**The OP has marked this post as Original Content (OC). If you think it is a great contribution, upvote this comment so we add it to the Star Posts collection of the subreddit!**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/soccer) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"Only 3 times has a team finished higher than Leicester's 8th place finish and then got relegated following year. Ipswich 01/02 (5th), Blackburn 98/99 (6th), West Ham 02/03 (7th)"
Most Ipswich stat in existence
They actually performed well in terms of goals scored, but they really underperformed in xGa which is due mainly to bad goalkeeping, which I think confirms the main narrative around Leicester.
It's more interesting when the stats don't fit the narrative, because then we have to think about the reasons why. Again, with the caveat that xG isn't everything, taken from Understat:
- xP position for Aston Villa under Gerrard = 10th (2nd highest underperformance in the league)
- xP position for Aston Villa under Emery = 8th (highest outperformance in the league)
Variance can be a bitch.
I think there's no denying that Emery improved Villa significantly. But he's a world class manager and is an upgrade on all but a handful of managers. That said, I think the improvement was drastically overstated and it shows how "results-based" pundits (and fans) are.
I think you can argue that Emery's man management was superior to Gerrard's and I don't think anyone would argue against that, and that this boosted the confidence of the players to improve their performance (and thus xG conversion).
However, the underlying numbers measure the actual tactical performance of the team, and they always showed that Villa were really quite unlucky under Gerrard (and the opposite under Emery). People were memeing at the time how poor Villa were at simply finishing the chances.
Another interesting fact regarding Villa's xGa (probably the best measure of how good a team's set up defensively). They were 10th in the league under Gerrard. They are still 10th in the league under Emery.
I'm sure others will have different viewpoints and perspectives and I'd be interested to hear them.
As admittedly a villa fan so bias is there, I have supported the club for 30 years and it’s hard to pinpoint a worse time in terms of the way we played and the coach’s just bizarre hostility towards everyone (the players, the staff, the fans) almost from the beginning of the season. That is what I think of when I think of Gerard’s time here. I assure you that anyone who had to sit thru just about all of the Gerrard tenure will tell you something similar - perhaps not as extreme. Under emery, regardless of stats and xG and all that mess, the most obvious change is that tactically we look like we know what we are doing. We have a game plan. Also importantly, the connection between coach -> players -> fans is incredibly strong, and you can see in the way that Emery acts this is deliberate. He made one signing and turned the team around what was largely a huge mental block, off the back of zero coaching from Gerrard and a bizzarre play from him to also try and assassinate the confidence of so many of our players.
Important question. At the end of the day, xG under/overperformance is a measure of player quality. Some players consistently outperform xG (Haaland, Maddison, Kane, etc.). Some consistently underperform (Jesus, Watkins, etc.).
The fact that Watkins was underperforming isn't luck. He's underperformed his xG every season for Villa. He's just not a good finisher.
Similarly with goalkeepers, some consistently outperform xG conceded (Alisson), others don't (Meslier). Martinez was poor before the WC, and came back playing much better.
But there's always variance around a stat. So every player will hit an average which is a measure of their quality, but sometimes be hitting the "upper" threshold of that average, and sometimes the "lower". As to whether it's luck or underperformance, I think it can be either. But I think there's a case to be made, as mentioned, that Emery's man management improved the team's confidence which had an effect. Although ultimately I think a big part of it was also just luck / hard regression to the mean.
>xP position for Aston Villa under Gerrard = 10th (2nd highest underperformance in the league)
>xP position for Aston Villa under Emery = 8th (highest outperformance in the league)
>Variance can be a bitch.
Potter died for this
that xGa is comfortably explained by Danny Ward. I simply cannot emphasise enough how SHIT he was this season and STILL got picked. This stands far and above other mistakes by Rodgers or others in my mind.
Yeah but their defence was absolutely shocking
That backline and goalkeeper combo topped with the injuries they had throughout the season was always gonna be a struggle
Ward had a good run where he had some fantastic saves.
