Cengiz Signs!

[Carl the Llama]

26 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.”

The analogy was about a given team performing above expectations and was tailored to fit Fenerbahce, not Leicester. I think you missed that bit.

 

Building a steady challenge for the 6 would already have been a good season for us, but we've been pushing the top 4 all season.  It's not strange that a fringe player who hasn't been with the club long isn't getting much game time in such a scenario.  But if you're trying to say Under is the man to take us from what we're doing now to running away with the title then it is strange that he's not being used that much.

[HankMarvin]

43 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

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. 

It’s not wrong, it’s other peoples opinions

You don’t have a Time machine or live in a multiverse. So you wouldn’t know. 
 

what we do know for a fact he has 2 assist in 235 minutes 

 

 

Edited 9 February 2021 by HankMarvin

[Sunbury Fox]

Perez has 2 goals and no assists in his last 24 appearances in all competitions. For a team that is competing at the top of the PL that is terrible. I think that is the reason why people are asking to see a bit more of Cengo.

 

This is not like saying back in 15/16 why aren't we playing Inler instead of Kanté, as someone was saying earlier in the thread. Everyone could see that Kanté was amazing and arguably our best player. Nobody thinks that of Perez and whilst I love Sharky he has his limitations and most people accept that right wing is probably the weakest link of our team. 

 

So it is in that context that people are wondering whether Cengo could add some quality. His fleeting appearances have shown him to be fast and skillful and he has 2 goals and 2 assists in very limited play time - in fact, if you extrapolated those stats over a season per minute you'd be talking 10 goals and 10 assists. That is precisely what we need on the right wing.

 

Personally I'm fed up of watching Perez trot around aimlessly and largely ineffectually on the right wing, on the pretence that he is "good at defending". We need more than that if we are to sustain our current success.

 

All of this is not to criticise Brendan. He knows the players inside and out and sees them every day in training so must have his reasons for leaving out Cengo. But I, for one, really want to see if he can be the right winger that we all crave as a foil for Barnes and Vardy.

 

[Facecloth]

Just now, HankMarvin said:

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.

 

You said we're not dominating the league. No we're not, but are we not doing as well or better than expected? Obviously there's room for improvement there always will be, but why would Under necessarily be a guaranteed improvement more than any other fringe player? I'm happy with how we're doing this season, and if that means Under doesn't get much game time, so be it.

[matty98]

1 hour 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. 

Sorry but this is such a silly way to look at the situation. For one, Daley-campbell hasn't played for the first team but Under has and has looked good. It's hardly unreasonable to expect him to play more.

 

If we go by your logic, the team has done fine without anyone else, why should we ever sign anyone?

 

The fact is when Under has played he's looked more of an attacking threat than both Perez and Albrighton so 

[HankMarvin]

1 minute ago, Facecloth said:

You said we're not dominating the league. No we're not, but are we not doing as well or better than expected? Obviously there's room for improvement there always will be, but why would Under necessarily be a guaranteed improvement more than any other fringe player? I'm happy with how we're doing this season, and if that means Under doesn't get much game time, so be it.

IN RESPONSE to the person that said we are as an example.

 

until he gets a fair sustained chance to prove himself we won’t know will we.

 

But you seem to know by telling everyone their wrong thinking he could.

 

[Facecloth]

2 minutes ago, Sunbury Fox said:

Perez has 2 goals and no assists in his last 24 appearances in all competitions. For a team that is competing at the top of the PL that is terrible. I think that is the reason why people are asking to see a bit more of Cengo.

 

This is not like saying back in 15/16 why aren't we playing Inler instead of Kanté, as someone was saying earlier in the thread. Everyone could see that Kanté was amazing and arguably our best player. Nobody thinks that of Perez and whilst I love Sharky he has his limitations and most people accept that right wing is probably the weakest link of our team. 

 

So it is in that context that people are wondering whether Cengo could add some quality. His fleeting appearances have shown him to be fast and skillful and he has 2 goals and 2 assists in very limited play time - in fact, if you extrapolated those stats over a season per minute you'd be talking 10 goals and 10 assists. That is precisely what we need on the right wing.

