The "do they mean us?" thread

[davieG]

I don't know much about the reasons relating to Southampton sacking Puel in fact I don't really care but I'm very aware of the fact that when we sacked Ranieri the whole world and his wife including Le Tissier (who was quite vocal) slagged us off even though they had very little, if any knowledge of the circumstances.

 

Maybe he should stick to commenting on facts rather than rumours thus making them seem like facts.

 

Quote

 

Speaking on the Alan Brazil Sports Breakfast, the former Southampton man said: “If that is true, that’s disgusting.

“Those players last season - the manager has made them legends.

“He got them a Premier League medal none of them ever thought they would win, and yet they can go behind his back to the owner and start having a go at him.

“I don’t get that. It’s a side of modern football I actually hate.”

 

 

[Captain...]

36 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

Oh and by the way, Ranieri hasn't returned to the KP and hammered us. 

 

Again, apples and oranges.

Yeah, because you can only compare to things if they are exactly the same.  If Ranieri did come back with Nantes and hammer us in the Europa League next season, would that prove that we shouldn't have sacked him? - No.

 

Puel and Ranieri are both apples, the difference is Ranieri's apple was so much sweeter to begin with and got suddenly bitter and mouldy, Puel's apple at Southampton was never as sweet and juicy but it was still good to start with. The problem was it had already started to turn brown and was going to end up a bitter rotten mess if nothing was done about it.

[EnglishOxide]

Ranieri was doing an awful job, heading for relegation, with good players = sacked

 

Puel was doing a good job, 8th and a cup final, with average players = sacked

 

 

I think I know which one was more justifiable.

[Finnegan]

4 minutes ago, Captain... said:

Yeah, because you can only compare to things if they are exactly the same.  If Ranieri did come back with Nantes and hammer us in the Europa League next season, would that prove that we shouldn't have sacked him? - No.

 

Puel and Ranieri are both apples, the difference is Ranieri's apple was so much sweeter to begin with and got suddenly bitter and mouldy, Puel's apple at Southampton was never as sweet and juicy but it was still good to start with. The problem was it had already started to turn brown and was going to end up a bitter rotten mess if nothing was done about it.

 

No but we weren't taking the piss out of Southampton for no apparent reason, we were taking the piss because we were spanking them in their own back yard lead by their former gaffer. 

[Captain...]

3 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

No but we weren't taking the piss out of Southampton for no apparent reason, we were taking the piss because we were spanking them in their own back yard lead by their former gaffer. 

Yes and I fully support the piss taking, but I can also see the irony in it. I don't get why people are being so precious about it being pointed out.

Edited 14 December 2017 by Captain...

[Captain...]

4 minutes ago, EnglishOxide said:

Ranieri was doing an awful job, heading for relegation, with good players = sacked

 

Puel was doing a good job, 8th and a cup final, with average players = sacked

 

 

I think I know which one was more justifiable.

CL last 16 > league cup final

 

Puel was not doing a good job, he finished on 46 points (the majority in the first half of the season), 15 points behind 7th, 17 points behind their previous season total, 8th was a false position. they were pitiful in the Europa League group missing out on qualification to Shapoel beer Sheva, they get smashed 5-0 in the FA Cup, a good league cup run doesn't change that. They  were on a very poor run of form and hadn't scored at home for 5 games.

 

Us smashing Southampton last night does not change the fact that he was doing a very poor job at Southampton in the second half of the season.

 

16 defeats, only 41 goals, spent £50million on new players (yes he lost Mane, Wanyama, Fonte, but losing players didn't stop Koeman or Pochettino doing a good job)

[ealingfox]

33 minutes ago, Captain... said:

CL last 16 > league cup final

 

Puel was not doing a good job, he finished on 46 points (the majority in the first half of the season), 15 points behind 7th, 17 points behind their previous season total, 8th was a false position. they were pitiful in the Europa League group missing out on qualification to Shapoel beer Sheva, they get smashed 5-0 in the FA Cup, a good league cup run doesn't change that. They  were on a very poor run of form and hadn't scored at home for 5 games.

 

Us smashing Southampton last night does not change the fact that he was doing a very poor job at Southampton in the second half of the season.

 

16 defeats, only 41 goals, spent £50million on new players (yes he lost Mane, Wanyama, Fonte, but losing players didn't stop Koeman or Pochettino doing a good job)

 

There's no false positions in the final league table. They might have been dog muck but they were still the 8th best team.

[Arriba Los Zorros]

3 hours ago, Steven said:

He has no point. One was a good decision and one was a bad decision. You work out which is which and then send Le Tissier  a postcard.  

