Time to name Shakes permanent manager?

[GaelicFox]

5 hours ago, Col city fan said:

I really hope you are wrong on this Gaelic. As usual I'm nailing my colours to the mast here and stating keeping Shakey is absolutely what we should do. At least for the foreseeable.

I agree I think a rolling 12 month contract the way to go 

 

but I fear there is a chance his talents are limited to the fact this group has developed a serous bond with him 

 

I suppose it's a guess to suggest he has the ability to build his own Team and instil his own footballing beliefs on that team time will tell , but for me the man is doing an outstanding right now but can he do it long term ? 

 

Its all interesting to see how it plays out 

[Blue ROI]

10 minutes ago, GaelicFox said:

I agree I think a rolling 12 month contract the way to go 

 

but I fear there is a chance his talents are limited to the fact this group has developed a serous bond with him 

 

I suppose it's a guess to suggest he has the ability to build his own Team and instil his own footballing beliefs on that team time will tell , but for me the man is doing an outstanding right now but can he do it long term ? 

 

Its all interesting to see how it plays out 

A damned if you do damned if you don't situation. In fairness no one is safe from criticism here no matter what their reputation though!

 

Shakey hasn't really put a foot wrong in the last 2 months or so and in all honesty has to be the front runner at this stage.

 

The only fear I would have would be that caretakers don't make good managers but Shakey might be the exception. Rob Kelly will always be a warning but Craig has been with us for nearly 8 years and can offer us stability I believe.

 

Going for a big name manager is nearly an empty cliche at this stage. Guardiola and Mourinho are good examples of it not being a sure thing. We've enough experience of it ourselves with Sven. FWIW I'd say the owners are keen to avoid making the same mistakes that the top clubs have done in the last 2-3 years. They've made the occasional error but they appear to be quick in learning from any mistakes.

 

Limerick hurling fans were pushing for a big name for years instead of continuous improvement (Kaizen is a good word for it). The big name ended up being more trouble than it was worth.

 

Man City next week is a key game. Potentially the emergence of the new order (Barnes, Chilwell, Gray) or the last hurrah for the legends (Kasper, Mahrez). Should we be safe by Sunday we might have an idea how we'll be shaping up next season under Shakey and what that means.

 

 

[Foxhateram]

On 2017-5-3 at 21:09, cecchini said:

Er well, good point Ranieri was not a big name......

who were the others? Big name plus no money plus not living in London = not very interested world class players.

Big name, plus big money = possibly interested world class players.

 

Owners have money - they have seen significant revenue based on winning the prem and a good run in CL  would you buy a VW engine to stick in your Ferrari?

stop being small minded, the owners going past Pearson for Ranieri was what brought us the PL title last year.  Wake up and smell the espresso.

 

No thanks. Ranieri proved this season that momentum played a huge part on our success as opposed to his tactics. His signings of 'big names' have also been ineffective at improving the squad. 

 

We do better when we play 'our' way and we buy players who want to be part of the ever developing family (As Shakey has proven with our top 6 form since taking over). Big Charlies and their pay cheques can stay away thanks. Up and coming people who have a point to prove are far more suited to the way our club works. If you can't see that this model is what has given us success, then I'm afraid it's you that needs the wake up caffeine. 

[hackneyfox]

30 minutes ago, foxhateram said:

No thanks. Ranieri proved this season that momentum played a huge part on our success as opposed to his tactics. His signings of 'big names' have also been ineffective at improving the squad. 

 

We do better when we play 'our' way and we buy players who want to be part of the ever developing family (As Shakey has proven with our top 6 form since taking over). Big Charlies and their pay cheques can stay away thanks. Up and coming people who have a point to prove are far more suited to the way our club works. If you can't see that this model is what has given us success, then I'm afraid it's you that needs the wake up caffeine. 

Those 'big names' were, in the main identified by Walsh and his team weren't they?

Apart from ourselves how many other clubs have made the top 4 without buying their way, having a big name manger and signing proven players by the bucket load?

 

 

Really torn at the moment, I'm finding myself agreeing with points made by both kitchandro and col.

[Foxhateram]

22 minutes ago, hackneyfox said:

Those 'big names' were, in the main identified by Walsh and his team weren't they?

Apart from ourselves how many other clubs have made the top 4 without buying their way, having a big name manger and signing proven players by the bucket load?

 

 

Really torn at the moment, I'm finding myself agreeing with points made by both kitchandro and col.

