The Fish

Well done, you’re patently a boring tosser

Orrrrrrr Fish being reasonable and not spaffing his pants because we beat a disjointed Chelsea side on the last day of the season, predicting a top half finish (which could be 1st btw) and then Thompers rushing to his keyboard to act the cunt because he’s a tedious bellend

Even the quality you mention, for those few to deliver the title is unheard of when they’re paired with shit like Simpson. I guess it’s semantics, but I look at their squad and it’s a miracle they won the league, a miracle.

Disappointing for Notts County last night, but I fancy them to beat Coventry

Not banned, just busy. Work is busy and I just moved house.

£70-90m on a few players, flatten out the youth squad and I reckon a more comfortable top 10 finish.

Think he meant that position was the place we spent most of our season. Not that we were 10th more than anyone else

If I were a neutral I would have been watching the Liverpool or Man City games. Weird to be watching ours if you don’t care about the result.

There were better strikers, wingers, centre mids, fullbacks, centrebacks and 'keepers in the league and that's obvious and not controversial. Leicester won the league with Danny Simpson, Marc Albrighton, Rob Huth and so on. Vardy wasn't a better player than Aguero. I don't think Mahrez was the best right midfielder playing in the league that year, but accept that's up for debate. What you've tried to do is have an argument predicated on pedantry, not in an effort to carry on the conversation, but to have a pointless tit for tat with a stranger on the internet. You might think I talk shite, but I don't, I'm just active on here and because I am I'm an easy person to engage in a pointless tit for tat.

You're problem with me is so overwhelming for you, that you'll argue positions you don't agree with, just to act the cunt, won't you? It is in no way controversial to say Man City, Arsenal, Chelsea et al, had better players than Leicester did in their title winning season. Yet here you are, arguing white is black, because you're an ornery tit.

To be fair, Man City aren't known for spending a lot of money. Two seconds, I've just got to wipe the memory of Jo, Mangala and Roque Santa Cruz from my memory...

Semantics, isn't it? Leicester deserved to finish top of the pile because they took their opportunity to do so when other teams did not. Fair dos. But they didn't have the best players, the best manager, the best style, or the best anything, bar the only thing that matters; the best results. My original point was that we've fallen past, and been usurped by, clubs that were nothing clubs not so long ago.

Sterling was a better player but wasn't in the same form as Mahrez. Don't think we'll ever agree on that, so lets have a look at the rest of that Leicester squad; Schmeichel Simpson Huth Morgan Fuchs Albrighton Drinkwater Kante Mahrez Okazaki Vardy Not exactly star studded now is it? At the beginning of that season you wouldn't have picked that squad for top half, would you.

What about Navas? What about all the other better players at City? Face it you talked shite, got caught out, and are now trying desperately to redirect the conversation away from the shite you talked. It's ok Thompers, I'll be the bigger man and forgive you.

No it was Jesus Navas and Raheem Sterling, both better than Mahrez, you dopey argumentative bellwhiff. #ThompersGonnaThomp

Ferguson's Man United bought Eric Djemba Djemba #Mustbemintthen. Drinkwater has barely featured, Kante is good, no doubt, is Mahrez better than Sane? De Bruyne? Silva? Is he fuck. Fucking Thompers

I agree and Leicester winning the league was truly bizarre, that's why they were 5000-1 (or whatever) to win the league. Man for man they were weaker in most if not every position than the likes of Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool and the Manchester club. They were didn't have the best manager in the league. They worked hard, had a striker and 2 midfielders in the form of their lives and because of their previous season rarely went into a game as favourites meaning they could play the counter attack style that was very successful. No serious pundit expected them to get top half let alone win the thing. It's a total aberration and whenever people say "yeah, but Leicester won the league", what they're really saying is that nothing is set in stone. That's fine, but it's never happened before (afaik) and it's unlikely to happen again, so it doesn't really stack up as evidence of anything much at all.

That's not true though, is it? Sometimes the best team doesn't win a football match because of a ludicrous performance by the opposition 'keeper. Sometimes the best team is screwed out of a win by poor officiating, or bad luck. Sometimes the best team's striker has an off-day and the opposition striker plays out of their skin. So if all that is true, it's entirely possible for a few games to go against the "best team" and for a team that is fundamentally not the "best team" can steal a march. Ferguson's last Man United squad were not the best team in the league, but they won it.

They won the league because of a perfect storm. Similar to when we finished 5th. Underrated players maintaining superb form, good luck with injuries, poor performances by other (traditionally elite) Premier League sides. It's not unfair to say that, because it's patently true. Of course I'd love Newcastle to win/have won the league, but, with the owner we have, the players we have and the players we're likely to get, that's not going to happen.

This shit right here is why there aren't any good right wing comedians.

Leicester's Premier League is an aberration. It's also the exception that everyone brings up when their position is weak. My point stands. Where once we were signing world class talent, then competing with Arsenal, Tottenham or whomever for signings, now we're competing with the likes of Leicester and Cardiff. If you'd told an 18yr old Fish that, he would have spat his Pimms all over his blazer.

How far we done fell

That comes in the return leg.

When was the last time a side was relegated to league 1 and returned? Southampton? That took them 7 seasons, administration and a takeover by a billionaire. Edit - It was Leicester in 2014 and it took them 10 years and a takeover by mandaric, then the King Power Group. Leeds and Portsmouth are much less fortunate, the former has been out of the top flight for 14yrs, the latter 8 and neither looking likely to return any time soon. Best possible case for Sunderland is an immediate return to the Championship for the 2019/20 season and a subsequent promotion for the Premier League's 20/21 season. I just can't see that happening short of a miracle or cheating on a Football Manager save. 21 clubs have been relegated from the Premier League down to at least League 1. 2 clubs were in League 2 this season; Swindon & Coventry, 7 were in League 1; Blackburn Rovers, Blackpool, Bolton Wanderers, Bradford City, Charlton Athletic, Oldham Athletic & Portsmouth, 9 in the Championship; Barnsley, Leeds United, Norwich City, Nottingham Forest, QPR, Sheffield United, Sheffield Wednesday, Wigan Athletic, Wolves, and only 3 have returned; Leicester, Southampton and Man City. The average time spent out of the top flight for double relegated teams is 12 years. Sunderland are far, far more likely to join the ranks of Norwich and Leeds, than they are to become the next Leicester or Southampton.

I like the dunno one. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