Both good decisions. You're letting the fact that Puel has been good for us cloud your judgement. Southampton have followed him up with an even worse appointment for them but Koeman, Pochettino and before him Adkins have got more out of worse players for them

[Arriba Los Zorros]

1 hour ago, Captain... said:

CL last 16 > league cup final

 

Puel was not doing a good job, he finished on 46 points (the majority in the first half of the season), 15 points behind 7th, 17 points behind their previous season total, 8th was a false position. they were pitiful in the Europa League group missing out on qualification to Shapoel beer Sheva, they get smashed 5-0 in the FA Cup, a good league cup run doesn't change that. They  were on a very poor run of form and hadn't scored at home for 5 games.

 

Us smashing Southampton last night does not change the fact that he was doing a very poor job at Southampton in the second half of the season.

 

16 defeats, only 41 goals, spent £50million on new players (yes he lost Mane, Wanyama, Fonte, but losing players didn't stop Koeman or Pochettino doing a good job)

Hear hear.

 

I love Puel based on what we've seen so far but can fully understand why Southampton got rid, his style of play didn't suit their team and they hardly scored at St Marys all season. Jesus, look at how most of here reacted to his appointment 'failed at Southampton with boring football' etc.

 

this coming after some lovely football under Koeman and St Marys being a fortress for them.

 

Their error has been getting someone in worse than Puel to replace him.

[Gerard]

1 hour ago, ealingfox said:

 

There's no false positions in the final league table. They might have been dog muck but they were still the 8th best team.

 

IIRC there was 6pts between 8th and 17th.

 

We can say with almost certainty Everton were the best team in the country outside the elite clubs but we can't say Southampton were definitely 2nd as it was too close to call. 

 

Edited 14 December 2017 by Gerard

[Corky]

Basically, everyone below Everton was relatively shit. Southampton were the "best" of those. On pure stats, Puel's tenure there was mediocre and probably inflated by the league position. The year before, with 46 points they'd have been 13th.

 

Sacking him was possibly harsh but also understandable. It is clear that there are deeper problems at Saints then just Puel. But any comparison with Ranieri is off the mark- we were two points above Sunderland at that stage ffs and heading down without a fight.

[fuchsntf]

2 hours ago, Captain... said:

Yeah, because you can only compare to things if they are exactly the same.  If Ranieri did come back with Nantes and hammer us in the Europa League next season, would that prove that we shouldn't have sacked him? - No.

 

Puel and Ranieri are both apples, the difference is Ranieri's apple was so much sweeter to begin with and got suddenly bitter and mouldy, Puel's apple at Southampton was never as sweet and juicy but it was still good to start with. The problem was it had already started to turn brown and was going to end up a bitter rotten mess if nothing was done about it.

But...I like cider....!! :

 

Shakespeare was like babycham, sort of went pear shape.

And actually Puel is like an Orange smooth like a Cointreau,

Plus he works  like a Grand Marnier..

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

2 hours ago, Captain... said:

CL last 16 > league cup final

 

Puel was not doing a good job, he finished on 46 points (the majority in the first half of the season), 15 points behind 7th, 17 points behind their previous season total, 8th was a false position. they were pitiful in the Europa League group missing out on qualification to Shapoel beer Sheva, they get smashed 5-0 in the FA Cup, a good league cup run doesn't change that. They  were on a very poor run of form and hadn't scored at home for 5 games.

 

Us smashing Southampton last night does not change the fact that he was doing a very poor job at Southampton in the second half of the season.

 

16 defeats, only 41 goals, spent £50million on new players (yes he lost Mane, Wanyama, Fonte, but losing players didn't stop Koeman or Pochettino doing a good job)

Cant be certain there would have been a CL QF unless we sacked Ranieri though

[foxes_rule1978]

4 hours ago, Captain... said:

They also spent £50 million on new players, was Ranieri sacking harsh?

No because we were in the relegation zone not 8th... the fact is Southampton are worse now then they were with Puel. We have improved 

Edited 14 December 2017 by foxes_rule1978

[Ric Flair]

If we went 5 games without a goal at home we'd want the manager lobbed in the fcukin sea. This has nothing to do with how badly Southampton's players may have become during that time, look at how bad our players were from January through to Ranieri's sacking. It is what it is. They replaced him which they probably felt they needed to, even though they had a fresh new season ahead for Puel to perhaps work his magic. Their loss. We look the fcukin business now because of it. The games mad.

[urban.spaceman]

30 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

If we went 5 games without a goal at home we'd want the manager lobbed in the fcukin sea. This has nothing to do with how badly Southampton's players may have become during that time, look at how bad our players were from January through to Ranieri's sacking. It is what it is. They replaced him which they probably felt they needed to, even though they had a fresh new season ahead for Puel to perhaps work his magic. Their loss. We look the fcukin business now because of it. The games mad.