Your right, but we are alone in doing that, our style of play was/is unique to this country. Other clubs find it hard to compete against. Especially those players who think they're all 'that'. We must continue to build on that. Hense why big names won't fit here.

 

I'm not sure they were Walsh signings. Gray maybe? But Slim, Musa and Mendy just don't seem to fit our usual mould, especially Slim. It doesn't feel like there was enough research done on them. I.e Slim's reoccuring injury. 

 

I have to also agree with Col. Pearson turned this club around and created a philosophy/vision that runs right to heart of the setup. We must continue to build. I think Shakey is the only man that knows the vision well enough to carry it forward. Money won't buy us success, we have to continue to be different and challenge perceptions.

[brucey]

14 minutes ago, foxhateram said:

I'm not sure they were Walsh signings. Gray maybe? But Slim, Musa and Mendy just don't seem to fit our usual mould, especially Slim. It doesn't feel like there was enough research done on them. I.e Slim's reoccuring injury. 

Musa was a Walsh signing. I'm sure there was an interview with Walsh after he left for Everton saying so.

Slim was scouted extensively by Walsh for years although I think he wouldn't have paid 30m. Slim's groin injury happened for the first time with us.

Not sure about Mendy. Ranieri had a few non-Walsh signings like Benalouane and Inler, so Mendy might be similar.

Ndidi was first scouted by us 18 months before we bought him, so he may or may not be a Walsh signing.

[hackneyfox]

15 minutes ago, foxhateram said:

Your right, but we are alone in doing that, our style of play was/is unique to this country. Other clubs find it hard to compete against. Especially those players who think they're all 'that'. We must continue to build on that. Hense why big names won't fit here.

 

I'm not sure they were Walsh signings. Gray maybe? But Slim, Musa and Mendy just don't seem to fit our usual mould, especially Slim. It doesn't feel like there was enough research done on them. I.e Slim's reoccuring injury. 

 

I have to also agree with Col. Pearson turned this club around and created a philosophy/vision that runs right to heart of the setup. We must continue to build. I think Shakey is the only man that knows the vision well enough to carry it forward. Money won't buy us success, we have to continue to be different and challenge perceptions.

There's a few teams out there playing versions of style. We can't bully 'all that' players for ever and to have a chance of European football regularly we're going to have buy a few proven and hence 'big name' players as well.

Pretty sure Musa and Slaimani were on our radar well before Ranieri.

 

Then your last point flips me again.

Thank **** the owners have to make the decision.

 

 

[hackneyfox]

1 minute ago, brucey said:

Musa was a Walsh signing. I'm sure there was an interview with Walsh after he left for Everton saying so.

Slim was scouted extensively by Walsh for years although I think he wouldn't have paid 30m. Slim's groin injury happened for the first time with us.

Not sure about Mendy. Ranieri had a few non-Walsh signings like Benalouane and Inler, so Mendy might be similar.

Ndidi was first scouted by us 18 months before we bought him, so he may or may not be a Walsh signing.

30m is the new 20m apparently.

 

[brucey]

8 minutes ago, hackneyfox said:

30m is the new 20m apparently.

 

It is, and I don't mind paying that amount for Slim. He's paid off a few mil directly with the Porto goal. Plus he came up with a few league goals/assists when we were utter shit, and we would still be knee deep in relegation mire now without those points. And he's more or less kept his value if Shakey decides to sell this summer.

[Foxhateram]

5 hours ago, hackneyfox said:

There's a few teams out there playing versions of style. We can't bully 'all that' players for ever and to have a chance of European football regularly we're going to have buy a few proven and hence 'big name' players as well.

Pretty sure Musa and Slaimani were on our radar well before Ranieri.

 

Then your last point flips me again.

Thank **** the owners have to make the decision.

 

 

? Fair point on transfers. But I have no idea how you can question the final point? The preperations and long term vision of the club started with Pearson (or maybe it was the owners vision? But suprised they allowed  Claudio to undo lots of it, if it was) in charge. It was him that got us to the prem and him that kept us there.

 

It was the building of a coherent back room staff, based on sports science and modern football beliefs (health and mind strength) that has enabled our club to build players and get them to consistently play well above the expected performance level.

 

It's no coincedence that when Ranieri starting dismantling that team, that our form dropped dramatically. 

 

Also Walsh and Pearson always spoke about recruiting players who had the right mindset and philosophy to be part of the long term vision, we must ensure that recruitment tactic continues. 

