Jump to content
justfoxes

Leicester 2 - 0 Chelsea Post Match Thread

Recommended Posts

Only we could put ourselves in a position of being woefully short in defence at the start of the season, to now have the modern day Franz Beckenbauer sign for us and now faced to leave out our best defender last season!

 

You don't want to lose Lord Farquad, but he's got to play hasn't he? So is Evans worthy of being dropped? No.... ahhhhhh, what a quandry.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, glebe_sydneyfox said:

Lovely stuff is all I've got to say.

Pretty on the eye, tactically spot on, everyone put in a shift.

Many other posters have mentioned but it's worth reiterating - not once was I worried we wouldn't see the game out - in fact 3-0 or 4-0 would not have flattered how good the guys were out there.

The funny thing is pundits are still waxing lyrical about the big teams we beat, and we seem to be (strangely) flying under the radar even in 1st 

Because they still don’t take us seriously, fact. In their opinion the title is in the hands of Man City, Man Utd or Liverpool. Most even think Tottenham and Chelsea will finish above us. 
 

I mean they might, but play like that the rest of the season and you’d have to say we are in it by right. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Pliskin said:

Lets be fair, he's just another Henrikh Mkhitaryan..

It’s sickening being in the US and watching them scramble for interviews etc with him. I have to admit he’s a good dribbler but nowhere near this generational talent they keep bigging him up as. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Chelsea somehow is less than the sum of its parts.  You look at the names, you look at the possession, you look at the results - something doesn't add up.  It's hard to see how the manager escapes the blame for that.

 

As for the good guys, that was a really solid, clinical performance.  I honestly think opposition like Chelsea who dominate the ball are the best sort of opponent for us, because it's when we have lots of possession that we tend to bog ourselves down.  In a match like this we maximize every pass, every run - and we have guys that can hurt you on the counter.  Obviously against someone like Man City who's loaded with killers it's one thing, but a team that loads up on empty possession like Chelsea plays right into our hands.

Edited by Deeg67
Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone else listening to Radio Chelsea aka TalkShite this morning?  Are we top of the League or did I dream it last night?  Even heard one reference to Arsenal being a 'Top 6' Club.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, RoboFox said:

Redknapp saying post-match that Fofana will “be the best defender in Europe in a few years”

That’s some statement.

...and then proceeded to try and sell him. Good old Sky.

It's difficult to see what's at the root of this eagerness to disrupt a team which these people should be hoping remain a unit which can advance the reputation of English football. Is it a mindset or a deliberate policy designed to keep certain clubs as 'special'? I don't believe there was any justification for English football to create a Premier League - it was a successful attempt to create an elitist display case. It's fundamental driving force has been the enrichment of the broadcasters (Sky etc) who used their already vast resources to buy off the rights from this separated league while leaving the other leagues relatively powerless and impoverished as a consequence. It's a traditional feudal English operation.

 

It has devalued the FA Cup - which was, in its own way, as meaningful as the League title. It has devalued the Scottish League. I guess it's also, to an extent, reduced the standards of the other European leagues - Portugal and Holland in particular. Maybe even it's been the cause of the weakening of South American football. So it's only been for the benefit of five or six English clubs, Sky (and now BT and Amazon) and the Premier League set-up. Who owns these clubs and should they own English clubs? Well, City have also been sold off to a foreign company. But I like to believe that Vichai and Top have a certain morality which Abramovitch, the Glazers, the Kroenkes, al Muburak, the "Fenway Sports Group" and "ENIC" (registered in  the Bahamas) dont' have. But maybe I'm twisting the 'facts' to make my argument.

 

Does this three-headed monster want to lose all this wealth and clout? Of course not. Do the execs at Sky have a word with all of the ex-player pundits - telling them to play down Leicester City because they'll disrupt the 'normal service'? It seems that they're always eager to suggest that one of our players should make a move to 'better' themselves with a bigger club, rather than saying that Leicester are a club who're bucking the trend by creating excellence in all areas of their operation and succeeding in challenging those expected, via their wealth, to walk off with all the prizes.

 

The concentration of the best players (most expensive) in England has led to the belief that we see the best football...ever. That's not provable. Maybe we watch the fittest footballers ever, but there have always been players, even back in the dark ages :-), whose skill would match modern players. However, my theory isn't about who are and were the best footballers - it's about whether the Premier and all its associated money-grabbing is a 'good thing'.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, gerblod said:

It's difficult to see what's at the root of this eagerness to disrupt a team which these people should be hoping remain a unit which can advance the reputation of English football. Is it a mindset or a deliberate policy designed to keep certain clubs as 'special'? I don't believe there was any justification for English football to create a Premier League - it was a successful attempt to create an elitist display case. It's fundamental driving force has been the enrichment of the broadcasters (Sky etc) who used their already vast resources to buy off the rights from this separated league while leaving the other leagues relatively powerless and impoverished as a consequence. It's a traditional feudal English operation.

 

It has devalued the FA Cup - which was, in its own way, as meaningful as the League title. It has devalued the Scottish League. I guess it's also, to an extent, reduced the standards of the other European leagues - Portugal and Holland in particular. Maybe even it's been the cause of the weakening of South American football. So it's only been for the benefit of five or six English clubs, Sky (and now BT and Amazon) and the Premier League set-up. Who owns these clubs and should they own English clubs? Well, City have also been sold off to a foreign company. But I like to believe that Vichai and Top have a certain morality which Abramovitch, the Glazers, the Kroenkes, al Muburak, the "Fenway Sports Group" and "ENIC" (registered in  the Bahamas) dont' have. But maybe I'm twisting the 'facts' to make my argument.

