Telegraph: "Four years on, the Brendan Rodgers formula is still Leicester City's best bet"

[Matt_Lcfc]

35 minutes ago, The_77 said:

Of course he did, Rodgers was nice to him after he left BBCRL. 
 

I really don’t know what the point of that article was other than to give a superficial history of the last few years and provide some positive PR for the manager ahead of a very difficult game.

Yes, I know that. However, ultimately, Rodgers doesn’t pick his extortionate salary up to be a nice bloke. 
 

Protecting somebody on that basis is a lame argument. If you had somebody severely underperforming at work, would you protect him because he is a nice bloke? Probably not.

 

I think we are on the same page though. I am in complete agreement that the article was practically pointless. It just provided a mere overview of what we have already witnessed and combined it with some positive PR for Rodgers.

Edited 24 February 2023 by Matt_Lcfc

[pmcla26]

1 minute ago, Dames said:

Its a myth that he hasn't been backed its been 4 years and over 300 million pounds. This is his team, his personnel and they are getting worse year on year.

I didn't say he hadn't been backed, we have made errors in recruitment in the last few years, and some of that is potentially (probably a fair bit of it) BR's fault, without knowing all the ins and outs. If we get it right though, and get a few more signings of Kristiansen, Tete and Souttar's quality, he will get the best out of them on the pitch. Some of the players we have signed just simply aren't good enough. Early days, but January's signings suggest we're making progress in correcting mistakes in that area.  

 

I think, from what I've read and heard, that the club have realised they need to just let BR coach and then have someone like Glover head up the area of recruitment. Rather than have Rodgers mould it all on and off of the pitch. 

[Foxdiamond]

Putting aside our league position for the moment. I would of course love to win the cup again. Would you rather lose the final or get knocked out in earlier round?

[Matt_Lcfc]

43 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

Yeah it's not balanced at all, Brendan has earnt the right for plenty of credit and to ride out some of the regression and poor spells but Percy absolutely loves Brendan and not a chance he'd throw him under the bus like he did with previous managers.

It’s just the game that Rodgers plays. Begrudgingly, you have to admit that he is good with the media.

 

From solely looking at it via an individualistic angle, it’s quite clever what he does. It’s as simple as this:

 

1) Make friends with the media.

2) Get protection when things go badly.

3) Be viewed as the victim by the footballing world.

 

He knows exactly what he is doing (in that regard). It’s why when you often talk to supporters of other clubs, many argue that Rodgers is a really good manager and that we could do a lot worse.

Edited 24 February 2023 by Matt_Lcfc

[pmcla26]

Just now, Matt_Lcfc said:

It’s just the game that Rodgers plays. Begrudgingly, you have to admit that he is good with the media.

 

From solely looking at it via an individualistic angle, it’s quite clever what he does. It’s as simple as this:

 

1) Make friends with the media.

2) Get protection when things go badly.

3) Be viewed as the victim by the footballing world.

 

He knows exactly what he is doing (in that regard). It’s why when you often talk to supporters of other clubs, many go ‘but Rodgers is a really manager, you could do a lot worse.’

Aren't they right, though? 

 

Look at Leeds' and Southampton's struggles to appoint managers, or Everton only being able to turn to Dyche (although maybe not a bad appointment for their current predicament, doubt it will be a great one long-term). 

 

Wolves' have got Lopetegui, but he's unproven in England for the time being. 

 

So yeah, we could do a lot worse, wouldn't you agree? 

[Jordan]

I don’t think the article was all one sided. Percy clearly talks about big dips in form, poor transfer windows, the board being tight, defensive problems, and set piece woes. It’s a brief article, but I didn’t get the feeling that Percy glossed over these issues.

 

And not to simp for Percy… yeah I think newspaper football journalism is generally crap in across the UK because writers are often more concerned with protecting what little access they have than about writing good info that can put this in peril. However, I don’t think Percy is that kind of reporter. If his sources are on the ball, he’ll break news that might be good news for some but bad news for others.

