Time to name Shakes permanent manager?

[Mease]

1 hour ago, dayday said:

Totally disagree that we've been found out, last season we only lost 3 times playing this way, and since Shakey has taken over, a defeat with a weakened side against Everton and very unfortunate goal against bloody Arsenal.

 

I think it's a hard system to play against, teams are so wary that they don't know whether to attack or sit back, I actually go to games thinking we can win now, under Ranieri this season we never did.

 

Im very much in the if ain't broke camp, what we do now is sign players who compliment the system, let teams worry about us.

 

Even if we did decide to change the system this would cost millions, we just don't have the personnel to play any other way.

This.

[foxes21]

2 hours ago, st albans fox said:

The current (successful) system seems very reliant on vardy playing. once he goes off, we look lost and vulnerable. 

It's important we sign a pacey CF in the summer, because as you said we are not the same without Vardy.

 

Take Atletico for example, they don't have any target men. All of their attacking options (Griezmann, Torres, Gameiro, Correa) are similar sort of players, so they don't have to change their style of play if one is missing.

 

Right now we only have Okazaki & Vardy who fit our style of play, so this summer we need an upgrade on Okazaki & an understudy to Vardy.

[norwichfox]

Shakespeare is the right man, it's right time to appoint him and start "unfixing" the behind the scenes aspects that Ranieri "fixed" perhaps the scouting regime would be a good start, although I expect he'll still be referring to some well thumbed pages of Walsh senior's notebook. We've got the makings of a side that can make Europe and possibly win a domestic trophy, I'm quite happy with where we're at currently given the abysmal start to this season I'm not entirely dismissing the fact that Shakespeare was also part of that early season disaster, but feel that his opinions would not have been taken on-board by Ranieri. As for being a big name, I don't see any value in that given the number of "big name" failures there have been at so many clubs.

 

At the back of my mind is that now some of the Dream Team that won the premier league who are perhaps past their "use before" date and now is the time to start either finding them another role within the club or moving them on to "further" their playing careers, will Shakespeare have the guts to get rid of club legends and stand up to the test of having to be the one that broke the "brotherhood" up.

[Guest CityFan 06]

3 hours ago, st albans fox said:

The current (successful) system seems very reliant on vardy playing. once he goes off, we look lost and vulnerable. 

This is what needs addressing in the summer. Sign players who are capable of operating in an alternative system. Players who can keep possession, keep the ball when needed instead of us going long. Sometimes we do invite pressure on ourselves.

 

The system we have works very well, no doubt but we do need to look at an additional way of playing. Coaching the current group of players and looking at players in the summer who fit but are also adaptable.

[hackneyfox]

On 2017-4-30 at 01:44, Guy said:

Word on the street is that the owners are still the sticking point here as to whether or not Shakey gets the nod to be the new manager for next seasonl, in spite of our excellent turn around since the end of February. 

 

That's not the word on my street.

[On our way...]

Que sera sera...

Low risk - Shakey. Most players and fans choice. Allardyce/Pulis mould.

High risk - A 'name' who can take us (back) to the next level.

I believe high risk is going to be the answer. The owners have proven they will not shy away from big decisions and will be anxious to capitalise on recent glories.

They will not be swayed from 'the word on the street' and it is their train-set after all!

[Babylon]

8 minutes ago, On our way... said:

Que sera sera...

Low risk - Shakey. Most players and fans choice. Allardyce/Pulis mould.

High risk - A 'name' who can take us (back) to the next level.

I believe high risk is going to be the answer. The owners have proven they will not shy away from big decisions and will be anxious to capitalise on recent glories.

They will not be swayed from 'the word on the street' and it is their train-set after all!

I don't want a "name", I pray to god they don't go down that route again. If they seriously do their due diligence and look at the managers around Europe who are doing well and decide to go for one of them, then I wouldn't complain.

 

But I lack any faith in Rudkin to be able to do that. He's quite clearly never done his research previously, he can't have kept his eye on potential managers like clubs should do, so that if you needed to make a change you had some in mind. Because whenever we've actually needed to make a change we go to the same old names time after time.

[Guest]

It's a no from me. I don't think a handful of games is enough evidence to name someone as a permanent manager. If Claudio's reign as as bad as rumors then they could have put Mr Blobby in charge and still be in the same position.

 

I'm just not sure now is the right time. 

[Col city fan]

Keep Shakey and get rid of bloody Rudkin.

If the owners have sense, which I'm sure they have, that's what they should do.

