, incorrectly, thought we couldn't play that style without Kante and panicked, deciding instead to implement a slow tempo, possession based game that didn't and still doesn't work. Kante was always going to be a loss but we proved sporadically that we could still be a force when playing the 2015-16 way in a handful of games that season. 2 of these were against Manchester City (4-2) and Liverpool (3-1).

 

We even employed a lot of these aspects and a similar style in the run-in of our great escapre under Pearson, without Kante, against largely average, defensive teams. It's not a style of play that relies on teams coming at you, it's just a superior style of play, that most of the successful teams are playing now.

 

Almost every good and entertaining performance I can remember in recent years has been playing a positive, high pressing, high tempo game. You need high energy players to play this. You need players who have specific qualities; ball winners, pacey attackers, players who are talented enough and brave enough to get their head up early and take risks in possession. You do not need Mahrez and Kante.

 

No, we aren't going to win the league going back to this style because we have lost at least 2 world class players from 3 years ago. But if we did play that way we'd be slaughtering most of the teams in this league because we've still got Vardy, who was more key to that style of play than Mahrez or Kante was. We can't play it with Iheanacho because he's useless - but you can't play any style effectively with useless players. Hence why we need to buy the sort of players that suit this style of play.

 

We don't need to look after the ball better or 'control the game', we need to score more goals than the oppsition. Preferably, we should be scoring a lot, because that's a) fun and b) what football is about. Looking after the ball does not make you more likely to score, it doesn't even make you less likely to concede, contrary to popular belief. Forcing a team back makes them less likely to score. There is no such thing as controlling the game, a match can change in an instant so it's important that you give yourself the best chance of scoring plenty of goals in case they get a lucky one. It's just common sense.

 

As for Benitez, I think the mere mention of his name typifies where we've gone wrong over the last 3 seasons. It's not important how many trophies he has won, how long he has been in the game, or if he has Premier League experience. He is a has-been. He is the safe option. We need to start appointing managers who are the future. Managers who are interested in building something long term for themselves and a football club. Managers who have a positive philosophy and ambition and aren't just here to collect a paycheque.

 

This probably means we have never heard of them, and almost certainly means they haven't managed in the Premier League before.

Edited 28 January 2019 by Kitchandro

[The Doctor]

3 hours ago, Leicesterpool said:

Difference is Rafa got the best of his players, they took there chances when they got them. At the moment he's trying to keep a championship squad in the top flight. Puel on the other hand has squad full of good players that are underachieving under him. 

 

Let's take it from another angle right, if Puel had won the league cup in February, Would anyone be calling for him to go?... 

So, you're saying the issue is a lack of results, not the play style? Well then given we've been an average midtable side, matching really our ability to invest, that's kinda stupid. Most managers wouldn't be able to get us beyond a fight for 7th.

[deep blue]

Kitchandro,

 

That's a great post which explains much more accurately how we played in the great escape and during our Prem win, and how we should be playing now.

[koop.]

To be fair he's won more than all previous Leicester managers put together, so quite why everyone is palming this off as if we're getting Ian Holloway back is beyond me....

 

Champions League

EFL Title

Europa League

Fifa Club 

Coppa Italia 

FA Cup

La Liga title 

Uefa Cup

...................................worked wonders at Newcastle

 

Why the **** would you want a manager like that at the club........next