Last 26 games

[Fox92]

8 hours ago, HankMarvin said:

Shame our wage bill doesn’t 

We had the 7th highest wage bill last season but this season I have no doubts West Ham and Bournemouth will be up there with us. 

Edited 16 September 2018 by Fox92

[HKFox]

1 minute ago, Fox92 said:

Bournemouth have a bigger wage bill than us.

Surely that can not be true? 

 

We have reserve players Silva, King, James, Iborra, Simpson who must all be on incredible salaries + I am sure we have a far larger squad depth than Bournemouth. 

[Fox92]

3 minutes ago, HKFox said:

Surely that can not be true? 

 

We have reserve players Silva, King, James, Iborra, Simpson who must all be on incredible salaries + I am sure we have a far larger squad depth than Bournemouth. 

I have edited as I cannot confirm but I'm guessing they're up there. I am probably wrong but Defoe and Begovic will be on a lot alone.

 

But what I would say is I don't know why he brought wages into it anyway. If the league was played on wages then both Manchester clubs would be 1st and 2nd every year.

Edited 16 September 2018 by Fox92

[ARTY_FOX]

11 hours ago, Fox92 said:

That's why we play in seasons and not years.

 

We're 5 games in. We're 10th in the top flight. We're Leicester City ffs. Our record reflects the mid table average side we are.

 

I'm guessing you were one that was calling for Pearson's name after his half a season back here because we didn't finish top 6. 

Nothing wrong with wanting to be better than an average mid table club though mate...

[RumbleFox]

11 hours ago, northernfox321 said:

Well if you are talking like that we won premier league 2015/16 let's throw that back in again,my point is he not learning from his mistakes just keeps his head in the sand with no real direction no point keeping the ball doing nothing with it other teams are exploiting our soft centre

We won the Premier League in a 5000/1 miracle season that many people believe is the greatest sporting upset in the history of world sport.  But, aye, we should do it every year.

 

Unfortunately we are currently a mid-table premier League team.  I would like us to be more than that but if I step back and think about it objectively I realise that for most of our history we have been less that that.  People (me included) hold up the O'Neill years as some of our greatest days (which they were) but league positions with that mighty team were mid-table.  I like to look at structure and stability and sustainability and I see signs we are heading in the right direction.  Puel may or may not be a good fix long term but he certainly needs more time.  We should try and enjoy football a little more.  These, in comparison to most of our history, are good times.  X

[HKFox]

53 minutes ago, Fox92 said:

I have edited as I cannot confirm but I'm guessing they're up there. I am probably wrong but Defoe and Begovic will be on a lot alone.

 

But what I would say is I don't know why he brought wages into it anyway. If the league was played on wages then both Manchester clubs would be 1st and 2nd every year.

I don't have an accurate idea either, defoe and Begovic would easily be on top salaries. I think we would comfortably have a higher wage budget than bournemouth, but as you said thankfully it is irrelevant. We won the league with one of lowest wages in whole division. 

[UpTheLeagueFox]

In the Mercury today: "Puel’s record over his 41 games in charge so far is 1.39 points per game. Across a whole season, that works out at around 53 points. That usually sees you finish around eighth or ninth."

 

However... it's a very, very sloppy stat as seven of those games were Cup matches, including five against lower league opposition (Peterborough, Sheff Utd, Fleetwood three times - and even they played their second eleven in the Carabao). 

Not really an accurate representation but maybe not a huge surprise as it's written by the only Puel fanboy in the press. (Pretty much everyone else I speak to in the press/media don't share his blind optimism.)

 

Last 19 Premier League games, ie half a season, we average a point per game.

Last 12 Premier League games, we average less than a point per game. [W3 D1 L8]

 

If only we could've carried on playing like we did in the first eight games of his reign. It's the direction since which concerns me.

Hope he gets it right, I really do.

[treer]

If Soyunco doesn't make a big difference at the back, when he is brought in, then the seasons hopes are gone, and we will be in  a relegation battle.

He is the last throw of the dice, at least until January

Sometimes one little thing can click, and all of a sudden you hit the jackpot.

Edited 17 September 2018 by treer

[Guest]

Just now, treer said:

If Soyunco doesn't make a big difference at the back, when he is brought in, then the seasons hopes are gone, and we will be in  a relegation battle.

