Johnny Giles puts boot into Claudio

[Gillies Apprentice]

http://m.independent.ie/sport/soccer/premier-league/john-giles-jamie-carragher-and-the-chorus-of-nonsense-annoyed-me-claudio-ranieri-is-not-a-good-manager-35494000.html

[sylofox]

Not so much the boot on CR as Carragher. And the scouse cvnt deserves it.

[lestajigs]

Finally, a man talking a bit of sense

[Voll Blau]

Think he goes a bit over the top and his own experience with Clough at Leeds (if the fictional portrayal of him in The Damned United is anything to go by ) is probably what causes him to do so, but I agree with most of what he has to say.

[Tuna]

I don't listen to Carragher. I can't understand a word he says anyway.

[ozleicester]

CR is a "very poor" coach. What a dick thing to say

 

 

being equally over reactive the other way is no better

[Manwell Pablo]

Decent article that I personally agree with albeit he goes a bit far at times. Very poor coach is a stretch, but I agree I think the amount of praise the man has got when most people within the club describe his best decision as "leaving things how they were" is astounding really. He got an IX winning and spotted weakness's in our full backs (wasn't he a full back himself?) and fixed that, from there we never once looked back. He was probably the perfect man to have in charge with the players on such a charge, his joking larking about looking like he didn't give a shit etc did an absloutley fantastic job of removing the pressure and I think the relaxed attitude really rubbed off on the players, I am still convinced there are very few men who could of seen that title win through.

 

This season we've seen the Ranieri everyone expected to see sacked first last season, tinkering, 101 different tactics yet all of them involve Wes Morgan trying to be David Beckham, faliure to acknowledge serious problems at the club, he's been medelling with the back room staff and changing things. When it comes to things like that Giles is right, he is not a good manager, his track record has many examples of that fact.

 

I still say if people want to hero worship Ranieri and make us the villain more power to them I really do not care.  

[Cadno'r Cymoedd]

I think he underplays Ranieri's role and managerial skills too much. A counterweight to much of the player power/snakes garbage but Ranieri does have a good track record and he certainly managed the title challenge perfectly with his external dealings with the press etc. As a coach this year, some of his known or at least presumed failings came back to bite and he seemed powerless to address those. I am inclined to be more balanced in assessing the predicament and think we made the right decision as a club. But just as we don't need the fairytale-destroying snakes opprobrium, we also should avoid any hint of character assassination of a man who was in charge during our greatest triumph.

[Guest Col city fan]

15 minutes ago, Manwell Pablo said:

Decent article that I personally agree with albeit he goes a bit far at times. Very poor coach is a stretch, but I agree I think the amount of praise the man has got when most people within the club describe his best decision as "leaving things how they were" is astounding really. He got an IX winning and spotted weakness's in our full backs (wasn't he a full back himself?) and fixed that, from there we never once looked back. He was probably the perfect man to have in charge with the players on such a charge, his joking larking about looking like he didn't give a shit etc did an absloutley fantastic job of removing the pressure and I think the relaxed attitude really rubbed off on the players, I am still convinced there are very few men who could of seen that title win through.

 

This season we've seen the Ranieri everyone expected to see sacked first last season, tinkering, 101 different tactics yet all of them involve Wes Morgan trying to be David Beckham, faliure to acknowledge serious problems at the club, he's been medelling with the back room staff and changing things. When it comes to things like that Giles is right, he is not a good manager, his track record has many examples of that fact.

 

I still say if people want to hero worship Ranieri and make us the villain more power to them I really do not care.  

Superb post...

[Kitchandro]

People say his best decision was leaving things as they are but this is absolute bullshit. We didn't even play 4-4-2 under Pearson when we went on the run, we played 3-5-2.

 

And we were leaking goals at the start of the season until we dropped the 2 full backs who couldn't defend. Ranieri was shrewd enough to realise that keeping Inler in would be a mistake, and replaced him with Kante. He protected our slow, cumbersome defence with not only Kante but our style of play, which was evidently far more positive and attacking than what we'd seen in the majority of Pearson's reign at this level.

 

He made substitutions early enough to affect the game, something Pearson was very poor at. He always played Vardy up front, got the best out of Mahrez, and realised the value of playing Albrighton - 3 things his predecessor was criticised for not doing.

Why he started to reverse all this good work this season I don't know. But again, stupid people seem unable to see that he did a lot of crucial things that made a difference.

