Francesco Acerbi

[Sionnach gorm]

2 hours ago, TJB-fox said:

Also probably because the players that Ranieri apparently sought out have been ****ing shit? don't think there's any need to explain your point hahah

That's just moronic.

[TJB-fox]

6 hours ago, Sionnach gorm said:

That's just moronic.

Not really, quite common knowledge that the players Ranieri supposedly brought in rather than who Walsh/the club wanted have been fairly dire in general. Why would we want to continue signing his targets at all especially now he's gone? Makes zero sense

[weller54]

1 hour ago, TJB-fox said:

Not really, quite common knowledge that the players Ranieri supposedly brought in rather than who Walsh/the club wanted have been fairly dire in general. Why would we want to continue signing his targets at all especially now he's gone? Makes zero sense

It's a good point! 

[Sionnach gorm]

8 hours ago, TJB-fox said:

Not really, quite common knowledge that the players Ranieri supposedly brought in rather than who Walsh/the club wanted have been fairly dire in general. Why would we want to continue signing his targets at all especially now he's gone? Makes zero sense

First we do not know which players were brought in by Ranieri (it is all speculation).  Secondly, a player stands on its merits, not who the player is tied to.  If Acerbi is good bring him in, if he's not don't.  This, who brought in,who when, why, crap is just sophomoric.

[sk3since03]

He's good on Football Manager so that means we should sign him! FM is gospel 

[Vindaloo FOX]

rather have a player that knows the Prem but i guess this would be the cheaper option. 

[TJB-fox]

5 hours ago, Sionnach gorm said:

First we do not know which players were brought in by Ranieri (it is all speculation).  Secondly, a player stands on its merits, not who the player is tied to.  If Acerbi is good bring him in, if he's not don't.  This, who brought in,who when, why, crap is just sophomoric.

Speculation, but it's fairly obvious who Claudio has brought in really isn't it? And I didn't say that, I'm happy for the club to bring in whoever they feel is adequate but I don't understand your reasoning behind wanting to bring in previous targets when the schedule has clearly changed. The manager and overall regime has changed with Shakey coming in so why would we target Ranieri's targets unless he feels they are good enough. 

[DatfoxesKid23]

5 hours ago, Sionnach gorm said:

a player stands on its merits,

 

well said. I think we need a young centre back to learn from acerbi at 29 he's a short term solution  

[srex9]

3 hours ago, DatfoxesKid23 said:

well said. I think we need a young centre back to learn from acerbi at 29 he's a short term solution  

29 isn't old. I'd consider 33 to be old for a pro footballer. We'd get a good 4-5 seasons from him.

[Sionnach gorm]

5 hours ago, DatfoxesKid23 said:

well said. I think we need a young centre back to learn from acerbi at 29 he's a short term solution  

Generally I would agree, but defenders often hit their prime in their 30's..at least the best ones.  A defender gets better with experience.  Paolo Maldini probably hit his peak at 31 and played very well til his retirement at 41.  Now, not all are like Maldini, but a defender at 29 does not have his best years necessarily behind him.

[Babylon]

6 hours ago, TJB-fox said:

Speculation, but it's fairly obvious who Claudio has brought in really isn't it? And I didn't say that, I'm happy for the club to bring in whoever they feel is adequate but I don't understand your reasoning behind wanting to bring in previous targets when the schedule has clearly changed. The manager and overall regime has changed with Shakey coming in so why would we target Ranieri's targets unless he feels they are good enough. 

Could you list the ones you think were Ranieri signings?

 

I'm only fairly sure of about three.

[Tiny earl]

Butting in id say Mendy, Benny and possibly Kaputska.

[TJB-fox]

3 hours ago, Babylon said:

Could you list the ones you think were Ranieri signings?

 

I'm only fairly sure of about three.

Kapustka, Benalouane, Mendy and then I have absolutely no idea about Hernandez. Heard a rumour before that he really really wanted Inler in too but again not sure about that. 

[Babylon]

1 hour ago, TJB-fox said:

Kapustka, Benalouane, Mendy and then I have absolutely no idea about Hernandez. Heard a rumour before that he really really wanted Inler in too but again not sure about that. 

Forgot about Inler! Hernandez I think fits a Walsh type signing, free transfer, stand out stats.

[Realist Guy In The Room]

10 minutes ago, Babylon said:

Forgot about Inler! Hernandez I think fits a Walsh type signing, free transfer, stand out stats.

Kapustka feels like Walsh signing.  Similar to Kramaric.

[Babylon]

1 minute ago, Realist Guy In The Room said:

Kapustka feels like Walsh signing.  Similar to Kramaric.

I say Ranieri purely because Percy said we'd never watched the bloke play. We know how thorough Walsh was. Plus the chairman of his old club came out at the time and said Ranieri called him up about the player during the Euros, not contact previously, no mention of Walsh etc.

[Realist Guy In The Room]

17 minutes ago, Babylon said:

I say Ranieri purely because Percy said we'd never watched the bloke play. We know how thorough Walsh was. Plus the chairman of his old club came out at the time and said Ranieri called him up about the player during the Euros, not contact previously, no mention of Walsh etc.

Fair enough.

 

Seems even more strange that he never actually played him.

[MPH]

12 hours ago, DatfoxesKid23 said:

well said. I think we need a young centre back to learn from acerbi at 29 he's a short term solution  

 

 

Short term my arse! What on earth are are you talking about?!

