(Not hypothetical anymore) Leicester win the league!

Billy86

Billy86 wrote: »

You seem to have missed the point, actually. Going by transfers Man United could not have 'bought the league' in that period as Blackburn outspent them by about 18%.

Man United spent 43% more than Leeds in that period by the way, not over 50% more. If the fact they were outspent in that time means they were not big spenders, then by your own logic, Man United were never big spenders over a full from 1985 - 2001 and so you are arguing against yourself?

It's a strange logical gap... Man United outspent Leeds and this Leeds could not have been big spenders as a result. Yet Man United 'bought the league' despite being outspent by Blackburn... in the same time period.

But...I never mentioned Blackburn at all.

One could of course say Blackburn bought the league, I'd fully agree.

Again, I was responding to the claim that ManU did not buy the league, of course they did. As you demonstrate their spending was consistently near the top and often the top. That is not in the least bit contradicted by the fact that some other teams spent big as well, or the point that they didn't actually spend the most every single year. I'm not suggesting only one team can buy the league.

Plus I never suggested Leeds could not have been big spenders, again I was responding to the ridiculous inference that if any one team spent big then, if any team had to be looked at, it was Leeds. I think the specific claim was that they bought the entire team and I merely pointed out that Speed and Batty were certainly not bought.

Business Cat

Business Cat wrote: »

Leeds United are a club that bankrupted themselves by spending big but not backing up the spend with results.

In 1990-91 (which was the year referred to when Leeds were brought up).

Ah come on, the financial meltdown at Leeds wasn't even in that century! You can hardly link the point about Leeds spending in the early 90s to the subsequent collapse in the mid 00s.

Billy86

Deleted User wrote: »

But...I never mentioned Blackburn at all.

One could of course say Blackburn bought the league, I'd fully agree.

Again, I was responding to the claim that ManU did not buy the league, of course they did. As you demonstrate their spending was consistently near the top and often the top. That is not in the least bit contradicted by the fact that some other teams spent big as well, or the point that they didn't actually spend the most every single year. I'm not suggesting only one team can buy the league.

And Leeds were near the top too, from 1989-93. Therefore, if Man Utd bought the league so did Leeds.

Plus I never suggested Leeds could not have been big spenders, again I was responding to the ridiculous inference that if any one team spent big then, if any team had to be looked at, it was Leeds. I think the specific claim was that they bought the entire team and I merely pointed out that Speed and Batty were certainly not bought.

In your last post - "Again, the sheer nonsense of a couple of ManU fans pointing to Leeds as big spenders in that time!"

Magico Gonzalez

astonaidan wrote: »

Its funny, you could say they didnt really spend the Bale money wisely at all.
Paulinho, Christian Eriksen, Roberto Soldado, Nacer Chadli, Etienne Capoue, Vlad Chiriches and Erik Lamela
The players in bold have all left and cost the guts of 60million

Going back a few pages here but...

I still think they spent it very well. Transfers are a gamble. Very wise to take the cash and spread the risk, think of it like an investment. One of your investments comes in spectacularly for you. When that happens you divide it up and spread the risk and the reward.

Looking at your risk, some failed and they got some capital back, they cut some expense too, but this year Eriksen and Lamela have come on nicely for them. You could argue capital recouped went on players like Alderweireld.

Whatever their net spend is, it has them challenging for the league. Not one Arsenal, Liverpool, United, City or Chelsea fan can say the same. Churlish to pick on failures and ignore the successes.

Why am I defending Spurs!

ps..every Man U fan I know has referred to them as such in my presence. Touch of looking for stuff to be offended about there I think.

Billy86

Billy86 wrote: »

And Leeds were near the top too, from 1989-93. Therefore, if Man Utd bought the league so did Leeds.

In your last post - "Again, the sheer nonsense of a couple of ManU fans pointing to Leeds as big spenders in that time!"

