Why do we always struggle in the big games?

[Nalis]

Just now, st albans fox said:

We got four ?

Ah you are right, momentarily thought the 0-0 after the restart was Brighton away not at home.  Posted edited and point still stands that we should have had a better return in those games.

[Leicester_Loyal]

4 minutes ago, Cadno'r Cymoedd said:

I have not got any rep left but this is much of it.

 

It's been clear we've lacked a real outfield leader since before Christmas. When the heat is on, we needed someone to step up and get stuck in.

 

Having a little book and pencil on the sidelines doesn't make you a tactical genius. Quite the opposite as we've seen. So many poor changes in formation and personnel between and in games. Last night summed it up. 

 

That mentality of 5th or 6th will be good enough for the likes of Leicester that even some on here share. We were 2nd and playing brilliantly in November. That is what is so soul destroying. We blew this and saying 5th or 6th is great doesn't wash. 

Spot on. We should all be furious that we’ve blown second, yet the ones that are get told they’re ‘entitled’ or that the league win has ‘ruined the fanbase’. The mentality of the players is the same as some of the fans, happy to accept mediocrity.  

[foxfanazer]

1 minute ago, Ian Nacho said:

It’s always going to be difficult to get into the Champions League when you don’t beat the teams in and around you. I know we collapsed against someone lower down the table yesterday, but the team highest in the table we’ve beat is Sheff Utd in 7th. That has to be of concern. 4 points out of 9 games against teams in the top 6 currently isn’t good enough if we want to be pushing for those Champions League places. 

The way we set up in those big games have been a disgrace this season. Think all the way back to that United game. Didn't even have a go despite us being in great form at that point 

[Leicester_Loyal]

1 minute ago, foxfanazer said:

The way we set up in those big games have been a disgrace this season. Think all the way back to that United game. Didn't even have a go despite us being in great form at that point 

These last three games will be key for me, let’s see how we play against 3 of the big boys. We got absolutely schooled by Chelsea in the second half of the cup and by Arsenal in the first half last week, our point only came because they went down to 10 men. 
 

To me, as Dan has already said, he’s a coward, he seems so scared of losing, it’s like we’re setting up for a 0-0 from the kick offs (or at least we were in all the big games before March). 

[Cadno'r Cymoedd]

5 hours ago, Jordan said:

When I've been thinking about Leicester City post-restart, I've thought often about how Brendan Rodgers had his squad watch "The Last Dance" during lockdown. 

 

For those of you unfamiliar with this series, it's a 10-part documentary about Michael Jordan's last season with the Chicago Bulls, and his career in general.

(some spoilers below for those that may want to see it, and if you've watched it, you can probably also skip ahead).

---------

MJ was probably the most ruthless competitor in pro team sports history, having a will to win that was far stronger than any of his rivals. Not only that, but MJ supplemented his competitive drive with an absolutely extraordinary pettiness. Just about every episode in that series features a moment where MJ was facing a challenge, took personal offense to something someone else said or did, and used that spite as motivation to crush his opponent (even forming vendettas from the most benign perceived slights, such as an opposing coach not saying hello to him in a restaurant, or a player on another team having the nerve to simply play well in a season or even in just one game).

 

MJ's competitiveness was also so extreme that he wouldn't tolerate any teammate sharing nothing less than 100% commitment to winning. He was probably often a miserable person to be around, but his competitiveness was the driving force behind a 6x-championship dynasty that ranks as perhaps the greatest team in American sports history.

 

Dennis Rodman was prone to bouts of mayhem and wild escapades, but the vast majority of time on court, he was an absolute animal when it came to rebounding and defense. Rodman paid closer attention to his opponents' tendencies and how the ball bounced off of the rim than any other player in the league. He knew what his opponent was going to do before his opponent even thought it. Pundits thought Rodman would never mesh with Jordan, but Rodman's single-mindedness when it came to the dirty work in basketball wound up being a perfect fit.

 

Once, during a particularly intense practice, Jordan got so incensed by physical play from bench player Steve Kerr that he punched Kerr in the face and was kicked out of practice. As that story gets told in "The Last Dance," that moment wound up being the catalyst that forged respect between Jordan and Kerr (because he showed MJ he was not one to back down, not even from the best player in the world). Like, Michael Jordan actually assaulted a teammate and that was the moment that wound up bringing them closer together. Yes, that is so absurd that I had to type it out again. At the end of that season, it was Kerr that made the game winning shot to win the 1997 NBA Finals. Even a substitute player like Kerr--a player that never started a single game in 5 seasons with the Bulls--had to have the same mentality as the greatest player in basketball history.

