Boring Boring Leicester

[Nods]

20 minutes ago, Kitchandro said:

 

 

I consider ‘possession football’ to be football where possession is the aim.

 

We did play some great football under Rodgers for about 6 months but it wasn’t because we kept possession, it was because we passed the ball with tempo and accuracy. 

 

Agreed that accurate short passes are great when there is purpose but that’s just passing football - possession football is when the purpose is possession. I’ve often said it but the amount of possession a team has is often correlated with the quality of their players - you can batter a team from start to finish with 85% possession but that doesn’t mean you’re playing possession football - just means they can’t get it off you.

 

What I’m saying is - possession football is  the enemy because it’s a major reason we play badly (even when we had quality players 5 years ago). Prioritising possession has so many drawbacks; it invites pressure, it bores (demotivates) the players and fans, it allows the opposition to get players back into position, it invariably leads to a reduced tempo and worst of all it’s not how most goals are scored so not even statistically backed (again, the key stat is not how much possession winning teams have but how many goals are scored in moves with a high amount of passes in the build up).

 

So, if we’re saying that we’re missing high quality passing at a high tempo, that’s not really compatible with possession football because the priority of possession football is to slow the pace down and not to take risks. Passing the ball quickly and with attacking purpose requires the risk of losing possession.

No team sets out with the primary objective of maximising possession. Not really. Fans have convinced themselves to the point of considering it fact that certain managers get a bonk on if they manage 80%. That's not the case, except for, maybe, the extreme case of Russell Martin. 

 

What you're bored of, and what you're calling 'possession football' is just slow football. Slow football happens when you have poor players, unmotivated players and players that lack confidence. I'm not even convinced we are particularly obsessed with possession this season. We've attempted 271 take ons, with the average being 168 and the next nearest to us attempting 218. We are taking risks, not just recycling play. 

 

On the other side of the coin, you can have a very good team of players, but if the opposition sits very deep, guess what? That'll slow the game down, too. You can't counter attack a team that sits on the edge of their own box all game. Arsenal wrongly get called a boring possession-obsessed team. They are just better than everyone else at the moment, so everyone sits deep against them which results in an often dull watch where they're concerned.  The stats literally demonstrate this. 

 

Really there are two main 'types' of football. One that relies on winning the ball back (high press or low block), or taking the initiative and taking the game to the opposition. Both strategies can be executed well or poorly, but the entertainment you're craving isn't aligned to either. In fact we'd be even more boring to watch if this squad of players tried to rely on winning the ball high, or waiting until we can counter. We don't have the players to do it, so you'd just be watching us amble around the pitch aimlessly. We might score some counter attacking goals, but with this defence, are you really trusting them with all the pressure we'd be inviting? Who's going to press from the front?

 

In terms of Leicester City, it's all a bit moot. We don't recruit players that are good enough to zip it about quickly and accurately enough for it to be effective. But then we also don't recruit players capable of deploying a high press. And a low block would be silly as it would invite unnecessary pressure in a league in which we have superior players. It would be an unnecessary trade off. 

 

Let's just worry about getting recruitment right before going off on a pointless tangent about 'possession football.' Nothing works without getting recruitment right, and any brand of football is likely to be hard on the eyes until we do. 

 

If we do get back into the Premier League, it's a different conversation. It's less about what's entertaining and more about what is likely to be most effective. And given that we'd be going into that league as one of the weakest sides, we'd be wise to recruit players based on the idea of being strong in a low block, fast on the counter, and with players able to press high and nick chances. 

 

We should be more flexible and our recruitment should be much more closely aligned to an agreed strategy based on which league we find ourselves in. I agree that flexibility should come with a view that we're able to move away from our current blueprint. But not because anything other than counter attacking football is inherently boring.

[ozleicester]

TikiTaka possesion based football is 20 years old!

The reason it was successful originally was because it was new (well an extension of Cruyffs total football) and therefore oppostition didnt know the bestr way to beat it. 15 years on and unless you have the very best players..it is easily defended or beaten.
 

Top end sport is no longer a competition, it is entertainment and will continue to serve up crap as long as people go to watch it (more for the clicks of i was there, than to enjoy competition). The rise in nonleague enthusiasm is where it starts.

[CrazyKopCorner]

When you think of the exhilarating football we played at the end of 2014 / 2015 and the whole of 2015 / 2016. 

