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
 Share
Webbo

Leicester 1- Liverpool 2 post match thread.

By Webbo, in Leicester City Forum

Recommended Posts

Mark

Mark

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, Tuna said:

Odd decisions such as Gray starting up front and Maddison coming off towards the end of the game.

The substitution before Okazaki for Gray messed it up as it meant Maddison had to come out wide which he isn’t good at. Shouldn’t have bothered with Okazaki as we lost all momentum from then on

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
fuchsntf

fuchsntf

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Vacamion said:

 

Anyone slagging us after that can do one.

 

We could have drawn or won that.

 

The future’s bright.

This ,this,this  all day long.!!! 

Many knew we wouldn't get the right result,but we were ?looking for a performance as a team and the individuals..

Puel system is starting to set root,and all new players,including Mendy old-new,are taking on the challenge,and with a bit of

Fortune,could of taken the points of  least 1.  Our rebuilding program under Puel is working.

 

We lost but I am delighted to see what the future holds. Respect lads Respect.

Nachos great work for the goal..Will help him to chase lost causes,but we are short on the quality striker front.Though I see Nacho growing into

and improving on our need. Gray slow progress,but he's now a PL player, and now it's up to him to chase an international worthy performance.

 

One thing to learn from ...Maddisons duties at corners

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
kristianity77

kristianity77

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted

Quite surprised at how many people thought we didn't play very well.  Apart from looking a bit toothless up front a lot of our football was absolute quality.  Aside from one or two games last season we never kept the ball like that and played some great one touch football.

 

There's no doubt about it we are a better side than last season.  We might of lost our best player but we look much more balanced.  

 

We aren't going to win the league or finish in the top 6 but the improvements are there to see and if Puel can make one of two really decent addictions in January then we will only improve further. 

  • Like 16
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Matt

Matt

Posted
Posted

I’d best not post too much in fear of upsetting snowflakes, getting posts deleted or banned again.

 

Played well in parts, sent me sleep in others.

 

Think 2-0 (in the first half) flattered them but on the other hand for all our possession and knocking it about well we didn’t create much or threaten much.

 

Can anyone explain the negative subs? Last week they were made (luckily we managed a last minute winner) today Maddison was took off for Amartey.

 

It strikes me as similar to Shakespeare in the fact I claimed he went into game looking not to lose them rather than trying to win matches.

 

Likewise it struck me that Puel would rather lose 2-1 than actually going for it and potentially losing by more than 2-1 by making the negative change.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
foxes_rule1978

foxes_rule1978

Posted
Posted
Just now, kristianity77 said:

Quite surprised at how many people thought we didn't play very well.  Apart from looking a bit toothless up front a lot of our football was absolute quality.  Aside from one or two games last season we never kept the ball like that and played some great one touch football.

 

There's no doubt about it we are a better side than last season.  We might of lost our best player but we look much more balanced.  

 

We aren't going to win the league or finish in the top 6 but the improvements are there to see and if Puel can make one of two really decent addictions in January then we will only improve further. 

We played well very well... no one doubts that, they are just annoyed that we don’t do it until a goal down 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AylestoneRaider

AylestoneRaider

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, ealingfox said:

 

It's a response to the season so far if you'll read it again. We were good enough in the middle of the pitch but with teams scoring as easily as that we will get nothing in a lot of games unless they are also crap at defending (i.e. Southampton)

I think we’ll have to agree to disagree mate. I think with a little bit more composure in the final third we are well capable of scoring goals. We will inevitably miss Riyad’s creativity, but I think there are some very promising signs from this side.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
fuchsntf

fuchsntf

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, AylestoneRaider said:

We played well - created good chances for Maddison, Gray etc. I think that’s an unbelievably negative response to what I’ve just watched. Not saying we dominated, but fully deserved a point against a very good Liverpool side. I don’t think many teams will play that well against them this season.

That's it...push these negative bonzos away from their whining ways.!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CloudFox

CloudFox

Posted
Posted
Just now, Matt said:

I’d best not post too much in fear of upsetting snowflakes, getting posts deleted or banned again.

 

Played well in parts, sent me sleep in others.

 

Think 2-0 (in the first half) flattered them but on the other hand for all our possession and knocking it about well we didn’t create much or threaten much.

 

Can anyone explain the negative subs? Last week they were made (luckily we managed a last minute winner) today Maddison was took off for Amartey.

 

It strikes me as similar to Shakespeare in the fact I claimed he went into game looking not to lose them rather than trying to win matches.

 

Likewise it struck me that Puel would rather lose 2-1 than actually going for it and potentially losing by more than 2-1 by making the negative change.

