Cengiz Signs!

[moore_94]

This thread

 

 

Me

 

[reynard]

2 hours ago, UHDrive said:

Irrespective, he's put it out their in the public domain. Those comments should be private between the player and the club. Imagine how Maddison would feel if it happened to him? (although it wouldn't happen to him would it). 

 

This has nothing to do with social media comments, it falls under public media comments and any other club under the can see what BR has quoted which is why I disagree with it. 

 

At the end of the day if BR isnt happy with him then send him packing back to Roma, but I believe their is a limit to public player criticism and even though sometimes it's the norm, I believe on this occasion hes overstepped the mark somewhat.

Sorry but I think you are reading a bit too much into this comment from a negative perspective. He's not said he's useless, nor that he won't play him but has merely talked tactically about why he didn't bring him on. He hasn't even really said he isn't happy with him just there is an area he needs to work on.

What was it Maddison said in a post match inteview? Something like if you don't do the hard work you don't play for Brendan. The job of a coach/manager is to take players and improve them or teach them how to play in the style he wants using the methods he want to employ. It is clear, at this moment in time, that Under isn't used to Brendan's way of playing. Good players will learn to adapt if they want to. If they don't they won't play and will need to move to do so. Time will tell if Under has the professional commitment to adapt his way of playing to offer what the manager wants.

[filbertway]

30 minutes ago, SO1 said:

and you know the game better than Rodgers.........fair enough.

 I've watched enough football to form my own opinions. I've enjoyed your contributions as a poster so I'll leave it at that, but I'm not going to stop offering an opinion on the game because I've not managed at the top level. As I've also said, if pro managers were always right then nobody would be sacked.

[Ric Flair]

35 minutes ago, SO1 said:

and you know the game better than Rodgers.........fair enough.

Rodgers isn't immune from getting things wrong, likewise many managers. Ünder should play more, its as simple as that. 

[Countryfox]

1 minute ago, Ric Flair said:

Rodgers isn't immune from getting things wrong ...   Ünder should play more ...    its as simple as that. 

I sense another tattoo type comment coming soon ...   

[Facecloth]

3 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

Rodgers isn't immune from getting things wrong, likewise many managers. Ünder should play more, its as simple as that. 

Daley-Campbell should play more.

 

Not because I have anything to base that on, just that I want to see him given a chance.

 

See how ridiculous that is.

 

Under shouldn't play more because the team is doing just fine without him. 

[Guest Underfan]

6 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

My dude, you still haven't properly answered the question about how you'd feel if your club were dominating the league and English fans came onto your team's forum to vigorously complain about the lack of game time for an English loan player who nobody's seen enough of to judge.  

Well is there any other Turk bothering you or is it just me, ı dont know. Prior to answering that question. I really dont understand why are you bothered by me. I didnt talk bad on any players and on Brendan Rogers, my most aggressive commentary was that you will all be a fan of Cengiz soon. is it bad, he is your player. 

 

As for the answer if that English fan were talking bad on the quality my team and league it played,  stupidity of the coach, or agressively openning new threads to sack the coach or to talk bad on his fan's competitors I would get frustated. But not get bothered if he posts under an already oppenned thread on than Englisg player and not insulting any one. Why should I get bothered. 

 

[HankMarvin]

4 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

Daley-Campbell should play more.

 

Not because I have anything to base that on, just that I want to see him given a chance.

 

See how ridiculous that is.

 

Under shouldn't play more because the team is doing just fine without him. 

But how do you know they couldn’t be doing better with him?

Leeds Defeat 

wolves 0-0

 

He hasn’t looked that bad when playing.

[Mawuli]

5 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

Daley-Campbell should play more.

 

Not because I have anything to base that on, just that I want to see him given a chance.

 

See how ridiculous that is.

 

Under shouldn't play more because the team is doing just fine without him. 

Are you seriously comparing a youth player to a player who has the second highest g+a of our wingers. Despite playing way less minutes?

[Facecloth]

1 minute ago, HankMarvin said:

But how do you know they couldn’t be doing better with him?

Leeds Defeat 

wolves 0-0

 

He hasn’t looked that bad when playing.

I listed games further up where he came on or started and we didn't win, including including draw with Everton, so why he'd suddenly be our saviour v wolves is beyond me. I also listed a huge list of games where he had no involvement at all, that we've won.

[Facecloth]

Just now, Mawuli said:

Are you seriously comparing a youth player to a player who has the second highest g+a of our wingers. Despite playing way less minutes?

I'm just saying we can all pick a player in the squad and claim they should be playing more, doesn't mean its true. 

 

Also the Daley Campbell comment goes back to a joke in another thread with Ric.