 

Does this three-headed monster want to lose all this wealth and clout? Of course not. Do the execs at Sky have a word with all of the ex-player pundits - telling them to play down Leicester City because they'll disrupt the 'normal service'? It seems that they're always eager to suggest that one of our players should make a move to 'better' themselves with a bigger club, rather than saying that Leicester are a club who're bucking the trend by creating excellence in all areas of their operation and succeeding in challenging those expected, via their wealth, to walk off with all the prizes.

 

The concentration of the best players (most expensive) in England has led to the belief that we see the best football...ever. That's not provable. Maybe we watch the fittest footballers ever, but there have always been players, even back in the dark ages :-), whose skill would match modern players. However, my theory isn't about who are and were the best footballers - it's about whether the Premier and all its associated money-grabbing is a 'good thing'.

 

Great post

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Poco said:

Brilliant throughout the team tonight. Subtle tactical tweak from Brendan has been interesting in the last few games - Maddison almost playing up front with Vardy at times (far more useful than collecting the ball off the CBs) and Wilf pushed further forward to win the ball earlier in the press.

 

On we go!

For sure. Not boasting but a few people on FT (including me) have been saying that Maddison is much better suited playing near the front/Vardy, if he starts (a role Perez can do well as well. And Maddison has been quite disciplined about this.

 

You can see the evolution. When Maddison was playing a freer role and dropping deeper, because of his desire to get the ball, his twists and turns (often unnecessary near the half way line and slows down play), and his lack of accuracy when it comes to long balls (often weak, high and off angle), he was severely undermining Tielemans. This was what we saw and why we complained and wanted Praet to start in midfield with Tielemans (I still advocate for Praet btw). There was no coincidence why Tielemans was poor when Maddison was his deep midfield partner. It did not work. Rodgers tried it probably to test it and also because Ndidi was really bad with passing upfield. But with it being clear it was a square peg through a round hole, and with Ndidi really improving his positioning and passing of late, Rodgers has now seen the light and able to deploy Maddison in the role he is better at. I think Maddison still needs to improve his decision making and weight and angle of his passing (he has some way to go compared to Tielemans and as it is Maddison is still overhyped in my view), but Maddison is really responding to criticisms and getting better and better. I have been impressed, though for the time being I still don’t think he should be automatic choice and Perez can offer something more depending on the game (it was right for example to sub Maddison out at Southampton). 

Edited by Tom12345
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Deeg67 said:

Chelsea somehow is less than the sum of its parts.  You look at the names, you look at the possession, you look at the results - something doesn't add up.  It's hard to see how the manager escapes the blame for that.

 

As for the good guys, that was a really solid, clinical performance.  I honestly think opposition like Chelsea who dominate the ball are the best sort of opponent for us, because it's when we have lots of possession that we tend to bog ourselves down.  In a match like this we maximize every pass, every run - and we have guys that can hurt you on the counter.  Obviously against someone like Man City who's loaded with killers it's one thing, but a team that loads up on empty possession like Chelsea plays right into our hands.

It is a bit unfair on Chelsea. They are going through a bad patch. What you are describing is exactly like what we were like in parts last two seasons. Looked good with the players we have (and still have), had a lot of useless possession (we were no longer playing much counter attacking football but a bit of Puelball), and things were not ticking. That was not too long ago yet Rodgers escaped blame.

 

I think Frank and his team come good (although they now have Chilwell so Puelball may continue for them at least on the left side for a while). They did finish third and overtook us last season! 

Edited by Tom12345
Link to post
Share on other sites

Really time to start taking this team seriously. Won that with ease. Top 4 a definite possibility.

 

Not Vardy’s best match, but he earns a 7 just by being there. I think Wilf coming back has made all the difference. Superb from Justin & Fofana. Albrighton and Evans as dependable as ever. Maddison starting to clock up a few goals. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, weller54 said:

'we feel we're unbeatable in every game we play'......😂😂🤣🤣😂🤣😂...

Yeah, ok Ben!!

As Madders said, we’re top because we don’t think about being top. We take it a game at a time. Also delighted he said to the media to keep talking about the Big 6, we’ll keep going in the background.
 

Signs are good. Top 4 would be a great result for us (and achievable), it shows continued progression. I’m trying not to compare us to 2015/6, and don’t want to think we’re title contenders... yet...

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, stretch1965 said:

 

BBCs football expert Mark Lawrenson predicted a 0-2 Chelsea win.

Well done  :appl:

Didn’t Mark Lawrenson say last month we would drop away second half of season and we’re not top six contenders!!

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, BoyJones said:

Didn’t Mark Lawrenson say last month we would drop away second half of season and we’re not top six contenders!!

We start the second half of the season next game against Everton, he could still be right.

I doubt it though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mozartfox said:

Anyone else listening to Radio Chelsea aka TalkShite this morning?  Are we top of the League or did I dream it last night?  Even heard one reference to Arsenal being a 'Top 6' Club.

To be fair they spent a good 30 minutes or so earlier talking about how we look the real deal, for once it wasn't all about Chelsea when I was listening

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Julian Joachim Jr Shabadoo said:

To be fair they spent a good 30 minutes or so earlier talking about how we look the real deal, for once it wasn't all about Chelsea when I was listening

Its the small club mentality some of ours fans still have. They won't hear the praise about us, they'll just hear the stuff about the other teams:ph34r:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...