Ah Billy, reading your own stats...you can surely see why of all clubs, ManU fans singling out Leeds as the big spenders is ridiculous.

Again, I refer you to the 12.3 mill v 8.6 mill reference in 1989-93.

I never claimed that it could not be said that Leeds bought success. The context in which Leeds was raised was the "well if any club could be said to have spent big back then, it's Leeds" effort...by a ManU fan.. The specific claim was they had bought an entire team in 90-91, and as a matter of fact that is incorrect. Again, I refer to Batty and Speed in particular.

Billy86

Deleted User wrote: »

Ah Billy, reading your own stats...you can surely see why of all clubs, ManU fans singling out Leeds as the big spenders is ridiculous.

Again, I refer you to the 12.3 mill v 8.6 mill reference in 1989-93.

I never claimed that it could not be said that Leeds bought success. The context in which Leeds was raised was the "well if any club could be said to have spent big back then, it's Leeds" effort...by a ManU fan.. The specific claim was they had bought an entire team in 90-91, and as a matter of fact that is incorrect. Again, I refer to Batty and Speed in particular.

You refer me to 8.6 vs 12.3, and I'll point you to 12.3 vs 14.5. Again.

If spending more than most in the league means buying the league - like you say it does for Man Utd - then it also does for Leeds.

Not sure why you keep pointing to the fact Leeds had two prominent players from their youth team as if that nullifies the fact that, by your own logic, they bought the league. Sure in 92/93, Man United had Mark Hughes and Ryan Giggs. Does this mean Man Utd then didn't buy the league?

It all stinks of tremendous double standards, to be honest.

Donnielighto

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Thanks for that.

Precisely what I said.

The idea that ManU did not buy the league because of "the Class of 92" simply ignores the fact that...they did!

I certainly take your point that they were not alone, others such as Liverpool may have tried to do the same. I don't think I argued otherwise.

And, incidentally, I see ManU outspending Leeds on that list by over 50% bet 1989 and 1993. Again, the sheer nonsense of a couple of ManU fans pointing to Leeds as big spenders in that time!

If everyone spends 100M on players does that mean someone bought getting relegated?

Billy86

Billy86 wrote: »

Not sure why you keep pointing to the fact Leeds had two prominent players from their youth team as if that nullifies the fact that, by your own logic, they bought the league. Sure in 92/93, Man United had Mark Hughes and Ryan Giggs. Does this mean Man Utd then didn't buy the league?.

Again, because someone asserted they bought the entire team. It is, as a matter of fact, incorrect. That is clearly demonstrated by reference to Speed and Batty. I never referred to them, or even Leeds, in the context of a claim that they bought the league.

Do you think Leeds bought the entire team used 1990-91? Ifso, you are wrong, if not then you agree with the point I made.

Furthermore, the year referenced was 1990-91. I don't think Giggs featured at all then, he was behind Lee Sharpe afair. Plus Hughes was a purchase by then. I am open to correction but I suspect Clayton Blackmore was the only regular starter who was not bought.

Donnielighto

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Ah Billy, reading your own stats...you can surely see why of all clubs, ManU fans singling out Leeds as the big spenders is ridiculous.

Again, I refer you to the 12.3 mill v 8.6 mill reference in 1989-93.

I never claimed that it could not be said that Leeds bought success. The context in which Leeds was raised was the "well if any club could be said to have spent big back then, it's Leeds" effort...by a ManU fan.. The specific claim was they had bought an entire team in 90-91, and as a matter of fact that is incorrect. Again, I refer to Batty and Speed in particular.

Leeds bought the league, disagree?

Donnielighto

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Again, because someone asserted they bought the entire team. It is, as a matter of fact, incorrect. That is clearly demonstrated by reference to Speed and Batty. I never referred to them, or even Leeds, in the context of a claim that they bought the league.

Do you think Leeds bought the entire team used 1990-91? Ifso, you are wrong, if not then you agree with the point I made.