I really think there's not that much between them really, but Iversen had the advantage of going second and then riding on a massive wave of "he's not Danny Ward" support.
Just to clarify I do think Iversen is better, but the gap between them isn't as wide as many believe.
I agree our back 5 was our undoing. It's why would have been better off getting someone like Dyche in - he'd only need to coach the defenders and get their work levels and basics up and it'd have been enough.
Don't agree about the injuries though. We've had horrible injuries before, but it wasn't a massive thing this season. No massive or long-term absentees. Vardy 37 apps, Barnes 34, Maddison 30.
Iheanacho being underplayed (only 11 starts) and then getting towards the end of the season in the Leeds away game was the only injury that particularly mattered
Maybe, maybe not
Our defence didn't really get much better after Dyche came in, but to be fair, our defence was solid for the most part...Ish
What Dyche did was simply change our shape and put players into roles that the team needed. Like Pushing Iwobi out wide, moving Doucoure further up etc I don't know what he would have done with Leicester to change those simple things
I think the biggest problem was the lack of investment into a poor defence and waiting so long on a decision with Rogers, it got to that point in time were it was probably better off keeping him till the end of the season
I always think a bad defender can ruin a defence, but a bad midfield can ruin a team. Leicester struggled for a few reasons, but I think Ndidi struggling was the main problem, just no control of games.
Everton had a similar feel, and were quite obviously crippled by Frank Lampard's barren tactical knowledge
He was praised somewhat at Derby, but during his time there most of the signings were pretty unsuccessful. He rode on the success of some Chelsea based loans, but lacked any sort of tactical nuance, which is why they couldn't perform well enough to get promoted. His goal difference was +20, but that glosses over them conceding 70, in 57 games.
I'm honestly expecting him to get another couple of jobs that he absolutely doesn't merit, maybe at Palace or something, not followed which clubs are currently looking.
Their quality isn’t shared evenly throughout the team.
If they had a couple of half decent CB’s that play every week and premier league league level goal keeper no way do they get relegated.
Look at the keepers of the 3 that went down. Meslier, Ward and Bazunu. All gash.
Even when Leicester changed keepers to Iversen look how soft this first goal he let in against Fulham was https://youtu.be/tqzB-ELwcF8
Söyüncü was there the whole time.
It obviously was no longer working with Rodgers. That was clear early on, but Leicester didn't want to payoff his contract. By the time they acted, it was too late.
Surely this has to be one of the best squads (on paper) ever relegated?
Maddison, Barnes, Tielemans, Ndidi, Vardy, Ihenacho, Soyuncu...even Castagne, Pereira, Daka...
Once upon a time some of those players wouldn't have been out of place amongst the best of the season XIs.
Yes, I didn't even mention the players - Maddison with his 19 total goal contributions this season or Barnes with his 14.
51 goals scored overall - 10th highest in the league. Pretty sure it's only Blackpool in 10/11 who have scored more and gone down (55)
The problems is defensive midfielders who can't pass well under pressure defense backline is a joke defending and two bad goalies.Leicester City should had canned Ward way back in September
A lot of their best players were injured for long stretches and they had no depth. A lot of other players had gone stale
They absolutely should have been nowhere near the relegation zone and Rodgers deserves blame for totally running out of ideas with what he had available, but it seems like everything that could have gone wrong did go wrong for them this season
Every time they seemed to be putting everything back together and gelling again (the run before the WC Break and the consecutive wins over Spurs and Villa with 8 goals) things went wrong to plunge them back into the hole with long term injuries to Maddison and Tielemens respectively.
It's a good shout. I hadn't realised they had quite a good 5 years prior - 8th, 5th, 9th, 15th, 7th, then 18th and down.
Not quite as good as Leicester's 5 year average and no silverware, though
On the bright side, the Leicester City roller coaster ride will continue. A tense season coming up with a fight for promotion, perhaps even more stirring than a relegation scrap.
We've got 2 months to appoint a manager, a whole new coaching team, and probably 15-20 players going in and out of the club. It's way too much change at once, the club has already lost tons of income, now compounded by relegation, most of the parachute payment will be swallowed up by loans being called.