 

The list of big games and big moments where MJ and the Bulls rose to the occasion stretches for miles.

 

This attitude isn't something that lends itself to motivational slogans or posters in business office break rooms. MJ's mentality teetered on the edge of psychosis. I can't fully wrap my mind around this kind of level of competitiveness..

------------

Apparently, Leicester City's players were supposed to watch this and learn what it takes to be a winner.

 

So, now that we know about "The Last Dance," I'll rhetorically ask: is there anything about City's play since restart that resembles Jordan and the 1997-98 Bulls in any way?

 

There were maybe some aspects similar to this before Rodgers signed his contract extension (such as showing no mercy to any team that fell to 10 men, or Jamie Vardy going on a huge scoring streak that was fueled entirely by spite). But even before lockdown, City failed to win the big games they had, and around Christmas and on through the new year, that lack of ability to rise to big occasions became something more significant.

 

One would perhaps wonder if anything would maybe be different about City as they approached big games after lockdown, and after watching "The Last Dance." Clearly, that is not the case.

 

That kind of stuff just isn't going to work with the personalities we have on this team. The only player really like a 1990s Chicago Bull on our team is Vardy, who is a complete one-of-a-kind player. When a manager has players that are little unsure of themselves, get anxious in stressful situations, and maybe even have a little bit of impostor syndrome, he's got to approach things a different way.

 

For better or worse, we were never gonna hear Ben Chilwell talking shit to the Chelsea bench, Youri Tielemans saying he was insulted that Frank Lampard thought he could start Billy Gilmour against him at the King Power Stadium and come away with a win, or Dennis Praet calling out the media for suggesting Chelsea would surpass City in both the league and the cup.

 

Sure, the players will watch "The Last Dance," think it's cool, and maybe dream for a night of being like Mike. But if they try to emulate that without the borderline evilness it takes to actually crush anyone that stands in the way of you winning a sports game, they'll find out that's not within them at exactly the wrong moments, and either freeze up or make glaring individual errors--which they have.

 

Rodgers has to speak to and about his players to make them believe that they are not only good, but better than they think they are. That means not talking with an I'm good tone. They're good.

He's got to encourage his players to trust themselves to make assertive decisions on the pitch, and to believe in themselves to make plays instead of fearing things are going to go bad. In a lot of big games, Rodgers seems to be setting up his teams to not fail instead of to succeed, and his substitution patters are also in line with this.

 

Rodgers was at City for less than a year before signing a new contract that beats anything any player has. That's a very unusual situation for Leicester City, and something that can lead to friction in the dressing room if he's not an adroit man-manager. So, if he's going to overmanage like he did today and change a system at halftime that was clearly working, players are going to think, "what is this guy doing?" and "why is this guy getting paid so much money to do this?"

 

And when you're the third-highest-paid manager in the Premier League and you do make a mistake, you admit it, because nobody is going to hold themselves or their teammates accountable for their effort if the leader doesn't have the same standard for himself. You say something like, "I thought we started getting a little careless with the ball towards the end of the first half and gave Bournemouth a glimmer of hope to get back into the game. I wanted to snuff that out right away, so I brought on Dennis to shore up the midfield. Looking at how the second half played out, I may have jumped the gun on that change, so I'll hold my hands up. Next time we're in that situation, I'm going to encourage my team to continue pressing and to fight to regain the upper hand."

 

You don't talk about your complete tactical miscalculation as if it were a brilliant plan, and you sure as shit don't do something like throw a guy that thrives or struggles based on his confidence like Kelechi Iheanacho under the bus for how the team defended on the wings (I mean, seriously, Brendan?!).

No rep left. Excellent post. 

Edited 13 July 2020 by Cadno'r Cymoedd

[teblin]

8 hours ago, ttfn said:

Just think how often we turned up for big games under Pearson for example

 

Obviously the League 1 season - beat Posh 4-0 but not a lot of “big” games.

2010 - Play-off semi second leg plus some big wins in the run-in, e.g the 3-0 against Forest

2013 - had that ridiculous collapse and then beat decent Bolton and Forest sides and drew with Palace in the run-in. Even in the semi-final that Watford side were much better but we nearly pinched it.

2014 - Won every big game

2015 - Delivered when it mattered

2016 - Won most big games

2017 - Made the Champions League quarters

Under Puel - won at Stamford Bridge, drew at Anfield, beat Man City...