He is the last throw of the dice, at least until January

Relegation?

 

The doom and Gloom gets to me after a while.

 

We've already shown we're much better than half the teams in the league. we aren't going to be in a relegation battle.

[Foxaholic ME]

17 hours ago, RumbleFox said:

We won the Premier League in a 5000/1 miracle season that many people believe is the greatest sporting upset in the history of world sport.  But, aye, we should do it every year.

 

Unfortunately we are currently a mid-table premier League team.  I would like us to be more than that but if I step back and think about it objectively I realise that for most of our history we have been less that that.  People (me included) hold up the O'Neill years as some of our greatest days (which they were) but league positions with that mighty team were mid-table.  I like to look at structure and stability and sustainability and I see signs we are heading in the right direction.  Puel may or may not be a good fix long term but he certainly needs more time.  We should try and enjoy football a little more.  These, in comparison to most of our history, are good times.  X

It depends how far you go bck we were  definately not a mid table team under Gillies he was here 10 years. We were also regarded as above this although under achieving under Bloomfield. Before  even my time we  were well up late twenties one point of the top in 1926. This represents 20 years so hardly mid table all our history

[Guest Chocolate Teapot]

4 hours ago, UpTheLeagueFox said:

In the Mercury today: "Puel’s record over his 41 games in charge so far is 1.39 points per game. Across a whole season, that works out at around 53 points. That usually sees you finish around eighth or ninth."

 

However... it's a very, very sloppy stat as seven of those games were Cup matches, including five against lower league opposition (Peterborough, Sheff Utd, Fleetwood three times - and even they played their second eleven in the Carabao). 

Not really an accurate representation but maybe not a huge surprise as it's written by the only Puel fanboy in the press. (Pretty much everyone else I speak to in the press/media don't share his blind optimism.)

 

Last 19 Premier League games, ie half a season, we average a point per game.

Last 12 Premier League games, we average less than a point per game. [W3 D1 L8]

 

If only we could've carried on playing like we did in the first eight games of his reign. It's the direction since which concerns me.

Hope he gets it right, I really do.

Why are you digging out a bloke you know on a forum?

[NotTheMarketLeader]

4 hours ago, UpTheLeagueFox said:

In the Mercury today: "Puel’s record over his 41 games in charge so far is 1.39 points per game. Across a whole season, that works out at around 53 points. That usually sees you finish around eighth or ninth."

 

However... it's a very, very sloppy stat as seven of those games were Cup matches, including five against lower league opposition (Peterborough, Sheff Utd, Fleetwood three times - and even they played their second eleven in the Carabao). 

Not really an accurate representation but maybe not a huge surprise as it's written by the only Puel fanboy in the press. (Pretty much everyone else I speak to in the press/media don't share his blind optimism.)

 

Last 19 Premier League games, ie half a season, we average a point per game.

Last 12 Premier League games, we average less than a point per game. [W3 D1 L8]

 

If only we could've carried on playing like we did in the first eight games of his reign. It's the direction since which concerns me.

Hope he gets it right, I really do.

Thank you for this.

 

And there it is in a nutshell.

 

Yet it seems that many of the ‘holier than thou’ Foxes talkers are happy with this type of progress / revolution, to the point one is considered some kind of crazy heretic in suggesting Puel’s performance is very poor given the playing staff at his disposal.

 

Nevermind, carry on Claude ra ra ra ?  

you are amazing with your possesion play and the combination of scoring few goals and conceding lots ?

 

[KingsX]

On 16/09/2018 at 07:26, Kitchandro said:

Well I'm telling you; here is where it went wrong, appointing managers for no real reason and keeping them on for too long. If you're not progressing, you're regressing in this game, we have no ambition and therefore are a terrible waste of a football club at the moment.

 

In fact, Puel was appointed for a very specific reason -- to transition the club to an emphasis on acquiring and developing youthful talent, and to a new playing style.  This was clear even before the Chairman’s recent, explicit statement.  Puel has moved forcefully in this direction at whatever risk to results and his own job.  This is ambition.  It’s a major transition, not a tweak, and a work in progress.  To many of us whose agenda is simply the progress of the Club, it looks balanced on a 50/50 edge, with the results not yet in. 