[somebum]

2 minutes ago, Kitchandro said:

People say his best decision was leaving things as they are but this is absolute bullshit. We didn't even play 4-4-2 under Pearson when we went on the run, we played 3-5-2.

 

And we were leaking goals at the start of the season until we dropped the 2 full backs who couldn't defend. Ranieri was shrewd enough to realise that keeping Inler in would be a mistake, and replaced him with Kante. He protected our slow, cumbersome defence with not only Kante but our style of play, which was evidently far more positive and attacking than what we'd seen in the majority of Pearson's reign at this level.

 

He made substitutions early enough to affect the game, something Pearson was very poor at. He never always played Vardy up front, got the best out of Mahrez, and realised the value of playing Albrighton - 3 things his predecessor was criticised for not doing.

Why he started to reverse all this good work this season I don't know. But again, stupid people seem unable to see that he did a lot of crucial things that made a difference.

here here

[Kitchandro]

If these players did it all in spite of Ranieri, why were we bottom for so long under Pearson?

 

People have such short memories.

[Raw Dykes]

49 minutes ago, Manwell Pablo said:

Decent article that I personally agree with albeit he goes a bit far at times. Very poor coach is a stretch, but I agree I think the amount of praise the man has got when most people within the club describe his best decision as "leaving things how they were" is astounding really. He got an IX winning and spotted weakness's in our full backs (wasn't he a full back himself?) and fixed that, from there we never once looked back. He was probably the perfect man to have in charge with the players on such a charge, his joking larking about looking like he didn't give a shit etc did an absloutley fantastic job of removing the pressure and I think the relaxed attitude really rubbed off on the players, I am still convinced there are very few men who could of seen that title win through.

 

This season we've seen the Ranieri everyone expected to see sacked first last season, tinkering, 101 different tactics yet all of them involve Wes Morgan trying to be David Beckham, faliure to acknowledge serious problems at the club, he's been medelling with the back room staff and changing things. When it comes to things like that Giles is right, he is not a good manager, his track record has many examples of that fact.

 

I still say if people want to hero worship Ranieri and make us the villain more power to them I really do not care.  

Excellent post. I agree 100%.

[Manwell Pablo]

27 minutes ago, Kitchandro said:

People say his best decision was leaving things as they are but this is absolute bullshit. We didn't even play 4-4-2 under Pearson when we went on the run, we played 3-5-2.

 

And we were leaking goals at the start of the season until we dropped the 2 full backs who couldn't defend. Ranieri was shrewd enough to realise that keeping Inler in would be a mistake, and replaced him with Kante. He protected our slow, cumbersome defence with not only Kante but our style of play, which was evidently far more positive and attacking than what we'd seen in the majority of Pearson's reign at this level.

 

He made substitutions early enough to affect the game, something Pearson was very poor at. He never always played Vardy up front, got the best out of Mahrez, and realised the value of playing Albrighton - 3 things his predecessor was criticised for not doing.

Why he started to reverse all this good work this season I don't know. But again, stupid people seem unable to see that he did a lot of crucial things that made a difference.

 

Spectacularly missing the point to a stage where I am actually impressed. I'll leave this here for you which is the message that universally came out of the club regarding him leaving things alone, and not so much this season

 

"To Ranieri's credit, Way says, the Italian changed little when he arrived. He recognised that the atmosphere was good and was happy to tinker with tactics and the systems on the pitch and generally to leave things alone off it. That all changed this year, however. Not only with the high-profile departures of key players such as N’Golo Kanté, but with backroom staff as well."

I can tell you why he was trying to reverse all this, he was trying to put more of his own mark on the whole club and it hasn't worked. 

 

And Keeping Inler in what just out of interest. 

[jayfox26]

Carragher has talked absolute crap since CR got sacked and deserves a boot from the press. I'm glad some newspapers have finally been savy enough to see what has actually gone on rather than jumping on the band wagon and saying Ranieri was great and it's all the players fault etc. Anyone with half a football brain could see he needed to go. No room for sentiment in top flight football. And Lineker and Savage need to stop with all the crap now as well. It's painful that they are supposed to be "fans of Leicester" 

[Cadno'r Cymoedd]

16 minutes ago, Manwell Pablo said:

 

Spectacularly missing the point to a stage where I am actually impressed. I'll leave this here for you which is the message that universally came out of the club regarding him leaving things alone, and not so much this season

 

"To Ranieri's credit, Way says, the Italian changed little when he arrived. He recognised that the atmosphere was good and was happy to tinker with tactics and the systems on the pitch and generally to leave things alone off it. That all changed this year, however. Not only with the high-profile departures of key players such as N’Golo Kanté, but with backroom staff as well."