Furthermore, the year referenced was 1990-91. I don't think Giggs featured at all then, he was behind Lee Sharpe afair. Plus Hughes was a purchase by then. I am open to correction but I suspect Clayton Blackmore was the only regular starter who was not bought.

I'd be fairly sure that it was a turn of phrase used, when he said bought the team. Why are you looking for an argument on a Leicester thread?



Cmon the foxes! Ranieri 2016

K-9

Leeds ended up spending money they didn't have. You see other lower profile examples, Portsmouth and Bolton eg.

The United thing is pointless, they spent plenty, as did Liverpool, and United are just finding out you have to spend it wisely or you'll fall behind.

FFP as derided as it is maybe an over looked part of the Leicester and West Ham stories. The PL also has strict wage rules now so a Chelsea or City can't suddenly double wage bills.

Couple that with the extra TV money and it is financially more competitive.

IIRC correctly Leicester had big losses a couple of years ago so they spent big to get into the PL. That seems to be a trend in Championship teams, spend big, hope they go up but if it doesn't work out you'll be in bother in a couple of years, Forest an example. The parachute payments give a big advantage to clubs who go down, increasing the pressure on the likes of Boro to gamble on going up.

Donnielighto

Donnielighto wrote: »

I'd be fairly sure that it was a turn of phrase used, when he said bought the team.

Korat wrote: »

If you're going to complain about buying in a team, even if it's funded from the club's own resources, then the Leeds Utd side of 1992 is probably the worst example.

They bought the whole team in 1990-91. Utd's team building was organic by comparison.

They didn't buy the whole team in 1990-91.

GreNoLi

...it'll be great.

Billy86

Deleted User wrote: »

Again, because someone asserted they bought the entire team. It is, as a matter of fact, incorrect. That is clearly demonstrated by reference to Speed and Batty. I never referred to them, or even Leeds, in the context of a claim that they bought the league.

Do you think Leeds bought the entire team used 1990-91? Ifso, you are wrong, if not then you agree with the point I made.

Furthermore, the year referenced was 1990-91. I don't think Giggs featured at all then, he was behind Lee Sharpe afair. Plus Hughes was a purchase by then. I am open to correction but I suspect Clayton Blackmore was the only regular starter who was not bought.

The referenced year was 90/91 for when Leeds bought so many players, if I recall - they didn't win it until the next year sure. And then Man Utd won it the year after that... hence comparing title winning teams against each other. Neither team could have bought the 1990/91 league because neither won it.

Hughes came through Man Utd's youth team, was sold to Barca and was bought back for a lower fee, if you are going to claim that as a case of 'buying the league' I don't even know where to start. He cost the club minus money.

We must have our wires crossed, so let me pose two simple questions to you...
- Did Man United 'buy the league' in the early 90s?
- Did Leeds 'buy the league' in the early 90s?

Billy86

Billy86 wrote: »

We must have our wires crossed, so let me pose two simple questions to you...
- Did Man United 'buy the league' in the early 90s?
- Did Leeds 'buy the league' in the early 90s?

ManU certainly bought the League. Repeatedly.

Leeds bought players and won the league. I don't think their spending was like others who won it in that era, ManU and Blackburn in particular.

Pawwed Rig

Deleted User wrote: »

Any figure mentioned?

Just rumours so far
http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/transfer-news/claudio-ranieri-plays-down-riyad-7533386
but hopefully they an keep some kind of team together and have a bash at the Champions League (which is in itself a phemononal achievement for Leicester).

Billy86

Deleted User wrote: »

ManU certainly bought the League. Repeatedly.

Leeds bought players and won the league. I don't think their spending was like others who won it in that era, ManU and Blackburn in particular.

So you're saying Man Utd bought the title but Leeds didn't because Man Utd spent a lot on players who won the title for them, whereas Leeds merely spent a lot on players who won the title for them?

