Well if Dunge is angry, then It’s not a surprise the rest of us are melting down!
comment by The_Dungeon_Master (U4830)
posted 41 minutes ago
Chilwell can do one now. To be laughing and sharing a joke at the final whistle with the guy whose goal has just knocked you out of the FA Cup and whose team is about to overtake you for a Champions League spot... I don't care if he just told the world's greatest knock knock joke ever conceived, he should be telling him to go f* himself.
It's not about Rodgers subbing off two players who were blowing out their collective a*e and have barely been able to complete a match between them all season. Too many players aren't hurting enough. They don't want it enough.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bringing Gray on for Perez would have been a more positive sub - not Albrighton. Putting Choudhury on, isn’t even like for like - it’s negative. He could have brought on Iheanacho at any stage but didn’t.
Face it - he was concerned that Chelsea were coming into the match and countered accordingly with the same white flag approach that nullified us in the hammering at Man City.
Please don’t take the easy option here and start questioning all of the players, yes chilwells attitude is worrying, but you can’t look at that first half and put it down to a lack of desire.
Surely you have to see those subs hindered us - They didn’t help us in any way
comment by Keep_the_faith1 (U8129)
posted 2 minutes ago
God blimey, you’re an angry little man!
I do find you endearing though
----------------------------------------------------------------------
One post away from being filtered mate.....
Comment deleted by Article Creator
As you wish you facking weirdo
I think keeping two players on who were fading fast and hadn't played in any significant way over the first two matches wasn't going to help us either. Neither Perez nor Praet were going to help us going forward in that match as they'd run their race, and Albrighton and Choudhury were their closest replacements. (Choudhury was brought on to press and try to win the ball in the opposition half instead of switching to a 4-2-3-1.) Sometimes subs have to be made and I understand why he made them.
I can't explain why he didn't throw Iheanacho on in the last 10 minutes though. Perhaps he felt 90 minutes of running in the legs was enough and didn't want to risk another 30 minutes.
The Albrighton sub was completely the wrong call and defensive in nature. You bring Albrighton on because he offers more defensively in terms of protecting the full back - that was a poor move when he had Gray on the bench who he brought on later anyway.
If Perez was fading then it’s Rodgers fault. Why hasn’t he been used in the last two games - didn’t even come off the bench against Brighton. Hardly a surprise he was tired. It’s all beginning to point back to the same person isn’t it?
Choudhury offers nothing unless you bring him on with 10 mins to go to close out a game. His pressing is erratic and tackles even worse. Praet seemed to be doing fairly ok, but once again, perhaps giving Praet some game time against Brighton would have helped with the fitness levels
Nope - I haven’t seen another Leicester fan that gets those subs when other options were available. Not bringing on Iheanacho when chasing a game was unforgivable
I still think they were fine. Both Praet and Perez had expended energy in the first half pressing up the pitch. Both of their races were run by the time the double sub came. The players Rodgers brought on were designed to get us pressing up the pitch more again, something that had dropped off and allowed Chelsea onto us.
I don't think those subs were bad as such, although the question of why we didn't bring on Iheanacho after conceding remains unanswered. As I say, perhaps it was more practice in the recognised formation.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
You’re definitely in the minority there Dunge. Also most fans would say that while his intentions may not have been negative, it was a key moment in the game shifting further away from us
Albrighton doesn’t have the legs to press - and he didn’t really impact the game in that way. Choudhury has the legs but doesn’t have the brain - we needed to arrest control of the midfield - bringing Choudhury on never achieved that.
You still haven’t answered the point on the fact that neither player would have been exhausted had they have been introduced in either of the previous games
To have other fans texting me asking what was going on with those subs perhaps illustrates the point that those looking at us from the outside are able to see issues even more clearly than us.
comment by *GTWI4T- some people deserve to get trolled (U6008)
posted 2 hours, 33 minutes ago
Rodgers has a very strange thing where when he first arrives, the players obviously completely buy into what he does. We saw it at Liverpool and Celtic fans saw it too. There is a very clear way of playing. The players obviously enjoy playing for him and everything looks great. Then something happens. I don't know if there isn't enough variety in training to keep things fresh for the players. Or whether it is Rodgers himself but there is always a point where form drops off, tactics become more negative and players look disinterested.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You raise a point that Leicester fans on this site are choosing to ignore. They just can’t face up to it mate, you won’t get a response from any of them on Rodgers
Regarding whether Praet or Perez would have been exhausted if they'd played against Brighton:
Firstly, both have seemingly had knocks in "pre-season". Perez didn't play in the warm-up matches and Praet didn't make the bench in the first match (and he would have done if fit). They're both further behind in match fitness than the rest of the squad, so it makes sense to me that they wouldn't last as long.