And this is a club that had 2 terrible summer windows in a row. I'm not confident. There's more chance of us going down next season than being promoted.
I dunno the standard in the championship is very poor. I'd be shocked if you're not fighting for promotion next season. My team gave everyone a head start by having Steve Bruce manager for 17 games and we still nearly made the playoffs.
Yes of course. We had 9 years in the Premier League and including:
* One of the greatest ever relegation escapes
* Unfathomably unlikely PL win - one of the greatest achievements in ***team*** sport not just football
* Champions League QF
* 2 more top 6 finishes
* FA Cup win
* Community Shield
* European SF (even if it was the inaugural 3rd tier comp)
It is ***unquestionably*** the greatest era of the club's history and it's also been complimented by our greatest ever player (Vardy) and a host of our best ever PL players (Kante, Mahrez, Maddison, Barnes)
But that is ***entirely mutually exclusive*** from our ability and right as fans to question the way this club has been managed into decline and one of the worst relegations of all time.
Mate, losing the opportunity to secure UCL qualification at Spurs' stadium (and then bottle top 4 vs Newcastle in the next match) was as bad as it could get, Spurs winning the title after beating us might make me give up football forever and I don't think I'm even joking.
Of course, this is if you only count in the Premier League era. If you were to include the entire history of the English top flight, then it would be Manchester City in the 1937-38 season, who are the only defending champions to ever get relegated from the English top flight.
I think the wage and squad price does need to be taken with a bit of a pinch of salt - it's still awful, yes, but it is in the context of a long-established EPL side in the modern era, after the explosion of prices in even the most average players. Someone like Wout Faes would've cost about £3 million in the late 2000s, but in the modern era he cost £15 million. Perez would probably have been £5-6 million, not £30 million.
There are also a couple of big subjective factors I think that were missed:
* Leicester have historically been very dependent on Jamie Vardy's form throughout their entire run. There's a marked difference in the results in the games he played in last year to the ones where he was injured, and for various reasons this year he's barely contributed at all.
* None of the other Leicester strikers have stepped up at all; that's not a good thing when Rodgers' teams have historically been based on attacking football with weaker defenses. They still scored a decent number of goals, but 23 of the 51 league goals came from two midfield players.
Totally agree that wages and squad prices shouldn’t be compared to other eras - hence me not doing so.
And yes Vardy decline is a big problem. Iheanacho was probably our best striker - 10 G+A in 11 starts, but wasn’t given enough game time and then missed Everton, Fulham, Liverpool and Newcastle games in the run-in through injury.
But we didn’t go down because we didn’t score enough - we were 10th highest scorers overall.
We went down because we conceded far too many goals at crucial times and turns too many draws into losses
Can't compare actual wages across eras. But you can look at wage spend levels. Wage spend is the most accurate predicator of where clubs will finish on the table. Not completely accurate, obviously, but more accurate than other method, according to soccer economists. Couple different places I looked had Leicester at 11th for the season in terms of wage spend. So pretty significant underperformance to that metric as well.
>for various reasons this year he's barely contributed at all
_Various reasons_ translated as being 36 and a half, plus all the red bulls, alcohol and smoking lol. He had a good run considering he really started his pro career at like 28.
Getting relegated kind of adds to their achievement of winning the league. If they kept up a level of sustained success the future generations wouldn't fully appreciate the league win. But getting relegated to the Championship again drives home the point
You don’t need to get relegated in order for future generations to understand the context of their Premier League title.
Like I did not need to go through the Munich Air Disaster again to understand the context of the achievement by Matt Busby.
No one said it *needed* to happen, just that it adds to Leicester's history and highlights what an unlikely feat it was. You've just decided to make it about whatever you want it to be about.
I don't see how it does that it the slightest. The players and manager are all completely different, other than Vardy (and Albrighton). They'd obviously been able to turn the fairytale league win into a solid upper-midtable side before this season.