 

We'd literally have the ball in the full back positions and they'd be a roar to get the ball forward quickly - Not long ball but a combination of running with the ball, passes into midfield, down the line and of course to Vardy. 

 

Just thinking about it gets the pulse racing. 

[adam95581]

11 hours ago, Mike Oxlong said:

Fvck them up, get into them seems a distant memory 

Remember chanting this when I was younger…was only allowed to say the “get into them” bit. 
 

Also, always thought it was “get into them” then “fvck them up” personally. 

[OnlyOneCity]

The Tiki Taka football played by Barcelona and Pep’s early Man City, is nothing like what it has become over the last few years. In all honesty, Man City have become a very boring team to watch. Even their own fans have been encouraged by Pep to be more vocal. They’re probably chatting away in the stands whilst waiting for the team to reach the penalty area! The amount of goals given away by the passing about at the back with the keeper is ridiculous. I don’t think the idea is to keep giving it back to the keeper until he’s closed down and wacks it out for a throw in. I enjoy watching Bournemouth and Brentford far more than the so called big clubs. They play attacking exciting football. We are back to our centre backs having more of the ball than any other players. Surely you want your forwards in charge of pushing forward, not waiting for Vestegard to stop posing on the ball, then passing a short ball to someone who has to run back to get it, and whose only option, is then to play it back to Vestegard. Start all over again. I would be interested to know how much time we actually spend with the ball, in the opposition half.

[Sol thewall Bamba]

13 hours ago, Mike Oxlong said:

Fvck them up, get into them seems a distant memory 

 

13 hours ago, Winstonthedog said:

Oh for its return..... however its not on the happy clappers play list 

Was literally sung at our last game.

[Freddy]

12 hours ago, Vazman said:

Yep, Boring style, Boring match days, Boring DOF, Boring owner, Boring Manager, Boring predictable pre and post match interviews, Boring set up, everything about LCFC at the moment is Boring and predictable, and we are going to keep getting more of the same till either the DOF changes, or the owner sells up.

Yeah the Top and DOF, multiple managers, but do we scout and recruit like we did? Abdul is great but we've so many below average mentality players kicking a football for us. Man Utd have looked shocking for years buying crap, two hard working guys up front have completely changed the whole dynamic of that club. 

[cityfanlee23]

11 hours ago, Nods said:

Possession football isn't the enemy. Poor football is. We're crap and currently play possession football, so people are wrongly identifying the root cause here as our style of play, when in fact our biggest issue is that we have a lot of poor footballers on the books.

 

We could also be crap while lumping it forward, and people would be calling for our dinosaur brand of football to be modernised. 

 

Do I think we could play quicker? Absolutely. But that's a mental/attitude challenge more than it is a stylistic one. 

 

There's nothing wrong with possession-based football if it's done with purpose and skill. There's also nothing wrong with direct football if it's done with good delivery, physicality and intensity. 

 

We don't have the required players to be direct either. 

 

The issue is the players, and the framework at the top of the club that led to having such an overpaid, under-qualified and unmotivated bunch of tossers to choose from. I agree that our slow football is boring. But that doesn't mean that all possession based styles are without their merit. And as others have already said, it can be incredibly pleasing on the eye when deployed properly. 

 

It's beyond simplification to blame possession for poor football and our issues.

Agree to an extent, but I do think the vast majority of football fans would prefer to watch Bournemouth for the rest of their lives over Man City. 

Pep has been forced to defend his obsession with passing and “control” recently because of fans kicking up a fuss, and he’s one of the few who can make it work. 

[OntarioFox]

The most frustrating thing is that we set the blueprint for the way the game's now going - high press, quick counters, with a bit of class in wide positions - and showed possession based footy could be nullified with relative ease. Remember at the time of our title win the footballing world was still enthralled with Tiki Taka and the Barcelona way and lauding Pep as the next Alex Fergusson during his stint with Bayern Munich.

 

We then decided nah, stuff that, we're going to make it a club mission to abandon that style that clearly worked and adopt the exact philosophy we'd JUST shown to be on the way out. In the meantime, we've been left behind by the likes of Bournemouth, Palace, F*rest, who have all adopted what I believe was our style. Even Brighton have gone that way out of sheer pragmatism - they aren't the same possession obsession team they were under Potter. And then you see it's started trickling down to the second division too, which is why we're no longer walking games in this league - we've been sussed out because our tactics are ten years out of date.

