Who would win this game.

[cc_star]

Yet again using odd positive examples to gloss over the weaknesses of the side.

 

And so, you're allowed to judge that Leicester side as always playing to their best but that Man City side you aren't? That Leicester side rarely beat any team, including lower league teams in the cup by more than a couple of goals either. So how come they'd suddenly beat the best team in the lower league by 4 or 5 goals?

Don't confuse MoN's tactics of not going for it once a game was won, with the fact they couldn't win out convincing winners in a fantasy comparison

[Sampson]

Don't confuse MoN's tactics of not going for it once a game was won, with the fact they couldn't win out convincing winners in a fantasy comparison

 

So what exactly are you trying to compare if you're not comparing the side and the way they tactically fitted together? How can you compare just a randomly assembled bunch of players? The way the teams played is interwoven with the two teams and their relative success.

[fleckneymike]

Yet again using odd positive examples to gloss over the weaknesses of the side.

 

And so, you're allowed to judge that Leicester side as always playing to their best but that Man City side you aren't? That Leicester side rarely beat any team, including lower league teams in the cup by more than a couple of goals either. So how come they'd suddenly beat the best team in the lower league by 4 or 5 goals?

 

Well as there was only one Michael Owen I can't point to too many examples against Michael Owen by virtue of us facing him twice a season. He did score against us in 99/00 but that was it.

 

If you could direct me to the games where Elliott was poor or technically lacking I'd greatly appreciate it.

[Sampson]

Well as there was only one Michael Owen I can't point to too many examples against Michael Owen by virtue of us facing him twice a season. He did score against us in 99/00 but that was it.

 

If you could direct me to the games where Elliott was poor or technically lacking I'd greatly appreciate it.

 

Well he got destroyed by both Bergkamp and Van Nistelrooy for starters.

[cc_star]

So what exactly are you trying to compare if you're not comparing the side and the way they tactically fitted together? How can you compare just a randomly assembled bunch of players? The way the teams played is interwoven with the two teams and their relative success.

You're the one comparing ManCity's approach to a minor competition, never getting out of second gear, doing the bare minimum to be comfortable winners to a fantasy situation

[Captain...]

Do these people saying 4 or 5 nil really think that Leicester side was anywhere near as good as the Man City side we faced the other week?

 

Because that is how football works 

 

We lost 3-1 to Man City, we lost 3-1 to Brighton, therefore Brighton are as good as Man City.

[fleckneymike]

Well he got destroyed by both Bergkamp and Van Nistelrooy for starters.

 

Right, so he got destroyed by two of the greatest strikers ever to play in the league thus he is technically poor. I thought you were accusing me of selecting isolated incidents.

 

As Elliott also scored against Arsenal in that 3-3 epic does that make the entire Arsenal back line technically poor?

[cc_star]

Well he got destroyed by both Bergkamp and Van Nistelrooy for starters.

Got destroyed by 2 of the top 5 EVER premier league forwards, who destroyed most of Europe's defences on a regular basis?

Oh, the horror

[Sampson]

Right, so he got destroyed by two of the greatest strikers ever to play in the league thus he is technically poor. I thought you were accusing me of selecting isolated incidents.

 

As Elliott also scored against Arsenal in that 3-3 epic does that make the entire Arsenal back line technically poor?

 

No, I was simply countering the argument against Owen who you were using the example of keeping a great striker in check to show he was great.

 

Of course not, but like I said, who remembers individual bad games? I couldn't even tell you which games Matt Mills looked technically poor in but he certainly was and that was only a couple of years ago. But I certainly recall Elliott giving the ball away a lot.

 

And now that I think about it, I may be wrong, but I can't even remember Leicester winning a single game by 4 goals under O'Neill, so have no idea why people think they would beat the current side 4 or 5 nil.

[ithuriel]

The old team would destroy the current lot.

That old team was an established top ten Prem team before Taylor swept through the club like the black death, who were in three cup finals in four years if I remember correctly :xmassmile:  the current lot are a decent top ten Championship team who have yet to actually do something.

Loved the fact we humiliated Derby at their own ground by destroying them in the first half and on TV too

[Bayfox]

Of course I saw him play and you seem to be confusing technical ability with being good. There's no doubt he was a very effective player and better than any of our other strikers, but he certainly wasn't technically much better.