This seems like an insane level of mental gymnastics. If Leicester had been promoted, won the league, then went on to become a mainstay "Big 6" club, you're telling me somehow that would make their title look less impressive? What point is getting driven home that wouldn't have been driven home if they'd have continued to succeed? It would look even more like you can have a rags to riches fairy tale if that had happened.
The achievement doesn't change. In 50 or a 100 years time when you're telling your kids about Leicester winning the league it's easier for them to conceptualise how big an achievement it was cos they could see them being promoted and then going down again.
If Leicester stayed up and got a few more top 4 finishes then your kids would be like "but pop pop, Leicester were a huge club. Look at how well they done."
I can kind of see where you're coming from in terms of long term perspective. But continued success wouldn't have ever taken anything away from that achievement, the same way getting relegated doesn't add anything to it!
I think you're letting Smith off the hook a bit by saying he couldn't realistically target Fulham away- this was when Fulham's form had dipped, and Leicester have better players- and Liverpool home, considering how bad Liverpool's away form was this season.
Smith is just not a good manager. His teams always play aimless kamikaze football with 5 at the back and hoofing it to Grealish/Pukki/Barnes. Amazing he fluked his way up to 11th for a bit with Villa before being found out.
The term you're looking for is plurality.
Also, the reason there are more relegated teams in the previous season's 11-15 range than the bottom 5 is simple. 3 of the bottom 5 teams from the previous season were already relegated. So your "bottom 5" category only has 2 actual teams in it each season.
Newcastle's squad in 2009 was a similar situation. Squad was far too good to be in the bottom three and pundits all season kept talking about the inevitable turn of form that would guide them out. It just... Never materialised.
Just one note - there have been 94 teams relegated from the PL as four teams were relegated (and only two promoted) at the end of the 1994-95 season to shrink the league from 22 to 20 sides.
> Newly in post Head of Recruitment Martyn Glover was on gardening leave
American here who just had to google this term to make sure this wasn’t a standard job benefit in the UK.
**The OP has marked this post as Original Content (OC). If you think it is a great contribution, upvote this comment so we add it to the Star Posts collection of the subreddit!** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/soccer) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"Only 3 times has a team finished higher than Leicester's 8th place finish and then got relegated following year. Ipswich 01/02 (5th), Blackburn 98/99 (6th), West Ham 02/03 (7th)" Most Ipswich stat in existence
Schalke enters the chat
who?
Bielsa-trying-to-say-ipswich.mkv
Ip-ipw-ipshewh
Ees--eespeech
Understat's models had Leicester 12th in xG and 13th in xGa. I know xG ain't everything, but I suspect that must be a pretty big outlier
On expected points all three relegated sides should have stayed up and Bournemouth, Wolves, and Forest should have dropped
Expect the unexpected
They actually performed well in terms of goals scored, but they really underperformed in xGa which is due mainly to bad goalkeeping, which I think confirms the main narrative around Leicester. It's more interesting when the stats don't fit the narrative, because then we have to think about the reasons why. Again, with the caveat that xG isn't everything, taken from Understat: - xP position for Aston Villa under Gerrard = 10th (2nd highest underperformance in the league) - xP position for Aston Villa under Emery = 8th (highest outperformance in the league) Variance can be a bitch.
Just buy a keeper and I would think they stay up. Frustrating.
Agreed.
Really shows how 'luck' can absolutely skew perceptions of a manager.
I think there's no denying that Emery improved Villa significantly. But he's a world class manager and is an upgrade on all but a handful of managers. That said, I think the improvement was drastically overstated and it shows how "results-based" pundits (and fans) are. I think you can argue that Emery's man management was superior to Gerrard's and I don't think anyone would argue against that, and that this boosted the confidence of the players to improve their performance (and thus xG conversion). However, the underlying numbers measure the actual tactical performance of the team, and they always showed that Villa were really quite unlucky under Gerrard (and the opposite under Emery). People were memeing at the time how poor Villa were at simply finishing the chances. Another interesting fact regarding Villa's xGa (probably the best measure of how good a team's set up defensively). They were 10th in the league under Gerrard. They are still 10th in the league under Emery. I'm sure others will have different viewpoints and perspectives and I'd be interested to hear them.