 

Personally I'm fed up of watching Perez trot around aimlessly and largely ineffectually on the right wing, on the pretence that he is "good at defending". We need more than that if we are to sustain our current success.

 

All of this is not to criticise Brendan. He knows the players inside and out and sees them every day in training so must have his reasons for leaving out Cengo. But I, for one, really want to see if he can be the right winger that we all crave as a foil for Barnes and Vardy.

 

I'll go right back to an earlier argument I made regarding this, why after a few fleeting appearances are people convinced he'll be so good. There's been plenty of flash in the pan players over the years who skulted off to play in some shite league after their 15 minutes of glory. Macheda, Michu etc. 

 

Look at if this way, you say right wing is out weakest area, I'm sure Rodgers knows that too, hence why he tried to bring one in. Yet he STILL can't get much game time. So maybe just maybe they guy watching train every single day has realised that whilst he might be a useful player to have on the bench he doesn't right now have to skill set to improve us in that area, even though it's a weak area of the team.

[Facecloth]

1 minute ago, matty98 said:

Sorry but this is such a silly way to look at the situation. For one, Daley-campbell hasn't played for the first team but Under has and has looked good. It's hardly unreasonable to expect him to play more.

 

If we go by your logic, the team has done fine without anyone else, why should we ever sign anyone?

 

The fact is when Under has played he's looked more of an attacking threat than both Perez and Albrighton so 

The Daley-Campbell thing was a joke with Ric, it was mentioned later on.

[HankMarvin]

5 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

I'll go right back to an earlier argument I made regarding this, why after a few fleeting appearances are people convinced he'll be so good. There's been plenty of flash in the pan players over the years who skulted off to play in some shite league after their 15 minutes of glory. Macheda, Michu etc. 

 

Look at if this way, you say right wing is out weakest area, I'm sure Rodgers knows that too, hence why he tried to bring one in. Yet he STILL can't get much game time. So maybe just maybe they guy watching train every single day has realised that whilst he might be a useful player to have on the bench he doesn't right now have to skill set to improve us in that area, even though it's a weak area of the team.

Or maybe just maybe the reports regarding appearances leading to him being signed permanently are to be believed and BR wants to get a good look at him over the course of the season. Hence limited minutes.

 

https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/sport/football/transfer-news/leicester-cengiz-under-summer-transfer-4902249?utm_source=sharebar&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=sharebar

Edited 9 February 2021 by HankMarvin

[Facecloth]

5 minutes ago, HankMarvin said:

IN RESPONSE to the person that said we are as an example.

 

until he gets a fair sustained chance to prove himself we won’t know will we.

 

But you seem to know by telling everyone their wrong thinking he could.

 

No no no. Of course he COULD, I have never ever said I don't want to see him play and do well, what I have said is I don't understand the obsession with the guy after he's play like 230 minutes and how people are convinced he's the next Messi and will solve any problem we have. I support Leicester City FC, not Cengiz Under FC, I'm happy with how the team is doing as I suspect the vast majority of fans are, so why on earth would I be so bothered as some of you lot seem to be if Under plays or not. If he plays and does well great, if he doesn't and we still do well as a club, great.

 

He could do really well if he plays, but what if he doesn't, what if he costs us points because he doesn't track back or tries a shot when he could have squared it to someone better placed? If we were struggling in the bottom half I'd be all for trying anything that might change our fortunes, but we sit third, we don't need to change our fortunes, we're doing fine. I mean look at Arsenal, they were struggling playing the like Willian etc, they had to try something, they brought in Smith-Rowe and Saka and its worked, because they had to try something, we don't have to, we doing really well.

[Facecloth]

9 minutes ago, HankMarvin said:

Or maybe just maybe the reports regarding appearances leading to him being signed permanently are to be believed and BR wants to get a good look at him over the course of the season. Hence limited minutes.

Well if that is the case, stop ****ing moaning about him not playing then  his lack of time makes perfect sense!