 

Puel is only now coming into focus, with a squad shaped with his influence.  He can bring on youth.  He can align recruitment with his needs, and even attract good players.  The attacking football is much changed after a short summer, with uneven but respectable -- and improving -- results.  

 

But we aren’t seeing flexibility to adjust tactics to his own squad and the opponent.  The defensive approach is failing.  And he hasn’t shown he can prepare a City side to play a consistent 90, or show consistency from game to game.  (Though he has shown that elsewhere.)

 

I think the Club’s strategic direction is spot on, meaning we needed Puel’s like to raze and rebuild.  To stay in the longer term, he needs to prove more as a man manager and tactician.

 

Meaning, we play this transitional year out.  We’re not going down.  We need to look at progress as well as individual results.  If -- if --we need to change managers, we should be taking a long, organized look at the best candidates (all over Europe) compatible with our new direction, and move in the late spring.  Not chop and change to one of the crap usual suspects and lose all direction.  That only guarantees another wasted year or two.

[1972 Fox]

11 minutes ago, KingsX said:

 

In fact, Puel was appointed for a very specific reason -- to transition the club to an emphasis on acquiring and developing youthful talent, and to a new playing style.  This was clear even before the Chairman’s recent, explicit statement.  Puel has moved forcefully in this direction at whatever risk to results and his own job.  This is ambition.  It’s a major transition, not a tweak, and a work in progress.  To many of us whose agenda is simply the progress of the Club, it looks balanced on a 50/50 edge, with the results not yet in. 

 

Puel is only now coming into focus, with a squad shaped with his influence.  He can bring on youth.  He can align recruitment with his needs, and even attract good players.  The attacking football is much changed after a short summer, with uneven but respectable -- and improving -- results.  

 

But we aren’t seeing flexibility to adjust tactics to his own squad and the opponent.  The defensive approach is failing.  And he hasn’t shown he can prepare a City side to play a consistent 90, or show consistency from game to game.  (Though he has shown that elsewhere.)

 

I think the Club’s strategic direction is spot on, meaning we needed Puel’s like to raze and rebuild.  To stay in the longer term, he needs to prove more as a man manager and tactician.

 

Meaning, we play this transitional year out.  We’re not going down.  We need to look at progress as well as individual results.  If -- if --we need to change managers, we should be taking a long, organized look at the best candidates (all over Europe) compatible with our new direction, and move in the late spring.  Not chop and change to one of the crap usual suspects and lose all direction.  That only guarantees another wasted year or two.

This ^. 

[RumbleFox]

54 minutes ago, Foxaholic ME said:

It depends how far you go bck we were  definately not a mid table team under Gillies he was here 10 years. We were also regarded as above this although under achieving under Bloomfield. Before  even my time we  were well up late twenties one point of the top in 1926. This represents 20 years so hardly mid table all our history

I think you have confused the word "all" with the word "most"?  Unless you could please quote me the bit where I said we have been mid-table or lower for "all" of our history as I cannot seem to see it?  X

[RumbleFox]

14 minutes ago, KingsX said:

 

In fact, Puel was appointed for a very specific reason -- to transition the club to an emphasis on acquiring and developing youthful talent, and to a new playing style.  This was clear even before the Chairman’s recent, explicit statement.  Puel has moved forcefully in this direction at whatever risk to results and his own job.  This is ambition.  It’s a major transition, not a tweak, and a work in progress.  To many of us whose agenda is simply the progress of the Club, it looks balanced on a 50/50 edge, with the results not yet in. 

 

Puel is only now coming into focus, with a squad shaped with his influence.  He can bring on youth.  He can align recruitment with his needs, and even attract good players.  The attacking football is much changed after a short summer, with uneven but respectable -- and improving -- results.  

 

But we aren’t seeing flexibility to adjust tactics to his own squad and the opponent.  The defensive approach is failing.  And he hasn’t shown he can prepare a City side to play a consistent 90, or show consistency from game to game.  (Though he has shown that elsewhere.)

 

I think the Club’s strategic direction is spot on, meaning we needed Puel’s like to raze and rebuild.  To stay in the longer term, he needs to prove more as a man manager and tactician.