Please tell me I'm mistaken there! :pac:

Billy86

Billy86 wrote: »

So you're saying Man Utd bought the title but Leeds didn't because Man Utd spent a lot on players who won the title for them, whereas Leeds merely spent a lot on players who won the title for them?

Please tell me I'm mistaken there! :pac:

You are mistaken.

I didn't say Leeds didn't.

Just like I didn't say the presence of Batty and Speed didn't mean they bought a lot.

Just like I didn't say Everton and Liverpool didn't spend a lot.

And so on and so forth.

There seems to be a lot of points mistakenly attributed to me. Again, someone said that ManU didn't buy the title. I said they did. Someone else said in 1990-91 Leeds bought their whole title winning team. I said they didn't.

Billy86

Deleted User wrote: »

You are mistaken.

I didn't say Leeds didn't.

Just like I didn't say the presence of Batty and Speed didn't mean they bought a lot.

Just like I didn't say Everton and Liverpool didn't spend a lot.

And so on and so forth.

There seems to be a lot of points mistakenly attributed to me. Again, someone said that ManU didn't buy the title. I said they did. Someone else said in 1990-91 Leeds bought their whole title winning team. I said they didn't.

It's just a funny way of putting it, that "Man United bought the league" whereas "Leeds bought players and won the league".

Donnielighto

[Deleted User] wrote: »

They didn't buy the whole team in 1990-91.

Can you respond to my other questions?

cowboyBuilder

tanko wrote: »

I really hope Leicester win it but in a way it would be better if Spurs are premiership champions just to see the reaction of Arsene Wenger and the Arsenal supporters. I don't think they'd be able to handle it at all.

.. I want Leicester to win it, but just for Claude on Arsenal Fan TV ... Spurs would be great too !

Getting back to the OP, it's hard to think of any victory in any team sport that would match it. Particularly in a league format.

In general sports (and not opening up the "is it a sport" point), how about Keith Deller in the world darts in 83. An unknown qualifier, he beat the world no. 3, 2 and 1 in the quarters, semi final and final.

jmayo

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

But was the disparity in spending power between clubs as big when Forrest won it than it is now ?

As you say yourself Leicester team cost less than one player on another squad.

Yes there is now greater disparity in spending between divisions and between top PL clubs and those at bottom, but Leicester were already in the PL.
They weren't promoted and even worse actually the last team to be promoted, meaning they scraped in.

As I said imagine Norwich winning the League and League Cup this year is the comparison.

Also never forget Forest beat the great all dominant Liverpool team to the title.
That was the Liverpool team that had won in 75-76, 76-77 and would win again in 78-79,. 79-80, 80-81 and had won the European Cup in 76-77 and would win it in 77-78.

This year one has to admit that the big clubs have all stuttered.
England haven't had a Champions League winner competing in the league since Chelsea in 2012-2013.

And unless Leicester follow up the League with Champions League they will never be as good as Forest.

thebaz wrote: »

What Forest did was great - but in comparison to there rivals at the time they were a big team - with Peter Shilton , and they also had the most expensive player in Britain - Trevor Francis - along with one of the best manager in Europe .
If Leicester win the league it would be a greater achievement.

Try get your facts straight.

As I think K-9 pointed out, Trevor Francis joined them the year after they first won the league.
And yes Cloughie was a great manager (had won with neighbours Derby), but he had the Leeds baggage and didn't have the breath of experience that Ranieri has had with massive clubs.

thebaz wrote: »

I never said that - I said Forest were a relative big cup back then , able to lure best manager and player in England (if you bothered to read my post

That is bullshyte.

Forest were never a big club.
They had never won the League.
They had two FA Cups to their name: 1898 and 1959
They had yo-yoed between divisions and were even in Third Division.

They were in 13th place in Div 2 when Cloughie took over.