Second, regarding previous matches, Perez was given twenty minutes against Brighton, but he couldn't be using the Watford and Brighton matches to give people a run-out. If we had gone 3-0 up then there would have been the opportunity to do that, but we were trying to win those matches. Unsuccessfully as it turned out, but even so. If he had made changes just to get them minutes in tight league matches at this point, I think that would be a far more genuine criticism of his tactics than not giving them those minutes. What I suspect is that Rodgers was using this match to give them minutes and prioritising the league.
Third, I don't know the exact stats, but it has occurred to me that neither Perez nor Praet have lasted 90 minutes this season even when they were fit. The difference between the Chelsea match and the usual time both are usually replaced was around 10 minutes at most. It came as no surprise to me when their numbers came up on the substitution board because they almost always do.
*neither have lasted 90 minutes very often, I mean. I'm sure there have been instances but I don't see those instances as the norm.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by The_Dungeon_Master (U4830)
posted 1 hour, 35 minutes ago
Regarding whether Praet or Perez would have been exhausted if they'd played against Brighton:
Firstly, both have seemingly had knocks in "pre-season". Perez didn't play in the warm-up matches and Praet didn't make the bench in the first match (and he would have done if fit). They're both further behind in match fitness than the rest of the squad, so it makes sense to me that they wouldn't last as long.
Second, regarding previous matches, Perez was given twenty minutes against Brighton, but he couldn't be using the Watford and Brighton matches to give people a run-out. If we had gone 3-0 up then there would have been the opportunity to do that, but we were trying to win those matches. Unsuccessfully as it turned out, but even so. If he had made changes just to get them minutes in tight league matches at this point, I think that would be a far more genuine criticism of his tactics than not giving them those minutes. What I suspect is that Rodgers was using this match to give them minutes and prioritising the league.
Third, I don't know the exact stats, but it has occurred to me that neither Perez nor Praet have lasted 90 minutes this season even when they were fit. The difference between the Chelsea match and the usual time both are usually replaced was around 10 minutes at most. It came as no surprise to me when their numbers came up on the substitution board because they almost always do.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It came as no surprise to you that their numbers came up on the board after 56 minutes? We’re not talking 70 mins here
That was a pivotal point in the game - Chelsea were getting the upper hand, lampard had made effective subs and you’re saying that because Brendan started with 2 players that clearly weren’t fit - he left himself in a situation whereby regardless of how the game was planning out he had to bring them off anyway
That doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. If neither were fit then it makes sense to bring their fitness up to speed through continued sub appearances not start them against Chelsea. Praet could have come on against Brighton for example and continued his fitness recovery through a second half sub
What appears to have happened then, by your explanation, is that 2 unfit players started who couldn’t last the course and that meant 2 subs had to be used up on just replacing like for like?
I understand Brendans options were a little limited - but it’s not exactly the first time he’s made subs that we questioned
I still don't see that as a particular issue given the options that were available to him. He started with the strongest team he could, knowing that two of them were likely to be subbed like-for-like on or around 60 minutes. He could have changed formation then, but there were risks in that too. There was no clear ideal option, and he figured Choudhury and Albrighton would at least be able to provide fresh legs. It wasn't the worst of ideas. Granted it didn't change much, but there weren't many options around /to/ change things significantly. He could have started Choudhury with the thought of bringing on Praet after 60 minutes or so, but then we see more of a worse player who hasn't played much himself either. I really don't see this sub as a big deal given the situation and the options available.