2

Which is basically what we did from New Years Day 2017:

 

02 Jan 2017	Middlesbrough v Leicester City	D	0-0	Premier League
07 Jan 2017	Everton v Leicester City	W	1-2	FA Cup
14 Jan 2017	Leicester City v Chelsea	L	0-3	Premier League
22 Jan 2017	Southampton v Leicester City	L	3-0	Premier League
27 Jan 2017	Derby County v Leicester City	D	2-2	FA Cup
31 Jan 2017	Burnley v Leicester City	L	1-0	Premier League
05 Feb 2017	Leicester City v Manchester United	L	0-3	Premier League
08 Feb 2017	Leicester City v Derby County	W	3-1	FA Cup
12 Feb 2017	Swansea City v Leicester City	L	2-0	Premier League
18 Feb 2017	Millwall v Leicester City	L	1-0	FA Cup
22 Feb 2017	Sevilla v Leicester City	L	2-1	UEFA Champions League

[Stadt]

3 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

Which is basically what we did from New Years Day 2017:

 

02 Jan 2017	Middlesbrough v Leicester City	D	0-0	Premier League
07 Jan 2017	Everton v Leicester City	W	1-2	FA Cup
14 Jan 2017	Leicester City v Chelsea	L	0-3	Premier League
22 Jan 2017	Southampton v Leicester City	L	3-0	Premier League
27 Jan 2017	Derby County v Leicester City	D	2-2	FA Cup
31 Jan 2017	Burnley v Leicester City	L	1-0	Premier League
05 Feb 2017	Leicester City v Manchester United	L	0-3	Premier League
08 Feb 2017	Leicester City v Derby County	W	3-1	FA Cup
12 Feb 2017	Swansea City v Leicester City	L	2-0	Premier League
18 Feb 2017	Millwall v Leicester City	L	1-0	FA Cup
22 Feb 2017	Sevilla v Leicester City	L	2-1	UEFA Champions League

I desperately wanted Ranieri gone after Southampton, it looked we were going down.

[filbertway]

It would have taken an awful manager to not get us out of that champions league group. Bruges and Copenhagen are Championship standard.

 

I can see why they got rid of Puel, they must be gutted that the replacemeng seems to be worse though.

[lestajigs]

8 hours ago, LCFCFOX6190 said:

 

Another fake pundit, who wasn’t watching us play when we were piss poor, 

[Buce]

 

Good write up on the Beeb:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/42347378

 

 

 

 

[Great Boos Up]

Selling club or a bought out club, having to sell both managers and players by being successful within your means. I was so worried that's what we would become after our title win.

Perhaps being a bit shit after has taken so much heat away it has actually given us a better opportunity to become established in the long term?

[Bluetintedspecs]

5 hours ago, Captain... said:

Yeah, because you can only compare to things if they are exactly the same.  If Ranieri did come back with Nantes and hammer us in the Europa League next season, would that prove that we shouldn't have sacked him? - No.

 

Puel and Ranieri are both apples, the difference is Ranieri's apple was so much sweeter to begin with and got suddenly bitter and mouldy, Puel's apple at Southampton was never as sweet and juicy but it was still good to start with. The problem was it had already started to turn brown and was going to end up a bitter rotten mess if nothing was done about it.

Your supermarket needs to change its apple suppliers.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

On 14/12/2017 at 15:26, Captain... said:

Yeah, because you can only compare to things if they are exactly the same.  If Ranieri did come back with Nantes and hammer us in the Europa League next season, would that prove that we shouldn't have sacked him? - No.

 

Puel and Ranieri are both apples, the difference is Ranieri's apple was so much sweeter to begin with and got suddenly bitter and mouldy, Puel's apple at Southampton was never as sweet and juicy but it was still good to start with. The problem was it had already started to turn brown and was going to end up a bitter rotten mess if nothing was done about it.

 

How do you like them apples @Finnegan ???

[Rogstanley]

BBC misrepreenting our views yet again, 

 

"As for Leicester, our commentator, John Murray, was on reporting duties here at the King Power when Puel was confirmed as manager back in October.

John spoke to several fans on 5 Live Sport and not one was happy with the appointment.

Puel has guided Leicester to five wins in nine matches. Wonder if any Leicester fans think they got that wrong?"

 

I'll tell you what I wonder - I wonder what a publicly funded organisation like the BBC is doing spreading malicious lies like the worst tabloids.

[Nalis]

BBC live text and comments on blue moon thinking that was our first team tonight (Hamer, Amaratey, Dragovic....), got to laugh at uneducated a lot of people are when it comes to football.

Edited 19 December 2017 by Nalis