I know you clearly dont like one off examples. But I'm yet to see any of our current strikers hold off a centre half of sol campbells ability take a touch knock it out his feet turn and slap it in the top corner.

even in todays inflated market we aint getting anywhere near that sort of cash for anyone in our side.

ok he went to ground a lot but he had a decent touch scored some decent goals. Was good in the air.

and everyone from, claridge to owen loved playing with him. Not a bad reference.

Was he capable of betting 3 playersnand scoring. Yes. But with no technique yes?

[Captain...]

Saying 4-1 to MON, doesn't necessarily mean that is what it would be, but it is my way of indicating that MON's team is comfortably better than NP's in reality they would probably be more cautious to start with, and the end result would probably be 1-0. But MON's team were also the masters of comfortably grinding out 1-0 wins. They made very few mistakes, rarely conceded soft goals and kept the opposition chances down to a minimum, unless we were forced into chasing a game. It was a truly special side, not necessarily because of skill but just sheer effectiveness, no weak links and a great team spirit and work ethic.

[Sampson]

Because that is how football works 

 

We lost 3-1 to Man City, we lost 3-1 to Brighton, therefore Brighton are as good as Man City.

 

But that's essentially what people are doing in this aren't they? Using the game where we won 5-2 against Sunderland as an example? The whole argument is based on a one off individual game, which incidentally was a similar side which drew to struggling Watford 1-1 a couple of weeks before and also had many disappointing results throughout the season, along with the good ones.

[Bayfox]

And now that I think about it, I may be wrong, but I can't even remember Leicester winning a single game by 4 goals under O'Neill, so have no idea why people think they would beat the current side 4 or 5 nil.

different argument that.

but I'll give you. 4 corners. Kasper cant catch. We cant defend them.

enter elliot, taggart or walsh take you pick.

[Sampson]

Saying 4-1 to MON, doesn't necessarily mean that is what it would be, but it is my way of indicating that MON's team is comfortably better than NP's in reality they would probably be more cautious to start with, and the end result would probably be 1-0. But MON's team were also the masters of comfortably grinding out 1-0 wins. They made very few mistakes, rarely conceded soft goals and kept the opposition chances down to a minimum, unless we were forced into chasing a game. It was a truly special side, not necessarily because of skill but just sheer effectiveness, no weak links and a great team spirit and work ethic.

 

See, this is pretty much what I agree with.

 

Obviously the older side was better and a very effective side and would have won and have won 1-0 or 2-1, but I don't get these people saying it was technically streets ahead of the current side and would have won 4 or 5 nil. In terms of technical ability I don't think our current side are far off, I definitely don't think that side had anyone who could beat their man any better than Dyer or Knockaert can (a few who were as good at it, but no one really better).

different argument that.

but I'll give you. 4 corners. Kasper cant catch. We cant defend them.

enter elliot, taggart or walsh take you pick.

 

 

No it's not, read back, that's the argument I've been making all along. Kasper catches most corners, we defend most corners fine. Reading were very effective in the air and had a very tall side but we never really looked endangered against them.

 

In fact, would be interested to see how many corners we've conceded this season? I don't think it would be that many really at all.

[fleckneymike]

No, I was simply countering the argument against Owen who you were using the example of keeping a great striker in check to show he was great.

 

Of course not, but like I said, who remembers individual bad games? But I certainly recall Elliott giving the ball away a lot.

 

And now that I think about it, I may be wrong, but I can't even remember Leicester winning a single game by 4 goals under O'Neill, so have no idea why people think they would beat the current side 4 or 5 nil.

 

Because that MON side didn't often get to play against lower league opposition except for the Cups.

 

I used the example of Owen because you mentioned pace. RVN scored past us once, at Old Trafford, under Taylor.

[Captain...]

But that's essentially what people are doing in this aren't they? Using the game where we won 5-2 against Sunderland as an example? The whole argument is based on a one off individual game, which incidentally was a similar side which drew to struggling Watford 1-1 a couple of weeks before.

 

I'm basing it on the fact that that team, well the majority of it, won 2 cups and had 4 top 10 finishes in the premiership. That Sunderland game was a one off, and I wouldn't say that the MON side is the best ever MON team. 

 

NP's team is too wasteful in front of goal and wouldn't get many chances in playing against 3 imposing centre backs, with Lennon screening, Savage, and Izzett closing down the midfield the likes of Guppy, Eadie, Collymore and Heskey giving the defence no respite and the ability to look dangerous from every set piece, whereas NP's side never looks solid defending set-pieces, doesn't enjoy playing against midfields that give you no time, and are not very strong up top and don't attack the aerial ball. NP's side will get some joy with their pace, but Knocky would get sat on, Dyer would be just shown out of play and RDL would get punished if he gets forward too much, Vardy would be most effective but he would be feeding on scraps with Taggs Elliott and Sinclair keeping him and Nuge in check.

