Brendan Rodgers

[Dahnsouff]

16 minutes ago, volpeazzurro said:

Firstly, compared with O'Neil and Pearson, Rodgers has a stella squad of players as raw material to work with. I think sometimes, apart from individuals personalities, the former two are held in great affection for what they achieved because they did it against all odds, perhaps the same with Ranieri also. With the squad Rodgers both inherited, which had been improved as he's gone along, there has perhaps been much more of an expectation to do well and rightly so just imo.

 

Whilst I think you're quite right with the expectations of the top 4 clubs, I don't see us having a worse squad in depth than any other clubs in the division. As for reputation and certainly players wages, I think Leicester are the one club who can point to such statistics and ridicule them. Remember 2015/16? Man City worth 350m, Leicester City 21.5. You can pay a lot of wages to the likes of Aubamayang and Ozil that was, but get far better service for half the price out of Vardy and Tielemans. Wages are a poor indicator of quality. I wonder what £70m Pepe is on? I'd sooner have Barnes every day of the week, even a recently out of form one.

Evidence says otherwise. One swallow a Summer does make and all that bollocks. You cannot use 15/16 to infer any causality, it was the mother of all outliers. It’s not everything, but it’s far more than you are suggesting.

 

Although Man Utd seem intent in making their own inverse outlier of this evidential scenario. 

Edited 10 November 2021 by Dahnsouff

[Guest454545]

16 minutes ago, volpeazzurro said:

Firstly, compared with O'Neil and Pearson, Rodgers has a stella squad of players as raw material to work with. I think sometimes, apart from individuals personalities, the former two are held in great affection for what they achieved because they did it against all odds, perhaps the same with Ranieri also. With the squad Rodgers both inherited, which had been improved as he's gone along, there has perhaps been much more of an expectation to do well and rightly so just imo.

 

Whilst I think you're quite right with the expectations of the top 4 clubs, I don't see us having a worse squad in depth than any other clubs in the division. As for reputation and certainly players wages, I think Leicester are the one club who can point to such statistics and ridicule them. Remember 2015/16? Man City worth 350m, Leicester City 21.5. You can pay a lot of wages to the likes of Aubamayang and Ozil that was, but get far better service for half the price out of Vardy and Tielemans. Wages are a poor indicator of quality. I wonder what £70m Pepe is on? I'd sooner have Barnes every day of the week, even a recently out of form one.

There's a reason that title win was a 5000-1 shot, though, and likely unrepeatable. Correlation is not causation. 

[sacreblueits442]

4 hours ago, FoxyLeon said:

 

I thought this too until I realised the fact we concede from every set piece proves it's poor coaching.

 

If you can't coach a side how to defend set pieces, where you have a huge element of control, you stand no chance in open play where defending is far harder due to unpredictability.

....do you think we could get Shakey back now, as there will surely be an upheaval of the Villa staff.

[Bob Farley]

Leicester City manager Brendan Rodgers is the favourite to replace Ole Gunnar Solskjaer as Manchester Unitedboss. (Eurosport)

 

[gerblod]

19 hours ago, Guest454545 said:

That's modern coaching though, isn't it? Pep Guardiola is also a micro manager, as are Klopp and Tuchel. You can't compare the 40s, 50s and 60s to now either - the game was almost a different game then, with WAY less pressing and movement and a lot more man marking. That's why the Lisbon Lions were so effective - the teams couldn't cope with the constant position switches from the back. Matt Busby now would be a different prospect. 

The Lisbon Lions were Celtic under Jock Stein. No matter. Same period - both immensely talented teams.

 

Your points are completely valid, and yet it is a game which cries out to be played with flair and élan. That comes from the player, not the manager. That's what all the great managers have known. Those two factors will always predominate - the manager has to harness them but he cannot do without them. Else robots could be employed.

[sacreblueits442]

4 minutes ago, gerblod said:

The Lisbon Lions were Celtic under Jock Stein. No matter. Same period - both immensely talented teams.