 

I stick to my point that we must have someone in charge that has the same philosophy and vision. Otherwise we will step backwards as a club. A new man will make sweeping changes. We don't need that right now.

 

If you want someone else other than Shakey after he has changed our form to be of top 6 quality, than I flip your coin and say thank God you're not in charge.

 

P.s we don't 'bully' anyone. We play our high pressure, quick counter game, which is effective for our players and no one else has played it well enough to win the league with it, so we are alone. Why change something that has brought us so much success?

[Finnegan]

8 hours ago, foxhateram said:

Your right, but we are alone in doing that, our style of play was/is unique to this country. Other clubs find it hard to compete against. Especially those players who think they're all 'that'. We must continue to build on that. Hense why big names won't fit here.

 

I'm not sure they were Walsh signings. Gray maybe? But Slim, Musa and Mendy just don't seem to fit our usual mould, especially Slim. It doesn't feel like there was enough research done on them. I.e Slim's reoccuring injury. 

 

I have to also agree with Col. Pearson turned this club around and created a philosophy/vision that runs right to heart of the setup. We must continue to build. I think Shakey is the only man that knows the vision well enough to carry it forward. Money won't buy us success, we have to continue to be different and challenge perceptions.

 

They were obviously Walsh signings, we were after them for ages.

[HighPeakFox]

9 hours ago, hackneyfox said:

Really torn at the moment, I'm finding myself agreeing with points made by both kitchandro and col.

Agreeing with them both is enough to tear ANYBODY apart... 

[Koke]

The only game I had a bit of criticism of Shakespeare was Arsenal away. I felt we gave Arsenal too much respect. They are poor and if we showed a bit more ambition then we might have gotten a result. Apart from that he has been faultless IMO. Got his tactics mostly right, got the personnel right etc.

[reynard]

First up he need to get us over the survival line and then discussions can really take place in a meaningful manner. Unitl survival is mathematically confirmed I don't think the owners will really be thinking about the next permanent manager.

For me there are two periods that need to be considered. The first is the short term. We need to not be worrying about relegation but need to be trying to establish ourselves in the safe upper mid table region. Now Shakespeare may well be the candidate best placed to achieve that. This period would proably run for the next two seasons. At that point not only will the owner's ambtions of top 5 finishes be in their original time frame but a significant part of our current first team squad will either have moved on or will be past their best years. The second period is then years 3-5 from now.

At that point would Shakespeare be the best man to take the club forward? 

The style of football may need to change too. I know we have been succesful with the counter attack but let's be quite honest the way play is really a sophisticated version of kick and rush and very heavily dependent upon one player; Vardy. As I've said perviously we have players who are very very good at a very limited number of aspects of the game. Is that going to sustain us over more than a short period at the top level of the league or do we require more sophistication which only comes with better more accomplished and in the end more expensive players? If the latter is the case can Shakespeare deliver this?

[Thracian]

7 minutes ago, reynard said:

First up he need to get us over the survival line and then discussions can really take place in a meaningful manner. Unitl survival is mathematically confirmed I don't think the owners will really be thinking about the next permanent manager.

For me there are two periods that need to be considered. The first is the short term. We need to not be worrying about relegation but need to be trying to establish ourselves in the safe upper mid table region. Now Shakespeare may well be the candidate best placed to achieve that. This period would proably run for the next two seasons. At that point not only will the owner's ambtions of top 5 finishes be in their original time frame but a significant part of our current first team squad will either have moved on or will be past their best years. The second period is then years 3-5 from now.

At that point would Shakespeare be the best man to take the club forward? 

The style of football may need to change too. I know we have been succesful with the counter attack but let's be quite honest the way play is really a sophisticated version of kick and rush and very heavily dependent upon one player; Vardy. As I've said perviously we have players who are very very good at a very limited number of aspects of the game. Is that going to sustain us over more than a short period at the top level of the league or do we require more sophistication which only comes with better more accomplished and in the end more expensive players? If the latter is the case can Shakespeare deliver this?

You're entirely right in your first paragraph  - our status is not yet guaranteed - and that should remain the focus right now. 

 

I've no argument with your second paragraph and with your third, I've no idea why people are assuming Shakespeare might not be able to adapt our style of play if necessary.

 

Seems to me that his preferred style with our players worked well, didn't work when Ranieri tried to change it for whatever reason, worked again when that style was broadly restored and may yet prove still more effective if we actually improve it still further.

 

If not though, there's still no evidence that Shakespeare can't or wouldn't change the style if he thought it right  - either temporarily or more permanently and assuming he had the personnel to affect an effective alternative.

