Johnny Giles puts boot into Claudio

[Babylon]

12 minutes ago, FoxFossil said:

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)

Could have done without the Dilly Ding Dilly Dong cringy bollocks though.

[Farrington fox]

Don't agree with the "Ranieri is a poor coach" bit. But the rest is about right I would think.

[Callabinho]

Well Ranieri wasn't considered  good coach until last year....I certainly didn't rate him prior to his arrival..... 

[AmarteyAndChill]

Apparently it's a disgrace the way we treated Claudio but when we appointed him everyone took the mick showing no respect to Claudio 

[Mickyblueeyes]

So, since some fans have been banging on about his shortcomings since as far back as October, the so called experts are just catching on now. 

[cropstonfox]

Ranieri was an average coach until he was lucky enough to manage our club,Pearsons Team and be backed by our owners.

We have made him he owes us and owes the players for last year.

They knew all along he weas bang average but a nice enough chap.

He then got carried away and changed a few things- that didn't work and he dipped below his average ability.

As for Jamie C-He lives in the past- ref  the True order of Teams .No devine right for anyone to be anywhere (look at Liverpool -and Forest)

[Guest BlueBrett]

If you accept the premise of this article then the real person deserving of our sympathy and affection is poor old Nigel Pearson. It seems we'd have won the league even more emphatically if he'd been allowed to stay on.

 

You do have to wonder..

 

I bet the thought still gives Nige sleepless nights. Wonder what his relationship with that brain-dead boy of his is like now. There must be at least some resentment surely.

[Webbo]

52 minutes ago, Babylon said:

Could have done without the Dilly Ding Dilly Dong cringy bollocks though.

Come off it. Everybody thought it was great at the time.

[Babylon]

1 minute ago, Webbo said:

Come off it. Everybody thought it was great at the time.

Not everybody.

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, Babylon said:

Not everybody.

Well they kept their opinions to themselves at the time.

[Kitchandro]

1 hour 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 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. 

I don't see how I'm missing the point, I've clearly stated several important things that he changed last season which made a difference, and acknowledged that he changed the wrong things this season, even changing things back to how they were under Pearson (i.e. the slow negative football we've reverted to, which was the whole reason we were bottom under Nigel).

Yes he has changed too much this season but don't deny that some of the things he moved away from were the things he actually implemented himself last season.

 

Giles is point is that Ranieri is a poor coach, yours' is that he was given too much praise considering he didn't change much, I've addressed both points so I don't see how I am missing it.

By leaving Inler in I was referring to the fact that he was able to see early on that he wasn't good enough and that he needed replacing, something that managers often don't do and obviously a decision of massive importance.

[Cadno'r Cymoedd]

1 hour 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.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Manwell Pablo said:

 

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. 

Your original post states:

 

'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' 

which to my mind underplays what he did tactically. So I don't think I missed any point in that respect though you may disagree I suspect.

 

I agree entirely with you regarding this season especially off the field apparently.

 

Whatever, Giles overlooks most of Ranieri's work on field which I think does a disservice and is revisionism.

[Webbo]

So we had a bunch of average players and a poor coach in charge? How did we ever win the league?

[filbertway]

2 hours 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.

 

I'd fancy Stevie Wonder to have spotted that one.

[Callabinho]

4 minutes ago, Webbo said:

So we had a bunch of average players and a poor coach in charge? How did we ever win the league?

Average players no, Nigel set the club in in such a way where there were professionals in each area...as we are all aware Nige was huge on sports science, not just for the wellbeing of the players, but the performance too...cast your mind back to that mini documentary on LCFC by the BBC. We were pioneers in some respects with our approach, it was almost taylor made for the players we had at the club.

 

Then you had Nigel's handling of the players, like that one teacher at school you always did work for because you liked them, this then built a strong spirit amongst the lads, he turned football into a profession, more than a hobby, so to speak.

 

When Claudio came in he had very little to worry about, those little things that distract the manager and ultimately lead to underachieving, none of that he had to worry about....everything was in it's right place.

 

This season it appears Claudio wanted to change things a little bit, a was probably granted leeway to do so due to his champions league "experience"....as a result he tried to fix something that wasn't broken, and ended up like this....just my opinion of course. 

[Kitchandro]

1 hour ago, 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.

Again....if Pearson was such a genius how come we were bottom for so long? He was clearly tactically inept at this level and if you're going to make assumptions about what formation he would have picked, I'm happy enough to make the prediction that he preferred the attacking football only in a last ditch attempt to keep us up, and not because he believed in it long term. I'm pretty sure he'd have reverted back to type the following season because he just doesn't have the ambition to play more expansive football.

 

Basically, we only started to play attacking, almost gung-ho football at the end of the season because we were going down and absolutely desperate. He threw caution to the wind - there's an argument he took other people's advice on that - certainly he had no interest in that style of football for the 6 months we were bottom, despite what he was doing before clearly not working.

