Did Ranieri and Walsh have a disagreement over tansfer policy?

[sm1]

I think Mendy is a different kind of player, more the Drinkwater kind then Kante. He sits a little deeper and dictates play with his passing. Those that think he will be the human dynamo that is Kante with his endless energy, are going to be disappointed. We have no replacement, Gueye was the nearest player we could of got, and even after Everton activated his release clause, Villa waited for a better offer. None came and it seems quite obvious that Ranieri didn't fancy him all though Walsh did. Like others have said, time will tell whether we made a bad decision. I'm still hoping Amartey can step into this role given the opportunities.

[Ric Flair]

I've said before and I'll say it again, Gueye doesn't play in a 4-4-2, he is allowed to just sit deep and break up play. If we are going to continue to play 4-4-2 then he'd be no more effective than Amartey or Mendy. Kante was a phenomenon who could defend and help set up ruthless counter attacks game in, game out. I believe we need to go 3 in the middle and if we do then that allows Mendy to break up play with Amartey and Drinkwater can be the creative box to box player he's capable of. Gueye is just this years poster boy for stats lovers. He's not actually that good and not fit to be used in the same sentence as Kante. Stop it please.

[RizLCFC]

All the players we've been linked with recently ply their trade in Serie A. Makes you wonder if they are Ranieri targets or those identified by our scouting department.

[foxy boxing]

most of the players we got came from france, now with walsh gone we might have lost that scouting network in that country, not really sure about getting players from serie a because they play really slow football in italy(very slow build up) we should look to the spanish league more most of the best players are there

[sm1]

49 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

I've said before and I'll say it again, Gueye doesn't play in a 4-4-2, he is allowed to just sit deep and break up play. If we are going to continue to play 4-4-2 then he'd be no more effective than Amartey or Mendy. Kante was a phenomenon who could defend and help set up ruthless counter attacks game in, game out. I believe we need to go 3 in the middle and if we do then that allows Mendy to break up play with Amartey and Drinkwater can be the creative box to box player he's capable of. Gueye is just this years poster boy for stats lovers. He's not actually that good and not fit to be used in the same sentence as Kante. Stop it please.

I agree with you regarding 433 ( something i've been saying since the Celtic game) and have just posted on another thread that kante is more then just a CDM, when he runs with the ball he's very quick and direct, frightening oppostion defences. Hence almost irreplaceable.

Where i differ is, I don't think Mendy's the guy to shield our defence and we definetly need somebody to do that. To me it seems he needs somebody to win the ball for him and then he can look up and play good passes. Amartey may be that player, but Ranieri has used him mostly at RB. In that respect Gueye would have fitted perfectly for us, shielding our defence, breaking up play and giving the ball to Drinkwater or Mahrez, nothing too flash. So far its left upto Drinkwater to try and break up oppostion attacks and set up ours. Its too much for him.

[inckley fox]

20 hours ago, NotTheMarketLeader said:

Agreed. 

 

Weve be lost one league game - that's four in just over a season, we have become Champions, we are in Champions League Man, and the Pearsonites are all over various threads with this utter bullshit. 

 

By their logic if Pearson effectively won the league for us last season by his previous deeds the year before, does that mean Pearson will be to blame if we get relegated this season? 

 

 

If the manager who was in charge the previous season is responsible for the next season's outcomes (meaning that 'Pearson effectively won the league for us') then relegation this season would be down to Ranieri by that logic, wouldn't it?

 

Anyway, I think most are suggesting that Pearson's groundwork and Ranieri's expertise combined to win us the title. Ranieri will rightly get the lion's share of the credit but it also turned Pearson into a legendary boss in his own right: A guy who took us up two divisions, kept us up and left us with a squad that won our only title within a year. 

 

I don't see why anybody needs to be divisive about it. Any Leicester fan who didn't love Ranieri and Pearson wouldn't be much of a Leicester fan.

 

Yet if we work on the assumption that the title was a combination of what Pearson left behind and the impact Ranieri had on what he inherited, then you'd have to worry at Walsh leaving. He was the guy who all the anti-Pearson fans tended to credit with our rise. Hopefully we can unite in agreeing that he'll be missed.