Brian Clough bought ...
Shilton from Stoke City for £250,000 in 1977.
Kenny Burns from Birmingham for for £150,000 in 1977.
Archie Gemmill from Derby for £25,000 in 1977.
David Needham from QPR for £140,000 in 1977.

And here is really interesting titbit about one of the players...
Larry Lloyd who had once been at Liverpool, but was in Coventry reserves was bought for £60,000 and his signing-on on fee was a washing machine Clough stole from the City Ground laundry


BTW that same season was the one where Liverpool bought Kenny Dalglish from Celtic for a British Record Transfer Fee between British Clubs for £440,000.
Alan Hansen arrived from Partick Thistle for £110,000.
Souness arrived from Middlesbrough for £350,000 on 10 January 1978.

Korat

jmayo wrote: »

BTW that same season was the one where Liverpool bought Kenny Dalglish from Celtic for a British Record Transfer Fee between British Clubs for £440,000.
Alan Hansen arrived from Partick Thistle for £110,000.
Souness arrived from Middlesbrough for £350,000 on 10 January 1978.

Liverpool buying success as usual. :mad:

mansize

Does any thread on soccer not end as a píssing contest between United and Liverpool fans???

Liam McPoyle

mansize wrote: »

Does any thread on soccer not end as a píssing contest between United and Liverpool fans???

Nope, its part of the charter.

Jayop

mansize wrote: »

Does any thread on soccer not end as a píssing contest between United and Liverpool fans???

He who derailed the thread by trying to wind every United fan up isn't a Liverpool fan. Much worse infact.

Korat

mansize wrote: »

Does any thread on soccer not end as a píssing contest between United and Liverpool fans???

Ahh lighten up not every comment a Utd or Liverpool fan makes about the other team is adversarial.

Sometimes they're just a stalking horse.

I was being sarcastic about the Leeds fan's whinge that bigger clubs buy success. :rolleyes:

mansize

Korat wrote: »

Ahh lighten up not every comment a Utd or Liverpool fan makes about the other team is adversarial.

Sometimes they're just a stalking horse.

I was being sarcastic about the Leeds fan's whinge that bigger clubs buy success. :rolleyes:

It just gets so nauseating after a while

Thanks for the lighten up tip btw

jmayo

Korat wrote: »

Liverpool buying success as usual. :mad:

They were the biggest most successful team so it goes without saying they would be spending big.

united also spent fairly big.
Steve Coppell was bought from Tranmere in 1975 for £60,000
Jimmy Greenhoff was bought from Stoke for £120,000 in 1976
Joe Jordan arrived from Leeds in Jan 1978 for £350,000
Gordon McQueen arrived in Feb 1978 for £495,000
Ray Wilkins arrived in 1979 from Chelsea for £750,000

Gary Brittles arrived from Forest for £1.25 million in October 1980.

So united were not backward in splashing the cash especially when Dave Sexton was in charge.

The likes of Arsenal had signed Alan Ball for a club record £220,000 in 1971.
MacDonald arrived from Newcastle in 1976, for the unusual fee of £333,333.34.
Arsene would have approved of the saving of an extra few pence
Alan Hudson arrived from Stoke for £200,000 in 1976.

Actually for anybody interested Stoke had to sell off everyone to pay for storm damage to Stoke's Victoria Ground.
Imagine if that storm hadn't hit.

mansize wrote: »

Does any thread on soccer not end as a píssing contest between United and Liverpool fans???

Ehh I am neither ...
I am not a Liverpool fan, but wouldn't begrudge them some success.
On the other hand I detest united.

Pawwed Rig

jmayo wrote: »

I am not a Liverpool fan, but wouldn't begrudge them some success.
On the other hand I detest united.

How about Leicester?

bucketybuck

Billy86 wrote: »

You seem to have missed the point

No, this is just his schtick.

K-9

mansize wrote: »

Does any thread on soccer not end as a píssing contest between United and Liverpool fans???