Under Rodgers - nothing. Not one “statement” result in 50-odd games.

 

interesting list, I guess the 2 Chelsea league games this season are where we should’ve got those big results, it closest to getting them. 

It’s because we always try to play the same way.

 

man city away and Liverpool at home we should have played mendy/hamza and wilf. Instead we do that against Brighton at home.

it wouldn’t surprise me if he did it now to protect the defence.

 

confidence is fragile, especially with some of the young guys, they were let down by their captain yesterday. (Then stupidity by CS) 

 

 

[shailen]

6 hours ago, sacreblueits442 said:

..I am really not sure what you have been watching!!!

  I must admit sometimes I think your post are just to wind people up, the problem is I always get suckered in.

Genuinely not trolling. I think BR earlier on in the season believed that we could match man City and Liverpool man for man without a tactical adjustment but through just keeping the players motivated. Man City isolated Chilwell by doubling up on him through Mahrez and De Bruyne, and we were just outplayed completely by Liverpool. 

 

Since then I feel he's over compensated. Changing our formation every other game, personnel keeps changing..., when he had found a system that worked for us early in the season but just needed adjusting in the so called bigger games. 

[David Hankey]

I've said it before and will, no doubt, say it again we're not ruthless enough. 1-0 up against a crappy side, creating chances but not taking them. Most Clubs in the Premiership would have given Bournemouth a caning last night, probably 3/4-0 up by halftime and game over but not us. Not clinical enough. Football is really a simple game made difficult by the players.

[Fox92]

Bottle the big games.

 

Against sides like Bournemouth we're not ruthless enough, it's as if we think we can just turn up and get something.

[teblin]

1 minute ago, Fox92 said:

Bottle the big games.

 

Against sides like Bournemouth we're not ruthless enough, it's as if we think we can just turn up and get something.

Earlier on in the season we were ruthless. Southampton, Newcastle. It must be a confidence issue.

[dylanlegend]

Tactics.

 

Rodgers sets us up to go toe to toe with big teams (50/50 possession etc etc) but we simply aren’t good enough to beat them).

 

Its what he did at Celtic as well in the UCL. We need to play countr attack versus teams better than us, a worked well for us under NP and CR and works well for teams like Wolves and Sheff U

[Kitchandro]

1. A weak manager who does not understand football tactics at all, nor motivation.
 

2. A lack of strong characters among the playing staff.

[jaqo88]

7 hours ago, Gevans_97 said:

Brendan just gives our opposition too much respect. 

I really agree with this. Brendan always makes his decisions in ways that gives the opposition respect, whether they deserve it or not (most of the time they don’t). Case in point are those decisions to play Madders on the wing against the big clubs earlier in the season and again yesterday at Bournemouth with the substitution. Similar at Brighton with 2 CDM’s...

 

Yes you must counteract the opposition but our team is really bloody good when they play. Giving opposition respect is what makes us cautious in attack and negative.

 

If we play our best football we ARE one of the best teams in this country and he needs to realise that. Play our game with full intensity and no ****s given for the opposition and our quality would show through.

 

instead we often respect the opposition, play lethargic football so we don’t give them the ball, but it ends up losing points as a result because we don’t bury teams by using our superior quality. 

 

 

[l444ry]

Seems to me that the team are playing like the football character of the manager, cold, clinical and over thinking. That might sound harsh but everything looks like it's a game of chess, something Puel was *guilty* of. Leaders and passion are critical to the overall performances in my opinion and it seems there is no place for these elements in Brendan's set up when everything is paint by numbers.  The players seem to look like they are playing with shackles on. Honestly don't know where the club goes from here. 

[Dan LCFC]

15 hours ago, ttfn said:

You see I just don’t think that’s a fair reflection of where we were under Puel vs now.

 

We battered Spurs in Puel’s penultimate game in a performance better than anything we’ve put together in the last 6 months under Rodgers.

 

Rodgers has a big summer coming up. I’m really ****ing concerned that he had a 3 month mid-season break and failed to address any of our issues in that time. Other managers (Potter, Dyche amongst others) managed to get a hold of far inferior squads in that time and push them towards far less appealing goals than a Champions League campaign.

This is the most alarming thing for me. The biggest worry is that in terms of a break between the two seasons, we've kind of already had it, and this is how we've come back.

 

I honestly thought the break would work in our favour.

 

I couldn't have been more wrong. All of our problems have gotten worse.

[AKCJ]

I think the club desperately needs a midfield general to come in this summer.