[Guest Underfan]

2 minutes ago, HankMarvin said:

Or maybe just maybe the reports regarding appearances leading to him being signed permanently are to be believed and BR wants to get a good look at him over the course of the season. Hence limited minutes.

I first time hear about this reports. Why should ASRome put a clause on a contract if you play him often you need to buy him. Loan contracts generally should limit benching of a player to get him ready in anycase. If there are any clauses on play time, it might only be that Leicester City should play at least .....matches. You dont loan your players to get rusted. There is no confirmation of such a clause in Turkish media either. One thing for sure Cengiz was not physicall fit when first arrived in London, he was rather fat, since he had lacked matches due to biceps and hamstring muscle injuries, football was halted for 2 months italy.Now that he is fitter Brendan knows Cengiz and will use it for sure. But even when not fit he still didnt fail in any matches he played. 

[Harry96]

He should’ve definitely come on against wolves. There must be something going on behind the scenes because from what I have seen he’s impressed ie those assists for vardy against Leeds and arsenal and that goal vs Brentford just glimpses of what he’s capable of . 

[HankMarvin]

17 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

Well if that is the case, stop ****ing moaning about him not playing then  his lack of time makes perfect sense!

What’s ****ing moaning? Just bored of seeing you post your opinion like it’s FACT  Writing stuff like because he had a poor game against Everton, what difference could he make against wolves 🤣

 

[deep blue]

7 hours ago, Facecloth said:

You're assuming Under will bring something to the table, with nothing to base it on other than a few fleeting appearances. Inler came with a great reputation back then, based on your thinking he should have got more game time to prove one way or the other if he would bring anything. He got less opportunities in a whole season than Under has so far. We are doing fine without Under, so that's the reason. Rodgers has made plenty of mistakes, like persisting with 3 at the back when it's clear I doesn't work, but on the whole his team selection and personal have pushed the club forward, and he clearly doesn't think Under is yet ready to add anything others already do. If Rodgers feels he won't add anything, or in fact take something away from the team as a whole, and the team is continuing to move forward whilst he leaves Under "rotting" then its fine by me. There is no injustice, just a player struggling to get into a successful team. He won't be the first and he won't be the last.

 

As I've said before, if he plays and does well great, but I'm not desperate for him to play, and neither should any Leicester fan be whilst the club continues to progress 

All well and good, except that sometimes you need to look to the longer term than the immediate moment.

 

As an example, if he'd taken the opportunity to give Under the 2nd half v Fulham then that's 45 more minutes of Premier experience for him.  If he did that whenever the opportunity arose then there's a better chance that Under would be ready when needed.  Otherwise, along the line, there might be a moment when we have to rely on Under (e.g. one or two unexpected injuries) and it would be better if Under were ready to perform then rather than being still raw when he was forced on.

 

In other words, there are strategic reasons why he might be nurtured at every opportunity.

[Facecloth]

Just now, HankMarvin said:

What’s ****ing moaning? Just bored of seeing you post your opinion like it’s FACT  Writing stuff like because he had a poor game against Everton, what difference could he make against wolves 🤣

 

No! I said why are people convinced he would win us the game against Wolves, not that he would definitely be poor. I used the Everton game amongst other to show he has come on to no effect in the past, so why are people so convinced he'd have tore it up against Wolves.

 

I think people really don't get what I'm saying. My main concern is the club, I go not give **** one way or the other about Under, but obviously should he get a chance I hope he does well, because that'll be good for the team and I want any player who pulls on the shirt to do well. What I don't understand is why some of our fans do seem to care about this guy, and are convinced he'll be amazing the moment he gets a chance. I'll say it again, as long as the club keeps moving forward, I don't care if its with or without Under, and none of for should either. If the club keeps moving forward I wouldn't be bothered of the vast majority of this current squad never played for us again bar a few legends. So if he plays tomorrow and tears Brighton a new arsehole, happy days. If he never plays again and we achieve our aims, the happy days aswell.