 

Some of this might be PR but it’s more likely that the Telegraph’s Midlands football reporter has a regular assignment to write brief feature articles on the teams he covers and with Leicester City having a big game near a manager’s milestone, and hey, maybe that means it’s not a bad time to write about City and Rodgers.

 

I mean, I know everyone here is looking for a hit piece, but there are plenty of valid reasons why you’re not going to get one from Percy right now.
 

Rodgers has the board’s backing and confidence, doesn’t seem to have too many problems with players bar Schmeichel and Cags, and has a solid overall reputation in the football world. I have called for Rodgers to be sacked a few times but a “balanced” viewpoint has to at least take this + Rodgers’ achievements at the club into consideration.

[Lambert09]

5 hours ago, AKCJ said:

I don't really understand why anyone would have a problem with Kasper being captain. Be interesting to know the whos and whys.

because good performance on the pitch doesn’t  mean a likeable personality. 

 

I think we all know kasper is a little unique but many would find his antics annoying.  Of course we love him but if you had to be with him everyday… maybe not. 

 

There’s a reason vardy isn’t a captain, his personality just isn’t right for it. He leads as an example on the pitch and that’s good enough, no need to bring the social aspect to his role. There’s a video somewhere where someone asks wilf about vardy going into management and a natural burst of laughter comes out, before realising how it would look and quickly trying to recover to a more neutral response. 

Edited 24 February 2023 by Lambert09

[The_77]

17 minutes ago, Matt_Lcfc said:

Yes, I know that. However, ultimately, Rodgers doesn’t pick his extortionate salary up to be a nice bloke. 
 

Protecting somebody on that basis is a lame argument. If you had somebody severely underperforming at work, would you protect him because he is a nice bloke? Probably not.

 

I think we are on the same page though. I am in complete agreement that the article was practically pointless. It just provided a mere overview of what we have already witnessed and combined it with some positive PR for Rodgers.

Yes, absolutely. I didn’t mean to imply you didn’t know that, I was just emphasizing your point.

 

Edited 24 February 2023 by The_77

[Ric Flair]

3 minutes ago, Jordan said:

I don’t think the article was all one sided. Percy clearly talks about big dips in form, poor transfer windows, the board being tight, defensive problems, and set piece woes. It’s a brief article, but I didn’t get the feeling that Percy glossed over these issues.

 

And not to simp for Percy… yeah I think newspaper football journalism is generally crap in across the UK because writers are often more concerned with protecting what little access they have than about writing good info that can put this in peril. However, I don’t think Percy is that kind of reporter. If his sources are on the ball, he’ll break news that might be good news for some but bad news for others.

 

Some of this might be PR but it’s more likely that the Telegraph’s Midlands football reporter has a regular assignment to write brief feature articles on the teams he covers and with Leicester City having a big game near a manager’s milestone, and hey, maybe that means it’s not a bad time to write about City and Rodgers.

 

I mean, I know everyone here is looking for a hit piece, but there are plenty of valid reasons why you’re not going to get one from Percy right now.
 

Rodgers has the board’s backing and confidence, doesn’t seem to have too many problems with players bar Schmeichel and Cags, and has a solid overall reputation in the football world. I have called for Rodgers to be sacked a few times but a “balanced” viewpoint has to at least take this + Rodgers’ achievements at the club into consideration.

Fair points, I just think Percy deliberately opted not to stir any mounting pressure last season or this season when there was serious fan unrest. Its probably right not to gob off now but he took every opportunity to write hit pieces on Puel 😂😂😂

[Corky]

Hard to replace the Rodgers of 2/3 years ago. He was our best bet then. Now? Not convinced at all. The way he's managed this season on and off the pitch has been dreadful.

[Jordan]

12 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

Fair points, I just think Percy deliberately opted not to stir any mounting pressure last season or this season when there was serious fan unrest. Its probably right not to gob off now but he took every opportunity to write hit pieces on Puel 😂😂😂

Hahaha, yep, things like the “Vardy’s getting dropped tomorrow for Demari Gray” were in my mind when I wrote that post.