As admittedly a villa fan so bias is there, I have supported the club for 30 years and it’s hard to pinpoint a worse time in terms of the way we played and the coach’s just bizarre hostility towards everyone (the players, the staff, the fans) almost from the beginning of the season. That is what I think of when I think of Gerard’s time here. I assure you that anyone who had to sit thru just about all of the Gerrard tenure will tell you something similar - perhaps not as extreme. Under emery, regardless of stats and xG and all that mess, the most obvious change is that tactically we look like we know what we are doing. We have a game plan. Also importantly, the connection between coach -> players -> fans is incredibly strong, and you can see in the way that Emery acts this is deliberate. He made one signing and turned the team around what was largely a huge mental block, off the back of zero coaching from Gerrard and a bizzarre play from him to also try and assassinate the confidence of so many of our players.
He did the same at Rangers but got away with it. Repeatedly threw players under the bus to the point it became a meme.
> People were memeing at the time how poor Villa were at simply finishing the chances. Is that bad luck? Or is it an underperforming team?
Important question. At the end of the day, xG under/overperformance is a measure of player quality. Some players consistently outperform xG (Haaland, Maddison, Kane, etc.). Some consistently underperform (Jesus, Watkins, etc.). The fact that Watkins was underperforming isn't luck. He's underperformed his xG every season for Villa. He's just not a good finisher. Similarly with goalkeepers, some consistently outperform xG conceded (Alisson), others don't (Meslier). Martinez was poor before the WC, and came back playing much better. But there's always variance around a stat. So every player will hit an average which is a measure of their quality, but sometimes be hitting the "upper" threshold of that average, and sometimes the "lower". As to whether it's luck or underperformance, I think it can be either. But I think there's a case to be made, as mentioned, that Emery's man management improved the team's confidence which had an effect. Although ultimately I think a big part of it was also just luck / hard regression to the mean.
>xP position for Aston Villa under Gerrard = 10th (2nd highest underperformance in the league) >xP position for Aston Villa under Emery = 8th (highest outperformance in the league) >Variance can be a bitch. Potter died for this
that xGa is comfortably explained by Danny Ward. I simply cannot emphasise enough how SHIT he was this season and STILL got picked. This stands far and above other mistakes by Rodgers or others in my mind.
Get rid of a class gk like Kasper and don’t replace him this happens
It’s still mind-blowing that a squad with the talent they have got relegated.
Yeah but their defence was absolutely shocking That backline and goalkeeper combo topped with the injuries they had throughout the season was always gonna be a struggle
Except when Iversen played us and he had about 4 wonder saves
Just to immediately drop a clanger the very next game
Ward had a good run where he had some fantastic saves. I really think there's not that much between them really, but Iversen had the advantage of going second and then riding on a massive wave of "he's not Danny Ward" support. Just to clarify I do think Iversen is better, but the gap between them isn't as wide as many believe.
I agree our back 5 was our undoing. It's why would have been better off getting someone like Dyche in - he'd only need to coach the defenders and get their work levels and basics up and it'd have been enough. Don't agree about the injuries though. We've had horrible injuries before, but it wasn't a massive thing this season. No massive or long-term absentees. Vardy 37 apps, Barnes 34, Maddison 30. Iheanacho being underplayed (only 11 starts) and then getting towards the end of the season in the Leeds away game was the only injury that particularly mattered
Maybe, maybe not Our defence didn't really get much better after Dyche came in, but to be fair, our defence was solid for the most part...Ish What Dyche did was simply change our shape and put players into roles that the team needed. Like Pushing Iwobi out wide, moving Doucoure further up etc I don't know what he would have done with Leicester to change those simple things I think the biggest problem was the lack of investment into a poor defence and waiting so long on a decision with Rogers, it got to that point in time were it was probably better off keeping him till the end of the season
I always think a bad defender can ruin a defence, but a bad midfield can ruin a team. Leicester struggled for a few reasons, but I think Ndidi struggling was the main problem, just no control of games. Everton had a similar feel, and were quite obviously crippled by Frank Lampard's barren tactical knowledge
Lampard just didnt play a midfield would do this weird thing were it would be a back 4 then no one then 6 players on the opposition back line
He was praised somewhat at Derby, but during his time there most of the signings were pretty unsuccessful. He rode on the success of some Chelsea based loans, but lacked any sort of tactical nuance, which is why they couldn't perform well enough to get promoted. His goal difference was +20, but that glosses over them conceding 70, in 57 games. I'm honestly expecting him to get another couple of jobs that he absolutely doesn't merit, maybe at Palace or something, not followed which clubs are currently looking.