 

Basically we need a James Milner in our team. Not sure who we should be looking to buy but someone with a been there/done that mentality. 

[AKCJ]

I thnk one thing needs to change.

 

As much as I love Kasper and Wes. I think we need a captain that stands up when it matters on the pitch.

 

Wes was the man, but he's no longer capable of playing 50 games a season.

 

Kasper can't co-ordinate the team from goal and he loses his head the second any sort of decision goes wrong for us.

[Pliskin]

12 hours ago, Jordan said:

When I've been thinking about Leicester City post-restart, I've thought often about how Brendan Rodgers had his squad watch "The Last Dance" during lockdown. 

 

For those of you unfamiliar with this series, it's a 10-part documentary about Michael Jordan's last season with the Chicago Bulls, and his career in general.

(some spoilers below for those that may want to see it, and if you've watched it, you can probably also skip ahead).

---------

MJ was probably the most ruthless competitor in pro team sports history, having a will to win that was far stronger than any of his rivals. Not only that, but MJ supplemented his competitive drive with an absolutely extraordinary pettiness. Just about every episode in that series features a moment where MJ was facing a challenge, took personal offense to something someone else said or did, and used that spite as motivation to crush his opponent (even forming vendettas from the most benign perceived slights, such as an opposing coach not saying hello to him in a restaurant, or a player on another team having the nerve to simply play well in a season or even in just one game).

 

MJ's competitiveness was also so extreme that he wouldn't tolerate any teammate sharing nothing less than 100% commitment to winning. He was probably often a miserable person to be around, but his competitiveness was the driving force behind a 6x-championship dynasty that ranks as perhaps the greatest team in American sports history.

 

Dennis Rodman was prone to bouts of mayhem and wild escapades, but the vast majority of time on court, he was an absolute animal when it came to rebounding and defense. Rodman paid closer attention to his opponents' tendencies and how the ball bounced off of the rim than any other player in the league. He knew what his opponent was going to do before his opponent even thought it. Pundits thought Rodman would never mesh with Jordan, but Rodman's single-mindedness when it came to the dirty work in basketball wound up being a perfect fit.

 

Once, during a particularly intense practice, Jordan got so incensed by physical play from bench player Steve Kerr that he punched Kerr in the face and was kicked out of practice. As that story gets told in "The Last Dance," that moment wound up being the catalyst that forged respect between Jordan and Kerr (because he showed MJ he was not one to back down, not even from the best player in the world). Like, Michael Jordan actually assaulted a teammate and that was the moment that wound up bringing them closer together. Yes, that is so absurd that I had to type it out again. At the end of that season, it was Kerr that made the game winning shot to win the 1997 NBA Finals. Even a substitute player like Kerr--a player that never started a single game in 5 seasons with the Bulls--had to have the same mentality as the greatest player in basketball history.

 

The list of big games and big moments where MJ and the Bulls rose to the occasion stretches for miles.

 

This attitude isn't something that lends itself to motivational slogans or posters in business office break rooms. MJ's mentality teetered on the edge of psychosis. I can't fully wrap my mind around this kind of level of competitiveness..

------------

Apparently, Leicester City's players were supposed to watch this and learn what it takes to be a winner.

 

So, now that we know about "The Last Dance," I'll rhetorically ask: is there anything about City's play since restart that resembles Jordan and the 1997-98 Bulls in any way?

 

There were maybe some aspects similar to this before Rodgers signed his contract extension (such as showing no mercy to any team that fell to 10 men, or Jamie Vardy going on a huge scoring streak that was fueled entirely by spite). But even before lockdown, City failed to win the big games they had, and around Christmas and on through the new year, that lack of ability to rise to big occasions became something more significant.

 

One would perhaps wonder if anything would maybe be different about City as they approached big games after lockdown, and after watching "The Last Dance." Clearly, that is not the case.

 

That kind of stuff just isn't going to work with the personalities we have on this team. The only player really like a 1990s Chicago Bull on our team is Vardy, who is a complete one-of-a-kind player. When a manager has players that are little unsure of themselves, get anxious in stressful situations, and maybe even have a little bit of impostor syndrome, he's got to approach things a different way.

 

For better or worse, we were never gonna hear Ben Chilwell talking shit to the Chelsea bench, Youri Tielemans saying he was insulted that Frank Lampard thought he could start Billy Gilmour against him at the King Power Stadium and come away with a win, or Dennis Praet calling out the media for suggesting Chelsea would surpass City in both the league and the cup.