 

I am willing to eat a bit of crow on that point if we start hearing from Percy the second Rodgers leaves that he was doing stuff like the envelope thing again all along.

[Ric Flair]

9 minutes ago, Jordan said:

Hahaha, yep, things like the “Vardy’s getting dropped tomorrow for Demari Gray” were in my mind when I wrote that post.

 

I am willing to eat a bit of crow on that point if we start hearing from Percy the second Rodgers leaves that he was doing stuff like the envelope thing again all along.

Soyuncu's name in all 3 of them 😂😂

[Matt_Lcfc]

33 minutes ago, Pete52 said:

Aren't they right, though? 

 

Look at Leeds' and Southampton's struggles to appoint managers, or Everton only being able to turn to Dyche (although maybe not a bad appointment for their current predicament, doubt it will be a great one long-term). 

 

Wolves' have got Lopetegui, but he's unproven in England for the time being. 

 

So yeah, we could do a lot worse, wouldn't you agree? 

I do understand the argument in relation to being careful for what you wish for in football. However, I do not think that these are fair comparisons.

 

Southampton were rooted to the bottom of the table and Nathan Jones was a genuine shocking appointment, it was just insanity to give him the job.

 

Leeds were going down with Bielsa, Marsch kept them up, so from a short-term point of view, he turned out OK.

 

Wolves have seen a massive upturn in form since appointing Lopetegui, I do not think that they will go down whatsoever.

 

Everton will stay up under Dyche, I am convinced. Of course, you can debate the long-term impact, but for where they are right now, it is a sensible appointment.

 

So, conclusively, most sides that you listed are better off. As I said at the start, I do not really think that they are fair comparisons anyway. We are in a better place than all of the above clubs. What this means is that we can attract a better manager, if we made a genuine sensible appointment, then yes, we would be in a better position. It would be a gamble, but one that I would be happy to see the club take as I do not think that in the long-term, there is any chance of Rodgers putting us back on an upwards trajectory.

 

[ealingfox]

52 minutes ago, jim5000 said:

There was no investment in the squad for 3 windows in a row. Even Alex Fergusson would struggle in the modern ultra competitive PL with that constraint, and without that, Rodgers gave us our 2nd and 3rd highest ever finish and and FA Cup. The shackles should be lifted this summer, and we can hopefully start looking upwards again.

 

3 windows? I'll give you January 22 and Summer 22, but what's the third? Summer 21 he was given the highest net spend for a window in our history, and we got worse as a result of it. And then we invested in the window just gone. This is to add to the fact he took over a very good squad which had seen plenty of investment.

 

I'm not really convinced by that argument, although I am heartened that they managed to get rid of Congerton, and would be more so if it could be confirmed that the club have taken plenty of Rodgers' power back.

[Lambert09]

As someone who was once so far gone on the Rodgers out fence, I do sort of get the main point.  There are still enough signs that make me want to see what Rodgers can do.  But it does feel like taking your ex back, I start to look at the good times and think that this time will be different but ultimately we are going to gutlessly role over when we shouldnt again. 

 

At the end of the day, if we mostly play nice football and we finish mid-table, then I think we have to accept that rodgers has done a good job for this season. Its been bumpy and largely because of him but theres no arguing that he had the worst scenario of all the managers in the division in the summer transfer window. I still cant fully comprehend what we were playing at... a simple 15m ok for lookman could have been all that was needed to turn a nightmare start into a positive one. 

[weller54]

33 minutes ago, Corky said:

Hard to replace the Rodgers of 2/3 years ago. He was our best bet then. Now? Not convinced at all. The way he's managed this season on and off the pitch has been dreadful.

He's the unflushable turd I'm afraid.

[Stadt]

45 minutes ago, Corky said:

Hard to replace the Rodgers of 2/3 years ago. He was our best bet then. Now? Not convinced at all. The way he's managed this season on and off the pitch has been dreadful.