 

It's honestly painful for me to watch other teams play the way we used to play and get results against us. That 4-1 spanking at Forest in particular sticks out as the day the 'true' Leicester City we knew and loved was left behind by football.

Edited 30 October 2025 by OntarioFox

[Finnegan]

10 hours ago, Kitchandro said:

 

 

I consider ‘possession football’ to be football where possession is the aim.

 

We did play some great football under Rodgers for about 6 months but it wasn’t because we kept possession, it was because we passed the ball with tempo and accuracy. 

 

Agreed that accurate short passes are great when there is purpose but that’s just passing football - possession football is when the purpose is possession. I’ve often said it but the amount of possession a team has is often correlated with the quality of their players - you can batter a team from start to finish with 85% possession but that doesn’t mean you’re playing possession football - just means they can’t get it off you.

 

What I’m saying is - possession football is  the enemy because it’s a major reason we play badly (even when we had quality players 5 years ago). Prioritising possession has so many drawbacks; it invites pressure, it bores (demotivates) the players and fans, it allows the opposition to get players back into position, it invariably leads to a reduced tempo and worst of all it’s not how most goals are scored so not even statistically backed (again, the key stat is not how much possession winning teams have but how many goals are scored in moves with a high amount of passes in the build up).

 

So, if we’re saying that we’re missing high quality passing at a high tempo, that’s not really compatible with possession football because the priority of possession football is to slow the pace down and not to take risks. Passing the ball quickly and with attacking purpose requires the risk of losing possession.

 

"I consider this established term that means something to mean something different, excluding things I actually do like, because I'm not bright enough to hold nuanced, contrasting thoughts in my head at the same time." 

 

[cityfanlee23]

Klopp ball > Pep Ball in every conceivable way. 
 

Sadly many of our fans especially during the Enzo period were brainwashed into this view that anyone who dislikes this obsession with control, must only want 1980s hoofball as an alternative. 
 

I watch football because it’s an entertainment sport, we all find different things entertaining, I watch football because I want to be entertained for as many of the 90 minutes as possible. 
Possession football especially when you don’t have hundreds of millions to spend almost always delivers boring monotonous football in my opinion. 
I do admire the philosophy and the chess-like approach to wearing the opponent down but from an entertainment perspective it almost always under delivers. 
 

Danny Rohl may have had us in the same position in the league (personally think we would be comfortably higher) but atleast it would have been entertaining. Under Enzo and now under Cifuentes I have actually forgotten the time on a Saturday/Tuesday on multiple occasions. 
 

The Hyper-commercialisation and posession-obsession have pretty much killed my passion for football over the last 8 years.    

[OntarioFox]

Oh yeah and Klopp is a good example too as you said @cityfanlee23

 

I guess in my mind I think of the gegenpress / fast transitions approach to be treated more as a leveller for less 'gifted' sides, but there's a Greedy Six team right there who have adapted their game. The less said about Slot so far this season the better, but certainly last year was more a continuation of the style and personnel left by Klopp, which is pretty similar to Claudio's first season for us.

 

Arsenal, can't quite put my finger on but they seem to play a mix. It certainly isn't the death-by-a-thousand-passes football terrorism Arteta was accused of in his earlier time there.

 

It's only really Chelsea I can think of who have moved towards more possession in recent times, and it's only working for them because they have a bottomless pit of players to try and - admittedly - a good manager who can drill it into their brains. They're still nowhere near a title contender and get found out fairly regularly. Oh, and their fans seem to hate the style

Edited 30 October 2025 by OntarioFox

[pmcla26]

15 minutes ago, cityfanlee23 said:

Sadly many of our fans especially during the Enzo period were brainwashed into this view that anyone who dislikes this obsession with control, must only want 1980s hoofball as an alternative.

No, with Enzo his tactics were pretty much the most effective way to play. We faced a low block near enough every game and his set up allowed us to break it down by getting the full backs left 1 vs 1 with wingers due to the overloads we would create through the centre. It was pretty obvious we would have to adapt upon promotion when teams wouldn't show us as much respect. 