And regardless, I still think the match at the weekend was used almost as a training match to try to get rid of some of the ring-rust, with the league matches being treated with much more importance because Rodgers can see as well as the rest of us that things are wrong. The only question left unanswered is why he didn't bring Iheanacho on. He could even have done a straight swap for Vardy around the time he brought Gray on and still have a sub left.
comment by The_Dungeon_Master (U4830)
posted 25 minutes ago
I still don't see that as a particular issue given the options that were available to him. He started with the strongest team he could, knowing that two of them were likely to be subbed like-for-like on or around 60 minutes. He could have changed formation then, but there were risks in that too. There was no clear ideal option, and he figured Choudhury and Albrighton would at least be able to provide fresh legs. It wasn't the worst of ideas. Granted it didn't change much, but there weren't many options around /to/ change things significantly. He could have started Choudhury with the thought of bringing on Praet after 60 minutes or so, but then we see more of a worse player who hasn't played much himself either. I really don't see this sub as a big deal given the situation and the options available.
And regardless, I still think the match at the weekend was used almost as a training match to try to get rid of some of the ring-rust, with the league matches being treated with much more importance because Rodgers can see as well as the rest of us that things are wrong. The only question left unanswered is why he didn't bring Iheanacho on. He could even have done a straight swap for Vardy around the time he brought Gray on and still have a sub left.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t think Lampard saw it as a fitness exercise, put it that way. Two managers heading in quite different directions currently
I certainly agree with that. And he didn't need to of course; Chelsea have come back flying out of the blocks. And that initial momentum, coupled with our lack of it, carried them through at the weekend. They pretty much queued up after the match to say how poorly they played, yet they still got through.
Quite why we've been so slow on the restart, I don't know. I recall we played Aston Villa twice as warm up matches and they've started like snails as well. Perhaps there simply wasn't enough intensity in those matches.
Sign in if you want to comment
THAT double substitution
Page 2 of 2
posted on 28/6/20
Well if Dunge is angry, then It’s not a surprise the rest of us are melting down!
posted on 28/6/20
comment by The_Dungeon_Master (U4830)
posted 41 minutes ago
Chilwell can do one now. To be laughing and sharing a joke at the final whistle with the guy whose goal has just knocked you out of the FA Cup and whose team is about to overtake you for a Champions League spot... I don't care if he just told the world's greatest knock knock joke ever conceived, he should be telling him to go f* himself.
It's not about Rodgers subbing off two players who were blowing out their collective a*e and have barely been able to complete a match between them all season. Too many players aren't hurting enough. They don't want it enough.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bringing Gray on for Perez would have been a more positive sub - not Albrighton. Putting Choudhury on, isn’t even like for like - it’s negative. He could have brought on Iheanacho at any stage but didn’t.
Face it - he was concerned that Chelsea were coming into the match and countered accordingly with the same white flag approach that nullified us in the hammering at Man City.
Please don’t take the easy option here and start questioning all of the players, yes chilwells attitude is worrying, but you can’t look at that first half and put it down to a lack of desire.
Surely you have to see those subs hindered us - They didn’t help us in any way
posted on 28/6/20
comment by Keep_the_faith1 (U8129)
posted 2 minutes ago
God blimey, you’re an angry little man!
I do find you endearing though
----------------------------------------------------------------------
One post away from being filtered mate.....
posted on 28/6/20
Comment deleted by Article Creator
posted on 28/6/20
As you wish you facking weirdo
posted on 28/6/20
I think keeping two players on who were fading fast and hadn't played in any significant way over the first two matches wasn't going to help us either. Neither Perez nor Praet were going to help us going forward in that match as they'd run their race, and Albrighton and Choudhury were their closest replacements. (Choudhury was brought on to press and try to win the ball in the opposition half instead of switching to a 4-2-3-1.) Sometimes subs have to be made and I understand why he made them.
I can't explain why he didn't throw Iheanacho on in the last 10 minutes though. Perhaps he felt 90 minutes of running in the legs was enough and didn't want to risk another 30 minutes.
posted on 28/6/20
The Albrighton sub was completely the wrong call and defensive in nature. You bring Albrighton on because he offers more defensively in terms of protecting the full back - that was a poor move when he had Gray on the bench who he brought on later anyway.
