Ranieri - Shocking perfomance

[The Doctor]

Did you watch the Liverpool game? A West Ham away win is very good too. Or is it only good when we beat them?

 

I didn't, but while the west ham result was good, they were defensively naive and got the goals from west hams defence holding a blooper of the match competition between themselves. Let's be quite clear, there was no way they were actually favourites for this match in anyones mind.

The odds are a true reflection of how the game should pan out. If the odds were that bad you should have piled onto us then!

 

No, odds are geared for the bookies to win. The house always wins, which is why the bookmakers odds aren't worth looking at.

[Kitchandro]

Did you watch the Liverpool game? A West Ham away win is very good too. Or is it only good when we beat them?

 

Yeh they were terrible at Liverpool. They were awful at passing the ball and caused them very few problems.

 

Don't let two dodgy decisions that came about from set pieces cloud your judgement. They looked a championship side in that match and Liverpool were very poor also.

 

Winning at West Ham is good but you have be balanced about it. They were given 3 goals and conceded 2 sloppy ones themselves.

[Babylon]

And what?

He made a mistake which contributed to us not picking up 3 points. End of.

Are people not allowed to be critical anymore? Nobody is losing their shit over this and calling for his head, just simply stating fact.

You don't know what the result would have been had we started in any other formation.

I'm going to presume you've not read much of the forum today if you think people haven't lost their shit. You don't think a load of comparisons to Peter f'ing Taylor isn't over the top?

[Viva]

I didn't, but while the west ham result was good, they were defensively naive and got the goals from west hams defence holding a blooper of the match competition between themselves. Let's be quite clear, there was no way they were actually favourites for this match in anyones mind.

 

No, odds are geared for the bookies to win. The house always wins, which is why the bookmakers odds aren't worth looking at.

 

You are wrong there on a lot of counts. Bookies work to a percentage and the odds are based on the probability of a team winning. We were favourites to beat Spurs last week. By your logic that would be stupid as Spurs are a better team than us. The fact was we was at home.

[kristianity77]

It was a poor performance today but I don't get the doom and gloom.  If you offered me one point now at every away ground for teams in the bottom half of the table, I'd snatch it.  a 1-1 draw is a much worse result for Bournemouth (one of our rivals as its been put in a post above) than it is for us.

[Hungry Hungry Fox]

We are 3rd, Chelsea are 13th

[Kitchandro]

Were you moaning after the first 3 games?

 

Love a kneejerk.

 

No, because we didn't do anything unbelievably stupid in the first 3 games.

 

How is it kneejerk? People are saying TODAY the tactics were shit. Not in the other 3.

 

 

We played shit and he changed it and we played better and came away with a point, shows great management.

 

No it shows common sense because we were getting battered. Anyone with a brain cell could see it wasn't working.

 

The thing is, a lot of people knew it wasn't going to work before the match. Claudio didn't.

 

Bad day at the office for the manager, we move on and hopefully he doesn't make the mistake again.

[EnglishOxide]

You don't know what the result would have been had we started in any other formation.

I'm going to presume you've not read much of the forum today if you think people haven't lost their shit. You don't think a load of comparisons to Peter f'ing Taylor isn't over the top?

I know we would have been in a better position to get a better result if we had played 4-4-2 or 3-4-1-2. I don't remember us playing 4-5-1 even last season, its a system the players aren't used to in a competitive environment, where as the previous 2 systems have brought us great performances and results.

I haven't been in the Peter Taylor thread, tbf, but I don't think the criticism was that unjustified on the whole in the match thread

[st albans fox]

Blimey - going to be messy when we do lose

[The Doctor]

You are wrong there on a lot of counts. Bookies work to a percentage and the odds are based on the probability of a team winning. We were favourites to beat Spurs last week. By your logic that would be stupid as Spurs are a better team than us. The fact was we was at home.

 

But the odds will always favour the house - it's how gambling works and how the firms make massive money - they rig the pot with enticing odds that are actually well off, so most of the bets placed are busted flushes - the simple facts are bournemouth haven't been playing that well, we've been massively on form, that we're not long out the championship means it's not a culture shock with the venue, and they're a newly promoted team. Anyone looking at this would have had us marginal favourites. 

[Hungry Hungry Fox]

I know we would have been in a better position to get a better result if we had played 4-4-2 or 3-4-1-2. I don't remember us playing 4-5-1 even last season, its a system the players aren't used to in a competitive environment, where as the previous 2 systems have brought us great performances and results.

I haven't been in the Peter Taylor thread, tbf, but I don't think the criticism was that unjustified on the whole in the match thread

What a load of BS

[fuchsntf]

Here we go again, a manager decides to see what another tact could do, chosen from his top 15 players, and suddenly,

everybody knows better.The BB of the side was still there.I for one want a manager to try out other formations and tactics,

before we get deep into the season.

