Leicester City manager Russell Martin has defended his approach in a frank exchange with a supporter after Tuesday’s EFL Trophy defeat at Stevenage, telling the fan the club had struggled since winning promotion under Enzo Maresca.
The conversation was recorded and shared online after Leicester lost 2-1, with Wanya Marçal and Oliver Sanderson scoring before Emil Riis pulled one back. The Foxes finished with 72% possession and 21 attempts, but only four shots on target.
The supporter said he had travelled from Exeter and waited for an hour after the match to speak to Martin. During the conversation, he challenged the manager’s style and argued that Leicester should play the football supporters wanted to see.
“You got promoted with Enzo and have been s**t since then.”
Martin’s reference was to the Championship title Leicester won under Maresca in 2023/24. The Italian’s possession-based approach delivered 97 points, although it also attracted criticism from sections of the support during that campaign.
Manager defends attacking approach
Martin disputed the suggestion that his team were not playing attacking football, pointing to the number of attempts they had produced across their recent matches.
“We’ve had 135 shots in five games. That’s attacking football.”
The supporter remained unconvinced and warned that Martin could become another manager to leave, continuing the cycle of changes at the club. Martin indicated that he was prepared to accept the consequences of sticking with his approach.
“That’s fine, I live and die by the sword.”
The exchange also touched on personal abuse. When the fan denied that Martin was receiving it, the manager disagreed, before the supporter referred to the criticism Maresca had faced.
Martin joined Leicester in June on a contract running until 2029, having previously managed MK Dons, Swansea City, Southampton and Rangers. He has won four of his first 11 matches in charge.
Supporters divided over response
Some responses backed Martin for engaging with the supporter, while others questioned his language and whether the team’s attacking statistics provided a convincing defence of their results. One reply acknowledged both sides of the discussion:
“Fair play for asking the questions mate and equally fair play for him fronting it up.”
Other supporters objected to Martin referring to Leicester as “you” rather than “we”, arguing that his choice of words created distance between the manager and the fanbase. Several also questioned whether he knew the conversation was being recorded. It is unclear whether he did.
My view
I back Martin’s right to answer this directly. Travelling from Exeter shows commitment, but it does not make every criticism correct or oblige a manager to agree with it. Supporters often demand honesty from managers, then object when the honest answer challenges them. He stopped, listened and defended his work. I cannot see why the fan should be entitled to speak bluntly while Martin is expected to soften every response.
That does not give his football a free pass. Four efforts on target from 21 attempts leaves plenty to question, and Leicester need results rather than another argument about possession. However, I would judge Martin on whether he can improve that, not whether he wins approval in a conversation outside a ground. Criticise his decisions, challenge his reasoning and expect better performances, but allow him to make his case.
