Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
ScoutMan

The curse of Peter Beagrie...

By ScoutMan, in Leicester City Forum

Recommended Posts

Basingstoke Fox

Basingstoke Fox

Posted
Posted
Has he been to the last 3 homes games, which have been almost as big? 

 

Far from negativity, they've been the best atmospheres of the season.

 

 

Agree entirely with this. Any other time during the season, I'd think that he may have a point. I doubt he's done his research though.

 

However, if he wants to doubt us, I'm more than happy with that. I love it when we prove people wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cjslcfc

cjslcfc

Posted
Posted

Agree entirely with this. Any other time during the season, I'd think that he may have a point. I doubt he's done his research though.

 

However, if he wants to doubt us, I'm more than happy with that. I love it when we prove people wrong.

 

Yeah I'd agree with that. We're better when people don't expect anything from us or expect us to do badly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 5 months later...
inckley fox

inckley fox

Posted
Posted

I don't like Beagrie either, but surely what he said in that article is pretty much straightforwardly right. He differentiated between past success and current fan base, and pointed out that a club like Derby or Forest tick both boxes. We aren't historically successful and our fan base isn't all that hot either. His comments on our opening games were very balanced too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
leo1975

leo1975

Posted
Posted

well i really cant stand the bloke. Yes, i get his point about Derby, Forest and Leeds but its the response to the Leicester question that gets me. I shuoldnt get so bothered but I cant help it when I feel someone is being un-complimentary about my Leicester. Therefore (awaits the foxestalk abuse to pour in) i wrote the following reply to his article...

 

"

With regard to your comments about Leicester City’s season so far, I would like to reply about 3 points you made.

Firstly, your point about Leicester’s away form being their “Achilles heelâ€. At the time of your article, Leicester had taken 10 points from 6 away games, an average of 1.67 points per game. Over the last 7 seasons, the 14 teams promoted automatically from the championship have averaged 1.66 points from their away games, therefore Leicester’s away from is exactly what is required for a place in the top two.

Secondly, your point regarding Leicester’s next 11 games being sterner than their first 11 games. In your role with Sky Sports, you are no doubt aware of the competitive nature of the championship which makes it so unpredictable and regularly contains surprise results.

Of Leicester’s first 11 games, there were home fixtures against highly fancied teams such as Wigan, Blackburn and Bolton (who nobody would have expected to start as poorly as they have done), a midlands derby against Birmingham plus a home fixture against Leeds which could never be easy. Of the away games, a further midlands clash at Derby and a trip to highly fancied Blackpool were part of the opening games. This doesn’t look like an easy start in my eyes.

Of the upcoming 11 games, yes they include fixtures away at QPR and Watford but of the other 9 games, six are at home and given Leicester’s home form, a healthy points return would not be out of the question – as shown by the first 2 of these 11 games retuning 6 points via home wins against Huddersfield and Bournemouth.

Finally, your point regarding Liam Moore does a great dis-service to the man-management skills of Nigel Pearson. When Liam Moore first broke into the team he did very well but the management of the club felt it would aid his short term and long term development by going on loan elsewhere. This has proved to be a masterstroke as Liam has returned to Leicester a much improved player (arguably Leicester’s player of the season to date). Michael Keane will likely feature in Manchester United’s first team squad on many occasions this season, therefore getting him on loan last season was a sensible piece of business."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jobyfox

Jobyfox

Posted
Posted

The "bigness" of any team is purely subjective and I sometimes find the question a little bit puerile. If you're going to try and answer it, however, then I like to see some sound logic applied. Then it's often difficult to argue with ...

 

"Leeds, Nottingham Forest and Derby, who tick the history - both past and recent - and fanbase boxes."

 

In what way have any of those clubs been successful in their "recent" history? How far are we going back for recent? 1975?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Doctor

The Doctor

Posted
Posted

When were ****ing derby successful recently? They haven't won anything since the 70's, likewise forest, 23 years since they did anything. At least Leeds have had some success (cl semis) this millennium

If you're going sleeping giants, any failure to mention Sheffield Wednesday is appalling - they're pretty much the definition of sleeping giant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
inckley fox

inckley fox

Posted
Posted

As painful as it may be, the essence of what he's saying is right. In terms of fan base we are up there, but I think Leeds, Derby and Forest perhaps nick it. Where he's a bit wide of the mark is in equating the past success of these sides (which is better than Leicester's) with their recent success (which isn't).

 

If we're going to judge a side on its past glories then Derby, who have had a couple of successful periods in their history, and Leeds (much the same) would have to edge Forest in terms of being established as trophy-challenging teams. Forest hit the greater heights albeit during a very brief period in their history.

 

All three would beat Leicester in terms of historical success, purely because of the trophies that they won. But then again so would Sheffield Wednesday, Burnley and Blackburn, among others. So if we're talking about success at a very high level, then yes, those clubs tick the box, but Leicester don't.

 

However he seems to have changed the criteria when it comes to the recent past. Over the past fifteen years Leicester have, perhaps, been the bigger of those clubs in terms of trophies won / years in the top flight / finishes in top, second, third tier etc. And yet Beagrie says that Derby, Forest and Leeds tick the 'recent success' boxes. I'm not sure how this can be; especially when his definition of past 'success' seemed to revolve around sides having won major competitions more than once. And besides, even if 'recent success' is easier to achieve than 'past success', or if it extends over a 5, 10 or 15 year period, it's still hard to see how Forest would come close.

 

Not to say, of course, that the recent past has been especially kind to Leicester either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmayne7

dmayne7

Posted
Posted

The only 2 clubs you could say are bigger in outside the Prem are Leeds and Wednesday, then there's a few teams in the next bracket where we'd be one of the biggest, with possibly only Derby being a fraction bigger. Forest are not a bigger club. Stupid thing to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kitchandro

Kitchandro

Posted
Posted

The only 2 clubs you could say are bigger in outside the Prem are Leeds and Wednesday, then there's a few teams in the next bracket where we'd be one of the biggest, with possibly only Derby being a fraction bigger. Forest are not a bigger club. Stupid thing to say.

 

In what way? Support is shocking without free tickets and their last trophy was the mid 70s wasn't it? And if Forest were a small club before Clough Derby were bloody miniscule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jobyfox

Jobyfox

Posted
Posted

"As painful as it may be, the essence of what he's saying is right."

--------------------------------------------------

 

It's not painful to me. As I said earlier any measure of "bigness" is almost entirely subjective. What I do like to see, however, is that anyone who tries to answer the question is consistent with his rational and displays an understanding of the facts used to make his case.

 

If it's past success then Forest and Leeds would probably be in the equation, but so would teams like Huddersfield who won the league 3 times in a row in the 1920s. That's why "recent" success has to come in to it as otherwise the Royal Engineers would claim to be a big club as they won the FA Cup in the 19th century.

 

If you're looking at recent success then you have to include teams with recent PL experience, or teams that have recently won something. Teams like Wigan, Reading and QPR might suddenly come into the equation.

 

If it's fanbase then Leeds, Derby and Leicester might feature, but what about Brighton who currently average more than anyone in the 2nd tier?

 

Sometimes it's better to answer the question purely from your own perception if you are going to answer it at all. Otherwise you may have to rely on facts that simply don't stack up under scrutiny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Miquel The Work Geordie

Miquel The Work Geordie

Posted
Posted

Leeds, Sheffield Wednesday, Leicester. Those are your best supported clubs in the long term.

 

You may not like it but you'd be hard pushed to argue that Forest don't belong in that list too. They may be arrogant jebs but they travel well enough and average higher than us at home, do they not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...