They had pace and could pass or keep the ball, whichever was required at the time
Fairly simple skills that we do not have pretty much anywhere on the pitch

They dont shop in the bargain basement relentlessly

randomclaret2 wrote:They dont shop in the bargain basement relentlessly

Thanks to £4 billion in the owner's bank.

That's the difference

Brendan Rodgers knows how to set up a team to attack.

CombatClaret wrote:Thanks to £4 billion in the owner's bank.

That's the difference

Today was nothing to do with Leicester having a bigger bank balance. That was a game we should have taken control of and won.

Also got a stadium for free by fxxxing their creditors

DCWat wrote:Today was nothing to do with Leicester having a bigger bank balance. That was a game we should have taken control of and won.

We took control, we just didn't know wtf to do with the control.

alpo wrote:Also got a stadium for free by fxxxing their creditors

They certainly did ...Horrible club....Horrible fans.

DCWat wrote:Today was nothing to do with Leicester having a bigger bank balance. That was a game we should have taken control of and won.

Game = Players = Money

Leicesters players won that game.

I agree with WMC. I thought we had control of the game, but we created so little and lost the ball so cheaply on too many occasions.

I think the difference is the quality they have up front, so dangerous when they break.

Tough call which is the worst club. My vote goes to once a bluebird always a bluebird.....unless you have to pay for him.

Be nice to send them down.

Pace and creativity with a mixture of exciting youngsters and experienced heads.
Have many players and options that can cause any team problems.

Also looks like they can make subs, adjust and change tactics pre game AND mid game to be pro active to get a result.
Just like palace they probably had the most comfortable afternoon possible.


We look the complete opposite.

CombatClaret wrote:Thanks to £4 billion in the owner's bank.

That's the difference

not having a boat load of cash doesn't make you hoof the ball

What is the difference between how we played today and how we played against Spurs? Genuine question by the way.

Corky wrote:What is the difference between how we played today and how we played against Spurs? Genuine question by the way.

we've gone back to hoofing it other than the goal today

Vegas Claret wrote:not having a boat load of cash doesn't make you hoof the ball

Playing the way your team is set up to does. We have a team of players mostly designed to play direct football.

We play within the means our finances allow us. It's not a nice thought but it's true.
The same goes for City and every other team.
That's why the table looks like it does every season with a few exceptions which return to the mean quickly.

CombatClaret wrote:Playing the way your team is set up to does. We have a team of players mostly designed to play direct football.

We play within the means our finances allow us. It's not a nice thought but it's true.
The same goes for City and every other team.
That's why the table looks like it does every season with a few exceptions which return to the mean quickly.

Our goal today proves you are wrong, our lads are more than capable of playing decent football on the deck and have proved it time and again. It's when we play aimless hoofball our problems start.

WestMidsClaret wrote:We took control, we just didn't know wtf to do with the control.

But how often do we? Every time we win the possession stat we lose the match.

The players need to be coached in to having different ideas/variety. The problem with our players is they're told to do the same **** week in week out.

CombatClaret wrote:Playing the way your team is set up to does. We have a team of players mostly designed to play direct football.

We play within the means our finances allow us. It's not a nice thought but it's true.
The same goes for City and every other team.
That's why the table looks like it does every season with a few exceptions which return to the mean quickly.

But just look at some of the teams in the Championship - they don't have our finances but try to play football rather than Dycheball

Even when we buy from the Championship, it's not exactly skills we are looking for but rather players like Crouch

Vegas Claret wrote:Our goal today proves you are wrong, our lads are more than capable of playing decent football on the deck and have proved it time and again. It's when we play aimless hoofball our problems start.

Going direct is a huge part of our game, of course we can score on the deck.
But my point is the richer team, on average wins. We will feel like we should have won that ('could have' is correct because we didn't).
They have better players than we do, and it showed in their ability to play the hand they were dealt and our inability to win.

Biggest thing was lady luck deserted us today.

CombatClaret wrote:Going direct is a huge part of our game, of course we can score on the deck.
But my point is the richer team, on average wins. We will feel like we should have won that ('could have' is correct because we didn't).
They have better players than we do, and it showed in their ability to play the hand they were dealt and our inability to win.

You point is ok to a degree but we proved today in the 2 times we actually bothered playing football - one resulted in a red card and the other ended in us scoring. The rest of the time we pretty much hoofed it into the corners in an attempt to make us look as much like Lincoln City as possible. Dress it up anyway you want, our lads are more than good enough for this league when we play it on the deck, the manager asks them to hoof it into the corners because he's a ******* dinosaur

Being boringly predictable in open play, corners and free kicks doesn't help, hoofball tactics, one bit of football and we score a good goal but then revert to hoof, just seen Swansea's second goal one end to the other and never left the ground, that's football Sean.