I can tell you why he is trying to reverse all this, he was trying to put more of his own mark on the whole club and it hasn't worked. 

 

And Keeping Inler in what just out of interest. 

That isn't true though is it in that Ranieri did swap the formation to 442 rather than 352 and used Fuchs and Simpson rather than de Laet as wingbacks and push Vardy forward. So he tinkered well in that respect and recognised that Kante was the lynchpin. Now Kante and Fuchs were not his signings but he recognised this value and did a great job. And Way admits that in his words. Revisionism from black and white sides of the arguments should be avoided.

[Manwell Pablo]

Just now, Cadno'r Cymoedd said:

That isn't true though is it in that Ranieri did swap the formation to 442 rather than 352 and used Fuchs and Simpson rather than de Laet as wingbacks and push Vardy forward. So he tinkered well in that respect and recognised that Kante was the lynchpin. Now Kante and Fuchs were not his signings but he recognised this value and did a great job. Revisionism from both black and white sides of the arguments should be avoided.

 

OMG amazing.

 

The point being made here which I have tried to illustrate for the poster I am replying to is quite clearly when people say that they are not talking about tactics or formations. And yet you still miss it. 

 

For the record he did some things superbly last season and as my orginal post states, I still believe there are very few men who could of held that team together and win that league in football. 

[Finnaldo]

Just now, Cadno'r Cymoedd said:

That isn't true though is it in that Ranieri did swap the formation to 442 rather than 352 and used Fuchs and Simpson rather than de Laet as wingbacks and push Vardy forward. So he tinkered well in that respect and recognised that Kante was the lynchpin. Now Kante and Fuchs were not his signings but he recognised this value and did a great job. Revisionism from both black and white sides of the arguments should be avoided.

 

....But that's exactly what Manwell said  

 

again, here the excerpt: 

 

 

"...was happy to tinker with tactics and the systems on the pitch and generally to leave things alone off it."

 

The point isn't on-field, it's the removal of Way, changing the effective training routine, and general tinkering off-pitch. No-one is saying his tactics weren't fantastic last season but the tinkering backstage has obviously had massive implications.

 

 

[Manwell Pablo]

1 minute ago, Finnaldo said:

 

....But that's exactly what Manwell said  

 

again, here the excerpt: 

 

 

"...was happy to tinker with tactics and the systems on the pitch and generally to leave things alone off it."

 

The point isn't on-field, it's the removal of Way, changing the effective training routine, and general tinkering off-pitch. No-one is saying his tactics weren't fantastic last season but the tinkering backstage has obviously had massive implications.

 

 

I am happy someone gets it  

 

It is also not nesc just about leaving things alone from the Pearson era either, but also his own good work, he left his tactics alone, he left his personal selection alone, he remained consistent. This season, he's not even doing that, win lose or draw we seem to alter approach slightly every game.

[somebum]

Giles is a ****ing idiot constantly creating controversy to 

[Finnaldo]

Just now, Manwell Pablo said:

I am happy someone gets it  

 

It is also not nesc just about leaving things alone from the Pearson era either, but also his own good work, he left his tactics alone, he left his personal selection alone, he remained consistent. This season, he's not even doing that, win lose or draw we seem to alter approach slightly every game.

 

I was going to mention that but thought I'd leave it simply put  

 

Fact is, everything that fell in place last season, has completely fallen to pieces this season. We failed to find an effective Kante replacement but played the same system, with no proper pre-season, and had a shabby start. Claudio panicked somewhat and we tanked against Man U, Chelsea, Liverpool etc. and from there confidence and morale panned, the rest is history up to his sacking, not including the stripping done to the backroom setup. It's clearly not totally his fault but enough of the fault laid at his feet that he could be sacked and we could still potentially turn it round. Horrible way to end the fairytale but its the cold hard truth unfortunately. 

[Babylon]

39 minutes ago, Kitchandro said:

People say his best decision was leaving things as they are but this is absolute bullshit. We didn't even play 4-4-2 under Pearson when we went on the run, we played 3-5-2.

 

And we were leaking goals at the start of the season until we dropped the 2 full backs who couldn't defend. Ranieri was shrewd enough to realise that keeping Inler in would be a mistake, and replaced him with Kante. He protected our slow, cumbersome defence with not only Kante but our style of play, which was evidently far more positive and attacking than what we'd seen in the majority of Pearson's reign at this level.