You picked the wrong thread...

bucketybuck

bucketybuck wrote: »

No, this is just his schtick.

The topic isn't actually me at all.

Much and all as you and Jayop may want it to be.

Yet again, for the 5th or 6th time, a poster said ManU didn't buy the league. I said they did. Billy86 helpfully provided all the stats to back that up, showing year in year out how much they spent and how they were consistently near the top spenders.

If Leicester go on to win it, it would be a far greater achievement than the class of 92 mixed with some record buys.

Jayop

Deleted User wrote: »

The topic isn't actually me at all.

Much and all as you and Jayop may want it to be.

Yet again, for the 5th or 6th time, a poster said ManU didn't buy the league. I said they did. Billy86 helpfully provided all the stats to back that up, showing year in year out how much they spent and how they were consistently near the top spenders.

If Leicester go on to win it, it would be a far greater achievement than the class of 92 mixed with some record buys.

Where did I tell you you shouldn't be posting in a football thread as you have asserted??

Billy86

Deleted User wrote: »

The topic isn't actually me at all.

Much and all as you and Jayop may want it to be.

Yet again, for the 5th or 6th time, a poster said ManU didn't buy the league. I said they did. Billy86 helpfully provided all the stats to back that up, showing year in year out how much they spent and how they were consistently near the top spenders.

If Leicester go on to win it, it would be a far greater achievement than the class of 92 mixed with some record buys.

Actually my stats were only for five teams, with a brief not for Leeds in the early and then late 90s, plus Blackburn in the early 90s. From when Ferguson took over to when he won his first title with Man Utd, they were not consistently near the top of those five teams.

Still, at least you finally fessed up that Leeds bought the title as well. Just, they weren't competent enough to keep buying and now are a lower league team as a result of that. Basically, money can play a big role, but doesn't win leagues on it's own.

bucketybuck

Deleted User wrote: »

The topic isn't actually me at all.

Much and all as you and Jayop may want it to be.

Yet again, for the 5th or 6th time, a poster said ManU didn't buy the league. I said they did. Billy86 helpfully provided all the stats to back that up, showing year in year out how much they spent and how they were consistently near the top spenders.

If Leicester go on to win it, it would be a far greater achievement than the class of 92 mixed with some record buys.

...

bucketybuck wrote: »

this is just his schtick.

Iused2likebusts

This is even worse than the Liverpool utd stuff and that's saying something. Another 15 pts should do it for Leicester. I think they will drop points this weekend though.

astonaidan

Lads, honestly no one cares which one of ye wins this argument, its tedious and crazy drawn out and well has nothing to do with Leicester

Mushy

Iused2likebusts wrote: »

This is even worse than the Liverpool utd stuff and that's saying something. Another 15 pts should do it for Leicester. I think they will drop points this weekend though.

I'd be shocked if they dropped points to Palace. Only them, Norwich and Villa should they be certainties to beat, then most others they'll be favourites at least. They won't romp home like people would want, but I see others dropping points earlier than them, so the last three games will need minimum points.

Hope I'm not wrong!

Paully D

6/4 to win this weekend and the game does look like the typical potential banana skin. Spurs really should beat an already safe Bournemouth at home. It'll be an interesting weekend.

Leicester to draw at Palace for me.

Iused2likebusts

Mushy wrote: »

I'd be shocked if they dropped points to Palace. Only them, Norwich and Villa should they be certainties to beat, then most others they'll be favourites at least. They won't romp home like people would want, but I see others dropping points earlier than them, so the last three games will need minimum points.

Hope I'm not wrong!

I hope your not wrong either. I just feel palace will get something out of it.

Mushy

Iused2likebusts wrote: »

I hope your not wrong either. I just feel palace will get something out of it.

And then the Pardew thread gets re-booted and the cycle goes on:eek:

I've had the feeling they'll slip up a bit before, but today is almost the safest. Not betting on it, but an auld 2-0 to see them get a temporary 8 point lead.