[HankMarvin]

Just now, Facecloth said:

I listed games further up where he came on or started and we didn't win, including including draw with Everton, so why he'd suddenly be our saviour v wolves is beyond me. I also listed a huge list of games where he had no involvement at all, that we've won.

So if a player doesn’t play well in one game he will have no effect in any other??

In that case let’s bin Vardy after ever poor game.

Every game is different, and until he gets a fair crack of the whip, what does anyone know?

More so given the fact it’s a loan signing that needs time to settle with team mates.

 

If he looked as bad a Ghezzal I could understand. 

[Buce]

33 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

 Nothing's worse than a premature tiny penis.

 

Are you speaking from experience, Llama?

[Facecloth]

1 minute ago, HankMarvin said:

So if a player doesn’t play well in one game he will have no effect in any other??

In that case let’s bin Vardy after ever poor game.

Every game is different, and until he gets a fair crack of the whip, what does anyone know?

More so given the fact it’s a loan signing that needs time to settle with team mates.

 

If he looked as bad a Ghezzal I could understand. 

My point all along is that we are doing just fine without him playing week in week out, so I'm fine with him not playing. So saying he should play more is clearly wrong, because the club has coped fine without him. Also this notion that he would have come one in certain games and saved us is also wrong, because he hasn't other times he's been called on. I'm not saying he hasn't contributed, I mention that in the same post i mentioned earlier, but also had he not been here at all I don't think the team would be in a worse a position, something that you can't say about Vardy.

 

I've never ever said I don't want him to play, if he does and does well I'll be happy, because it'll benefit the team if he does. But the club doesn't exist to improve the career of Under, it exists to be the best Leicester City can be, and we are doing absolutely fine without much of his input, so I am totally baffled why people are so upset when he doesn't play. 

[Guest SO1]

18 minutes ago, Underfan said:

 

Come on man. Maybe I was mistaken about that vulgar post or not, but it is way history now.  By the way you shut down Filbertway as though no one cant make a tactical commentary if not proved himself as brendan rogers.How can a fan be better than a coach,is it possible. But Filbertway might be right, Brendan substituted Cengiz with Barnes (he was  lone striker, l know) and Cengiz made use wide spaces behind Arsenal defenders a few times and provided the assist.

My confession. I washed up on the shores of Leicester City a couple of years ago. I'm a Brendan Rodgers fan and have been following him and his clubs for 11 years. Love to watch him go into a club and build/find ways to win games. So I kind of get being heavily invested in one player as a connection to the club/forum. Should have been here at the end of last season . Once in awhile I get this insatiable need to defend Rodgers, as if he needs it, given the success of the club since he's been here. But stupidly someone will get me to bite. Its my fault that I forgot to relax, hang out, and enjoy the football. That's the only reason I'm here.

 

[nwl fox]

Any way we can hit the re-set button on this thread? 

[casablancas]

This thread has become and absolute jest and not in the good way. Perhaps lock it down and restart? 

[Matt]

From what i've seen of him i've been quite impressed and excited by him.

 

I find the whole situation bizarre.

 

We've played well almost all season but you could argue things have gone (Or becoming) abit stale for one reason and another in the last few games, given how frustrating Perez has been in the last few games and Maddison's set pieces (Although he gains credit in his improvement and flashes of brilliance however) I don't see how Under's not even getting a sniff of a start or certainly off the bench and can understand his frustrations.

 

I think it's clear we're not signing him but even if we were to have any interest in signing him I think we need to question whether he'd have any desire to sign.

[sacreblueits442]

14 minutes ago, reynard said:

Sorry but I think you are reading a bit too much into this comment from a negative perspective. He's not said he's useless, nor that he won't play him but has merely talked tactically about why he didn't bring him on. He hasn't even really said he isn't happy with him just there is an area he needs to work on.

What was it Maddison said in a post match inteview? Something like if you don't do the hard work you don't play for Brendan. The job of a coach/manager is to take players and improve them or teach them how to play in the style he wants using the methods he want to employ. It is clear, at this moment in time, that Under isn't used to Brendan's way of playing. Good players will learn to adapt if they want to. If they don't they won't play and will need to move to do so. Time will tell if Under has the professional commitment to adapt his way of playing to offer what the manager wants.

....without exacerbating this discussion, Rodgers stating he has an issue with Ünders' ability to track back sounds contrived!!!

How can he prove to Rodgers that this is an issue which does not exist? Only by playing him will it be borne out if the perceived issues are real and that Ünder needs to address the problem. 

  If Rodgers is so convinced of this issue, and no doubt has asked Ünder to address it, and still Ünder has failed to rectify this "problem" in his game, why have him on the bench at all. If a player will not do what you have asked of them then i can understand them not being included in the team but to have him on the bench not being used would be frustrating for him and also for supporters who feel that he should be playing.