[Muzzy_no7]

14 hours ago, Parafox said:

 

I blame Mourinho and Pep for bringing in this possession based dull style we all dislike.

 

It might be OK if you're Man City and play tippy tappy but then surge forward at pace on the break, or balls over the top, which is kind of what we did in the title and FA cup wins when we had one of the best strikers in the PL.

 

Those days are long gone and most managers now prefer the possession game. 

 

I liken it to a fashion trend. Hopefully, like mini skirts, pacey front footed football will make a come back.

Mourinho? 

[Samilktray]

12 minutes ago, Muzzy_no7 said:

Mourinho? 

Considering some of the dross Mourinho teams serve up I thought that was a strange name drop

[Stadt]

How is it Guardiola's fault worse managers unsuccessfully ape his style of play? It's Russel Martin's fault Russel Martin is a braindead manager.

 

People don't blame McDonalds when a greasy food van serves up a shit burger.

[Stadt]

Additionally Klopp and Pep played very, very similar styles of football when they were contesting the title. Both built up from the back, they both pressed high and the both scored lots of counters. Perception is everything in these sorts of arguments.

 

What's always lacking is the acceptance of different managers coach the same style of football to different levels of success. This style of play would work better if Cifuentes wasn't such a mediocre manager. We scored plenty of 1 on 1s and cutbacks playing drudging possession football under Maresca, Cifuenets just doesn't have the ability.

Edited 30 October 2025 by Stadt

[cityfanlee23]

5 hours ago, pmcla26 said:

No, with Enzo his tactics were pretty much the most effective way to play. We faced a low block near enough every game and his set up allowed us to break it down by getting the full backs left 1 vs 1 with wingers due to the overloads we would create through the centre. It was pretty obvious we would have to adapt upon promotion when teams wouldn't show us as much respect. 

Pretty much every single possession team faces a low block, because we would pass it backwards and sideways 25+ passes before going forward. 
 

We faced a low block because of how we played, or atleast it plays a large role. 
We face the same issue now, we defend a corner for example, but then on the break, but we take so long to get the ball into the box and end up passing backwards that the opponent just forms a deep block in their third. 
 

No doubt teams set out to try to stop our talent, but more often than not we force it upon ourselves and that was a major issue under Enzo. 
 

Chelsea face more low blocks now than they have under previous managers. 

Edited 30 October 2025 by cityfanlee23

[Nods]

2 minutes ago, cityfanlee23 said:

Pretty much every single possession team faces a low block, because we would pass it backwards and sideways 25+ passes before going forward. 
 

We faced a low block because of how we played, or atleast it plays a large role. 
We face the same issue now, we defend a corner for example, but them on the break, but we take so long to get the ball into the box and end up passing backwards that the opponent just forms a deep block in their third. 
 

No doubt teams set out to try to stop our talent, but more often than not we force it upon ourselves and that was a major issue under Enzo. 
 

Chelsea face more low blocks now than they have under previous managers. 

How have you worked that one out?

 

It doesn't matter how the opposition plays if you want to play a low block. Literally all you have to do is sit deep. Doesn't matter if the opposition is fast, slow, short or direct. All it requires you to do is basically stay deep. I.e. stand still. You don't need your opposition to do anything in order to be able to do that.

Edited 30 October 2025 by Nods

[cityfanlee23]

15 minutes ago, Nods said:

How have you worked that one out?

 

It doesn't matter how the opposition plays if you want to play a low block. Literally all you have to do is sit deep. Doesn't matter if the opposition is fast, slow, short or direct. All it requires you to do is basically stay deep. I.e. stand still. You don't need your opposition to do anything in order to be able to do that.

The low block is an out of possession tactic to try to nullify the opponents attack. If you control the ball for long periods of time, teams will often form a low block. It's not a coincidence that possession based teams face the low block far more often than counter-attack teams do... 
Coaches' Voice | The low block: football tactics explained

EDIT: 
FIFA's own training courses teach about the role of possession-based v. defensive, and they themselves cite that:
“Teams that seek to control possession tend to face opponents who defend deeper and prioritise compactness over regaining the ball high, forcing the in-possession side to break down organised defensive blocks.”

https://www.fifatrainingcentre.com/en/environment/fifa-research/high-performance/possession-analysis/part-2-1-possession-based-v-defensive-styles-of-play-new.php
 

Edited 30 October 2025 by cityfanlee23

[jimsmallman]

I think the bubble on boring possession based football is about to burst.