If Perez was fading then it’s Rodgers fault. Why hasn’t he been used in the last two games - didn’t even come off the bench against Brighton. Hardly a surprise he was tired. It’s all beginning to point back to the same person isn’t it?
Choudhury offers nothing unless you bring him on with 10 mins to go to close out a game. His pressing is erratic and tackles even worse. Praet seemed to be doing fairly ok, but once again, perhaps giving Praet some game time against Brighton would have helped with the fitness levels
Nope - I haven’t seen another Leicester fan that gets those subs when other options were available. Not bringing on Iheanacho when chasing a game was unforgivable
posted on 28/6/20
I still think they were fine. Both Praet and Perez had expended energy in the first half pressing up the pitch. Both of their races were run by the time the double sub came. The players Rodgers brought on were designed to get us pressing up the pitch more again, something that had dropped off and allowed Chelsea onto us.
I don't think those subs were bad as such, although the question of why we didn't bring on Iheanacho after conceding remains unanswered. As I say, perhaps it was more practice in the recognised formation.
posted on 29/6/20
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 29/6/20
You’re definitely in the minority there Dunge. Also most fans would say that while his intentions may not have been negative, it was a key moment in the game shifting further away from us
Albrighton doesn’t have the legs to press - and he didn’t really impact the game in that way. Choudhury has the legs but doesn’t have the brain - we needed to arrest control of the midfield - bringing Choudhury on never achieved that.
You still haven’t answered the point on the fact that neither player would have been exhausted had they have been introduced in either of the previous games
To have other fans texting me asking what was going on with those subs perhaps illustrates the point that those looking at us from the outside are able to see issues even more clearly than us.
posted on 29/6/20
comment by *GTWI4T- some people deserve to get trolled (U6008)
posted 2 hours, 33 minutes ago
Rodgers has a very strange thing where when he first arrives, the players obviously completely buy into what he does. We saw it at Liverpool and Celtic fans saw it too. There is a very clear way of playing. The players obviously enjoy playing for him and everything looks great. Then something happens. I don't know if there isn't enough variety in training to keep things fresh for the players. Or whether it is Rodgers himself but there is always a point where form drops off, tactics become more negative and players look disinterested.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You raise a point that Leicester fans on this site are choosing to ignore. They just can’t face up to it mate, you won’t get a response from any of them on Rodgers
posted on 29/6/20
Regarding whether Praet or Perez would have been exhausted if they'd played against Brighton:
Firstly, both have seemingly had knocks in "pre-season". Perez didn't play in the warm-up matches and Praet didn't make the bench in the first match (and he would have done if fit). They're both further behind in match fitness than the rest of the squad, so it makes sense to me that they wouldn't last as long.
Second, regarding previous matches, Perez was given twenty minutes against Brighton, but he couldn't be using the Watford and Brighton matches to give people a run-out. If we had gone 3-0 up then there would have been the opportunity to do that, but we were trying to win those matches. Unsuccessfully as it turned out, but even so. If he had made changes just to get them minutes in tight league matches at this point, I think that would be a far more genuine criticism of his tactics than not giving them those minutes. What I suspect is that Rodgers was using this match to give them minutes and prioritising the league.
Third, I don't know the exact stats, but it has occurred to me that neither Perez nor Praet have lasted 90 minutes this season even when they were fit. The difference between the Chelsea match and the usual time both are usually replaced was around 10 minutes at most. It came as no surprise to me when their numbers came up on the substitution board because they almost always do.
posted on 29/6/20
*neither have lasted 90 minutes very often, I mean. I'm sure there have been instances but I don't see those instances as the norm.
posted on 29/6/20
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 29/6/20
comment by The_Dungeon_Master (U4830)
posted 1 hour, 35 minutes ago
Regarding whether Praet or Perez would have been exhausted if they'd played against Brighton:
Firstly, both have seemingly had knocks in "pre-season". Perez didn't play in the warm-up matches and Praet didn't make the bench in the first match (and he would have done if fit). They're both further behind in match fitness than the rest of the squad, so it makes sense to me that they wouldn't last as long.