 

 

Wasilewski was older when he signed for us and has been a great servant of the club- this guy would most likely be a  starter for a good few years..

[volpeazzurro]

On 5/27/2017 at 10:07, TJB-fox said:

Not really, quite common knowledge that the players Ranieri supposedly brought in rather than who Walsh/the club wanted have been fairly dire in general. Why would we want to continue signing his targets at all especially now he's gone? Makes zero sense

Except that nobody really knows who bought who in. Ranieri clearly said on two occasions that he was just the coach ie he he inferred that he didn't get too involved with such things. This is just another of those popular myths in order to discredit an individual in order to beat him round the head a bit more, if the player turns out to be a duffer it was down to Ranieri, but if the player turns out well it's down to Walsh. A bit like if any tactics went wrong that was solely down to Ranieri, any genius tactics or substitutions would have to be down to Shakespeare. Walsh has bought his fair share of duffers and just imagine the comments if Ranieri lost 6-1 to Spurs, people like you would be calling for his head whilst if it's Shakespeare, no such fuss.

 

Our succeses were down to a team effort, it's more than doubtful that without Ranieri's interventions that we'd have won the league, so why are some people so keen to do him down at the slightest opportunity?  Unless they think it might make them look all expert and knowledgeable.

[DatfoxesKid23]

On 2017-5-28 at 21:13, volpeazzurro said:

Except that nobody really knows who bought who in. Ranieri clearly said on two occasions that he was just the coach ie he he inferred that he didn't get too involved with such things. This is just another of those popular myths in order to discredit an individual in order to beat him round the head a bit more, if the player turns out to be a duffer it was down to Ranieri, but if the player turns out well it's down to Walsh. A bit like if any tactics went wrong that was solely down to Ranieri, any genius tactics or substitutions would have to be down to Shakespeare. Walsh has bought his fair share of duffers and just imagine the comments if Ranieri lost 6-1 to Spurs, people like you would be calling for his head whilst if it's Shakespeare, no such fuss.

 

Our succeses were down to a team effort, it's more than doubtful that without Ranieri's interventions that we'd have won the league, so why are some people so keen to do him down at the slightest opportunity?  Unless they think it might make them look all expert and knowledgeable.

A player stands on its merits same with managers

[volpeazzurro]

5 hours ago, DatfoxesKid23 said:

A player stands on its merits same with managers

I do agree to a very large extent like this season Marhez has had by his standards a shocker. Whether down to form, laziness or head being elsewhere, you're right, that's down to him. Had that been last season Ranieri dropped him a couple of times.

Overall though, last season was a result of generally all players playing to their best and all management making the right decisions  (some might say with a bit of luck as well ).

 

This season I couldn't honesty put it all on Ranieris shoulders albeit we heard some strange rumours and he has to take a big share of the blame. Neither was it all down to Marhez who I said by his standards had a stinker. Pre season , player attitude, confidence, in fighting, training, who knows?  I'm just uncomfortable vilifying one individual in Ranieri when minutes ago he was the best thing since sliced bread.

 

I  agree that when Shakespeare took over we stayed up and it did look odd but Ranieri going and all the negative press served to give those players a huge kick up the pants. But...not only results but performances started to drop off for me again towards the end, there's problems still there for me and there needs to be changes in personnel. It remains to be seen whether Shakespeare is the man capable of doing it?

[Finnegan]

Why would Ranieri sign Kapustka then bench him all year?

 

Tbh, I'm not even convinced by Benalouane. I think people assume it was Ranieri purely because he came from an Italian club.

 

The guy is an absolute liability, clearly not the sort of defender Ranieri would have wanted, hence he was also benched for the entire time Ranieri was here.

[ROB-THE-BLUE]

40 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

Why would Ranieri sign Kapustka then bench him all year?

 

Tbh, I'm not even convinced by Benalouane. I think people assume it was Ranieri purely because he came from an Italian club.

 

The guy is an absolute liability, clearly not the sort of defender Ranieri would have wanted, hence he was also benched for the entire time Ranieri was here.

The same reasons he benched Inler all year?

[Ashley]

51 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

Why would Ranieri sign Kapustka then bench him all year?

 

Tbh, I'm not even convinced by Benalouane. I think people assume it was Ranieri purely because he came from an Italian club.

 

The guy is an absolute liability, clearly not the sort of defender Ranieri would have wanted, hence he was also benched for the entire time Ranieri was here.

 

I'm with you on the Benalouane thing too. I said in our group chat he's a liability. He tries to always nick infront of the forward to intercept the ball yet gets turned far to easily. Jesus even Harry Kane gave him the run around.. Get rid.

[Finnegan]

52 minutes ago, ROB-THE-BLUE said:

The same reasons he benched Inler all year?

 

Ngolo Kante benched Inler all year, to be fair. Our first eleven picked itself for 90% of the season.

 

I just think its funny we blame Claudio for every signing that hasn't come off even though there's a very clear method and policy for recruitment at the club. Walsh left, he didn't take his whole staff with him, I imagine they largely carried on his practices.

 

People say Mendy was a Ranieri signing because they worked together before. He actually quit Monaco when Ranieri was there.

 

Mendy is an absolute archetypal Walsh moneyball signing. Ligue 1, great stats for work rate, passing and interceptions, it looked like a banker.

 

We were all excited by him on paper.

 

Then he gets injured, barely plays and suddenly he's a Ranieri flop. What?