 

Bournemouth second in the league, not playing like that. Palace battered Liverpool last night, being direct. Sunderland beat Maresca's lot being direct.  

 

The trend is going to be reversed.  We'll probably be a million miles behind it, obviously.  

[Nods]

25 minutes ago, cityfanlee23 said:

The low block is an out of possession tactic to try to nullify the opponents attack. If you control the ball for long periods of time, teams will often form a low block. It's not a coincidence that possession based teams face the low block far more often than counter-attack teams do... 
Coaches' Voice | The low block: football tactics explained

So what are you suggesting? Don't attack?

 

What if the team we're playing also doesn't want to attack? Or rarely. 

 

The way you're describing it, you'd have two teams each camped on the edge of their own box, hoofing it from one end of the pitch to the other, each waiting for the opposition to attack so they can counter

 

'Possession football' is a necessity for matches to take their natural course. One team has to take the initiative. Counter attacking football requires you first to be an underdog. Which we aren't at the moment.

 

I've already said that we'd be wise to be less expansive as/when/if we get back in to the Premier League. But only because our circumstances would dictate that.

Edited 30 October 2025 by Nods

[Winstonthedog]

4 minutes ago, jimsmallman said:

I think the bubble on boring possession based football is about to burst.

 

Bournemouth second in the league, not playing like that. Palace battered Liverpool last night, being direct. Sunderland beat Maresca's lot being direct.  

 

The trend is going to be reversed.  We'll probably be a million miles behind it, obviously.  

Hopefully your right ... and the sooner the better... I for one very often walk out of the KP feeling numb and robbed of my money ... I would like to be entertained .. and if we lose to a better side so be it ... but seeing us have a go would be miles better than what I am watching now 

[Nods]

7 minutes ago, jimsmallman said:

I think the bubble on boring possession based football is about to burst.

 

Bournemouth second in the league, not playing like that. Palace battered Liverpool last night, being direct. Sunderland beat Maresca's lot being direct.  

 

The trend is going to be reversed.  We'll probably be a million miles behind it, obviously.  

Palace weren't direct though. They played fantastic football and won the game by being the better, more cohesive attacking outfit. Their passing and moving was electric. Did you watch the game, or are you just assuming that because it was a non big 6 team beating a big side, it had to have been done so deploying tactics you favour? 

 

Only 58 of their 396 passes were classed as long. And only 116 of their 396 passes were in the final third. Sounds pretty 'possession based' to me.

[cityfanlee23]

Just now, Nods said:

So what are you suggesting? Don't attack?

 

What if the team we're playing also doesn't want to attack? Or rarely. 

 

The way you're describing it, you'd have two teams each camped on the edge of their own box, hoofing it from one end of the pitch to the other, each waiting for the opposition to attack so they can counter

 

'Possession football' is a necessity for matches to take their natural course. One team has to take the initiative. Counter attacking football requires you first to be an underdog. Which we aren't at the moment.

 

I've already said that we'd be wise to be less expensive as/when/if we get back in to the Premier League. But only because our circumstances would dictate that.

No, I'm suggesting attack quicker. Stop passing it sideways constantly and we will face less low blocks. The issue we faced under Enzo and now under Marti is that our possession is slow, opponents have too long to organise themselves and they will inevitably adopt a low block the longer we control the ball, they are happy for us to pass it sideways all game. As I've said, obviously with a team of our perceived quality at this level, and especially so under Enzo, we were likely to face a deep block more often than say Millwall or Norwich, however, our system of absolute ball control absolutely plays into how frequently teams adapt to our ball control with a low block. 

I did edit my previous comment just a moment ago but I assume you'd already started your response so would have missed it. 

The FIFA ran "Fifa Training Centre" talk in detail about the different playstyles and they cover the fact that possession based teams often face more defensive setups as a result. 
“Teams that seek to control possession tend to face opponents who defend deeper and prioritise compactness over regaining the ball high, forcing the in-possession side to break down organised defensive blocks.”
https://www.fifatrainingcentre.com/en/environment/fifa-research/high-performance/possession-analysis/part-2-1-possession-based-v-defensive-styles-of-play-new.php