Another reason to be rid of him is the constant need for a shot in the arm. With half the squad leaving within 18 months and our best player looking like he’ll be off in the summer - we need a manager that can make do.

 

Rodgers is too mopey and too rigid to be the right man to take us forwards.

 

If he has us in a relegation battle with this level of talent, what will it be like this time next year sans Maddison and Tielemans?

[The whole world smiles]

Rodgers is 100 percent are best bet with the caveat that it would take 60 odd million to sack and replace him and there is no guarantee the replacement will be a success. 

 

People who understand football like John Percy, former chairman Jon Holmes and former board member James Johnson (cheers bslb pod) all know this to be true its a shame some of our more "entrenched" fans can't get their head around it. 

[The Year Of The Fox]

7 hours ago, foxfanazer said:

What exactly is the formula?

Percy’s tongue + Brendan’s ass 

[TJQuik]

7 hours ago, South Shire Fox said:

Made more sense then allowing the players to pick Albrighton as vice captain. Still dont understand how Vardy isnt the club captain after being here 11 years and all his achievements, very strange

Completely agree - instead we've got someone who is just as Knackered as Morgan was in his last season with us. Shouldn't the club captain who plays at least more often than when he miraculously recovers for the next international friendly?

[somebum]

42 minutes ago, The whole world smiles said:

Rodgers is 100 percent are best bet with the caveat that it would take 60 odd million to sack and replace him and there is no guarantee the replacement will be a success. 

 

People who understand football like John Percy, former chairman Jon Holmes and former board member James Johnson (cheers bslb pod) all know this to be true its a shame some of our more "entrenched" fans can't get their head around it. 

Only Journalists and people who have been in the game can have valid opinions? Which category do you belong to, pray tell, that we can validate your argument 

[sacreblueits442]

59 minutes ago, The whole world smiles said:

Rodgers is 100 percent are best bet with the caveat that it would take 60 odd million to sack and replace him and there is no guarantee the replacement will be a success. 

 

People who understand football like John Percy, former chairman Jon Holmes and former board member James Johnson (cheers bslb pod) all know this to be true its a shame some of our more "entrenched" fans can't get their head around it. 

...interesting to see the breakdown in this respect!!!

[Fox92]

6 hours ago, Stadt said:

We should have scored against United but 3-0 wasn't flattering given how open we were.

And yet if we aren't open people criticise him for being to defensive.

[Daggers]

5 minutes ago, sacreblueits442 said:

...interesting to see the breakdown in this respect!!!

Staggers me that people are too lazy to check out www.madeupbullshitontheinternetaboutfootballcontracts.co.uk

[Fox92]

2 hours ago, Matt_Lcfc said:

I do understand the argument in relation to being careful for what you wish for in football. However, I do not think that these are fair comparisons.

 

Southampton were rooted to the bottom of the table and Nathan Jones was a genuine shocking appointment, it was just insanity to give him the job.

 

Leeds were going down with Bielsa, Marsch kept them up, so from a short-term point of view, he turned out OK.

 

Wolves have seen a massive upturn in form since appointing Lopetegui, I do not think that they will go down whatsoever.

 

Everton will stay up under Dyche, I am convinced. Of course, you can debate the long-term impact, but for where they are right now, it is a sensible appointment.

 

So, conclusively, most sides that you listed are better off. As I said at the start, I do not really think that they are fair comparisons anyway. We are in a better place than all of the above clubs. What this means is that we can attract a better manager, if we made a genuine sensible appointment, then yes, we would be in a better position. It would be a gamble, but one that I would be happy to see the club take as I do not think that in the long-term, there is any chance of Rodgers putting us back on an upwards trajectory.

 

Marsch wasn't okay short term for Leeds because they're in a relegation battle again. 

 

Dyche will keep Everton up, and people will peddle this, but it's hardly a fantastic job. They were 2 points off safety when he got the job, not 20.