Pre Match Leicester v Chelsea

[fitz]

Hanging out with Danny D is he? Makes sense

Nah he's a good lad.

 

[Mike - True Blue Tinter]

Normally our pitch is always in superb condition.

On Saturday night it looked like it was cutting up really badly.

By Tuesday night it could have had another couple of inches of rain on it, making our quick, slick passes a bit of a lottery.

 

[Robin127]

0-2 away win according to Lawro.

 

[Jimmy Lad]

Normally our pitch is always in superb condition.

On Saturday night it looked like it was cutting up really badly.

By Tuesday night it could have had another couple of inches of rain on it, making our quick, slick passes a bit of a lottery.

The pitch was an absolute disgrace on Saturday. A lot of our passes held up and we struggled as a consequence. I fear the worst for its condition tomorrow.

 

[parafox]

0-2 away win according to Lawro.

His argument is that fulham have won at the King Power and Chelsea are better than Fulham so they must be able to beat us. Well, surely Southampton are better than Fulham? And Chelsea struggled to win against Fulham against 10 men? What a twat.

 

[FOX Franks]

His argument is that fulham have won at the King Power and Chelsea are better than Fulham so they must be able to beat us. Well, surely Southampton are better than Fulham? And Chelsea struggled to win against Fulham against 10 men? What a twat.

Pundits are struggling to compute that we’re doing well again. Most bookies have Chelsea as the favourites, what with them being in a red hot run of form and that

 

[FOX Franks]

Good thing is though, if we beat Chelsea we definitely trigger some murmurs that Frankie Lampard isn’t good enough

 

[mabrah]

What the **** is a 'big club'?

And yet it's a continuously used expression that people understand. Further, they can name some of said big clubs. So as much as it's, um, shall we say 'vague' in its formal definition, it does have traction.

I personally don't like it but accept it exists and know what it's referring to. If I had to attempt a definition, I'd say it's something like an amalgam of both historic and recent successes and current position, allied with support base. Money might follow as a result of those things but, for me, it isn't a defining thing in and of itself.

I kinda think of it as a label (an often somewhat self referential one too) and attempt to remove the elitism aspect. Being a 'big club' doesn't equate to, or grant, entitlement.

 

[mabrah]

His argument is that fulham have won at the King Power and Chelsea are better than Fulham so they must be able to beat us. Well, surely Southampton are better than Fulham? And Chelsea struggled to win against Fulham against 10 men? What a twat.

Particularly like.

Can't be said often enough. 'Lawro' is a twat.

I really don't get why he's persisted with. Former player he may be but he's thick as pig shit. And he's a... what's the word? Oh, that's it... twat.

 

[bocadillo]

Good thing is though, if we beat Chelsea we definitely trigger some murmurs that Frankie Lampard isn’t good enough

...and he'll get sacked

...and Chelsea will be looking for a new manager

...and the pundits will make a list.

Anybody guess who will be on the list?

 

[FOX Franks]

...and he'll get sacked

...and Chelsea will be looking for a new manager

...and the pundits will make a list.

Anybody guess who will be on the list?

Oh buggar. Good point.

 

[homer]

...and he'll get sacked

...and Chelsea will be looking for a new manager

...and the pundits will make a list.

Anybody guess who will be on the list?

Paul Ince ?

 

[pork pie fox]

Particularly like.

Can't be said often enough. 'Lawro' is a twat.

I really don't get why he's persisted with. Former player he may be but he's thick as pig shit. And he's a... what's the word? Oh, that's it... twat.

Whisper it quietly, but he’s quite a nice bloke in real life.

 

[Brown Nose]

And yet it's a continuously used expression that people understand. Further, they can name some of said big clubs. So as much as it's, um, shall we say 'vague' in its formal definition, it does have traction.

I personally don't like it but accept it exists and know what it's referring to. If I had to attempt a definition, I'd say it's something like an amalgam of both historic and recent successes and current position, allied with support base. Money might follow as a result of those things but, for me, it isn't a defining thing in and of itself.

I kinda think of it as a label (an often somewhat self referential one too) and attempt to remove the elitism aspect. Being a 'big club' doesn't equate to, or grant, entitlement.

The concept is simple enough to me. There is a chasm of income between the 'big six' and the rest.

That means that the expectations at those clubs are higher. It means that they can pay more in transfers and wages.

For me, it's nothing to do with history or league position or trophies or fan bases.

Chelsea should do better than us. And usually they do.

 

[Graz]

His argument is that fulham have won at the King Power and Chelsea are better than Fulham so they must be able to beat us. Well, surely Southampton are better than Fulham? And Chelsea struggled to win against Fulham against 10 men? What a twat.

I feel far more confident knowing that Lawro has us down to lose. If he picked us to win we'd have no chance!

 

[camberwell fox]

...and he'll get sacked

...and Chelsea will be looking for a new manager

...and the pundits will make a list.

Anybody guess who will be on the list?

You’ll need to email SuperScout...

 

[jjgold]

I thought he was ok now?

Why have you used a question mark?

 

[mabrah]

'Big club' and 'big six' are different labels, not least because of the number. It suggests an order that might lead some into differentiating and ordering. They might start thinking of recent form and finances over history, for instance. A 'big club' might not feature in someone's 'big six' for instance. For which the label 'sleeping giant' was intended

I'm not saying there wouldn't be overlap, but there is a difference in nuance. And it is, of course, highly subjective.

But whatever. It all just goes to show the relative vagueness of the expressions and, in this era of stats obsession, that they are arguably meaningless. Which brings us right back to pop's statement; "What the **** is a big club?"

 

[mabrah]

For me, it's nothing to do with history or league position or trophies or fan bases.

Chelsea should do better than us. And usually they do.

Sorry BN, I'm being pedantic and a only on a leg pull, but....

that's everything to do with history. What is 'usually' if not based on a history of past performances?

Thing is, I know what you mean. Odd innit? These circumspect labels that don't stand scrutiny yet we kinda derive some meaning from. People will argue which clubs are 'big clubs' without ever agreeing exactly what defines a big club.

Just as well we have forums to decide such issues

 

[popillius]

And therein lies the problem. Two posters with different understandings entirely on what a 'big club' is.

It is such an arbitrary phrase and, like I said, tends to be used by fans of clubs like Leeds or Forest who have fallen somewhat, by the wayside.

If it is tondo purely with money, then we are a far 'bigger' club than Leeds, Newcastle, Forest and the like. I'm sure their fans would disagree.