 

Sure, the players will watch "The Last Dance," think it's cool, and maybe dream for a night of being like Mike. But if they try to emulate that without the borderline evilness it takes to actually crush anyone that stands in the way of you winning a sports game, they'll find out that's not within them at exactly the wrong moments, and either freeze up or make glaring individual errors--which they have.

 

Rodgers has to speak to and about his players to make them believe that they are not only good, but better than they think they are. That means not talking with an I'm good tone. They're good.

He's got to encourage his players to trust themselves to make assertive decisions on the pitch, and to believe in themselves to make plays instead of fearing things are going to go bad. In a lot of big games, Rodgers seems to be setting up his teams to not fail instead of to succeed, and his substitution patters are also in line with this.

 

Rodgers was at City for less than a year before signing a new contract that beats anything any player has. That's a very unusual situation for Leicester City, and something that can lead to friction in the dressing room if he's not an adroit man-manager. So, if he's going to overmanage like he did today and change a system at halftime that was clearly working, players are going to think, "what is this guy doing?" and "why is this guy getting paid so much money to do this?"

 

And when you're the third-highest-paid manager in the Premier League and you do make a mistake, you admit it, because nobody is going to hold themselves or their teammates accountable for their effort if the leader doesn't have the same standard for himself. You say something like, "I thought we started getting a little careless with the ball towards the end of the first half and gave Bournemouth a glimmer of hope to get back into the game. I wanted to snuff that out right away, so I brought on Dennis to shore up the midfield. Looking at how the second half played out, I may have jumped the gun on that change, so I'll hold my hands up. Next time we're in that situation, I'm going to encourage my team to continue pressing and to fight to regain the upper hand."

 

You don't talk about your complete tactical miscalculation as if it were a brilliant plan, and you sure as shit don't do something like throw a guy that thrives or struggles based on his confidence like Kelechi Iheanacho under the bus for how the team defended on the wings (I mean, seriously, Brendan?!).

Cheers for coming on Michael!

 

But in all seriousness this is an epic post. And perfectly explains why our underbelly is soft, and why we love to roll over and be tickled. 

[Dan LCFC]

12 hours ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

I've just been thinking back to Maddison on the wing I've spoke about it a bit tonight but I've just looked at the early season games.

 

We started Maddison on the wing against Wolves, first game of the season, 0-0, probably lucky not to lose it due to the new handball rule. Next up Chelsea, Maddison on the wing again, 1-0 down, playing poor, he puts him into the centre in the middle of the 2nd half and we get an equaliser. Next up Sheff Utd away, again Maddison on the wing, it's 1-1, he puts Maddison back into the centre, brings barnes on for Praet, puts Barnes on the wing and we score 5 minutes later and win 2-1.

 

Next game Bournemouth at home, he starts Maddison in the centre 4141, we win 3-1, easy. Next we go to United away, 4141 again, he's put Maddison on the left wing, we play poor for the whole 90 minutes and get nothing out of it. Spurs at home next, I can't remember where Maddison played for this one, I thought it was on the wing and then he was swapped into the centre before scoring the winner, but I'm not 100% sure.

 

Newcastle at home next, Maddison injured, we win 5-0. Next up Liverpool away, he starts Maddison on the wing once again in a 4141, we pretty much get bossed the whole game, which was expected it's Liverpool. After this he starts Maddison in the centre at home to Burnley, and we go on our winning run.

 

To me and many others on here, we kept saying why isn't he persisting with Maddison in the centre? It seemed like such an obvious thing to do, but everytime he reverted back. Even against Liverpool at home he reverted back to it, it's like he's trying to be tactically smart, but it's just ruining us. For me the substitution of Iheanacho today was exactly the same, it was obvious to us all that we should have kept the same team and formation for the start of the second half, but he changed it and it absolutely ruined any chance we had of winning.

 

I remember someone saying dropping the point or three points in the early games of the season will be worth it if Rodgers learns from his mistakes, but he just doesn't seem to be doing that. Every two or three games he seems to make a questionable substitution, formation change , general instruction, something needs to change or we're on a very slippery slope and might well be fighting a relegation battle next season.

The Maddison on the wing business was so inexplicable and obvious to basically anyone watching that it forever gave me a slight doubt at the back of my mind about us. When Rodgers has got it wrong this season - he's got it so stupidly wrong and most alarmingly he doesn't seem to learn from it. That's why I'm worried, simply.

[Guest ttfn]

6 hours ago, Cadno'r Cymoedd said:

No rep left. Excellent post. 

Same.