[Sampson]

Because that MON side didn't often get to play against lower league opposition except for the Cups.

 

I used the example of Owen because you mentioned pace. RVN scored past us once, at Old Trafford, under Taylor.

 

We played lower league sides in the cup pretty much several times a season. I remember plenty of ground out 1 or 2-0 victories over Scarborough and York and the like (and certainly over Championship sides like Norwich or Birmingham at the time).

 

And besides, do you honestly think our current side is much worse than the teams bottom of the Prem? Sunderland or Fulham? Or whoever their equivalent was in 96-2000? Bradford or Barnsley or whoever it was at the time? We never thrashed those sides 4 or 5 nil either.

[fleckneymike]

We played lower league sides in the cup pretty much several times a season. I remember plenty of ground out 1 or 2-0 victories over Scarborough and York and the like (and certainly over Championship sides like Norwich or Birmingham at the time).

 

And besides, do you honestly think our current side is much worse than the teams bottom of the Prem? Sunderland or Fulham? Or whoever their equivalent was in 96-2000? Bradford or Barnsley or whoever it was at the time? We never thrashed those sides 4 or 5 nil either.

 

I never said we would win four or five, I simply stated (and still believe) that the MON side would destroy this side. 

[Sampson]

I never said we would win four or five, I simply stated (and still believe) that the MON side would destroy this side. 

 

 

Plenty of people have said they would win 4 or 5 nil.

 

I don't think they'd destroy them at all personally, I think they'd beat them by a goal or two, but it would be far from a massacre or very one-sided. 

[Sampson]

Can someone please give us the stats for how many goals Leicester have conceded from corner this season? Because I don't think we've been bad at defending them at all this season, besides the obvious atrocious one against Doncaster Schmeichel put into the back of his own net.

[Bayfox]

See, this is pretty much what I agree with.

Obviously the older side was better and a very effective side and would have won and have won 1-0 or 2-1, but I don't get these people saying it was technically streets ahead of the current side and would have won 4 or 5 nil. In terms of technical ability I don't think our current side are far off, I definitely don't think that side had anyone who could beat their man any better than Dyer or Knockaert can (a few who were as good at it, but no one really better).

No it's not, read back, that's the argument I've been making all along. Kasper catches most corners, we defend most corners fine. Reading were very effective in the air and had a very tall side but we never really looked endangered against them.

In fact, would be interested to see how many corners we've conceded this season? I don't think it would be that many really at all.

I'll check but as a starter for 2. Charlton away.

no way would our back 5 defend an oneill era set piece.

[Jacnah]

Heskey would never tear Morgan and Moore a new one. For such a big build, Heskey was one of the weakest and most lightweight players I ever saw. A player like Morgan was exactly the type of player he was rather useless against.

 

You can not have seen Heskey play in his prime for us. If you had you woudn't be saying this. It became very fashionable to 'Bash' Heskey and physically you may be right; he wasnt the sort to stand toe to toe but that overlooks how unplayable he could be, how direct, althletic, powerful and pacey.

[_Fatboyslow_]

Not the most accurately. For two seasons running he had the highest cross completion rate in the Prem, edging out some no mark called D Beckham.

Elliott nah? Chelsea, FA Cup, 2000, Cruyff turn on Desailly, goal.

Sorry, typo, Taggs. Even so, would destroy this side.

The reason fans rate guppy is simple. Take for example our 1-0 home win in 98? If you saw the cross he put in for Marshall you would never doubt him. Some of his corners corkscrewed in the air but found there mark. And in an era that you could kick players, talking of which why is savage in the line up? Now there's a player who's PR far out weighs what he achieved on the pitch.

[Sampson]

You can not have seen Heskey play in his prime for us. If you had you woudn't be saying this. It became very fashionable to 'Bash' Heskey and physically you may be right; he wasnt the sort to stand toe to toe but that overlooks how unplayable he could be, how direct, althletic, powerful and pacey.

 

Of course I saw him and I'm not doubting how good he could be, but he could also be equally as frustrating and wasteful and get muscled out of a header by players with half the frame of him. He was undoubtedly a great player on his day, but he was also wildly erratic and inconsistent and he never showed his obviously great physical attributes as often as he could have.