    Should we play him in the U23s to see if he can perform in the manner Rodgers requires and if he fails to do so then you can understand why he should be nowhere near the first team.

  I am not convinced in what Rodgers has said regarding the issue surrounding Ünder, there are lots of people who do not see it and therefore has to be some other reason, why this situation exists.

  It will be interesting to see if he plays tomorrow.

[HankMarvin]

35 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

My dude, you still haven't properly answered the question about how you'd feel if your club were dominating the league and English fans came onto your team's forum to vigorously complain about the lack of game time for an English loan player

But that’s not the case, we are not dominating the league. If the team was playing like Man City. I could understand this post.

There is room for improvement and Under came in with high expectations. 
He has played 235 mins all season. 
 

If it’s because what has been reported, then the situation has been poorly managed.

 

“Leicester City will be ‘obliged’ to sign on loan winger Cengiz Under on a permanent deal in the summer should he make so many appearances for the club, according to reports.

The Turkey international scored his first goal for the club in the Europa League win over AEK Athens last month, but has seen his season disrupted by injury in recent weeks.”

[lgfualol]

Love Cengo, hope he starts tomorrow and signs and becomes a club legend.

[Facecloth]

14 minutes ago, HankMarvin said:

But that’s not the case, we are not dominating the league. If the team was playing like Man City. I could understand this post.

There is room for improvement and Under came in with high expectations. 
He has played 235 mins all season. 
 

If it’s because what has been reported, then the situation has been poorly managed.

 

“Leicester City will be ‘obliged’ to sign on loan winger Cengiz Under on a permanent deal in the summer should he make so many appearances for the club, according to reports.

The Turkey international scored his first goal for the club in the Europa League win over AEK Athens last month, but has seen his season disrupted by injury in recent weeks.”

So you expected Leicester to dominate the league like Man City this year? Are you not happy with sitting quite comfortably in the top 4 and still being in the fa cup and europa league.

[reynard]

5 minutes ago, sacreblueits442 said:

....without exacerbating this discussion, Rodgers stating he has an issue with Ünders' ability to track back sounds contrived!!!

How can he prove to Rodgers that this is an issue which does not exist? Only by playing him will it be borne out if the perceived issues are real and that Ünder needs to address the problem. 

  If Rodgers is so convinced of this issue, and no doubt has asked Ünder to address it, and still Ünder has failed to rectify this "problem" in his game, why have him on the bench at all. If a player will not do what you have asked of them then i can understand them not being included in the team but to have him on the bench not being used would be frustrating for him and also for supporters who feel that he should be playing.

    Should we play him in the U23s to see if he can perform in the manner Rodgers requires and if he fails to do so then you can understand why he should be nowhere near the first team.

  I am not convinced in what Rodgers has said regarding the issue surrounding Ünder, there are lots of people who do not see it and therefore has to be some other reason, why this situation exists.

  It will be interesting to see if he plays tomorrow.

Actually I think this is an interesting area for discussion and you make some good points. As I understood the comments, and I may have this wrong, they were refering to the game against Wolves in particular and the way they were set up. Having him on the bench gives us an option to bring on another attacking player should the right situation arise. There is nothing to say the opponents would play the same way all match for eg.

As outsiders all we can do is observe and comment on what we see, read and hear. What goes on in training remains in the club.

In a way the flip side to what you say is that by including him in the match day squad Rodgers sees enough in him to perservere. It is easy for us fans to become frustrated when certain players seem to be favoured over others when they seem to offer little. I don't know the details of the loan agreement but if we were totally unhappy I feel we would have tried to end it and send him back in Janaury. There is clearly a player there with some potential but whether he fits into what we are looking for remains to be seen.

As you quite rightly say tomorrow will be interesting.

[Sly]

3 hours ago, Underfan said:

I made an irony to a third party intruder who called everyone to  laugh at my discussions with someone else and resembling it to a discussion between a fc**er and a random Algerian. " No-one wants to read your insane remarks" Are you the representative of every one? If so you should be a little bit wiser and unprejudiced not to jump into conclusions before reading all or asking why?  If you are are advovating the guy who so called ignored me, tell him not to intrude into a soccer discussion with "fuc**ers" " random algerians"which is infact the real insane and disgusting to do.

Eh? 

[HankMarvin]

10 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

So you expected Leicester to dominate the league like Man City this year? Are you not happy with sitting quite comfortably in the top 4 and still being in the fa cup and europa league.

Where have I said that??

 

I asked why someone said as an example that Leicester are dominating the league.

which would imply there is no room for improvement. 
 

that’s clearly not that case. 
 

if we had won 13 consecutive matches, then I could understand players not getting minutes.