Shakespeare - The Poll

[tom27111]

It's been mentioned on here, but there is a big difference between a coach and a manager.

 

Undoubtedly, Shakespeare is a great coach, but day to day managing? Being the bad guy if needs be to certain players? I'm not sure.

 

Steve Mclaren, Carlos Quieroz, Ricky Sbragia, Terry Connor, out very own Peter Taylor. All great coaches...not managers. 

 

Looking at it another way, I've known and worked with people who were 'one of the lads', then got promoted and they just can't command the respect that they should have.

 

It seems he was the good guy if the manager gave you a telling off, it's hard to take on the other role.

[steflcfc]

Shakespeare will have a massive job on his hands in the summer.

He can be a tad relaxed at the minute as everything is unknown, and seems to have been "steadying the ship" after Claudio.

 

Once the contract is on the table things will change, as now his reputation will be thrust more into the spotlight.

 

Him and Stowell won't be able to do everything, new recruitment behind the scenes and extra coaches will be needed.

Player recruitment and players leaving will (first team/fringe players) shape some of our decisions in the summer.

 

This will be new to him, he maybe relying on the experience of others within the boardroom (with may help but we all seen some poor player recruitment at the start of this year)

 

The owners will have to get this decision right. (they usually are)

And  to how things will look going forward, especially with no CL to offer, think his appointment and getting the recruitment right in the summer are massive.

 

This is one of this biggest in the last few years, as to if we stay a mid table team or really do go for a top 6 push.

[Redouane]

23 hours ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

 

Suggestion for 'no' votes, or anyone who cares to offer one... what alternative would you like to see?

 

edit: following @FireFox contribution, can I add I meant serious alternatives, not fantasy / absolutely awful alternatives!

Claudio Ranieri ?

[Redouane]

5 hours ago, Realist Guy In The Room said:

Yes we should never go for a big name manager again because all

of them will fail.

 

No big name manager will ever succeed at Leicester City Football Club.

Claudio was a big name and won Leicester the league.. You can't deny that even though the follow up season went bad, he still did something amazing. 

[Stadt]

I'm absolutely sick of this "big name" horeshit, first of all what even constitutes a big name? Succes? Fame? Of the last four permanent managers we've had the two "big names" have been absolutely ****ing terrible for us. It's a complete myth. Esteban Cambiasso, an all round footballing legend and champions league winner signed for us whilst Pearson was manager. What matters is success and ability not the size of a manager's Wikipedia entry.

 

Mancini is the only "big name" out of work and he's already said he doesn't want the job once and besides he'd be an awful fit. Shakespeare's took over after being an important part of our best ever spell over the last 6 years, turned us around and took us to the CL quarter finals.

 

If he doesn't get the job permanently he'd be within his rights to be pissed off and I'd imagine there would be interest from clubs willing to give him a go.

[Realist Guy In The Room]

A big name would be someone recognisable and statesman like.  Someone who is well respected in the game and has won things both as a player and as a manager.

 

A big name would have handled big players, big transfers and most of all, weight of expectation.

 

This is what we need.  Not a watered down version of Pearson.

[Sionnach gorm]

2 hours ago, Wookie said:

I'm absolutely sick of this "big name" horeshit, first of all what even constitutes a big name? Succes? Fame? Of the last four permanent managers we've had the two "big names" have been absolutely ****ing terrible for us. It's a complete myth. Esteban Cambiasso, an all round footballing legend and champions league winner signed for us whilst Pearson was manager. What matters is success and ability not the size of a manager's Wikipedia entry.

 

Mancini is the only "big name" out of work and he's already said he doesn't want the job once and besides he'd be an awful fit. Shakespeare's took over after being an important part of our best ever spell over the last 6 years, turned us around and took us to the CL quarter finals.

 

If he doesn't get the job permanently he'd be within his rights to be pissed off and I'd imagine there would be interest from clubs willing to give him a go.

Which two big names were terrible?  Just asking.

[FireFox]

4 hours ago, foxhateram said:

Top 5 on form during his tenure. After such a poor season as well. Can't believe people are saying no?   

Actually 6th.

 

22 points and +4 GD, sandwiched between Arsenal on +5 and Crystal Paalce on +3, but people will laugh if we suggest Wenger or Allardyce as our next manager. Bournemouth are also at 19 points (and +2 GD) since he took over and could well beat us and also end up with 22 (and thus at least +3 GD with us also at most +3 GD). But we don't want to go out and get Howe?

 

He also had a very good start which can be put down to "new manager bounce". If you look at the table since after the first few games, we are much lower.

 

 

1 hour ago, Wookie said:

I'm absolutely sick of this "big name" horeshit, first of all what even constitutes a big name? Succes? Fame? Of the last four permanent managers we've had the two "big names" have been absolutely ****ing terrible for us. It's a complete myth. Esteban Cambiasso, an all round footballing legend and champions league winner signed for us whilst Pearson was manager. What matters is success and ability not the size of a manager's Wikipedia entry.

I'll quote your sig: "Remember that time we won the league". Unless you are saying that Paulo Sousa was a bigger name than Claudio Ranieri?! Yes he had recently failed as the Greece manager, but he was still a big name, and - regardless of how much of a role you consider he had in the title win or how he would have gotten us relegated - he cannot be called "absolutely ***ing terrible for us. I'm not having that.