Oddly I see Spurs dropping points this weekend!

Rayne Wooney

Depending who wins the Euros and presuming Barca win the CL, I think Ranieri should win world manager of the year if they do it

I think winning the PL with Leicester is a better achievement than winning the CL with 3 of the 4 best players in the world along with a host of other top 20 players in the squad.

You can now get 6/5 on Leicester not winning the league.

cj maxx

Just watching football focus , on paper Leicester have a great run-in.
Hope they keep their nerve and get that bit of luck when they need it.

highgiant1985

It's been a really entertaining season so far with unexpected results for most of the top teams and Leicester showing a level of consistency that no one expected!

Current points:
Leicester 63 points (30 games played)
Tottenham 58 points (30 games played)
Arsenal 52 points (29 games played)
Man City 51 points (29 games played)

Looking at the fixture run ins:

Leicester
Crystal Palace (a)
Southampton (h)
Sunderland (a)
West Ham (h)
Swansea (h)
Man Utd (a)
Everton (h)
Chelsea (a)

Max Points: 87 points.
Key Games: I think the next 3 games are key for Leicester. If they can get at least 6 points from those 3 then I think they'll do it. Anything less and I'd fancy Spurs to win it.

Tottenham
Bournemouth (H)
Liverpool (A)
Man Utd (H)
Stoke City (A)
WBA (H)
Chelsea (A)
Southampton (H)
Newcastle Utd (A)

Max points: 82 points.
Key games: Liverpool (A), Man Utd (H), Chelsea (A).

Arsenal

Everton (A)
Watford (H)
West Ham (A)
Crystal Palace (H)
West Brom (H)
Sunderland (A)
Norwich (H)
Man City (A)
Aston Villa (H)

Max Points: 79 points.
Key games: Need to win them all but Everton (A), West Ham (A) And Man City (A) are key games they may drop points in.

Man City:
Manchester United (H)
Bournemouth (A)
West Brom (H)
Chelsea (A)
Newcastle (A)
Stoke (H)
Southampton (A)
Arsenal (H)
Swansea (A)

Max Points: 78 points.
Key games: Need to win them all but ((Chelsea (A) and Man Utd (H) and Arsenal (H)) are tough games for them.


I think Man City or Arsenal need to win all their remaining games to have a chance. However on current form that's hard to see so I could see 77 points being enough for Leicester to take the title as Spurs are likely to drop points as well with some tough away fixtures. so that would be 4 wins and 2 draw from their remaining 8.

highgiant1985

highgiant1985 wrote: »

It's been a really entertaining season so far with unexpected results for most of the top teams and Leicester showing a level of consistency that no one expected!

Current points:
Leicester 63 points (30 games played)
Tottenham 58 points (30 games played)
Arsenal 52 points (29 games played)
Man City 51 points (29 games played)

Looking at the fixture run ins:

Leicester
Crystal Palace (a)
Southampton (h)
Sunderland (a)
West Ham (h)
Swansea (h)
Man Utd (a)
Everton (h)
Chelsea (a)

Max Points: 87 points.
Key Games: I think the next 3 games are key for Leicester. If they can get at least 6 points from those 3 then I think they'll do it. Anything less and I'd fancy Spurs to win it.

Tottenham
Bournemouth (H)
Liverpool (A)
Man Utd (H).

The only thing is, Spurs have Liverpool away in those 3 fixtures and so there might still be a gap of a few points after them. But if Leicester could pick up 6 points in those 3 they could win it with games to spare, it would be a huge boost.

keeponhurling

Great first half from Leicester.

Goal from Mahrez of course , and another tour de force at midfield from DrinkWater

highgiant1985

An interesting item from the bbc feed:

Leicester took 20 points from the reverse fixtures against their 8 remaining opponents!

If that wasn't encouraging enough Mahrez has scored to put them 1-0 up today! What a player!