They asked us to trust them...

[Far Post Gerry]

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!

How about we don't judge anyone on a handful of games and wait till they've had time (like a full season) to make their mark. Sound fair? Or is that too boring? I like Ranieri (who doesn't?) and think he's started well. But you can't get pissed off with people for taking a longer term view.

[Out Foxed]

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?

Exactly, I don't understand why people are so hardline one way or another.

[bovril]

First team manager is just one small part of a very successful set up we have at the moment, so arguing whether it's "down to Pearson" or Ranieri is pointless and impossible. Our form is mostly down to the excellent squad we have, the people off the pitch who have managed to identify the potential signings and those that have stumped up the money.

[MC Prussian]

Yes, too early to make a sound assessment. But so far, Ranieri has managed to maintain our momentum from last season and the players still look like they're up for it. I like his demeanour, his idiosyncracies (how he puts his glasses back in place, for instance), the way he talks - he comes across as a very likeable character.

He's carrying on the desire and belief instilled by Pearson over several years, with many players involved over the course of the latter's last (and highly likely final) tenure.

 

Being able to come back from several games with one or two goals down speaks volumes about the spirit within the team right now, but like many others, I'd love us to see controlling/dictating games better and earlier and not just switch gears when we're faced with fast approaching the wall at 60 miles per hour. Our defensive frailties on either flank are also widely known by now.

 

Let's fully judge him at the end of this season. Remember - one point more than last season will do. Twelve down, 28 to go.

[inckley fox]

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.

 

You're confused about that? Look at how many of our current players he signed, how he got us into and kept us in this league so we could be where we are, look at who was manager when we began this 17 game run. Obviously he is very relevant to where we are now, you can acknowledge this, enjoy the current run and give Ranieri credit. These things aren't incompatible.

 

And I'm not sure why I need to chill out. I don't see anything rabid or angry in my posts, I'm very happy with Ranieri and think the board have taken a first step in justifying what they did in the summer.

 

It's just important we remember that it's a first step and that positive first steps don't necessarily lead to a continued movement forward. And yes, sustained progress is what we got under Pearson, and what we hopefully will continue to get under Ranieri (which doesn't mean that he'll be taking us backwards the minute he loses a couple of games, because that would have happened - and did, many times - under Pearson too). But there needs to be sustained progress, and to a level beyond what Pearson achieved, before we talk about upgrades.

 

 

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.

 

 

I agree. Every time we ever assess the success of anything a manager does, it tends to be with hindsight. We raised eyebrows at all sorts of signings - Claridge, Marshall, Cottee, Lloyd Dyer, Ulloa - it's only with hindsight that we can say they worked out. The same tends to be the case with team selections and match-day management and, like you say, if you get four points from the last two fixtures, then it doesn't really matter how you go about doing it, you've done your job well.

 

All I'm saying is that some of those selections - like Inler, or Kante on the left - look like they might not have worked out as well as others and could cost us in the future. It's not really a criticism of Ranieri, and Pearson would have made plenty of arguable 'errors' of his own had he stayed, just as he did when he was in charge.

 

As for steering Pearson's ship, yes maybe that would be harsh on Ranieri, but time will tell. In October 2000 Taylor also appeared to be 'subtly evolving' - he'd added Rowett, who we liked, and we were still hopeful that Akinbiyi, Davidson etc. would make the step up. He'd tried out 4-4-2 away from home, insisted on more of a passing game but largely placed his faith in O'Neill's side, and maintained the form from the end of the previous season (final day thrashing aside). Now that we can look back on the entirety of his disastrous 15 month reign, we know that when he was doing well, it owed everything to what somebody else had done before him - he was, after all, just clumsily steering the Good Ship O'Neill. Whether the same turns out to be the case under Ranieri - and my gut feeling is that it won't - will depend on looking at his impact over a longer period than three months, just as it did with Taylor.

[hackneyfox]

Beyond me how some people can try and draw some kind of potential comparison between Twatlor and Ranieri.