Good post, and fair questions. I don't think the subs on were that negative - as I've mentioned to Col, putting Amartey at right back allowed us to get Pereira's energy and threat further forward more often - but I didn't understand why Maddison needed to come off. Perhaps he just doesn't fit into the 4-4-2 / 4-3-3 we ended up switching to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CloudFox

CloudFox

Posted
Posted
Just now, foxes_rule1978 said:

True it does show quality, and not relying on luck, we beat most teams with that this season 

That's my belief too. We can dominate, we just need to put away our chances.

 

Now if only we had a former England international, proven goalscorer who just decided to concentrate on his club football waiting in the wings ?...

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest ttfn

Guest ttfn

Posted
Posted

It’s hard enough to compete with the likes of Liverpool without the incessant merry-go-round of fouling that comes with their pressing game.

 

By pressing so hard and high they know they can throw themselves into tackles with impunity as they’re so far away from goal that referees for some reason seem unable to see through the absolute raw cynicism of it all. Best case scenario, they win the ball back and have a great chance of scoring. Worst case scenario they give away a free kick 80 yards away from goal. Firmino must have made 5 similar fouls, Milner too. No yellow card until the 93rd minute for either of them.

 

Referees have got to start clamping down on it.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Blue Ed

Blue Ed

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Matt said:

I’d best not post too much in fear of upsetting snowflakes, getting posts deleted or banned again.

 

Played well in parts, sent me sleep in others.

 

Think 2-0 (in the first half) flattered them but on the other hand for all our possession and knocking it about well we didn’t create much or threaten much.

 

Can anyone explain the negative subs? Last week they were made (luckily we managed a last minute winner) today Maddison was took off for Amartey.

 

It strikes me as similar to Shakespeare in the fact I claimed he went into game looking not to lose them rather than trying to win matches.

 

Likewise it struck me that Puel would rather lose 2-1 than actually going for it and potentially losing by more than 2-1 by making the negative change.

Yeah I can understand the subs and personally and I didn't see them as being negative. Our best chances were coming from when we were sinning the ball back high up so why not throw Sinji in, see if he could do that. Amarty coming on meant Ricardo could play up without worrying about coming back and Nacho o to try and give some fresh legs there. 

 

Don't see the problem myself with the ideas. One sub wonus the goal, others didn't pay off in the end but thats how it goes sometimes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Col city fan

Guest Col city fan

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, CloudFox said:

Yes, in the case of the match I agree. However if we try to look a little further past the last 2 hours then it shows some progression and positives.

It’s a points business. You can play all the keep-ball you like, if the opposition score more goals than you, it’s zero points.

I think we’re developing too, but we’ve got to get more cutting offensively.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NotTheMarketLeader

NotTheMarketLeader

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Matt said:

I’d best not post too much in fear of upsetting snowflakes, getting posts deleted or banned again.

 

Played well in parts, sent me sleep in others.

 

Think 2-0 (in the first half) flattered them but on the other hand for all our possession and knocking it about well we didn’t create much or threaten much.

 

Can anyone explain the negative subs? Last week they were made (luckily we managed a last minute winner) today Maddison was took off for Amartey.

 

It strikes me as similar to Shakespeare in the fact I claimed he went into game looking not to lose them rather than trying to win matches.

 

Likewise it struck me that Puel would rather lose 2-1 than actually going for it and potentially losing by more than 2-1 by making the negative change.

This. 

 

Which has been my problem with this manager from the start; it’s s very unappealing mentality and one that will not win enough games, as can be seen from his record here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
st albans fox

st albans fox

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, ttfn said:

It’s hard enough to compete with the likes of Liverpool without the incessant merry-go-round of fouling that comes with their pressing game.

 

By pressing so hard and high they know they can throw themselves into tackles with impunity as they’re so far away from goal that referees for some reason seem unable to see through the absolute raw cynicism of it all. Best case scenario, they win the ball back and have a great chance of scoring. Worst case scenario they give away a free kick 80 yards away from goal. Firmino must have made 5 similar fouls, Milner too. No yellow card until the 93rd minute for either of them.

 

Referees have got to start clamping down on it.

 

 

Maybe we should try it ?  Pressing high is what got us back into the game 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
foxes_rule1978

foxes_rule1978

Posted
Posted
Just now, Col city fan said:

It’s a points business. You can play all the keep-ball you like, if the opposition score more goals than you, it’s zero points.

I think we’re developing too, but we’ve got to get more cutting offensively.

We have that when we play a striker... Vardy is back now and he would have loved a lot of the chances we created today 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Col city fan

Guest Col city fan

Posted
Posted
Just now, NotTheMarketLeader said:

This. 

 

Which has been my problem with this manager from the start; it’s s very unappealing mentality and one that will not win enough games, as can be seen from his record here.

What is Puel’s record with City? Let’s get the cards on the table...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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