 

What evidence is there to categorize the bloke as some fans seem determined to do. People seem obsessed with labelling people and yet labels of convenience are so often seriously flawed or only partly accurate. For me he'd be a very poor coach if he couldn't or wouldn't be flexible but it's not something I've noticed.                

[volpeazzurro]

1 hour ago, Thracian said:

You're entirely right in your first paragraph  - our status is not yet guaranteed - and that should remain the focus right now. 

 

I've no argument with your second paragraph and with your third, I've no idea why people are assuming Shakespeare might not be able to adapt our style of play if necessary.

 

Seems to me that his preferred style with our players worked well, didn't work when Ranieri tried to change it for whatever reason, worked again when that style was broadly restored and may yet prove still more effective if we actually improve it still further.

 

If not though, there's still no evidence that Shakespeare can't or wouldn't change the style if he thought it right  - either temporarily or more permanently and assuming he had the personnel to affect an effective alternative.

 

What evidence is there to categorize the bloke as some fans seem determined to do. People seem obsessed with labelling people and yet labels of convenience are so often seriously flawed or only partly accurate. For me he'd be a very poor coach if he couldn't or wouldn't be flexible but it's not something I've noticed.                

There's a lot of great comments in this thread and I agree a lot with this your latter one. I think Ranieri did try to tinker with the style having recognised that sometimes, particularly in Europe,  you have to adopt more than one style. However, you have to have the right players to be able to adopt those styles and we hadn't neccessarily got them, though we were desparate in midfield prior to Ndidi which heavily effected both our attacking and defensive play.

 If that was down to recruitment then Walsh was as much culpable as Ranieri,  even so, no team has 100% recruitment success and overall over the past few seasons ours has been some of the best.

I  agree entirely that Vardy is not a one trick pony, I think he's far better than some people in the media give him credit for. How many times this year has he provided great balls across the face of goal that had we got a Lineker or Cottee ,  we'd have bagged a lot more goals. He can be the poacher himself as well  I believe with the right provider.

Personally regarding Shakespeare, although a talented coach and a good record thus far, I would still like to see how he does over the last few games when the players, having virtually secured safety,  may not have the same motivation. I'd like to see him have the balls to rightly drop the underperforming Marhez and see how he deals with him if he sulks. I'd like to see him utilise Gray to give him valuable game time to both improve his raw talent and avoid him having his head turned by other interested parties who recognise his potential.  I would hate Shakespeare to go down the Pearson favourite's route in this matter for the sake of a player who may well leave anyway.

[los dedos]

25 minutes ago, volpeazzurro said:

 

I  agree entirely that Vardy is not a one trick pony, I think he's far better than some people in the media give him credit for. How many times this year has he provided great balls across the face of goal that had we got a Lineker or Cottee ,  we'd have bagged a lot more goals. He can be the poacher himself as well  I believe with the right provider.

 

I think he has more assist than Mahrez since we've been back in the prem!

[matty98]

One thing that's impressed me about Shakespeare is he's clearly got us working on set piece routines and it shows with 2 goals coming from them so far.

[Ian Nacho]

I think the time is now we're mathematically safe. 

[richardsfoxes]

Don't see how they cant give him it, fans want him, players want him. 

[TheUltimateWinner]

 

[Blue ROI]

Man city and spurs will be a big test of him getting it full time. Even Bournemouth by the fact we didn't beat them last year is a game we would need to win. 

 

I'm delighted with how we've done under him but a cold way of looking at it is that we have lost 2 out of 3 against the top 7 and beaten some very average teams. 

 

Should we lose our next 2 then he might have a fight on his hands. 

[Number 6]

17 hours ago, matty98 said:

One thing that's impressed me about Shakespeare is he's clearly got us working on set piece routines and it shows with 2 goals coming from them so far.

Absolutely, it's great to see us using some nouse here. Given the timeframe he was given it was probably the one area he could do a bit of work on and make a change.

 

The one in the first half where Vardy was put in was also brilliant and unlucky not to result in a goal.

 

Then there's the goal against West Ham of course...

[ithuriel]

Depends on whether the owners see him as a manager that can take us on to the next level, so he will have to get results against Man City and Tottenham Bottlers and it will probably also depend on who leaves from the team this summer.

If enough of the squad want away then the owners might decide a rebuild is in order and it is the time to go for a new manager.

[BenTheFox]

Give him the job. He deserves a proper chance and I whole heartedly believe that he's the right man.