[inckley fox]

Beyond me how some people can try and draw some kind of potential comparison between Twatlor and Ranieri.

 

Read the post, it should be perfectly clear.

 

Who is the last Leicester manager, before Ranieri, who took over from another successful manager in the top flight and continued form established under him? Who is the last Leicester manager, before Ranieri, who had us in the top five by the back end of September (top in October, in fact)? The only manager to take us to the top of the table that late in the season since the 1960s?

 

These are comparisons made in terms of their initial results, their successful predecessors, the situation they came into. There are a lot of obvious similarities there - a good manager leaves in good form, the new manager makes subtle changes and gets off to a very good start and is considered by some to be a step up from the previous regime. It's also a comparison which illustrates that things could yet happen which might not make Ranieri seem like an 'upgrade' on Pearson, and which illustrate why you have to wait a little longer before making that kind of statement.

 

They aren't, however, comparisons of Ranieri and Taylor in terms of the kinds of managers they are, the types of signings they've made, the decisions they've been responsible for, their experience elsewhere, or anything else. I see nothing in my post which indicates otherwise. And I go to pains to point out that I don't think, from this point on, things will go the same way as they did under Taylor.

[hackneyfox]

'They aren't, however, comparisons of Ranieri and Taylor in terms of the kinds of managers they are, the types of signings they've made, the decisions they've been responsible for, their experience elsewhere, or anything else. I see nothing in my post which indicates otherwise.'

 

If you can't compare them on the basis above then why bother to even bring up waht happened after MON left and Taylor took over?

Sorry, not having a go at you just benused by the number of times Taylor and Ranieri are mentioned in posts.

[Kitchandro]

You're confused about that? Look at how many of our current players he signed, how he got us into and kept us in this league so we could be where we are, look at who was manager when we began this 17 game run. Obviously he is very relevant to where we are now, you can acknowledge this, enjoy the current run and give Ranieri credit. These things aren't incompatible.

 

And I'm not sure why I need to chill out. I don't see anything rabid or angry in my posts, I'm very happy with Ranieri and think the board have taken a first step in justifying what they did in the summer.

 

It's just important we remember that it's a first step and that positive first steps don't necessarily lead to a continued movement forward. And yes, sustained progress is what we got under Pearson, and what we hopefully will continue to get under Ranieri (which doesn't mean that he'll be taking us backwards the minute he loses a couple of games, because that would have happened - and did, many times - under Pearson too). But there needs to be sustained progress, and to a level beyond what Pearson achieved, before we talk about upgrades.

 

 

 

I agree. Every time we ever assess the success of anything a manager does, it tends to be with hindsight. We raised eyebrows at all sorts of signings - Claridge, Marshall, Cottee, Lloyd Dyer, Ulloa - it's only with hindsight that we can say they worked out. The same tends to be the case with team selections and match-day management and, like you say, if you get four points from the last two fixtures, then it doesn't really matter how you go about doing it, you've done your job well.

 

All I'm saying is that some of those selections - like Inler, or Kante on the left - look like they might not have worked out as well as others and could cost us in the future. It's not really a criticism of Ranieri, and Pearson would have made plenty of arguable 'errors' of his own had he stayed, just as he did when he was in charge.

 

As for steering Pearson's ship, yes maybe that would be harsh on Ranieri, but time will tell. In October 2000 Taylor also appeared to be 'subtly evolving' - he'd added Rowett, who we liked, and we were still hopeful that Akinbiyi, Davidson etc. would make the step up. He'd tried out 4-4-2 away from home, insisted on more of a passing game but largely placed his faith in O'Neill's side, and maintained the form from the end of the previous season (final day thrashing aside). Now that we can look back on the entirety of his disastrous 15 month reign, we know that when he was doing well, it owed everything to what somebody else had done before him - he was, after all, just clumsily steering the Good Ship O'Neill. Whether the same turns out to be the case under Ranieri - and my gut feeling is that it won't - will depend on looking at his impact over a longer period than three months, just as it did with Taylor.

