The demise of Ruud van Nistelrooij’s Leicester City

BryanRoy22

BryanRoy22

Bob McKinlay
Statto said:
Henman wasn't really unlucky.

I don't think he was ever ranked better than 4 in the world, which incidentally was the same as Rusedski (who also reached a final). In most of his slam finals he lost to someone who ended up winning the tournament (mainly Sampras at Wimbledon) and actually Coria would have been the favourite to win the French but somehow didn't in '04. The only semi final he played and really should have won was 01 but then Ivanisevic seemed destined to win it that year.

He was popular because we hadn't had an ATP player anywhere near as good for a long time (probably a reason why they wanted Rusedski to change allegiances - and even tried that with Djokovic) and as a posh English guy (he went to the same independent school as Jack Draper) was more of a media darling than the Scottish Murray who was sledged for years over a comment he made to Henman in jest about the England football team.

But he was a limited player and he did the best with what he could.

Murray would have been much more dominant in the era Henman played in. He was comparable to Agassi but a better player.
Click to expand...
Well summed up, Statto.
 
Timothy Pope

Timothy Pope

I know that Nuno that I know that Nuno that I know
Mr. Blonde

Mr. Blonde

Stuart Pearce
I wouldn't necessarily call it bad luck but I have no doubt that He man would've made the final of Wimbledon in 2001 had the rain not come

He was 2 sets to love up IIRC and dominating Ivanisevic at the time

But it's the same for both players and you have to play the conditions as they are dealt and fair play to Goran he managed the situation better and was a worthy winner
 
Rzar

Rzar

Bob McKinlay
Timothy Pope said:
Glad that’s just a summary - I doubt the forum has enough bandwidth for a detailed answer.
Click to expand...
"Morning Statto! How are you?"

@Statto:

tumblr_nqfjyaMdKp1uy7k5vo1_500.gif
 
Mr. Blonde

Mr. Blonde

Stuart Pearce
Statto said:
Henman wasn't really unlucky.

I don't think he was ever ranked better than 4 in the world, which incidentally was the same as Rusedski (who also reached a final). In most of his slam finals he lost to someone who ended up winning the tournament (mainly Sampras at Wimbledon) and actually Coria would have been the favourite to win the French but somehow didn't in '04. The only semi final he played and really should have won was 01 but then Ivanisevic seemed destined to win it that year.

He was popular because we hadn't had an ATP player anywhere near as good for a long time (probably a reason why they wanted Rusedski to change allegiances - and even tried that with Djokovic) and as a posh English guy (he went to the same independent school as Jack Draper) was more of a media darling than the Scottish Murray who was sledged for years over a comment he made to Henman in jest about the England football team.

But he was a limited player and he did the best with what he could.

Murray would have been much more dominant in the era Henman played in. He was comparable to Agassi but a better player.
Click to expand...
People forget that Andy Murray made eleven grand slam finals competing against the three best players to ever play the sport

If he'd played in any other time he'd have won a hatful more grand slams than he did
 
Statto

Statto

Free Kick Specialist
Mr. Blonde said:
I wouldn't necessarily call it bad luck but I have no doubt that He man would've made the final of Wimbledon in 2001 had the rain not come

He was 2 sets to love up IIRC and dominating Ivanisevic at the time

But it's the same for both players and you have to play the conditions as they are dealt and fair play to Goran he managed the situation better and was a worthy winner
Click to expand...
It is.

These days they would have just shut the roof at the first sign of any rain and left it so for the rest of the day.

I think a lot of it was that he just didn't have the consistency to play 5 sets but then neither really did Goran. Goran just peaked at the right time.

Of course, he had also been through semi finals without losing and had reached 2 in the world - his issue was not one of talent but one of application. A few weeks before that Wimbledon win he'd actually been defaulted for smashing all his racquets, for example. Probably Kyrgios-style crazy really.

Henman always had the ability to make something which should be routine into a bit of a battle. I remember a certain match vs Michel Kratochvil at Wimbledon which he should have won easily but I think went to five.
 
Statto

Statto

Free Kick Specialist
Mr. Blonde said:
People forget that Andy Murray made eleven grand slam finals competing against the three best players to ever play the sport

If he'd played in any other time he'd have won a hatful more grand slams than he did
Click to expand...
This is why I think people are wrong when they say there was never a Big Four era.

Murray is low on the number of Slam wins (actually the same number as Wawrinka) but in an era of four big players, that means in most tournaments where they all play, two of them won't even reach the final. They'll beat each other in the semis.

Pretty much every time Murray reached a final he was against either Federer, Nadal or Djokovic. It was only 2016 Wimbledon where he played a lesser player and Raonic was a top 10 player at that time. He ran Novak close a few times in the Aus Open and those could easily have gone the other way.

Plus the group as a whole dominated 1000s especially - until Murray got injured then it was definitely an era of three.
 
Statto

Statto

Free Kick Specialist
BryanRoy22 said:
See what I mean about Statto. How can you remember all those details off the cuff?

giphy.gif
Click to expand...
I don't get how it's geeky to know that about tennis when if we were talking about Forest matches in the 96-7 season everyone here would be all over it... lol
 
Flaggers

Flaggers

May not be the best moderator on LTLF, but he's...
LTLF Minion
Statto

Statto

Free Kick Specialist
Ashley said:
7 points in 15 games. That form over the course of a 38 game season would put them on around 17-18 points.

So not Derby level, but still very, very shit.
Click to expand...
Still interesting that even Leics under RvN would average more over a season than Southampton appear to be.
 
Beardo7

Beardo7

Viv Anderson
Like I said - if Southampton don’t beat Leicester Derby’s record is going. They are terrible.

Leicester got enough points under Cooper at the start of the season to be on 10 points by the time they sacked him. (In 11 games)

RvN has picked up 7 points in the following 17 games. (For comparison Forest have picked up 32 points)

I know it’s all guess work but if they had stuck with Cooper would have likely been on 20-25 points by now and at least be in with a shout of staying up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
B

Bing Crosby's Head

First Team Squad
I still have the racquet given to me by Tim Henman's manager for allowing him to take a break from the national championships and replace the injured Sergi Bruguera for a match at the ATP championships in 1997!
 
HBB

HBB

Jack Burkitt
Just had a wander through the Leicester forum and it's still bewildering to see them say Coops was a terrible manager despite him managing to keep them out of the bottom three with a team that clearly just aren't good enough. Given the performance of promoted teams over the past two seasons you really do have to wonder what on earth they thought would happen. They were at least scoring goals under him to give them a chance while he tried to sort out a defence that has proven to be the second most porous in the league.

It might not have been pretty but they'd surely have made more a fist of it than they are.

But then again, f*** 'em.
 
Mr. Blonde

Mr. Blonde

Stuart Pearce
HBB said:
Just had a wander through the Leicester forum and it's still bewildering to see them say Coops was a terrible manager despite him managing to keep them out of the bottom three with a team that clearly just aren't good enough. Given the performance of promoted teams over the past two seasons you really do have to wonder what on earth they thought would happen. They were at least scoring goals under him to give them a chance while he tried to sort out a defence that has proven to be the second most porous in the league.

It might not have been pretty but they'd surely have made more a fist of it than they are.

But then again, f*** 'em.
Click to expand...
They're a bunch of deluded twats for sure but this is the reason Coops was massively mistaken in going there

They were never going to accept him because of their nonsensical inbred hatred for Forest

Was anyone advising Steve as to the above? Because he should've given the Leicester job the biggest swerve possible
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom