They asked us to trust them...

[crisp packet]

We've lost 1 game in 17...

1 game in 17

1 game in 17

1 game in 17

they have my trust.

THIS!!!!!!

[Guest Col city fan]

Don't push it Col.

If you had a pound for every post that disagreed with you, well you'd be a multimillionaire !

Ooooh you cad!

[Weller in Tights]

Ooooh you cad!

And I was only counting ones on the Cambiassdo thread

[Guest Col city fan]

And I was only counting ones on the Cambiassdo thread

I think you secretly like me.

[Great Boos Up]

If I had a bloody pound for every post that read 'though I hate to admit it I agree with Col' or equivalent, I'd have 67 pounds fifty.

I half agree with Col because my OCD hates odd numbers and fractions thereof.

[inckley fox]

Agree with this. Ranieri has deployed different systems with positive effect and his substitutions have almost all made a positive impact on the game. A Pearson substitution would often spell the end of any good performance, and usually had no positive effect if we were playing poorly. Pearson also struggled tactically last season, only finding a good set up after having been through a good half a dozen failed attempts.

Everything points to Ranieri being a far superior manager tactically and in terms of team selections and substitutions. Pearson can perhaps still lay claim to being the better of the two in the transfer market, but how much of Pearson's signings were really anything to do with him is not known for sure, and the signs are that he had minimal involvement, which rather renders Pearson's number one attribute a bit of a fallacy.

 

Or it points towards him having made some very questionable team selections, and subs which have fixed something which shouldn't have been wrong in the first place (e.g. Kante on the left or on the bench, Albrighton dropped, Inler, Okazaki). And it's very hard to say there's a clear improvement when this is a continuation of a run of form which began under Pearson and was sustained under Pearson. What are the signs that he had minimal involvement in signings? He stated what he needed, employed a scouting network himself to spot the requisite talent, then either approved or vetoed signings thereafter. How involved did you want him to be? Surely he had as much of a say, if not more, than any other PL manager?

 

I'm still a bit confused at the determined undermining of one of our best ever managers, especially when it's used to advance the cause of a manager who, so far, has simply continued his good work.

 

I've been very impressed with Ranieri and it looks very likely that the appointment will work out for us. But these are easy days, and far, far too early to be talking about Ranieri as superior to someone who had as profound and sustained an impact as Pearson. When people call upon those comparisons with Taylor, it's not for the benefit of 9/10 fans, it's for the benefit of those who have already decided that Ranieri is our upgrade. Because they're oddly reminiscent of those who were convinced that Taylor could take us to a place that was beyond O'Neill. And there were lots of them.

 

I hope he takes us there and believe he can. But these are very early days, and only time will tell how much of our current form is down to Ranieri, and how much of it is down to the confidence and quality established before he arrived.

[Guest Col city fan]

I half agree with Col because my OCD hates odd numbers and fractions thereof.

[SecretPro]

Don't mean to sound pessimistic but I do wonder how important it is that Steve Walsh and shakey are still at the club. If they were to go when Pearson gets a job I can't help but worry how this will impact on the squad

 

Why would they go though? Riding high at a top 5 prem club earning big bucks. Huddersfield on a Tuesday night in January can't be better than that?

[SecretPro]

Or it points towards him having made some very questionable team selections, and subs which have fixed something which shouldn't have been wrong in the first place (e.g. Kante on the left or on the bench, Albrighton dropped, Inler, Okazaki). And it's very hard to say there's a clear improvement when this is a continuation of a run of form which began under Pearson and was sustained under Pearson. What are the signs that he had minimal involvement in signings? He stated what he needed, employed a scouting network himself to spot the requisite talent, then either approved or vetoed signings thereafter. How involved did you want him to be? Surely he had as much of a say, if not more, than any other PL manager?

 

I'm still a bit confused at the determined undermining of one of our best ever managers, especially when it's used to advance the cause of a manager who, so far, has simply continued his good work.

 

I've been very impressed with Ranieri and it looks very likely that the appointment will work out for us. But these are easy days, and far, far too early to be talking about Ranieri as superior to someone who had as profound and sustained an impact as Pearson. When people call upon those comparisons with Taylor, it's not for the benefit of 9/10 fans, it's for the benefit of those who have already decided that Ranieri is our upgrade. Because they're oddly reminiscent of those who were convinced that Taylor could take us to a place that was beyond O'Neill. And there were lots of them.

 

I hope he takes us there and believe he can. But these are very early days, and only time will tell how much of our current form is down to Ranieri, and how much of it is down to the confidence and quality established before he arrived.

 

I'm still a bit confused at why certain people still need to keep banging on about Pearson in relation to the current season. All these posters giving it the 'early days' and 'just carrying on with Pearson team and tactics' need to just chill the **** out and enjoy the football a little bit more.

[Dan]

Under Pearson we often won from behind. 2013/14 was ridiculous for it.

[Donut]

Or it points towards him having made some very questionable team selections, and subs which have fixed something which shouldn't have been wrong in the first place (e.g. Kante on the left or on the bench, Albrighton dropped, Inler, Okazaki). And it's very hard to say there's a clear improvement when this is a continuation of a run of form which began under Pearson and was sustained under Pearson. What are the signs that he had minimal involvement in signings? He stated what he needed, employed a scouting network himself to spot the requisite talent, then either approved or vetoed signings thereafter. How involved did you want him to be? Surely he had as much of a say, if not more, than any other PL manager?

 

I'm still a bit confused at the determined undermining of one of our best ever managers, especially when it's used to advance the cause of a manager who, so far, has simply continued his good work.

 

I've been very impressed with Ranieri and it looks very likely that the appointment will work out for us. But these are easy days, and far, far too early to be talking about Ranieri as superior to someone who had as profound and sustained an impact as Pearson. When people call upon those comparisons with Taylor, it's not for the benefit of 9/10 fans, it's for the benefit of those who have already decided that Ranieri is our upgrade. Because they're oddly reminiscent of those who were convinced that Taylor could take us to a place that was beyond O'Neill. And there were lots of them.

 

I hope he takes us there and believe he can. But these are very early days, and only time will tell how much of our current form is down to Ranieri, and how much of it is down to the confidence and quality established before he arrived.

 

You have the benefit of hindsight. Ranieri doesnt. So its easy for you to say "he should have started with him" or "we should have done this" after the game, because that is a byproduct of what Ranieri made happen. He chose the tactics he thought were most appropriate at the start of the game and on seeing them not working well, changed to the system that got the result. Thats not bad management, thats good management because he has been proactive enough to change the game. He doesnt know how the game will pan out at 60 mins or whether what we are doing 60 mins into the game is appropriate for minute 1.

 

I think its a little harsh on Ranieri to basically suggest that he has just steered Pearson's ship. He has subtly evolved the team and the style a few times in different games and has slightly tweaked the team. Swapping to the back 4, giving Mahrez more freedom to find pockets of space, playing the high press being 3 things he has gradually implemented well.

 

As regards trusting the owners, i didnt ever not trust the owners. I said that at the time.

 

Not me trying to be wise or clever after the event, but a lot of people were being reactionary and emotional at the time, probably understandably so as well. But it wasnt something i could get my head around to be honest.

 

All i saw was an improved squad, a manager brought in who arguably is an upgrade on Pearson anyway, time will tell, and a continued commitment by the board to keep us moving forwards.

 

Ive been surprised at how well things have gone, definitely, but i never thought for one moment we would have any real problems this season.

 

With regards the staff that are here, as ive said in other threads: Unless they are actually made redundant and have to leave the club, theyd be absolutely mental to follow Pearson to another club, especially if thats a championship club and leave their jobs at Leicester voluntarily.

[Foxhateram]

Like many on here, I was gutted when the owners sacked NP, and totally underwhelmed by their choice of replacement. I feared the worst. But what an inspired signing Claudio has proven to be. He's retained the spirit and energy of the side, while adding some much needed tactical acumen. And it brought a lump to my throat to see him whipping the crowd to a frenzy in ET.

Absolute legend, already. Love the guy.

Love the way someone can come in and profit from another managers building process and become so loved? Yet the guy who built it all is now suddenly terrible and becoming a distant memory. (I know you didn't say that OP, but others are)

Claudio has made huge mistakes tactically. Anyone who can't see that needs to go to specsavers. The fact were still unbeaten is clearly down to Sir Alex Ferguson telling Claudio to quit playing his shite signings and put Nige's back in the team at half time.

In all seriousness though we have remained unbeaten purely on the sheer determination of the subs who have dug us out of the shite the poor starting formations have put us in. Tactically astute? More like too stubborn to see his way doesn't work but the 'old' way does.

Don't get me wrong we need to move on and have. He is a good replacement and seems to be keeping things similar which is great. But I am yet to be impressed. We have conceded more with his 'way' and scored a similar amount to what we were end of last season. How does that make him better than the old?

[Foxhateram]

You have the benefit of hindsight. Ranieri doesnt. So its easy for you to say "he should have started with him" or "we should have done this" after the game, because that is a byproduct of what Ranieri made happen. He chose the tactics he thought were most appropriate at the start of the game and on seeing them not working well, changed to the system that got the result. Thats not bad management, thats good management because he has been proactive enough to change the game. He doesnt know how the game will pan out at 60 mins or whether what we are doing 60 mins into the game is appropriate for minute 1.

I think its a little harsh on Ranieri to basically suggest that he has just steered Pearson's ship. He has subtly evolved the team and the style a few times in different games and has slightly tweaked the team. Swapping to the back 4, giving Mahrez more freedom to find pockets of space, playing the high press being 3 things he has gradually implemented well.

As regards trusting the owners, i didnt ever not trust the owners. I said that at the time.

Not me trying to be wise or clever after the event, but a lot of people were being reactionary and emotional at the time, probably understandably so as well. But it wasnt something i could get my head around to be honest.

All i saw was an improved squad, a manager brought in who arguably is an upgrade on Pearson anyway, time will tell, and a continued commitment by the board to keep us moving forwards.

Ive been surprised at how well things have gone, definitely, but i never thought for one moment we would have any real problems this season.

With regards the staff that are here, as ive said in other threads: Unless they are actually made redundant and have to leave the club, theyd be absolutely mental to follow Pearson to another club, especially if thats a championship club and leave their jobs at Leicester voluntarily.

But those tactics have been wrong in 3 games already this season. This squad benefits from continuity and that's because some of them aren't the most technical players in the world. But when we play a formation that is tried and tested where they all know each others roles they play a blinder. I.e. The 3.5.2 we ended last season with.

Ranieri has insisted on changing the formation in the last 3 games. In all 3 we have looked a bit lost in the first half and certain players he has chosen ahead of the tried and tested bunch have looked shite. Then he has reverted back to keeping it simple with 4.4.2 and the tried and tested players and suddenly it all clicks again. That isn't being tactically astute, that's putting it back to what it should have been from the start.

We should be playing our game and making others fear us for that. Not changing in every match to suit others, especially against Bournemouth and Villa for goodness sake.

[Webbo]

But those tactics have been wrong in 3 games already this season. This squad benefits from continuity and that's because some of them aren't the most technical players in the world. But when we play a formation that is tried and tested where they all know each others roles they play a blinder. I.e. The 3.5.2 we ended last season with.

Ranieri has insisted on changing the formation in the last 3 games. In all 3 we have looked a bit lost in the first half and certain players he has chosen ahead of the tried and tested bunch have looked shite. Then he has reverted back to keeping it simple with 4.4.2 and the tried and tested players and suddenly it all clicks again. That isn't being tactically astute, that's putting it back to what it should have been from the start.

We should be playing our game and making others fear us for that. Not changing in every match to suit others, especially against Bournemouth and Villa for goodness sake.

To read that you'd think we never lost under Pearson

[Guest ttfn]

Love the way someone can come in and profit from another managers building process and become so loved? Yet the guy who built it all is now suddenly terrible and becoming a distant memory. (I know you didn't say that OP, but others are)

Claudio has made huge mistakes tactically. Anyone who can't see that needs to go to specsavers. The fact were still unbeaten is clearly down to Sir Alex Ferguson telling Claudio to quit playing his shite signings and put Nige's back in the team at half time.

In all seriousness though we have remained unbeaten purely on the sheer determination of the subs who have dug us out of the shite the poor starting formations have put us in. Tactically astute? More like too stubborn to see his way doesn't work but the 'old' way does.

Don't get me wrong we need to move on and have. He is a good replacement and seems to be keeping things similar which is great. But I am yet to be impressed. We have conceded more with his 'way' and scored a similar amount to what we were end of last season. How does that make him better than the old?

If you're not impressed by a manager who is unbeaten after 8 games managing a side which finished 14th last year then there is no pleasing you.

Tactically Ranieri is streets ahead of Pearson. Whether we're conceding more goals is more or less irrelevant given that he's found a way to free Mahrez up and get Vardy scoring goals. Sure, it won't last forever, but the same could be said about the run we had at the end of last season.

One of the biggest criticisms levelled against Pearson was his suppression of the creativity of talented individuals for the overall benefit of the team and I think the results at the start of this season suggest that may have been a fair comment to make. What we're seeing is that freeing up Mahrez in a 4-4-2 leaves us hugely exposed defensively but it's been more than compensated by getting to see the most exciting player in the league.

There's quite a lot of revisionism about Mahrez in behind the strikers last season as well. I'd like to see Ranieri try it again but Mahrez only started in that position 5 times in our 9 game run at the end of last season in which he managed 2 goals and 0 assists. What Ranieri has done is found a way to get the most out of our best player, much as Pearson did when he shifted to a 3-4-1-2 to alleviate some of the pressure on Cambiasso. It took Pearson 29 games to work that out and it took Ranieri just pre-season.

As others have said, perhaps the time will come when our 4-4-2 is worked out by our opponents and we need to change and I'd agree that this is when the true test of Ranieri will come.

Pearson ballsed up the tactics time and again last season and didn't change things until too late. So far this season we've not only come back every time we've been behind (twice by two goals) but also won every game we've been in front in. It might suggest that Ranieri perhaps needs to stop being so clever pre-game, but once the game gets started there's no doubting that he takes decisive action quickly to ensure we get the right result. And so far he's got it right (at least to a great extent) every time, Tuesday being a particular masterclass as we were able to overwhelm West Ham in extra time.

To read that you'd think we never lost under Pearson

Apparently the first 29 games of last season never happened.

[Sir Fynwy]

Or it points towards him having made some very questionable team selections, and subs which have fixed something which shouldn't have been wrong in the first place (e.g. Kante on the left or on the bench, Albrighton dropped, Inler, Okazaki). And it's very hard to say there's a clear improvement when this is a continuation of a run of form which began under Pearson and was sustained under Pearson. What are the signs that he had minimal involvement in signings? He stated what he needed, employed a scouting network himself to spot the requisite talent, then either approved or vetoed signings thereafter. How involved did you want him to be? Surely he had as much of a say, if not more, than any other PL manager?

 

I'm still a bit confused at the determined undermining of one of our best ever managers, especially when it's used to advance the cause of a manager who, so far, has simply continued his good work.

 

I've been very impressed with Ranieri and it looks very likely that the appointment will work out for us. But these are easy days, and far, far too early to be talking about Ranieri as superior to someone who had as profound and sustained an impact as Pearson. When people call upon those comparisons with Taylor, it's not for the benefit of 9/10 fans, it's for the benefit of those who have already decided that Ranieri is our upgrade. Because they're oddly reminiscent of those who were convinced that Taylor could take us to a place that was beyond O'Neill. And there were lots of them.