We need to keep consistency with the manager but need a much better Director of Football

[kingcarr21]

Im still not sure if Shakey is the right person moving forward. He was the right person at the time when Ranieri was sacked but is he the guy who we give X amount of money to in the transfer window and cements us as a top half team. Suppose we will never know unless we give him the chance.

 

Im quite relaxed about the manager position. If Shakey gets it I wont be too upset. The players clearly like him so that's a massive plus. Could this be the time though that we get a more successful recognised manager after our recent success? Could Benitez be tempted, Marco Silva is doing a good job at Hull would he be a good fit?

 

Its a tough decision. Im sure the owners will look at all options. There are pros and cons in whichever way you look at it. Part of me wants to see Shakey given the opportunity and show us how good he is.

[Monk]

I'll probably be hounded off the forum for this, but I think Shakey as manager with Hodgson as DoF would be a great combo. 

 

They've worked together before, Roy will already know several of the squad very well. Use his prestige to bring in a couple of top players. 

 

Also think that to keep Shakespear at the club, really the choices are The current setup or Hodgson DoF. Anything else and I can't see him sticking around.

 

We are still in the phase of our squad that started in the Championship under NP. I think Shakey should see us through the final 1-2 years of this era as a minimum. 

[Guest MattP]

I don't understand how anyone couldn't want him.

 

He's guided us to safety with games to spare, only lost away to quality sides and kept us in a match against Atletico with incredible tactical changes.

 

He has passed the test with flying colours and if he got shafted for a big name it would be quite tragic.

[fuchsntf]

3 minutes ago, Monk said:

I'll probably be hounded off the forum for this, but I think Shakey as manager with Hodgson as DoF would be a great combo. 

 

They've worked together before, Roy will already know several of the squad very well. Use his prestige to bring in a couple of top players. 

His type of prestige, is more likely to keep players away...

[fuchsntf]

If it isnt to be Shakey, my only thought would be go down the young manager Route.

O'neil  did well for us.

So names like Monk, Eddie Howe come to mind.

Howe would be a sweet target and a coup for us...

 

 

[Strokes]

5 minutes ago, MattP said:

I don't understand how anyone couldn't want him.

 

He's guided us to safety with games to spare, only lost away to quality sides and kept us in a match against Atletico with incredible tactical changes.

 

He has passed the test with flying colours and if he got shafted for a big name it would be quite tragic.

I don't get this attract top players line either. We've got more chance of keeping the top players we have, that are proven at this club, if he stays. Surely that is more important than the former.

[Costock_Fox]

16 minutes ago, Monk said:

I'll probably be hounded off the forum for this, but I think Shakey as manager with Hodgson as DoF would be a great combo. 

 

They've worked together before, Roy will already know several of the squad very well. Use his prestige to bring in a couple of top players. 

 

Also think that to keep Shakespear at the club, really the choices are The current setup or Hodgson DoF. Anything else and I can't see him sticking around.

 

We are still in the phase of our squad that started in the Championship under NP. I think Shakey should see us through the final 1-2 years of this era as a minimum. 

His prestige  

[kingcarr21]

17 minutes ago, MattP said:

I don't understand how anyone couldn't want him.

 

He's guided us to safety with games to spare, only lost away to quality sides and kept us in a match against Atletico with incredible tactical changes.

 

He has passed the test with flying colours and if he got shafted for a big name it would be quite tragic.

My worry is that the players and shakey rode the crest of a wave. Those matches we lost we didn't even attempt to win the game which was worrying.

 

I don't know, Shakey has certainly done a good job that's without doubt but is an unproven manager the man to take us to the next level, establish us as a top team?

 

I suppose we wont know unless we try him out. I am certainly not against giving Shakey the job. I do wonder if its the best thing for the club moving forward.

 

This summer transfer window is massive for us

[BenTheFox]

I'm fully behind Shakespeare getting the job and I really don't want to see us go out and get a 'big name' for the sake of it being a big name. I do understand some of the concerns with appointing Shakey though. He's known many of the players for a long time and will he really show that ruthless streak to replace some of them for the benefit of the side going forward? However, we won't know the answer to that question unless we give him a proper chance. He deserves a proper chance. 

[Bryn]

I just feel that 9 times out of 10 a caretaker manager who has a honeymoon period doesn't keep it up.

 

I dunno. If I were the owner I'd have a long hard chat with him and see what his vision is. If his vision is to maintain the status quo I'd look elsewhere, key components of this squad are ageing or need upgrading. Whoever comes in needs to respect our style of play but have a vision for evolution that makes sense.