 

He made substitutions early enough to affect the game, something Pearson was very poor at. He always played Vardy up front, got the best out of Mahrez, and realised the value of playing Albrighton - 3 things his predecessor was criticised for not doing.

Why he started to reverse all this good work this season I don't know. But again, stupid people seem unable to see that he did a lot of crucial things that made a difference.

We were going back to 442 / 4411 with Pearson anyway. Shinji admitted he was told he was going to be used in the 10 position in a 441 when we first bid for him.

 

Kante was clearly a Pearson / Walsh link as we were linked with him before Pearson went and an offiicial bid was made weeks before Ranieri even became manager.  Shrewed enough to replace Inler with Kante... how's that shrewd? Both signed a the same time. Perhaps he should have been shrewd enough to play Kante from the start instead of the big name.

 

We also signed a new left back in Fuchs to replace the shit that was there before. It's as clear as day we were going back to Pearsons favoured formation.
 

Albrighton was playing most games come the end of Pearson's time. You can critisise him for not playing him earlier, but you can't give Ranieri the credit for that as he was in the team already.

 

As for the attacking football, that clearly started under Pearson. We found our style the end of that first season and did nothing but carry that on.

 

That's not taking things away, that's just what happened. He made enough of a contribution though.  Would Pearson have put Vardy up top, we'd never seen it. I doubt Simpson would suddenly had come in at right back as he seemed to think he was on his way out. He added a good defensive shape that Pearson struggled with, like you say his subs were almost perfect all year. One of the biggest things was him taking the pressure off people... the headlines were rarely about us and pressure, but what he'd said that week.

 

That article is harsh... he added a few massively important ingredients to what made it work.

[Manwell Pablo]

Just now, Babylon said:

We were going back to 442 / 4411 with Pearson anyway. Shinji admitted he was told he was going to be used in the 10 position in a 441 when we first bid for him.

 

Kante was clearly a Pearson / Walsh link as we were linked with him before Pearson went and an offiicial bid was made weeks before Ranieri even became manager.  Shrewed enough to replace Inler with Kante... how's that shrewd? Both signed a the same time. Perhaps he should have been shrewd enough to play Kante from the start instead of the big name.

 

We also signed a new left back in Fuchs to replace the shit that was there before. It's as clear as day we were going back to Pearsons favoured formation.
 

Albrighton was playing most games come the end of Pearson's time. You can critisise him for not playing him earlier, but you can't give Ranieri the credit for that as he was in the team already.

 

As for the attacking football, that clearly started under Pearson. We found our style the end of that first season and did nothing but carry that on.

 

That's not taking things away, that's just what happened. He made enough of a contribution though.  Would Pearson have put Vardy up top, we'd never seen it. I doubt Simpson would suddenly had come in at right back as he seemed to think he was on his way out. He added a good defensive shape that Pearson struggled with, like you say his subs were almost perfect all year. One of the biggest things was him taking the pressure off people... the headlines were rarely about us and pressure, but what he'd said that week.

 

That article is harsh... he added a few massively important ingredients to what made it work.

 

Well this is why I asked him kept Inler in what? As far as I was aware it took weeks for Inler to get a start as Kante was playing well, if anything it was Kante who got replaced by Inler. I think it's fair to say the decision to swap them back over was not particularly difficult one and there are plenty of things I'd give Ranieri credit for that is most certainly not one of them

 

[Babylon]

50 minutes ago, Kitchandro said:

If these players did it all in spite of Ranieri, why were we bottom for so long under Pearson?

 

People have such short memories.

Why? Because we didn't have Huth until January for starters and Pearson was far too negative. He and the players found their way come the end of the season and both learnt how to win in this league and gained a huge amount of confidence from it.

During that season we learnt who was up to it and who wasn't in the squad, what worked in this league and what didn't etc. Ranieri had the benefit of the learning curve. Just as Pearson's backroom team would have. The lessons had clearly been learnt when you look at what players we starting bringing in and replacing.

It's a chain of events that made it happen, breaking a single one of them I doubt it would have. It's not one persons achievement, it's the very definition of a team effort. Ranieri is no more of a genius than someone like Walsh. He's just one link that led to a perfect season.

 

 

[FoxFossil]

Not really interested in what Giles from the dirtiest team in history thinks tbh. We had the best year ever, with Claudios press conferences a constant surprise and delight, compared with the cringe worthy Pearson. Just a joy to be remembered forever.

We all hate Leeds and Leeds and Leeds, we all f**king hate Leeds (repeat until wife complains)