 

I hope he takes us there and believe he can. But these are very early days, and only time will tell how much of our current form is down to Ranieri, and how much of it is down to the confidence and quality established before he arrived.

The end of last season was win or bust, NP and the team had no choice other than trying to win games, it was very unlikely that a team under NP would have started exactly the same way this season because the imminent pressure of relegation wouldn't have been there, this is obviously my opinion because I broke my crystal ball.

[Buce]

But those tactics have been wrong in 3 games already this season. This squad benefits from continuity and that's because some of them aren't the most technical players in the world. But when we play a formation that is tried and tested where they all know each others roles they play a blinder. I.e. The 3.5.2 we ended last season with.

Ranieri has insisted on changing the formation in the last 3 games. In all 3 we have looked a bit lost in the first half and certain players he has chosen ahead of the tried and tested bunch have looked shite. Then he has reverted back to keeping it simple with 4.4.2 and the tried and tested players and suddenly it all clicks again. That isn't being tactically astute, that's putting it back to what it should have been from the start.

We should be playing our game and making others fear us for that. Not changing in every match to suit others, especially against Bournemouth and Villa for goodness sake.

You have completely contadicted yourself.

[Guest Col city fan]

To read that you'd think we never lost under Pearson

The Pearson love-in continues I see.

[hackneyfox]

Unbelievable how some people just can't move on and let go.

[Far Post Gerry]

Unbelievable how some people just can't move on and let go.

It's not a question of moving on; i think a lot of people think we're just continuing the momentum from the end of last season, and that we haven't really seen a team/style/mentality that's 100% Ranieri's just yet.

[4ever and ever]

It's not a question of moving on; i think a lot of people think we're just continuing the momentum from the end of last season, and that we haven't really seen a team/style/mentality that's 100% Ranieri's just yet.

And then as soon as we lose a game it will be nothing to do with Pearson and all Ranieri. So so boring. Ranieri has changed the formation and the tactics and also in every single game his substitutions have improved the side and made us finish the stronger side. I can only remember that happening a couple of times throughout the whole of last season. MOVE ON!

[Alf Bentley]

Unbelievable how some people just can't move on and let go.

 

 

What I find unbelievable is how some people on BOTH sides of the debate polarise everything, turning it into a bitter squabble. Surely that just pointlessly brings everyone's mood down?

There's enough serious shit in the world and in individual lives without that, surely?

(I'm vying for Webbo's "Like your Dad, but better" title here.  )

 

Here's a statement that I'd have thought is beyond debate:

"Pearson did an outstanding (but not perfect) job during his years here. Ranieri has done an outstanding (but not perfect) job so far. Long may it continue".

 

No harm in looking at the pros and cons of Claudio's ongoing reign, or the pros and cons of NP's past reign.....but is there any need for the bitter polarisation?

[Steven]

Unbelievable how some people just can't move on and let go.

 

Relationship issues. 

[Captain...]

The statement from the club after appointing Ranieri was to trust them, I interpreted that as "trust us, we are not going to undo all the good work from last season, we have appointed Ranieri for a reason and that reason is his willingness to continue where we left off last season work with the players, the back room staff and the transfer targets already identified and add to it with his experience and know how."

That was my interpretation and he has exceeded expectations so far.

[Oldfox67]

In order to evolve the side the manager has to experiment with different personnel and formations, how is CR ever going to form an accurate assessment of the true capability of every squad player in a "real game" senario. The fact that he / they (management team) are successfully doing this while maintaining the current undefeated record is nothing short of amazing. I think the "tinkerman" has shown great experience by

a. Not making wholesale changes

b. utilising the obvious strengths of his wider management team to ensure stability.

These are prerequisites of a truly great manager, only time will tell but the signs are very positive.