 

You can't cling to the past, you have to move forward.

[Babylon]

49 minutes ago, kingcarr21 said:

is an unproven manager the man to take us to the next level, establish us as a top team?

I see people mention this a lot, what do people actually classify as the "next level", or a "top team".

 

The top 7 are the biggest clubs in the league, to break that barrier on a regular basis it's not just about the manager. It's about a regular investment of huge sums of money to cement yourself there. Without it those clubs will always outspend us and over time will always outperform us.

 

If we finish 8th / 9th this season, we're already most probably at the top end of the what we can expect on a regular basis, to "establish" ourselves above that, will be nigh on impossible if we don't have the investment in players and the ground, no matter who the manager is. 

[kingcarr21]

6 minutes ago, Babylon said:

I see people mention this a lot, what do people actually classify as the "next level", or a "top team".

 

The top 7 are the biggest clubs in the league, to break that barrier on a regular basis it's not just about the manager. It's about a regular investment of huge sums of money to cement yourself there. Without it those clubs will always outspend us and over time will always outperform us.

 

If we finish 8th / 9th this season, we're already most probably at the top end of the what we can expect on a regular basis, to "establish" ourselves above that, will be nigh on impossible if we don't have the investment in players and the ground, no matter who the manager is. 

Which is the point im coming from. Do we give Shakey the money to spend to take us to the next level (for me is a consistent top 10 finish, no relegation battles ala Stoke, West Brom, Southampton) or bring in a more experienced manager to spend the money.

[foxes21]

3 minutes ago, Babylon said:

I see people mention this a lot, what do people actually classify as the "next level", or a "top team".

 

The top 7 are the biggest clubs in the league, to break that barrier on a regular basis it's not just about the manager. It's about a regular investment of huge sums of money to cement yourself there. Without it those clubs will always outspend us and over time will always outperform us.

 

If we finish 8th / 9th this season, we're already most probably at the top end of the what we can expect on a regular basis, to "establish" ourselves above that, will be nigh on impossible if we don't have the investment in players and the ground, no matter who the manager is. 

I don't agree. We proved last season we don't need to overspend to achieve success.

 

As long as we are smart about our business and make the right decisions, we can compete. Shakespeare knows the infrastructure of this club, our strengths & our weaknesses. He will know exactly what is needed in the summer & our owners are not shy about giving our manager money to spend.

 

In regards to player investment, from the outside looking in it seems to me that Ranieri left Rudkin to recruit the players. But when Pearson was in charge, he always had the last say. Hopefully Shakespeare will have more say in who we sign, like Pearson did.

 

[Babylon]

13 minutes ago, foxes21 said:

I don't agree. We proved last season we don't need to overspend to achieve success.

That was a one off, there is a good reason that teams like our don't threaten the top ends of the table very often and if they do it's for nothing more than a season or two. As a one off, or a short period of a couple of years yes it's possible. But it's not possible to "establish" yourself there long term without investment befitting a team in that area of the table.

[st albans fox]

15 minutes ago, foxes21 said:

I don't agree. We proved last season we don't need to overspend to achieve success.

 

As long as we are smart about our business and make the right decisions, we can compete. Shakespeare knows the infrastructure of this club, our strengths & our weaknesses. He will know exactly what is needed in the summer & our owners are not shy about giving our manager money to spend.

 

In regards to player investment, from the outside looking in it seems to me that Ranieri left Rudkin to recruit the players. But when Pearson was in charge, he always had the last say. Hopefully Shakespeare will have more say in who we sign, like Pearson did.

 

 

Rudkin doesn't decide who we buy

 

he is tasked with getting the selected players in through the door but it's not his decision who the club buys 

[Babylon]

18 minutes ago, kingcarr21 said:

Which is the point im coming from. Do we give Shakey the money to spend to take us to the next level (for me is a consistent top 10 finish, no relegation battles ala Stoke, West Brom, Southampton) or bring in a more experienced manager to spend the money.

The key really is how much faith the club currently have in that recruitment team and the new fella in charge on that side of it. We seem to want to follow the Pearson / Walsh setup where Walsh really had a lot more influence on signings than Pearson. Of course they work together on the ideology and the manager has some input, but it's limited compared to some clubs. If they have faith in that scouting setup, then whoever the manager is it won't be them making all the decisions and the players could end up coming from a similar list anyway.