[Sunbury Fox]

1 minute ago, Facecloth said:

No! I said why are people convinced he would win us the game against Wolves, not that he would definitely be poor. I used the Everton game amongst other to show he has come on to no effect in the past, so why are people so convinced he'd have tore it up against Wolves.

 

I think people really don't get what I'm saying. My main concern is the club, I go not give **** one way or the other about Under, but obviously should he get a chance I hope he does well, because that'll be good for the team and I want any player who pulls on the shirt to do well. What I don't understand is why some of our fans do seem to care about this guy, and are convinced he'll be amazing the moment he gets a chance. I'll say it again, as long as the club keeps moving forward, I don't care if its with or without Under, and none of for should either. If the club keeps moving forward I wouldn't be bothered of the vast majority of this current squad never played for us again bar a few legends. So if he plays tomorrow and tears Brighton a new arsehole, happy days. If he never plays again and we achieve our aims, the happy days aswell.

I'm not sure you're getting what people are saying. Most of us are not Cengo fan boys. We're simply asking for him to play so that we can see whether he could be the solution to our weak right wing spot, it really is as simple as that. Surely that is worth a try for more times and minutes than he has already had? 

[Facecloth]

2 minutes ago, deep blue said:

All well and good, except that sometimes you need to look to the longer term than the immediate moment.

 

As an example, if he'd taken the opportunity to give Under the 2nd half v Fulham then that's 45 more minutes of Premier experience for him.  If he did that whenever the opportunity arose then there's a better chance that Under would be ready when needed.  Otherwise, along the line, there might be a moment when we have to rely on Under (e.g. one or two unexpected injuries) and it would be better if Under were ready to perform then rather than being still raw when he was forced on.

 

In other words, there are strategic reasons why he might be nurtured at every opportunity.

You could say that about any fringe player though. We lead comfortably so why didn't we bring Thomas and Leshabela on? Obviously he's not deemed good enough by those watching him train every day, or there's a clause meaning a certain number of games means we have to buy him, but considering how few he's played I doubt he's close to that.

[urban.spaceman]

 

[Facecloth]

1 minute ago, Sunbury Fox said:

I'm not sure you're getting what people are saying. Most of us are not Cengo fan boys. We're simply asking for him to play so that we can see whether he could be the solution to our weak right wing spot, it really is as simple as that. Surely that is worth a try for more times and minutes than he has already had? 

We're currently 3rd in the league and in two cups, the team as whole is doing very well, so I'm not chomping at the bit for any fringe players to play more.

 

Also as previously pointed out, if we're that weak on that wing, and the management team still don't fancy him, as Rodgers has suggested, maybe we're getting over excited over nothing. 

[Wymsey]

The question one could say is that has been given enough time?

[StanSP]

34 minutes ago, Harry96 said:

He should’ve definitely come on against wolves. There must be something going on behind the scenes because from what I have seen he’s impressed ie those assists for vardy against Leeds and arsenal and that goal vs Brentford just glimpses of what he’s capable of . 

Pure speculation and based on absolutely nothing.

[Guest SO1]

14 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

You could say that about any fringe player though. We lead comfortably so why didn't we bring Thomas and Leshabela on? Obviously he's not deemed good enough by those watching him train every day, or there's a clause meaning a certain number of games means we have to buy him, but considering how few he's played I doubt he's close to that.

Could you imagine bringing him on and we lost the match by leaking a few goals. Rodgers would get torched. Rodgers always says defense is a team concept or something like that.  Cengo just needs to learn to fit into the system..............whats the word called when people talk past each other?

Edited 9 February 2021 by SO1

[Dahnsouff]

Why are people looking for conspiracies? Maybe the coaching team who spend all their time with him, recognise that he does not have the defensive discipline to become an integral part of this team. Watching cameo’s ain’t great I admit, but if he shows too little during training, then that is not likely to change.

 

Far better to blame the Illuminati than stare right at the obvious answer 

[Guest SO1]

8 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

 

They must be reading the thread. Thanks for stoking the fire!