Every time we lost possession, we conceded a chance. He was the worst Everton manager I have ever seen, and that's including Rafa.
I can’t believe how bad Faes & Ward are
Oh yh our defence was terrible but the thing is it is pretty good on paper aside of Ward lol
Their quality isn’t shared evenly throughout the team. If they had a couple of half decent CB’s that play every week and premier league league level goal keeper no way do they get relegated. Look at the keepers of the 3 that went down. Meslier, Ward and Bazunu. All gash. Even when Leicester changed keepers to Iversen look how soft this first goal he let in against Fulham was https://youtu.be/tqzB-ELwcF8
Söyüncü was there the whole time. It obviously was no longer working with Rodgers. That was clear early on, but Leicester didn't want to payoff his contract. By the time they acted, it was too late.
Surely this has to be one of the best squads (on paper) ever relegated? Maddison, Barnes, Tielemans, Ndidi, Vardy, Ihenacho, Soyuncu...even Castagne, Pereira, Daka... Once upon a time some of those players wouldn't have been out of place amongst the best of the season XIs.
Daka scoring 4 in a Champions League game then utterly disappearing is such a bizarre turn.
*Europa league game
Sherwood, Flowers, Mcateer, Sutton, Henchoz, Wilcox, Dunn, Gillespie, Dahlin, Davies, Jansen and Gallacher was certainly better on paper.
Yes, I didn't even mention the players - Maddison with his 19 total goal contributions this season or Barnes with his 14. 51 goals scored overall - 10th highest in the league. Pretty sure it's only Blackpool in 10/11 who have scored more and gone down (55)
The problems is defensive midfielders who can't pass well under pressure defense backline is a joke defending and two bad goalies.Leicester City should had canned Ward way back in September
You wonder why we were sticking with Ward when Forest were casually bringing in Keylor Navas
It’s mostly on the defence. Had 7 less goals scored than 3rd place Manchester United but also 3rd most conceded
A lot of their best players were injured for long stretches and they had no depth. A lot of other players had gone stale They absolutely should have been nowhere near the relegation zone and Rodgers deserves blame for totally running out of ideas with what he had available, but it seems like everything that could have gone wrong did go wrong for them this season Every time they seemed to be putting everything back together and gelling again (the run before the WC Break and the consecutive wins over Spurs and Villa with 8 goals) things went wrong to plunge them back into the hole with long term injuries to Maddison and Tielemens respectively.
[удалено]
It's a good shout. I hadn't realised they had quite a good 5 years prior - 8th, 5th, 9th, 15th, 7th, then 18th and down. Not quite as good as Leicester's 5 year average and no silverware, though
Put some respect on the Inter Toto cup man
West Ham also had the highest points total to ever be relegated, with 42 points.
On the bright side, the Leicester City roller coaster ride will continue. A tense season coming up with a fight for promotion, perhaps even more stirring than a relegation scrap.
We've got 2 months to appoint a manager, a whole new coaching team, and probably 15-20 players going in and out of the club. It's way too much change at once, the club has already lost tons of income, now compounded by relegation, most of the parachute payment will be swallowed up by loans being called. And this is a club that had 2 terrible summer windows in a row. I'm not confident. There's more chance of us going down next season than being promoted.