 

Pearson didn't tell Ranieri to play 4-4-2/4-4-1-1, or to pick Albrighton, or to replace the full backs, or to stick to positive football (Pearson didn't even stick to it after the Man U 5-3 game when things were working for him). He had his own ideas and we took off straight away.

 

You can criticise Ranieri for picking Inler over Kante but unlike Pearson it didn't take him 6 months to acknowledge his mistakes. Obviously this season has been the complete opposite but I'm talking about his influence on last season, not his errors in this.

 

The fact that people seem not be able to grasp is that Ranieri won the league, Pearson didn't. Despite having a lot of positive things in place, which I will always respect Pearson for, he managed to make them hugely underachieve. And that team was trying for him, unlike this season's.

 

The proof is in the pudding.

[Kitchandro]

4 minutes ago, filbertway said:

 

I'd fancy Stevie Wonder to have spotted that one.

I'd fancy Stevie Wonder to have spotted a lot of the things Pearson fvcked up with 2 seasons ago, but he didn't.

[AKCJ]

1 hour ago, Babylon said:

Could have done without the Dilly Ding Dilly Dong cringy bollocks though.

Cringy?

 

 

[Finnaldo]

To clarify my standing, I do think Giles chats a lot of drivel in that article, Ranieri is a much better tactician than he gives him credit for, but arguably his man management in tougher times could be questioned.

[Manwell Pablo]

Just now, Kitchandro said:

I don't see how I'm missing the point, I've clearly stated several important things that he changed last season which made a difference, and acknowledged that he changed the wrong things this season, even changing things back to how they were under Pearson (i.e. the slow negative football we've reverted to, which was the whole reason we were bottom under Nigel).

Yes he has changed too much this season but don't deny that some of the things he moved away from were the things he actually implemented himself last season.

 

Giles is point is that Ranieri is a poor coach, yours' is that he was given too much praise considering he didn't change much, I've addressed both points so I don't see how I am missing it.

By leaving Inler in I was referring to the fact that he was able to see early on that he wasn't good enough and that he needed replacing, something that managers often don't do and obviously a decision of massive importance.

 

You've addressed a change in formation which is one aspect of football management (which Babylon has since pointed out was already on the cards but will ignore that) and reiterated things I've already given him credit for and that's it.....and failed to acknowledge that most of the day to day running of staff, procedure, sports science,  and training regimes, normally the first thing to go when a new manager comes in was left alone, and point being made is that those from within the club view that as the best thing he did and one of the main factors for his success, the fact that he altered our formation does not make the fact he left most of the club as it was "bull shit" so yes you have missed the point. 

 

Of course he gets far too much praise, listening to some people you'd think he'd gone out on the pitch and one it himself single handed. The players have been absloutley slaughtered and that's fine yet King Claudio the man who is actually suppose to be in charge and who's responsibility it is to get the team playing is untouchable as he's a Premier League Champion. 

 

We actually changed the way we play significantly for most of the latter part of the title winning season, people forget we got over the line with a string of highly forgettable football matches, we attacked for less our possession stats went through the roof and we won 1-0, The Newcastle, Watford, Palace, for example were a lot closer to what we've seen this season than anything we saw prior to our away match at Arsenal, but then if we win, no one cares. 

 

 

 

[BenTheFox]

Are we alright to accept that both Nigel Pearson and Claudio Ranieri contributed to our success as well as both of them having their own shortcomings?

[filbertway]

2 minutes ago, Kitchandro said:

I'd fancy Stevie Wonder to have spotted a lot of the things Pearson fvcked up with 2 seasons ago, but he didn't.

Probably because he can't see.

[Manwell Pablo]

27 minutes ago, Cadno'r Cymoedd said:

 

Your original post states:

 

'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' 

which to my mind underplays what he did tactically. So I don't think I missed any point in that respect though you may disagree I suspect.

 

I agree entirely with you regarding this season especially off the field apparently.

 

Whatever, Giles overlooks most of Ranieri's work on field which I think does a disservice and is revisionism.

 

If you want to discuss points in my original post then you should probably have quoted my original post!

 

You can disagree with me, he got his XI together, fixed the issues at full back. After that we didn't look back, same XI each week. You can say that under plays it, but I can guarantee you wont be able to tell me I am factually wrong.

[filbertway]

1 minute ago, Manwell Pablo said:

 

If you want to discuss points in my original post then you should probably have quoted my original post!

 

You can disagree with me, he got his XI together, fixed the issues at full back. After that we didn't look back, same IX each week. You can say that under plays it, but I can guarantee you wont be able to tell me I am factually wrong.

What are you doing Pabs? I can't tell if you're intentionally swapping the IX and XI or not?! haha

[Manwell Pablo]

1 minute ago, filbertway said:

What are you doing Pabs? I can't tell if you're intentionally swapping the IX and XI or not?! haha

 

I type too quick