 

I agree with most of your post but Pearson's sustained progress was over a number of years at varying levels of the football pyramid. It's one thing to say he took us from league 1 to promotion over two spells but you're never going to be able to compare that with Ranieri who's taken over a good squad at a much higher level.

You've got to ask how much sustained improvement can Claudio really achieve from this point? At some point we're going to hit the wall. The best he can realistically do is take us from lower midtable (where we finished last season) to higher midtable.

 

I'd say if you're comparing the two managers based on facts, the barometer has to be how Pearson did last season, not in the entirety of his time here. I think Claudio will surpass that this season.

 

Basically, it's unfair on both of them to compare them based on anything else. If we finish with a few more points than last season he's an upgrade. That's the only thing we can really judge it on.

 

My biggest worry about appointing a new manager was him tearing up the squad and the momentum we'd formed and Claudio has quelled those fears...so far!

[Kitchandro]

'They aren't, however, comparisons of Ranieri and Taylor in terms of the kinds of managers they are, the types of signings they've made, the decisions they've been responsible for, their experience elsewhere, or anything else. I see nothing in my post which indicates otherwise.'

 

If you can't compare them on the basis above then why bother to even bring up waht happened after MON left and Taylor took over?

Sorry, not having a go at you just benused by the number of times Taylor and Ranieri are mentioned in posts.

 

Sousa and Sven had very different backgrounds, methods of coaching and signings to each other and to Tater Peeler but they were all an absolute disaster.

 

There is not only one way to fvck a football club up.

 

I don't think Ranieri will do a Taylor but the fact is he hasn't been here long enough for us to be totally sure.

[inckley fox]

'They aren't, however, comparisons of Ranieri and Taylor in terms of the kinds of managers they are, the types of signings they've made, the decisions they've been responsible for, their experience elsewhere, or anything else. I see nothing in my post which indicates otherwise.'

 

If you can't compare them on the basis above then why bother to even bring up waht happened after MON left and Taylor took over?

Sorry, not having a go at you just benused by the number of times Taylor and Ranieri are mentioned in posts.

 

You can compare any two Leicester managers all you want. Compare Martin Allen and Martin O'Neill - both were charismatic, crowd-rousing sorts, excellent touchline characters, man-motivators and reputed as managers who could galvanise a team of underdogs. Compare Matt Gillies and Gary Megson - both favoured cautious passing football, neither were energetic motivational sorts, both very tactically knowledgeable. Compare Wallace and Levein, both were protestant Scots who filled the side with younger, supposedly more hungry players, and spent a lot of time talking about the benefits of quick 'pass and move' football (though I never actually saw it under Levein). I see no problem with drawing comparisons between very successful and unsuccessful managers.

 

There's no real reason not to draw a comparison between Taylor and Ranieri in terms of the types of manager they are. But there are similarities in terms of the situation they find themselves in, and how that situation has initially worked out for both of them. And it's an extraordinary situation - a successful manager leaves at the height of his success, in the top flight, and we get off to a great start afterwards. That's only happened on a handful of occasions in our history - Orr taking over from Hodge, Taylor from O'Neill. It wasn't even entirely the case when Gillies took over from Halliday - we were in a relegation fight at the time - or when O'Farrell took over from Gillies, or when Hamilton took over from Milne.

 

So the comparison is an unavoidable one, as is the possibility that - after a bright start - things go the same way as they did under Taylor. I don't want them to, or think they will, but if the comparison demonstrates why it's daft to already be talking of Ranieri as an upgrade on a great manager (when our last possible candidate for such an upgrade, at this stage in a campaign, was Taylor) then that's fine.

[inckley fox]

I agree with most of your post but Pearson's sustained progress was over a number of years at varying levels of the football pyramid. It's one thing to say he took us from league 1 to promotion over two spells but you're never going to be able to compare that with Ranieri who's taken over a good squad at a much higher level.