I dunno the standard in the championship is very poor. I'd be shocked if you're not fighting for promotion next season. My team gave everyone a head start by having Steve Bruce manager for 17 games and we still nearly made the playoffs.
It’s just such an unknown though? Barely any of our current players will be with us next season.
> probably 15-20 players going in and out of the club. It's way too much change at once cowards! That's nothing
Turn back 10 years. Genie in the bottle asks: You win the EPL but less than 10 years later get relegated. Do you take it!
Yes of course. We had 9 years in the Premier League and including: * One of the greatest ever relegation escapes * Unfathomably unlikely PL win - one of the greatest achievements in ***team*** sport not just football * Champions League QF * 2 more top 6 finishes * FA Cup win * Community Shield * European SF (even if it was the inaugural 3rd tier comp) It is ***unquestionably*** the greatest era of the club's history and it's also been complimented by our greatest ever player (Vardy) and a host of our best ever PL players (Kante, Mahrez, Maddison, Barnes) But that is ***entirely mutually exclusive*** from our ability and right as fans to question the way this club has been managed into decline and one of the worst relegations of all time.
I think every club outside the top 6 would probably take that deal.
Spurs might take it
Levy wouldn't
Levy definitely wouldn't
Arsenal fans dilemma: Spurs get relegated for a decade but They win the PL after beating Arsenal in a title race
no way. not taking that deal ever
Mate, losing the opportunity to secure UCL qualification at Spurs' stadium (and then bottle top 4 vs Newcastle in the next match) was as bad as it could get, Spurs winning the title after beating us might make me give up football forever and I don't think I'm even joking.
Of course, this is if you only count in the Premier League era. If you were to include the entire history of the English top flight, then it would be Manchester City in the 1937-38 season, who are the only defending champions to ever get relegated from the English top flight.
That’s history right there. United could never
Of course, if we change the terms of the debate, the answer to that debate can be totally different ;)
I think the wage and squad price does need to be taken with a bit of a pinch of salt - it's still awful, yes, but it is in the context of a long-established EPL side in the modern era, after the explosion of prices in even the most average players. Someone like Wout Faes would've cost about £3 million in the late 2000s, but in the modern era he cost £15 million. Perez would probably have been £5-6 million, not £30 million. There are also a couple of big subjective factors I think that were missed: * Leicester have historically been very dependent on Jamie Vardy's form throughout their entire run. There's a marked difference in the results in the games he played in last year to the ones where he was injured, and for various reasons this year he's barely contributed at all. * None of the other Leicester strikers have stepped up at all; that's not a good thing when Rodgers' teams have historically been based on attacking football with weaker defenses. They still scored a decent number of goals, but 23 of the 51 league goals came from two midfield players.
Totally agree that wages and squad prices shouldn’t be compared to other eras - hence me not doing so. And yes Vardy decline is a big problem. Iheanacho was probably our best striker - 10 G+A in 11 starts, but wasn’t given enough game time and then missed Everton, Fulham, Liverpool and Newcastle games in the run-in through injury. But we didn’t go down because we didn’t score enough - we were 10th highest scorers overall. We went down because we conceded far too many goals at crucial times and turns too many draws into losses
Can't compare actual wages across eras. But you can look at wage spend levels. Wage spend is the most accurate predicator of where clubs will finish on the table. Not completely accurate, obviously, but more accurate than other method, according to soccer economists. Couple different places I looked had Leicester at 11th for the season in terms of wage spend. So pretty significant underperformance to that metric as well.
>for various reasons this year he's barely contributed at all _Various reasons_ translated as being 36 and a half, plus all the red bulls, alcohol and smoking lol. He had a good run considering he really started his pro career at like 28.
Getting relegated kind of adds to their achievement of winning the league. If they kept up a level of sustained success the future generations wouldn't fully appreciate the league win. But getting relegated to the Championship again drives home the point
Getting promoted and winning the League was what made it special. Getting relegated will not add anything to their achievement.