[Dan LCFC]

7 hours ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

Spot on. We should all be furious that we’ve blown second, yet the ones that are get told they’re ‘entitled’ or that the league win has ‘ruined the fanbase’. The mentality of the players is the same as some of the fans, happy to accept mediocrity.  

Makes you sick doesn't it. Nothing more infuriating to read.

[Chocolate Teapot]

13 hours ago, Jordan said:

When I've been thinking about Leicester City post-restart, I've thought often about how Brendan Rodgers had his squad watch "The Last Dance" during lockdown. 

 

For those of you unfamiliar with this series, it's a 10-part documentary about Michael Jordan's last season with the Chicago Bulls, and his career in general.

(some spoilers below for those that may want to see it, and if you've watched it, you can probably also skip ahead).

---------

MJ was probably the most ruthless competitor in pro team sports history, having a will to win that was far stronger than any of his rivals. Not only that, but MJ supplemented his competitive drive with an absolutely extraordinary pettiness. Just about every episode in that series features a moment where MJ was facing a challenge, took personal offense to something someone else said or did, and used that spite as motivation to crush his opponent (even forming vendettas from the most benign perceived slights, such as an opposing coach not saying hello to him in a restaurant, or a player on another team having the nerve to simply play well in a season or even in just one game).

 

MJ's competitiveness was also so extreme that he wouldn't tolerate any teammate sharing nothing less than 100% commitment to winning. He was probably often a miserable person to be around, but his competitiveness was the driving force behind a 6x-championship dynasty that ranks as perhaps the greatest team in American sports history.

 

Dennis Rodman was prone to bouts of mayhem and wild escapades, but the vast majority of time on court, he was an absolute animal when it came to rebounding and defense. Rodman paid closer attention to his opponents' tendencies and how the ball bounced off of the rim than any other player in the league. He knew what his opponent was going to do before his opponent even thought it. Pundits thought Rodman would never mesh with Jordan, but Rodman's single-mindedness when it came to the dirty work in basketball wound up being a perfect fit.

 

Once, during a particularly intense practice, Jordan got so incensed by physical play from bench player Steve Kerr that he punched Kerr in the face and was kicked out of practice. As that story gets told in "The Last Dance," that moment wound up being the catalyst that forged respect between Jordan and Kerr (because he showed MJ he was not one to back down, not even from the best player in the world). Like, Michael Jordan actually assaulted a teammate and that was the moment that wound up bringing them closer together. Yes, that is so absurd that I had to type it out again. At the end of that season, it was Kerr that made the game winning shot to win the 1997 NBA Finals. Even a substitute player like Kerr--a player that never started a single game in 5 seasons with the Bulls--had to have the same mentality as the greatest player in basketball history.

 

The list of big games and big moments where MJ and the Bulls rose to the occasion stretches for miles.

 

This attitude isn't something that lends itself to motivational slogans or posters in business office break rooms. MJ's mentality teetered on the edge of psychosis. I can't fully wrap my mind around this kind of level of competitiveness..

------------

Apparently, Leicester City's players were supposed to watch this and learn what it takes to be a winner.

 

So, now that we know about "The Last Dance," I'll rhetorically ask: is there anything about City's play since restart that resembles Jordan and the 1997-98 Bulls in any way?

 

There were maybe some aspects similar to this before Rodgers signed his contract extension (such as showing no mercy to any team that fell to 10 men, or Jamie Vardy going on a huge scoring streak that was fueled entirely by spite). But even before lockdown, City failed to win the big games they had, and around Christmas and on through the new year, that lack of ability to rise to big occasions became something more significant.

 

One would perhaps wonder if anything would maybe be different about City as they approached big games after lockdown, and after watching "The Last Dance." Clearly, that is not the case.

 

That kind of stuff just isn't going to work with the personalities we have on this team. The only player really like a 1990s Chicago Bull on our team is Vardy, who is a complete one-of-a-kind player. When a manager has players that are little unsure of themselves, get anxious in stressful situations, and maybe even have a little bit of impostor syndrome, he's got to approach things a different way.

 

For better or worse, we were never gonna hear Ben Chilwell talking shit to the Chelsea bench, Youri Tielemans saying he was insulted that Frank Lampard thought he could start Billy Gilmour against him at the King Power Stadium and come away with a win, or Dennis Praet calling out the media for suggesting Chelsea would surpass City in both the league and the cup.

 

Sure, the players will watch "The Last Dance," think it's cool, and maybe dream for a night of being like Mike. But if they try to emulate that without the borderline evilness it takes to actually crush anyone that stands in the way of you winning a sports game, they'll find out that's not within them at exactly the wrong moments, and either freeze up or make glaring individual errors--which they have.

