4 ms·

Leicester's season is an anomaly, and therefore hard to take lessons from. No-one saw this coming. Not Leicester's players, who were bottom of the league just

by helipad 10y ago

Leicester's season is an anomaly, and therefore hard to take lessons from. No-one saw this coming. Not Leicester's players, who were bottom of the league just over a year ago. Not Leicester's manager, for whom 17th place would have been a success. Jamie Vardy scored 5 goals last season, the team had a below average defence, Ranieri's career to date had done nothing to predict this turnaround. They're style of play isn't innovative, though it was unfashionable relative to other styles. Note too that they almost flipped their style 180 part-way through the season, from gung ho football to extreme counter attacking. There was no grand plan. For every argument in Leicester's favour of how they've done it, you can find many similar examples across other leagues, without anything like the success. Leicester's season has been incredible and remarkable. We're going to just have to enjoy it, because we cannot analyse it.

stinkytaco 10y ago
I disagree. Starting with Ranieri, a manager who has not had the career he might have hoped, but with flashes of brilliance. These include rebuilding Chelsea into a squad that would compete for the next decade. Frank Lampard credits him with keeping the team in the premier league. He also somehow brought Juventus from Serie B to third place (coincidentally foreshadowing his run with Leicester). He certainly made some bad decisions as well, but it's unfair to say that 17th would have been a success for the manager. For the team, perhaps, yes. As to their style of play, that strikes me as their greatest success. Ranieri was not tempted by "modern" possession focused styles, but rather adapted his team to the pace of Vardy. The emergence of Mahrez and Drinkwater and the addition of the excellent N'golo Kante in the midfield also meant they were able to adapt when team's started to narrow to counter Vardy, using Vardy's pace to create space. In addition, when this adaptation happened Leicester organized the defense, keeping more clean sheets and using increased width to drive players like Fuchs forward. I don't think any of this is a "fluke", but rather working with the players you have to find what works best. There is no doubt they've had a great deal of luck, as well. The careers of both Fuchs and Huth were both considered failures of the promise they once offered, and certainly Vardy will not maintain his level for very long. They have also avoided injuries, not testing the depth of their squad, especially in the midfield. But you do not win the Premier League on luck alone. Leicester will compete for a Champions League spot next year if they can make three or four signings to address their depth and keep the core of Mahrez/Kante/Drinkwater together in the midfield.
- helipad 10y ago
  The question is though how does this differ to what other teams do every year? Many, many teams have played counter attacking football and not done nearly as well. Ranieri himself, even until very recently, said the target was 40 points. I purposely never said that Leicester's success is luck or a fluke. The point I raise is that how can we begin to unpack their success? For every point in their favour this season, there are many examples of teams who have adapted very similar policies. Counter attacking, ball-winning indefatigable midfielders, pacey strikers, treating the players with a caring hand, scouting for players in the lower French leagues, thoughtful managers, creative wingers, colossal centre backs – these are old tricks. What lessons can we take from this success? Arguably, none.
  - stinkytaco 10y ago
    You can hardly call it an anomaly, then. If they are doing the same thing other teams are doing, then why is it an anomaly? I think you just unpacked their success fairly well for a single sentence. I could just say "Get better players, play hard". But saying we can't learn anything is just false, considering there are teams that aren't doing these things and are successful, and teams that aren't and are not successful. Crystal Palace lacks any sort of pace or attacking threat, despite having a number of skilled, creative players. Manchester United have arguably better players, but are tactically limiting them by insisting on possession based football (or at least were until about 2 months ago) rather than a counterattacking approach. Clearly if it was obvious, all teams would be successful, no? Saying we can't unpack their success is the Big Sam school of football tactics, it's all just instinct and good ol' English grit and longballing, nothing else to say.

by helipad 10y ago

stinkytaco 10y ago

I disagree. Starting with Ranieri, a manager who has not had the career he might have hoped, but with flashes of brilliance. These include rebuilding Chelsea into a squad that would compete for the next decade. Frank Lampard credits him with keeping the team in the premier league. He also somehow brought Juventus from Serie B to third place (coincidentally foreshadowing his run with Leicester). He certainly made some bad decisions as well, but it's unfair to say that 17th would have been a success for the manager. For the team, perhaps, yes. As to their style of play, that strikes me as their greatest success. Ranieri was not tempted by "modern" possession focused styles, but rather adapted his team to the pace of Vardy. The emergence of Mahrez and Drinkwater and the addition of the excellent N'golo Kante in the midfield also meant they were able to adapt when team's started to narrow to counter Vardy, using Vardy's pace to create space. In addition, when this adaptation happened Leicester organized the defense, keeping more clean sheets and using increased width to drive players like Fuchs forward. I don't think any of this is a "fluke", but rather working with the players you have to find what works best. There is no doubt they've had a great deal of luck, as well. The careers of both Fuchs and Huth were both considered failures of the promise they once offered, and certainly Vardy will not maintain his level for very long. They have also avoided injuries, not testing the depth of their squad, especially in the midfield. But you do not win the Premier League on luck alone. Leicester will compete for a Champions League spot next year if they can make three or four signings to address their depth and keep the core of Mahrez/Kante/Drinkwater together in the midfield.

helipad 10y ago
The question is though how does this differ to what other teams do every year? Many, many teams have played counter attacking football and not done nearly as well. Ranieri himself, even until very recently, said the target was 40 points. I purposely never said that Leicester's success is luck or a fluke. The point I raise is that how can we begin to unpack their success? For every point in their favour this season, there are many examples of teams who have adapted very similar policies. Counter attacking, ball-winning indefatigable midfielders, pacey strikers, treating the players with a caring hand, scouting for players in the lower French leagues, thoughtful managers, creative wingers, colossal centre backs – these are old tricks. What lessons can we take from this success? Arguably, none.
- stinkytaco 10y ago
  You can hardly call it an anomaly, then. If they are doing the same thing other teams are doing, then why is it an anomaly? I think you just unpacked their success fairly well for a single sentence. I could just say "Get better players, play hard". But saying we can't learn anything is just false, considering there are teams that aren't doing these things and are successful, and teams that aren't and are not successful. Crystal Palace lacks any sort of pace or attacking threat, despite having a number of skilled, creative players. Manchester United have arguably better players, but are tactically limiting them by insisting on possession based football (or at least were until about 2 months ago) rather than a counterattacking approach. Clearly if it was obvious, all teams would be successful, no? Saying we can't unpack their success is the Big Sam school of football tactics, it's all just instinct and good ol' English grit and longballing, nothing else to say.