 

Your points are completely valid, and yet it is a game which cries out to be played with flair and élan. That comes from the player, not the manager. That's what all the great managers have known. Those two factors will always predominate - the manager has to harness them but he cannot do without them. Else robots could be employed.

...we already look like statues on the pitch....robots are an upgrade, at least there is some animation!!!

[gerblod]

1 hour ago, Guest454545 said:

There's a reason that title win was a 5000-1 shot, though, and likely unrepeatable. Correlation is not causation. 

Forget the odds - the bookies aren't all-seeing, all-knowing all the time. They f***ed up big time by being ignorant of what was happening at City. It wasn't a miracle - it was a convocation of optimum factors taking place. It wasn't the 'big' sides having an off-season. City were the best team in the Prem.

 

Please excuse my ignorance/stupidity but could you explain what "correlation is not causation" actually means? Nice alliteration, but, unless its akin to convergent evolution I'm lost. 

[Guest454545]

1 minute ago, gerblod said:

Forget the odds - the bookies aren't all-seeing, all-knowing all the time. They f***ed up big time by being ignorant of what was happening at City. It wasn't a miracle - it was a convocation of optimum factors taking place. It wasn't the 'big' sides having an off-season. City were the best team in the Prem.

 

Please excuse my ignorance/stupidity but could you explain what "correlation is not causation" actually means? Nice alliteration, but, unless its akin to convergent evolution I'm lost.

It means that two events occur in relation to each other without the being a direct cause and effect relationship. In this instance, paying more wages doesn't automatically mean higher placement in the table, but the ability to pay higher wages means being able to attract better players in greater numbers, which does increase win probability. Therefore, there is a correlation between wage-paying ability and table placement in football leagues, but not an actual direct cause. 

 

Also, bookies didn't mess up at all. You were 5000-1 to win the title before that season started because you spent most of the previous season in a relegation fight. You were definitely the best team in the league that season, but there was absolutely nothing to indicate that based on the previous 12 months.

[volpeazzurro]

3 hours ago, Guest454545 said:

There's a reason that title win was a 5000-1 shot, though, and likely unrepeatable. Correlation is not causation. 

So you think it was just down to chance or luck? 10 points clear suggests not.

[TrentFox]

1 hour ago, gerblod said:

Forget the odds - the bookies aren't all-seeing, all-knowing all the time. They f***ed up big time by being ignorant of what was happening at City. It wasn't a miracle - it was a convocation of optimum factors taking place. It wasn't the 'big' sides having an off-season. City were the best team in the Prem.

 

Please excuse my ignorance/stupidity but could you explain what "correlation is not causation" actually means? Nice alliteration, but, unless its akin to convergent evolution I'm lost. 

Ice cream sales go up as coat sales go down. There’s a correlation. But one event does not cause the other - there’s no causation. Hence correlation is not causation. I can’t understand why nobody invites me to dinner any more? 🤔🤷

[st albans fox]

3 hours ago, sacreblueits442 said:

....do you think we could get Shakey back now, as there will surely be an upheaval of the Villa staff.

Hopefully not ……

[cropstonfox]

2 hours ago, Guest454545 said:

It means that two events occur in relation to each other without the being a direct cause and effect relationship. In this instance, paying more wages doesn't automatically mean higher placement in the table, but the ability to pay higher wages means being able to attract better players in greater numbers, which does increase win probability. Therefore, there is a correlation between wage-paying ability and table placement in football leagues, but not an actual direct cause. 

 

Also, bookies didn't mess up at all. You were 5000-1 to win the title before that season started because you spent most of the previous season in a relegation fight. You were definitely the best team in the league that season, but there was absolutely nothing to indicate that based on the previous 12 months.

The last 9 games we were2nd  top of the current form table?

Bookies got it wrong.

Edited 10 November 2021 by cropstonfox

[Phil Bowman]

1 minute ago, cropstonfox said:

The last 9 games we were top of the current form table?

Bookies got it wrong.