 

Meaning, we play this transitional year out.  We’re not going down.  We need to look at progress as well as individual results.  If -- if --we need to change managers, we should be taking a long, organized look at the best candidates (all over Europe) compatible with our new direction, and move in the late spring.  Not chop and change to one of the crap usual suspects and lose all direction.  That only guarantees another wasted year or two.

Aye, this is good.  I would try and add to it but would ramble on incoherently so will just quote it and say "I concur".

 

X

[RumbleFox]

1 hour ago, FIF said:

Relegation?

 

The doom and Gloom gets to me after a while.

 

We've already shown we're much better than half the teams in the league. we aren't going to be in a relegation battle.

Nah, you've had a mare there matey.  11th place means relegation this year, did you not see the new rules?  X

[CosbehFox]

5 hours ago, UpTheLeagueFox said:

 

Last 19 Premier League games, ie half a season, we average a point per game.

Last 12 Premier League games, we average less than a point per game. [W3 D1 L8]

 

By picking out on the last 19 PL games and the last 12 PL games, you miss out the runs of good form. 

 

We were unbeaten in four before those last 12 games -  which corrects to W5 D3 L8. Draws to Stoke and Bournemouth then wins at West Brom and Brighton. 

 

Oh and look, we were unbeaten in three before those last 19 games - wins against Huddersfield and Watford, plus a draw at Chelsea. 

 

It seems folk are randomly picking out runs of games to make the case against Puel. You can pick out runs of form to any argument. 

Edited 17 September 2018 by Cardiff_Fox

[treer]

its not hard, just had up All his premier games, and the answer is, he more often doesn't win

Edited 17 September 2018 by treer

[CosbehFox]

8 minutes ago, treer said:

its not hard, just had up All his premier games, and the answer is, he more often doesn't win

Yeah it reads

 

Managed 34

Win 12

Draw 8

Loss 14

 

Win ratio of 35% - pretty run of the mill stuff for a team around 9th or 10th.

 

If we put the points ratio over a 38 game season, it's 49 points. Last season enough to finish 8th. 

Edited 17 September 2018 by Cardiff_Fox

[FoxInTheBirstallBox]

On 16/09/2018 at 11:02, northernfox321 said:

I don't expect them to win the league again,but the club really missed trick after winning league that should have laid the foundations for next 8 to 10 years to reach the next level,but they went wasted money on so many players not fit enough to wear the shirt

So what does that have to do with puel? He's the one trying to sort out the mess that ****ing ranieri and shakey left us in

 

Give him time you muppet

[FoxInTheBirstallBox]

19 minutes ago, Cardiff_Fox said:

By picking out on the last 19 PL games and the last 12 PL games, you miss out the runs of good form. 

 

We were unbeaten in four before those last 12 games -  which corrects to W5 D3 L8. Draws to Stoke and Bournemouth then wins at West Brom and Brighton. 

 

Oh and look, we were unbeaten in three before those last 19 games - wins against Huddersfield and Watford, plus a draw at Chelsea. 

 

It seems folk are randomly picking out runs of games to make the case against Puel. You can pick out runs of form to any argument. 

Looking at our last 2 games we scored 3 and conceded 6 and got no points so that's enough basis for puel out 

 

That is sarcasm before all you puel out stat twats join in 

[RumbleFox]

17 minutes ago, treer said:

its not hard, just had up All his premier games, and the answer is, he more often doesn't win

As far as I can see, his average points per game for his entire career with Leicester City (and not some arbitrary number of games to fit one agenda or the other) is 1.29.  Over a season this equates to a points total of 49 (rounded down).  Based on data regarding average points per position in the Premier League this would, on average, seem to have us finishing around 9th or 10th.  Now of course, one could argue that they want more than 9th or 10th and that is fine.  But what it seems odd to argue is that he will relegate us?

 

X

Edited 17 September 2018 by RumbleFox

[Webbo]

2 hours ago, FIF said:

 

 

We've already shown we're much better than half the teams in the league. 

When did that happen?

[CosbehFox]

4 minutes ago, Webbo said:

When did that happen?

Finished 9th last season for starters