Deucalion Posted 25 February 2017 Posted 25 February 2017 Revisionist history gets a bum rap, mainly because, in the mainstream media, it is almost wholly associated with Holocaust Deniers and Nazi sympathisers. This is a shame because it is a natural process where ideas directly following an event are questioned and assumptions modified. Triumphalist history is challenged by revisionist history, and the conflict results in a greater understanding of the truth through Socratic dialectical reasoning. But anyway, does anyone think that the further away we get from Ranieri's reign, the more credit will go to his predecessor, Nigel Pearson? The triumphalist history is as follows: Claudio was a genius who got a bunch of mediocre players to over-perform and miraculously won the Premier League title. Without Ranieri this would not have been possible. We owe all our success to Ranieri. A revisionist history is as follows: Ranieri took over a group of players who were prepared to fight for everything for each other. This team was built by Nigel Pearson and his chief scout Steve Walsh. The momentum from the Great Escape meant Pearson's players got off to a flying start and Ranieri was able to keep this momentum going until we had won the title. Furthermore, the further we got from Pearson's reign, and the more influence Ranieri had on tactics and signings, the worse we got. You have 2000 words. You must use Harvard Referencing !!
Biggus Posted 25 February 2017 Posted 25 February 2017 "History is more or less bunk. It's tradition. We don't want tradition. We want to live in the present, and the only history that is worth a tinker's damn is the history that we make today." (Henry Ford, Chicago Tribune, 1916)
stevelcfc Posted 25 February 2017 Posted 25 February 2017 Before it eventually moves towards a more post-revisionist view, whereby both are held in high esteem for their respective strengths. Nigel with all the off field building, sports science, psychology, recruitment and structure. While Claudio for taking the pressure off, tactics, style of play and completing the story.
Deucalion Posted 25 February 2017 Author Posted 25 February 2017 6 minutes ago, Biggus said: "History is more or less bunk. It's tradition. We don't want tradition. We want to live in the present, and the only history that is worth a tinker's damn is the history that we make today." (Henry Ford, Chicago Tribune, 1916) This seems like American anti-intellectualism. Some history is tradition, other history is a search for the truth. Henry Ford was, in my opinion, wrong. History is vitally important in Leicester's next move. If Pearson was largely responsible for our success last season, then that means one kind of managerial appointment is more likely than the other. So the present and the future all depends on the interpretation of history. 5 minutes ago, stevelcfc said: Before it eventually moves towards a more post-revisionist view, whereby both are held in high esteem for their respective strengths. Nigel with all the off field building, sports science, psychology, recruitment and structure. While Claudio for taking the pressure off, tactics, style of play and completing the story. Agreed.
Guest Bob Hazels shorts Posted 25 February 2017 Posted 25 February 2017 3 hours ago, Deucalion said: Revisionist history gets a bum rap, mainly because, in the mainstream media, it is almost wholly associated with Holocaust Deniers and Nazi sympathisers. This is a shame because it is a natural process where ideas directly following an event are questioned and assumptions modified. Triumphalist history is challenged by revisionist history, and the conflict results in a greater understanding of the truth through Socratic dialectical reasoning. But anyway, does anyone think that the further away we get from Ranieri's reign, the more credit will go to his predecessor, Nigel Pearson? The triumphalist history is as follows: Claudio was a genius who got a bunch of mediocre players to over-perform and miraculously won the Premier League title. Without Ranieri this would not have been possible. We owe all our success to Ranieri. A revisionist history is as follows: Ranieri took over a group of players who were prepared to fight for everything for each other. This team was built by Nigel Pearson and his chief scout Steve Walsh. The momentum from the Great Escape meant Pearson's players got off to a flying start and Ranieri was able to keep this momentum going until we had won the title. Furthermore, the further we got from Pearson's reign, and the more influence Ranieri had on tactics and signings, the worse we got. You have 2000 words. You must use Harvard Referencing !! Sad but true
Guest the fox Posted 25 February 2017 Posted 25 February 2017 3 hours ago, Deucalion said: R: Claudio was a genius who got a bunch of mediocre players to over-perform and miraculously won the Premier League title. Without Ranieri this would not have been possible. We owe all our success to Ranieri. 0 credit to the players and you get mad when people refuse to give claudio or pearson the credit they deserves, seems fair!
Legend_in_blue Posted 25 February 2017 Posted 25 February 2017 Well it's revisionist all the way. Clearly. There is no argument for the latter. No need for 2000 words. Enough said. An injection of tactical genius last season saw us over the line.
pleatout Posted 25 February 2017 Posted 25 February 2017 6 hours ago, Legend_in_blue said: Well it's revisionist all the way. Clearly. There is no argument for the latter. No need for 2000 words. Enough said. An injection of tactical genius last season saw us over the line. My thoughts exactly. I remember how long it took Taylor to beat out of them everything MON beat into them. It was just a season too far. We either needed to rebuild last summer because Vardy, Huth, Morgan etc were never going to perform like that again or show some loyalty to the players and staff. The club chose the latter and here we are. A small example. The players ARE NOT responsible for who takes the kick off. Go back and watch EVERY kick off. With the exception of a few, we pass back to Drinky/King who hoofs the ball out to the wing and we lose possession. Why? What are we doing that for? What has it ever acheived? As my son puts it (nod to Einstein) the definition of stupidity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results
The whole world smiles Posted 25 February 2017 Posted 25 February 2017 10 hours ago, Biggus said: "History is more or less bunk. It's tradition. We don't want tradition. We want to live in the present, and the only history that is worth a tinker's damn is the history that we make today." (Henry Ford, Chicago Tribune, 1916) Henry Ford would be keen to distance himself from history as history shows him to be Nazi sympathsier who's companies used slave labour at auschwitz to make transportation for the German war machine.
funkyrobot Posted 25 February 2017 Posted 25 February 2017 History will see that it was Musa and Ndidi's absence during AFCON that ultimately did for Claudio. That can't be revised as it's FACT.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.