They probably didn’t. They don’t usually. As I understand it the odds were long (is that the right term? I’m not a betting man) because not many people were betting much money on us winning the league, it has little if anything to do with how likely we were to win it.

And I’m guessing any money they lost paying out on Leicester winning they more than made back with everything they took from all the people who bet on Chelsea, Man City etc winning it.

 

I may be completely wrong; I’ve never placed a bet on anything in my life and so I’m whatever the opposite of an expert is.

[Guest454545]

6 minutes ago, cropstonfox said:

The last 9 games we were2nd  top of the current form table?

Bookies got it wrong.

And that equates to a league challenge? Because I did a search on here of what all your expectations were when Ranieri was hired, and the general consensus was 14th to 12th, mostly based on Cambiasso leaving, it seems. 

[ARM1968]

22 minutes ago, TrentFox said:

Ice cream sales go up as coat sales go down. There’s a correlation. But one event does not cause the other - there’s no causation. Hence correlation is not causation. I can’t understand why nobody invites me to dinner any more? 🤔🤷

I would, but only so I could call you a cvnt. 🤣

[Guest454545]

52 minutes ago, volpeazzurro said:

So you think it was just down to chance or luck? 10 points clear suggests not.

So why didn't you repeat the feat, or even close to it, the year after?

[The_77]

Just now, Guest454545 said:

So why didn't you repeat the feat, or even close to it, the year after?

Try playing football with the hangover of all hangovers. 

[HighPeakFox]

I love it when people get offended over nothing. Saying the title win was a freak event, or an outlier, doesn't mean the same as saying it was a fluke.

[Guest454545]

4 minutes ago, The_77 said:

Try playing football with the hangover of all hangovers. 

That was me in Sunday league for years 😁😁😁

[volpeazzurro]

38 minutes ago, Guest454545 said:

So why didn't you repeat the feat, or even close to it, the year after?

Quite simple really, the world class player Kante left, who did the work of 2 and Drinkwater followed shortly after. Marhez also had his sights elsewhere. The system that had been played could no longer work without certain players present. Whilst it might sound crass, would Barcelona have been able to play their style of football without Xavi and Iniesta? They may have had the finances to replace them but Leicester are tiny in comparison. 

[Guest454545]

47 minutes ago, volpeazzurro said:

Quite simple really, the world class player Kante left, who did the work of 2 and Drinkwater followed shortly after. Marhez also had his sights elsewhere. The system that had been played could no longer work without certain players present. Whilst it might sound crass, would Barcelona have been able to play their style of football without Xavi and Iniesta? They may have had the finances to replace them but Leicester are tiny in comparison. 

Why didn't you perform the feat the year before?

[fox_up_north]

Because we were working on a conceptual trilogy.

 

Part 1 - promotion

Part 2 - the great escape

Part 3 - the title

 

If we'd have done promotion, title, title, it ruins the flow of the story. Honestly, it's like you've never seen Star Wars. The middle one is always the hard work to set up the triumphant comeback

 

 

 

 

 

[The_77]

1 hour ago, Guest454545 said:

That was me in Sunday league for years 😁😁😁

I’m gonna go out on a limb and guess you didn’t finish anywhere close to winning the PL that season either. 😉

[Guest454545]

7 minutes ago, The_77 said:

I’m gonna go out on a limb and guess you didn’t finish anywhere close to winning the PL that season either. 😉

Pints of Lager? I sure did 

 

However, "mother of all hangovers" is a poor excuse. You fired the manager who created your miracle. That's how much you regressed to the mean. 

[The_77]

1 minute ago, Guest454545 said:

Pints of Lager? I sure did 

 

However, "mother of all hangovers" is a poor excuse. You fired the manager who created your miracle. That's how much you regressed to the mean. 

I got news for ya, each season doesn’t have the same variables. We also got further in Champions League than any other English side and would have done much better concentrating on one competition like we did the prior season.  
 

Imagine thinking any Leicester fan is making excuses here. Who do you support?