You've got to ask how much sustained improvement can Claudio really achieve from this point? At some point we're going to hit the wall. The best he can realistically do is take us from lower midtable (where we finished last season) to higher midtable.

 

I'd say if you're comparing the two managers based on facts, the barometer has to be how Pearson did last season, not in the entirety of his time here. I think Claudio will surpass that this season.

 

Basically, it's unfair on both of them to compare them based on anything else. If we finish with a few more points than last season he's an upgrade. That's the only thing we can really judge it on.

 

My biggest worry about appointing a new manager was him tearing up the squad and the momentum we'd formed and Claudio has quelled those fears...so far!

 

I wouldn't disagree with any of this. I prefer not to talk about 'upgrades' at all. Were O'Neill's 3rd, 4th and 5th seasons failures because he didn't improve on an upper-mid-table finish and League Cup challenges? So yes, Ranieri will - and Pearson would have - hit a brick wall at some point. Even if they win a quadruple, that's a brick wall of sorts.

 

All I'm doing is responding to talk of Ranieri being an 'upgrade' by giving a very obvious comparison - the only obvious comparison, in fact - to demonstrate how it's too early to do that if, indeed, you ever can.

[RoboFox]

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.

 

Woah, woah... Did you just crash the Optimistic Bus?

[Vlad the Fox]

Woah, woah... Did you just crash the Optimistic Bus?

He crashed it weeks ago. Think we may need another driver.

[bovril]

He crashed it weeks ago. Think we may need another driver.

 

I think he drove it over the cliff, Thelma and Louise style, after Pearson left.

[sylofox]

I supported NP and our team last season when most had given up. Going into the spurs game we had a chance. I never thought we would need to do what we did. But NP has gone and for what reasons we do not know just guess. CR has come in and times has said what a great state NP left the club in.

CR has carried it on long live it and long live CR.

All i want this season is 40pts on the table asap then kick on. Long live CR Nige shot himself in the foot his fault not CR.

[Corky]

I can see why people are annoyed that Pearson has gone but I can't see how anyone can say Ranieri has been anything other than positive so far.

 

Pearson wasn't perfect (though good) so why should Ranieri be?

[The Horse's Mouth]

Only thing particularly negative about Ranieri's reign so far, is our lack of real control in defence which we ended with it at the end of the season. But when everything is going our way it's pretty hard to complain, very interesting the timing of this topic too. This is exactly the same time as last year  after a very good start in which it seemed we'd be particularly comfortable. 

[Donut]

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?

 

 

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.

 

These two posts are total garbage as usual.

 

"The sheer determination of the subs who have dug us out the shite the poor starting formations have put us in". Righty ho. 3 nil up at home against Sunderland in the first half, 2 nil up at West Ham in the first half who are a very impressive side, 2 up at Bury in the first half, The league cup game we went in at 1-1 after the hammers managed one shot on goal and we absolutely played them off the park, Spurs 0-0 at half time. So there goes the shite first half myth.

 

"Too stubborn to change his ways" and "reverting back to a simple 4-4-2 with tried and tested players". We barely played a 4-4-2 for most of last season so we certainly werent reverting back to anything in that regard unless you go way back before even the diamond formation period which was a disaster.

 

The irony of your above comment is that hes the total opposite of stubborn, in fact he has proven to be adept in making positive changes during games in both an attacking and defensive sense that contributed to the results in those games.

 

"Certain players he has chosen ahead of the tried and tested bunch". This was also a tried and tested bunch that went nearly a third of a season and couldnt win a game last season.  If youre referring to Inler, the guy has been here in relative terms about 5 minutes. Youre a bit quick to write him off arent you? Benalouane came in during the West Ham game and looked comfortable at centre back. Hopefully he will go from strength to strength. Okazaki has had a decent impact so far. Dyer was a great piece of loan business and had an immediate impact on debut, and he has enhanced the likes of Drinkwater who couldnt get a game last season.