I wouldnt to hear BS from Ranieri, repeating some of the fans ideas, I expect like he mentioned pre match, we need to see

other possibilities.Not forgetting Mahrez, DD, King had poor games.

I expect Inlar to be introduced at sometime, and occasional changes within pairings.

How some of the fans dare to be bombastic and try to force their opinion on others, by using 'It was obvious'

'How could Ranieri use that set up',..'Everybody can see the unbalance...etc etc' just to make their own argument, its just pathetic. No they dont know how others feel...or wheter they agree, punk journalists use the same tactic..

[An Away Move]

FFS! Why are our fans so ridiculously critical at times?! The formation that Ranieri put out in the 1st half didn't go so well. Is it his fault? Or rather the team's fault for not being able to handle the new formation? Ranieri also rectified it in the 2nd half. Where's the credit for that? 
AND look how frustrating NP could be with his tactics last season. Ranieri did nothing that was 'shocking'. What a complete overreaction!

[Hungry Hungry Fox]

Blimey - going to be messy when we do lose

I think I'll give this joke of a forum a miss, when we do

[Viva]

But the odds will always favour the house - it's how gambling works and how the firms make massive money - they rig the pot with enticing odds that are actually well off, so most of the bets placed are busted flushes - the simple facts are bournemouth haven't been playing that well, we've been massively on form, that we're not long out the championship means it's not a culture shock with the venue, and they're a newly promoted team. Anyone looking at this would have had us marginal favourites. 

 

As I said earlier, why didn't you back us then at the great odds? If one team is a short favourite then it means the other is a higher price. Maybe you should stop talking about odds as you clearly don't have much of a clue!

[STUHILL]

Going back to 3-5-2 could be what's needed to get the best out of Mahrez, Schlupp and Albrighton.

 

Early days yet though and still unbeaten 

[An Away Move]

Some people on here seemingly just can't wait for Ranieri to fail.... Pathetic

[The Doctor]

As I said earlier, why didn't you back us then at the great odds? If one team is a short favourite then it means the other is a higher price. Maybe you should stop talking about odds as you clearly don't have much of a clue!

 

Because I'm no gambler, but the point is quite clear - they weren't favourites. This isn't a good point, we've not gone to a better team in a match we're expected to lose and snuck a result, we've gone to a newly promoted side that we did the double over last time we met, while on title winning form for the last 12 games. There's no element of bias in saying we were favourites for most people looking at this.

[Collymore]

And? There is no manager out there who won't make mistakes. Shit performances will happen. Other teams will perform better or stop you performing. People are reacting like little children unable to control their emotions.

He made a debatable mistake, corrected it, and we got a point against a decent team away from home.

So what's the point of a forum if we can't debate and analyse? Why is stating that he had a shocker like acting like children? I think your crusade to nullify opinion is as poisonous as some of the people on here who have real agendas against the club and manager.

I'm not asking for his head, just venting my frustration because of his horrendous decisions today. If we had lost 3-0 but were competitive today for both halves I wouldn't be complaining. That's football which is fine margins where you need to get the basics right(formation squad selection) there's no excuse to screw those up at this level.

[Mad Dog]

Right, I'm done with FT for today. Ridiculous. Every commentator, pundit, analyst will praise him for turning it around today; Pearson certainly wouldn't have done.

Sigh.

[kristianity77]

Because I'm no gambler, but the point is quite clear - they weren't favourites. This isn't a good point, we've not gone to a better team in a match we're expected to lose and snuck a result, we've gone to a newly promoted side that we did the double over last time we met, while on title winning form for the last 12 games. There's no element of bias in saying we were favourites for most people looking at this.

 

Garbage, no matter what the performance or who were favourites, it IS a good point.  Any point away from home in the Prem when you're looking first and foremost to survive, IS a good point.

[Blue army boys]

Imagine how it's all gunna kick off when we lose.. People need to calm down. A poor away performance and still come away with a point. Claudio did get a few things wrong however if it went the other way and we won people would be calling it a master stroke.

[The Doctor]

Garbage, no matter what the performance or who were favourites, it IS a good point.  Any point away from home in the Prem when your looking first and foremost to survive, IS a good point.

 

But it's a game where we should have very realistic ambitions of taking three points from - these will be relegation battlers, and the first thing we need to be doing is beating relegation battlers, not performing so poorly that 0 points would have been more than we deserved.

[ithuriel]

This place can be worst than a bi-polar yo-yo convention at times.

[Frank to be]

But the odds will always favour the house - it's how gambling works and how the firms make massive money - they rig the pot with enticing odds that are actually well off, so most of the bets placed are busted flushes - the simple facts are bournemouth haven't been playing that well, we've been massively on form, that we're not long out the championship means it's not a culture shock with the venue, and they're a newly promoted team. Anyone looking at this would have had us marginal favourites.

How exactly does moving the odds away from reality make them "enticing"? If everybody thinks Bournemouth aren't favourites then shortening their odds makes it a worse bet for a punter, not a better one.