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
davieG

The "do they mean us?" thread pt 3

By davieG, in Leicester City Forum

Recommended Posts

Babylon

Babylon

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, TiffToff88 said:

Yes. Of course he was. First choice left back by a long way, England international. When he was fit he played every second he was available. How was he not a key player?

 

Never understood the criticism he got from our fans while he was at here.

For pretty much half of every season he played he was absolute dog muck, that's why he was criticised. Frankly, he was probably our worst player for the second half of his last season here. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bert

Bert

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, TiffToff88 said:

Yes. Of course he was. First choice left back by a long way, England international. When he was fit he played every second he was available. How was he not a key player?

 

Never understood the criticism he got from our fans while he was at here.

Me either. It was way over the top. He was decent for us. Had the odd bad game or was more frustrating than anything but there’s not many players in the world that won’t do that. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bert

Bert

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, Babylon said:

For pretty much half of every season he played he was absolute dog muck, that's why he was criticised. Frankly, he was probably our worst player for the second half of his last season here. 

Which was when he’d had his head turned. There’s a reason why he was first choice left back for us & England and we got £50m for him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TiffToff88

TiffToff88

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Bert said:

Which was when he’d had his head turned. There’s a reason why he was first choice left back for us & England and we got £50m for him. 

No no, we're clearly wrong about him. As was Brendan Rodgers. And Gareth Southgate. And Chelsea's world class scouting and player recruitment teams...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Babylon

Babylon

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, Bert said:

Which was when he’d had his head turned. There’s a reason why he was first choice left back for us & England and we got £50m for him. 

It happened almost every single season and not just that season. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Babylon

Babylon

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, TiffToff88 said:

No no, we're clearly wrong about him. As was Brendan Rodgers. And Gareth Southgate. And Chelsea's world class scouting and player recruitment teams...

Chelsea who bought Drinkwater, Kepa, Morata, Werner etc etc?

 

So, are you suggesting he wasn't absolute dog muck for large chucks of each season? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Chocolate Teapot

Guest Chocolate Teapot

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Babylon said:

It happened almost every single season and not just that season. 

Hed had his head turned ever since he made his debut. Don't think he ever really wanted to be here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RoyalBlueGaz

RoyalBlueGaz

Posted
Posted (edited)

Not long after selling Chilwell I was playing a match and someone played a simple pass to me that I embarrassingly failed to control by just letting it roll under my foot and out for a throw in. However I consoled myself with the fact I saw the £50million England international Ben Chilwell do that exact same thing earlier that year!

 

P.s. at least I was trying to account for the bobbly pitch!

Edited by RoyalBlueGaz
Added the p.s.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
don_danbury

don_danbury

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, TiffToff88 said:

Yes. Of course he was. First choice left back by a long way, England international. When he was fit he played every second he was available. How was he not a key player?

 

Never understood the criticism he got from our fans while he was at here.

i don't count him as a key player. stick fuchs or any other slightly above average LB there and they'd do the same job as chilly did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kristianity77

kristianity77

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, fuchsntf said:

Every Time someone says we threw Top 4 away...I will return with no we didnt...!!

 

I suppose its technically the same as saying we threw winning the Premier league away because at one point we were top.  You finish where you deserve to finish. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot

Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot

Posted
Posted

Chillwell wasn't a key player but he was our first choice left back. You wonder if his bubble has burst a bit, Chelsea prefer a player who's borderline past it, and didn't get a sniff for England in the summer, with second choice right backs being preferred for his position. He's a good player and got some undue stick on here but he's also not as good as his reputation. Too balanced a view, I'm sure. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ARTY_FOX

ARTY_FOX

Posted
Posted
On 24/08/2021 at 15:31, Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot said:

Chillwell wasn't a key player but he was our first choice left back. You wonder if his bubble has burst a bit, Chelsea prefer a player who's borderline past it, and didn't get a sniff for England in the summer, with second choice right backs being preferred for his position. He's a good player and got some undue stick on here but he's also not as good as his reputation. Too balanced a view, I'm sure. 

He did get alot of undue stick but he let's himself down in the final third. Really good in the other 2 though. Unfortunately with a modern full back putting in a good cross instead of stopping turning and passing back everytime is what managers want. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nalis

Nalis

Posted
Posted

Putting Chilwell's Chelsea transfer in the same bracket as Drinkwater's transfer is a little unfair to Chilwell - I've seen it on this forum a few times.

 

Acording to whoscored Drinkwater has played less than 600 competitive minutes for Chelsea since joining them 4 years ago. Chilwell has over 700 minutes from his Chelsea Champions League matches alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ealingfox

ealingfox

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, brookfox said:

Couldn't find the "Do they not mean us" thread so putting it here. Good old Phil McNulty couldn't even be bothered to comment on our transfer window https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/58403262!