 

Rodgers has to speak to and about his players to make them believe that they are not only good, but better than they think they are. That means not talking with an I'm good tone. They're good.

He's got to encourage his players to trust themselves to make assertive decisions on the pitch, and to believe in themselves to make plays instead of fearing things are going to go bad. In a lot of big games, Rodgers seems to be setting up his teams to not fail instead of to succeed, and his substitution patters are also in line with this.

 

Rodgers was at City for less than a year before signing a new contract that beats anything any player has. That's a very unusual situation for Leicester City, and something that can lead to friction in the dressing room if he's not an adroit man-manager. So, if he's going to overmanage like he did today and change a system at halftime that was clearly working, players are going to think, "what is this guy doing?" and "why is this guy getting paid so much money to do this?"

 

And when you're the third-highest-paid manager in the Premier League and you do make a mistake, you admit it, because nobody is going to hold themselves or their teammates accountable for their effort if the leader doesn't have the same standard for himself. You say something like, "I thought we started getting a little careless with the ball towards the end of the first half and gave Bournemouth a glimmer of hope to get back into the game. I wanted to snuff that out right away, so I brought on Dennis to shore up the midfield. Looking at how the second half played out, I may have jumped the gun on that change, so I'll hold my hands up. Next time we're in that situation, I'm going to encourage my team to continue pressing and to fight to regain the upper hand."

 

You don't talk about your complete tactical miscalculation as if it were a brilliant plan, and you sure as shit don't do something like throw a guy that thrives or struggles based on his confidence like Kelechi Iheanacho under the bus for how the team defended on the wings (I mean, seriously, Brendan?!).

I presume this is too long for most people to read but couldn't like this enough.

What a post jordan!

[SilverFox]

13 hours ago, Jordan said:

When I've been thinking about Leicester City post-restart, I've thought often about how Brendan Rodgers had his squad watch "The Last Dance" during lockdown. 

 

For those of you unfamiliar with this series, it's a 10-part documentary about Michael Jordan's last season with the Chicago Bulls, and his career in general.

(some spoilers below for those that may want to see it, and if you've watched it, you can probably also skip ahead).

---------

MJ was probably the most ruthless competitor in pro team sports history, having a will to win that was far stronger than any of his rivals. Not only that, but MJ supplemented his competitive drive with an absolutely extraordinary pettiness. Just about every episode in that series features a moment where MJ was facing a challenge, took personal offense to something someone else said or did, and used that spite as motivation to crush his opponent (even forming vendettas from the most benign perceived slights, such as an opposing coach not saying hello to him in a restaurant, or a player on another team having the nerve to simply play well in a season or even in just one game).

 

MJ's competitiveness was also so extreme that he wouldn't tolerate any teammate sharing nothing less than 100% commitment to winning. He was probably often a miserable person to be around, but his competitiveness was the driving force behind a 6x-championship dynasty that ranks as perhaps the greatest team in American sports history.

 

Dennis Rodman was prone to bouts of mayhem and wild escapades, but the vast majority of time on court, he was an absolute animal when it came to rebounding and defense. Rodman paid closer attention to his opponents' tendencies and how the ball bounced off of the rim than any other player in the league. He knew what his opponent was going to do before his opponent even thought it. Pundits thought Rodman would never mesh with Jordan, but Rodman's single-mindedness when it came to the dirty work in basketball wound up being a perfect fit.

 

Once, during a particularly intense practice, Jordan got so incensed by physical play from bench player Steve Kerr that he punched Kerr in the face and was kicked out of practice. As that story gets told in "The Last Dance," that moment wound up being the catalyst that forged respect between Jordan and Kerr (because he showed MJ he was not one to back down, not even from the best player in the world). Like, Michael Jordan actually assaulted a teammate and that was the moment that wound up bringing them closer together. Yes, that is so absurd that I had to type it out again. At the end of that season, it was Kerr that made the game winning shot to win the 1997 NBA Finals. Even a substitute player like Kerr--a player that never started a single game in 5 seasons with the Bulls--had to have the same mentality as the greatest player in basketball history.

 

The list of big games and big moments where MJ and the Bulls rose to the occasion stretches for miles.

 

This attitude isn't something that lends itself to motivational slogans or posters in business office break rooms. MJ's mentality teetered on the edge of psychosis. I can't fully wrap my mind around this kind of level of competitiveness..