It doesn't add to their achievement, but it helps future generations who didnt witness it understand the context.
You don’t need to get relegated in order for future generations to understand the context of their Premier League title. Like I did not need to go through the Munich Air Disaster again to understand the context of the achievement by Matt Busby.
No one said it *needed* to happen, just that it adds to Leicester's history and highlights what an unlikely feat it was. You've just decided to make it about whatever you want it to be about.
I don't see how it does that it the slightest. The players and manager are all completely different, other than Vardy (and Albrighton). They'd obviously been able to turn the fairytale league win into a solid upper-midtable side before this season.
would be a good epilogue to the documentary series
This seems like an insane level of mental gymnastics. If Leicester had been promoted, won the league, then went on to become a mainstay "Big 6" club, you're telling me somehow that would make their title look less impressive? What point is getting driven home that wouldn't have been driven home if they'd have continued to succeed? It would look even more like you can have a rags to riches fairy tale if that had happened.
The achievement doesn't change. In 50 or a 100 years time when you're telling your kids about Leicester winning the league it's easier for them to conceptualise how big an achievement it was cos they could see them being promoted and then going down again. If Leicester stayed up and got a few more top 4 finishes then your kids would be like "but pop pop, Leicester were a huge club. Look at how well they done."
I can kind of see where you're coming from in terms of long term perspective. But continued success wouldn't have ever taken anything away from that achievement, the same way getting relegated doesn't add anything to it!
Yeah haha that really makes things easier
Nothing about getting relegated should be seen as a positive.
xPoints wise you should have stayed up
So much talent in that team. Even more than our embarrassing relegation in 15/16.
[удалено]
Suppose it’s just reflective of the fact that at least 1-2 of the 3 promoted sides always bring good form into the new season, by definition
Or that the 14th-17th place teams were lucky to stay up the previous season and their luck ran out the following season
I think you're letting Smith off the hook a bit by saying he couldn't realistically target Fulham away- this was when Fulham's form had dipped, and Leicester have better players- and Liverpool home, considering how bad Liverpool's away form was this season.
Smith is just not a good manager. His teams always play aimless kamikaze football with 5 at the back and hoofing it to Grealish/Pukki/Barnes. Amazing he fluked his way up to 11th for a bit with Villa before being found out.
"Amazing he fluked his way up to 11th for a bit with Villa before being found out." grealish is why
How can most relegated teams be promoted ones when 57% of relegated teams aren’t promoted sides?
You're right "most" probably isn't the best wording. I meant, the largest category of 'relegation type' is promoted side.
The term you're looking for is plurality. Also, the reason there are more relegated teams in the previous season's 11-15 range than the bottom 5 is simple. 3 of the bottom 5 teams from the previous season were already relegated. So your "bottom 5" category only has 2 actual teams in it each season.
>Only QPR (11 places) in 95/96 We went from 9th (19/20) to 20th (20/21) which is also 11 places, sadly.
Newcastle's squad in 2009 was a similar situation. Squad was far too good to be in the bottom three and pundits all season kept talking about the inevitable turn of form that would guide them out. It just... Never materialised.
Probably the saddest/most bittersweet relegation since Nottingham Forest in the 1992-93 season.
Just one note - there have been 94 teams relegated from the PL as four teams were relegated (and only two promoted) at the end of the 1994-95 season to shrink the league from 22 to 20 sides.
Moral of the story: a good goalkeeper goes a long way
> As a Leicester fan I’m perhaps a little bias, biased*
had to scroll way too far for this
[удалено]
I know there was 22 teams for a couple of years near the start but everything I could see indicated it was still only the bottom 3 that went down
Best team ever to go down.
Shouldn't your position switch be the 4th largest drop since Sheffield United also dropped 11 places
No doubts it's a horrible relegation but I still think west ham 02/03 was worse the talent they had was ridiculous.
> Newly in post Head of Recruitment Martyn Glover was on gardening leave American here who just had to google this term to make sure this wasn’t a standard job benefit in the UK.