 

And even if you ignore everything ive just written there, the fact that we can be sat 3 points behind Man City, 4th in the league, the only club unbeaten in all competitions in the country, with the joint top scorer in the league, the joint top overall team scorers in the league, playing some entertaining, enterprising football and drawing plaudits from the media for how weve gone about our business and youre unhappy, whereas last season you were perfectly happy with 3/4 of the season being horseshit, then I the only conclusion i can come to is youre bafflingly illogical, or a WUM.

[trabuch]

These two posts are total garbage as usual.

 

"The sheer determination of the subs who have dug us out the shite the poor starting formations have put us in". Righty ho. 3 nil up at home against Sunderland in the first half, 2 nil up at West Ham in the first half who are a very impressive side, 2 up at Bury in the first half, The league cup game we went in at 1-1 after the hammers managed one shot on goal and we absolutely played them off the park, Spurs 0-0 at half time. So there goes the shite first half myth.

 

"Too stubborn to change his ways" and "reverting back to a simple 4-4-2 with tried and tested players". We barely played a 4-4-2 for most of last season so we certainly werent reverting back to anything in that regard unless you go way back before even the diamond formation period which was a disaster.

 

The irony of your above comment is that hes the total opposite of stubborn, in fact he has proven to be adept in making positive changes during games in both an attacking and defensive sense that contributed to the results in those games.

 

"Certain players he has chosen ahead of the tried and tested bunch". This was also a tried and tested bunch that went nearly a third of a season and couldnt win a game last season.  If youre referring to Inler, the guy has been here in relative terms about 5 minutes. Youre a bit quick to write him off arent you? Benalouane came in during the West Ham game and looked comfortable at centre back. Hopefully he will go from strength to strength. Okazaki has had a decent impact so far. Dyer was a great piece of loan business and had an immediate impact on debut, and he has enhanced the likes of Drinkwater who couldnt get a game last season.

 

And even if you ignore everything ive just written there, the fact that we can be sat 3 points behind Man City, 4th in the league, the only club unbeaten in all competitions in the country, with the joint top scorer in the league, the joint top overall team scorers in the league, playing some entertaining, enterprising football and drawing plaudits from the media for how weve gone about our business and youre unhappy, whereas last season you were perfectly happy with 3/4 of the season being horseshit, then I the only conclusion i can come to is youre bafflingly illogical, or a WUM.

 

Foxhateram is only a foxhater in the morning.

[Guest Col city fan]

I AM a little concerned about our goals conceded. Going forward we look sensational at times but if we keep up conceding goals it'll bite us on the arris.

We haven't kept a clean sheet all season I don't think? Arsenal will exploit this if we aren't careful. That's our only worrying area at present.

[Wymsey]

I AM a little concerned about our goals conceded. Going forward we look sensational at times but if we keep up conceding goals it'll bite us on the arris.

We haven't kept a clean sheet all season I don't think? Arsenal will exploit this if we aren't careful. That's our only worrying area at present.

But why does it matter in conceding if we're picking up points in those games?

[ScouseFox]

we're scoring on average 3 goals a game at home (20 in our last 7) so as long as we keep that up then unless someone puts 4 goals past us (which has only happened twice in three years, and one of those was the "hungover" game vs brighton) then it won't bite us on the arse yet.

id say it was a slight concern currently but unless our own goals dry up its not a major concern. scoring and conceding is ok. so is not scoring that many but being very tight at the back. it's not scoring very many and still leaking goals when we sound the alarms.

[UpTheLeagueFox]

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".

 

 

That sums it up for me.

 

Why people on each side of the debate keep needing to justify their polar views (especially pro or anti Pearson) is a bit beyond me.

[Buce]

I AM a little concerned about our goals conceded. Going forward we look sensational at times but if we keep up conceding goals it'll bite us on the arris.

We haven't kept a clean sheet all season I don't think? Arsenal will exploit this if we aren't careful. That's our only worrying area at present.

I think there are reasons to be optimistic there after the other night, Col. Benny, Was, and particularly Fuchs, looked pretty solid, I think. If we can tighten up at the back, we're going to be one hell of a side.