------------

Apparently, Leicester City's players were supposed to watch this and learn what it takes to be a winner.

 

So, now that we know about "The Last Dance," I'll rhetorically ask: is there anything about City's play since restart that resembles Jordan and the 1997-98 Bulls in any way?

 

There were maybe some aspects similar to this before Rodgers signed his contract extension (such as showing no mercy to any team that fell to 10 men, or Jamie Vardy going on a huge scoring streak that was fueled entirely by spite). But even before lockdown, City failed to win the big games they had, and around Christmas and on through the new year, that lack of ability to rise to big occasions became something more significant.

 

One would perhaps wonder if anything would maybe be different about City as they approached big games after lockdown, and after watching "The Last Dance." Clearly, that is not the case.

 

That kind of stuff just isn't going to work with the personalities we have on this team. The only player really like a 1990s Chicago Bull on our team is Vardy, who is a complete one-of-a-kind player. When a manager has players that are little unsure of themselves, get anxious in stressful situations, and maybe even have a little bit of impostor syndrome, he's got to approach things a different way.

 

For better or worse, we were never gonna hear Ben Chilwell talking shit to the Chelsea bench, Youri Tielemans saying he was insulted that Frank Lampard thought he could start Billy Gilmour against him at the King Power Stadium and come away with a win, or Dennis Praet calling out the media for suggesting Chelsea would surpass City in both the league and the cup.

 

Sure, the players will watch "The Last Dance," think it's cool, and maybe dream for a night of being like Mike. But if they try to emulate that without the borderline evilness it takes to actually crush anyone that stands in the way of you winning a sports game, they'll find out that's not within them at exactly the wrong moments, and either freeze up or make glaring individual errors--which they have.

 

Rodgers has to speak to and about his players to make them believe that they are not only good, but better than they think they are. That means not talking with an I'm good tone. They're good.

He's got to encourage his players to trust themselves to make assertive decisions on the pitch, and to believe in themselves to make plays instead of fearing things are going to go bad. In a lot of big games, Rodgers seems to be setting up his teams to not fail instead of to succeed, and his substitution patters are also in line with this.

 

Rodgers was at City for less than a year before signing a new contract that beats anything any player has. That's a very unusual situation for Leicester City, and something that can lead to friction in the dressing room if he's not an adroit man-manager. So, if he's going to overmanage like he did today and change a system at halftime that was clearly working, players are going to think, "what is this guy doing?" and "why is this guy getting paid so much money to do this?"

 

And when you're the third-highest-paid manager in the Premier League and you do make a mistake, you admit it, because nobody is going to hold themselves or their teammates accountable for their effort if the leader doesn't have the same standard for himself. You say something like, "I thought we started getting a little careless with the ball towards the end of the first half and gave Bournemouth a glimmer of hope to get back into the game. I wanted to snuff that out right away, so I brought on Dennis to shore up the midfield. Looking at how the second half played out, I may have jumped the gun on that change, so I'll hold my hands up. Next time we're in that situation, I'm going to encourage my team to continue pressing and to fight to regain the upper hand."

 

You don't talk about your complete tactical miscalculation as if it were a brilliant plan, and you sure as shit don't do something like throw a guy that thrives or struggles based on his confidence like Kelechi Iheanacho under the bus for how the team defended on the wings (I mean, seriously, Brendan?!).

Exceptional post.

[NewEnglandFox]

I wouldn't call yesterday a big game with the one's against the big clubs. Yesterday was our inability to put away a lesser team. Our inability to fufill the pre-written top 4 side smashes relegation fodder in predictable performance. From the restart, draws against Brighton and Watford, lost to Everton and Bournmouth, and beat Place. 5 points from our 15 easiest. Our big game was the 6 pointer against Arsenal and we got the draw. And look at them now, we're 9 points ahead with 3 games left. But in our remaining games we have teams in 5th with a game in hand, 7th, and 8th that are 6 pointers as well. These next 3 are bigger opponents than our last 6. We had the opportunity to make the big games less important with better results in the previous ones. We were 14 points clear of 5th at the start of the year. 8 points clear at the restart. And now we're only a point clear of 5th when they have a game in hand on us.

Edited 13 July 2020 by NewEnglandFox

[Manwell Pablo]

It goes deeper than “big games”

 

We wouldn’t even have any “big games” if we’d of done enough, and by enough I mean pick up a measly 5 points more, in our run of the mill PL fixtures we’ve had since the turn of the year.

Edited 13 July 2020 by Manwell Pablo