Second, regarding previous matches, Perez was given twenty minutes against Brighton, but he couldn't be using the Watford and Brighton matches to give people a run-out. If we had gone 3-0 up then there would have been the opportunity to do that, but we were trying to win those matches. Unsuccessfully as it turned out, but even so. If he had made changes just to get them minutes in tight league matches at this point, I think that would be a far more genuine criticism of his tactics than not giving them those minutes. What I suspect is that Rodgers was using this match to give them minutes and prioritising the league.
Third, I don't know the exact stats, but it has occurred to me that neither Perez nor Praet have lasted 90 minutes this season even when they were fit. The difference between the Chelsea match and the usual time both are usually replaced was around 10 minutes at most. It came as no surprise to me when their numbers came up on the substitution board because they almost always do.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It came as no surprise to you that their numbers came up on the board after 56 minutes? We’re not talking 70 mins here
That was a pivotal point in the game - Chelsea were getting the upper hand, lampard had made effective subs and you’re saying that because Brendan started with 2 players that clearly weren’t fit - he left himself in a situation whereby regardless of how the game was planning out he had to bring them off anyway
That doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. If neither were fit then it makes sense to bring their fitness up to speed through continued sub appearances not start them against Chelsea. Praet could have come on against Brighton for example and continued his fitness recovery through a second half sub
What appears to have happened then, by your explanation, is that 2 unfit players started who couldn’t last the course and that meant 2 subs had to be used up on just replacing like for like?
I understand Brendans options were a little limited - but it’s not exactly the first time he’s made subs that we questioned
posted on 29/6/20
I still don't see that as a particular issue given the options that were available to him. He started with the strongest team he could, knowing that two of them were likely to be subbed like-for-like on or around 60 minutes. He could have changed formation then, but there were risks in that too. There was no clear ideal option, and he figured Choudhury and Albrighton would at least be able to provide fresh legs. It wasn't the worst of ideas. Granted it didn't change much, but there weren't many options around /to/ change things significantly. He could have started Choudhury with the thought of bringing on Praet after 60 minutes or so, but then we see more of a worse player who hasn't played much himself either. I really don't see this sub as a big deal given the situation and the options available.
And regardless, I still think the match at the weekend was used almost as a training match to try to get rid of some of the ring-rust, with the league matches being treated with much more importance because Rodgers can see as well as the rest of us that things are wrong. The only question left unanswered is why he didn't bring Iheanacho on. He could even have done a straight swap for Vardy around the time he brought Gray on and still have a sub left.
posted on 29/6/20
comment by The_Dungeon_Master (U4830)
posted 25 minutes ago
I still don't see that as a particular issue given the options that were available to him. He started with the strongest team he could, knowing that two of them were likely to be subbed like-for-like on or around 60 minutes. He could have changed formation then, but there were risks in that too. There was no clear ideal option, and he figured Choudhury and Albrighton would at least be able to provide fresh legs. It wasn't the worst of ideas. Granted it didn't change much, but there weren't many options around /to/ change things significantly. He could have started Choudhury with the thought of bringing on Praet after 60 minutes or so, but then we see more of a worse player who hasn't played much himself either. I really don't see this sub as a big deal given the situation and the options available.
And regardless, I still think the match at the weekend was used almost as a training match to try to get rid of some of the ring-rust, with the league matches being treated with much more importance because Rodgers can see as well as the rest of us that things are wrong. The only question left unanswered is why he didn't bring Iheanacho on. He could even have done a straight swap for Vardy around the time he brought Gray on and still have a sub left.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t think Lampard saw it as a fitness exercise, put it that way. Two managers heading in quite different directions currently
posted on 30/6/20
I certainly agree with that. And he didn't need to of course; Chelsea have come back flying out of the blocks. And that initial momentum, coupled with our lack of it, carried them through at the weekend. They pretty much queued up after the match to say how poorly they played, yet they still got through.
Quite why we've been so slow on the restart, I don't know. I recall we played Aston Villa twice as warm up matches and they've started like snails as well. Perhaps there simply wasn't enough intensity in those matches.
Page 2 of 2