 

Why would he? We haven't done anything interesting and our 2 main signings haven't started a game yet, so he's never seen them play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Golden Fox

Golden Fox

Posted
Posted
16 hours ago, brookfox said:

Couldn't find the "Do they not mean us" thread so putting it here. Good old Phil McNulty couldn't even be bothered to comment on our transfer window https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/58403262!

I read this yesterday and nearly posted it here. It's a review of "Rich 6" + Everton + West Ham.

 

Not that I'm too bothered as he's not going to tell us anything we didn't already know, but we have clearly established ourselves as one of the main contenders for a Top 4 spot, so it did just smack of deliberately ignoring us. 

 

16 hours ago, ealingfox said:

 

Why would he? We haven't done anything interesting and our 2 main signings haven't started a game yet, so he's never seen them play.

No activity would still warrant a comment. The review on Liverpool is that they haven't done much but made a couple of fringe signings - so we've probably done more than they have.

 

On reflection, it's just a very poorly constructed article from the "chief football writer". If you spend that much time writing about 8 clubs, why not make it empirically based and do it as a review of how last year's top 10 have done. You would just need to add in 2 extra paragraphs for us and Leeds (10=) and have a good structure to work from rather than the rambling nature of the piece. Sometimes I think I'm in the wrong profession! 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fox in the North

Fox in the North

Posted
Posted
17 hours ago, ealingfox said:

 

Why would he? We haven't done anything interesting and our 2 main signings haven't started a game yet, so he's never seen them play.

I get where Brookfox is coming from. Logically we’re a team that’s had 2 consecutive top 5 finishes and a FA cup win. For a team of that calibre there really isn’t much analysis on us in comparison with the “greedy 6” + Everton + West Ham. I’m not too bothered by it but I think it gets more obvious every season we hang around. Hope we can keep in the top 6 again for that reason alone :P

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gordon the Great

Gordon the Great

Posted
Posted
On 23/08/2021 at 16:58, pmcla26 said:

Chilwell is neither £50m good nor was he as bad as our fans made out. He's just a decent Premier League full-back. Great athlete, great progresser of the ball, average defender and average end product. We were about his level really but fashionable/hype players like that are always going to be sold for big profit if the money is on the table.

 

Chelsea will (I think they may already have) realise that he's okay and he'll either be one of a couple of full/wing back options without ever being outright first choice or they'll flog him to Arsenal, West Ham or Everton in a few years for £20-30m off the back of his reputation. 

And that, in my opinion is as good a round up of not only Ben Chilwell, but also of his general position in the scheme of things as you will see.

Good steady player with the tendency to believe the hype about himself. Not a world beater but a skilled tryer all the same.

With, genuinely, the greatest  respect, a considerable , but not a massive loss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Carl the Llama

Carl the Llama

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Golden Fox said:

I read this yesterday and nearly posted it here. It's a review of "Rich 6" + Everton + West Ham.

 

Not that I'm too bothered as he's not going to tell us anything we didn't already know, but we have clearly established ourselves as one of the main contenders for a Top 4 spot, so it did just smack of deliberately ignoring us. 

 

No activity would still warrant a comment. The review on Liverpool is that they haven't done much but made a couple of fringe signings - so we've probably done more than they have.

 

On reflection, it's just a very poorly constructed article from the "chief football writer". If you spend that much time writing about 8 clubs, why not make it empirically based and do it as a review of how last year's top 10 have done. You would just need to add in 2 extra paragraphs for us and Leeds (10=) and have a good structure to work from rather than the rambling nature of the piece. Sometimes I think I'm in the wrong profession! 

Whenever Phil posts an article on any subject I wonder how he's become the chief football writer, never produced anything of value that I'm aware of

Link to comment
Share on other sites
turtmcfly

turtmcfly

Posted
Posted (edited)
20 hours ago, ealingfox said:

 

Why would he? We haven't done anything interesting and our 2 main signings haven't started a game yet, so he's never seen them play.

 

So 'interesting' was the benchmark... have you read his coverage re. Liverpool and Everton?

 

Daka not being interesting says way more about you than the transfer itself

 

 

 

Edited by turtmcfly
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ealingfox

ealingfox

Posted
Posted
35 minutes ago, turtmcfly said:

 

So 'interesting' was the benchmark... have you read his coverage re. Liverpool and Everton?

 

Daka not being interesting says way more about you than the transfer itself

 

 

 

 

Everton's situation is more interesting because they've completely changed strategic direction and gone the full Burnley. We've done more or less what you'd expect us to.

 

I'm sure I don't need to explain to you why Liverpool have their own section.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ric Flair

Ric Flair

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, ealingfox said:

 

Everton's situation is more interesting because they've completely changed strategic direction and gone the full Burnley. We've done more or less what you'd expect us to.

 

I'm sure I don't need to explain to you why Liverpool have their own section.

In which case why would any articles ever be written about us since we've become consistently good?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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