 

I'm also not sure how many of us are calling for a "big name". We're calling for a manager, not a coach. We're calling for someone with top-flight experience, not someone who "gets along with the players, has their respect," et cetera.

[NotTheMarketLeader]

On 19/05/2017 at 01:01, Beachyboy said:

I think this squad is a 10-16th place squad an injuries even 3 can leave us near the relegation zone, squad needs strengthening an it's more about the recruitment than who the manager is for me personally, 1 result doesn't change my thoughts on that.

It is all about recruitment now as this SQUAD if we get injuries, as we have seen is relegation fodder.

 

With us a mid table side, is Shakey as manager going to be able to attract what we need?

 

I don't think so. 

 

Whilst it has its risks, appointing a higher profile manager (as long as he is also decent - not a 'Sven' type name) could attract players we need to push on.

 

Spending big on a manager could make the recruitment job that bit easier.

 

 

[Dan LCFC]

6 hours ago, Clever Fox said:

I was sitting here asking myself that same very question.  

The only other name I've heard mentioned with us is Silva the ex Hull Manager

It's ironic people write off Shakespeare for one (very) bad result yet clamour for someone who's just lost 4-0 at Palace and 0-2 to Sunderland.

 

I'm saying that as someone who really rates Silva too. Just think we're being a bit too throwaway. 

[Thracian]

The name cravers are making a mountain out of the molehill of our defeat by Spurs and totally ignoring the circumstances of a game we were almost bound to lose. 

 

What that game showed is what has been obvious to me for ages - and Shakespeare too now, judging by his reaction - which is that our squad is way short of the depth we need and the shortfall is being made up of players who simply aren't showing themselves to be good enough.

 

Altogether it adds up to us having too many periphery people. It's not Shakespeare's fault. 

 

But what is Shakespeare doing about it?

 

After just a few weeks he's not defending the situation because the players are so well known to him, they're effectively friends...he's pleading for the means to do something about it and to get on with that task urgently.

 

Yet we just keep on treading water. And wasting valuable time when this season is effectively over and all that really matters now is preparing properly for next season because there is so much to do and we seem to be making a habit of not doing it judging by the last two windows.     

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

     

[Thracian]

The poll's showing a swing away from Shakespeare.

The bloke pulls off a minor miracle in saving us from relegation and says he's desperate to strengthen a squad we all know needs strengthening yet is being kicked mercilessly for losing a match which didn't matter and which we were never going to win in the circumstances whoever we'd had as manager.

I bet any new bloke gets backing. Question is, why don't we give some to Shakespeare? And get on with it the same as we should have got on with other things we've let slip.   

 

      

[Thracian]

7 hours ago, Redouane said:

Claudio was a big name and won Leicester the league.. You can't deny that even though the follow up season went bad, he still did something amazing. 

Yes, but he built sod all to follow that achievement and it's arguable that the foundations for the achievement itself were all laid by others. Ranieri's greatest impact might have been psychological, which is fair enough in itself, but it sure didn't sustain anything.   

[FireFox]

The poll's showing a swing away from Shakespeare.

The bloke pulls off a minor miracle in saving us from relegation and says he's desperate to strengthen a squad we all know needs strengthening yet is being kicked mercilessly for losing a match which didn't matter and which we were never going to win in the circumstances whoever we'd had as manager.

I bet any new bloke gets backing. Question is, why don't we give some to Shakespeare? And get on with it the same as we should have got on with other things we've let slip.   

 

      

Minor miracle in saving us? Please. We were mismanaged and low on confidence, but that squad was a title-winning, CL group-winning squad regardless, and any half-decent manager would have steadied the ship. Shakey was obviously the right man to do so, already knowing the squad.

 

And losing the match did matter. By Shakey and all the player's own words: We want to finish as high as possible. It does add up to millions. And yeah, maybe we always would have lost that game, but losing it 1-6 shows some flaws in Shakespeare as a manager.

 

The whole "get on with it" screams no ambition to me. The owners shouldn't settle for Shakespeare just because he knows the squad, gets on well with them, and got us a mid-table finish. That would sound a lot like keeping someone on for sentimental reasons rather than football reasons. The owners need to look at how the performances and results have been after the "new manager bounce" and decide if they think he truly is ready to lead the club. The owners also need to look at other options, including any available "big names", and see if they would be willing to manage us and what their plans would be.

 

[Nick]

I'm not certain big names in management draw big players as much as big money. And we need to spend.

[sylofox]

I'm not voting as only one answer from me. I wish this had gone up Wednesday so people had voted without the spuds result in mind.

[TrentFox]

Sometimes, you read comments on here and it's like we didn't storm the league last season! We won it by playing a certain type of football in a certain way. We avoided relegation this season, which looked odds on at one point, by returning to that style. Yet still some people are so brainwashed by the media and pundits that they can't wait to switch to trying a different manager and a different brand of football. There is nobody out there who understands the LCFC way better than CS does. He gets the job. Simple.

[CosbehFox]

33 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

I'm not certain big names in management draw big players as much as big money. And we need to spend.

Certainly not in the case of Mancini. His attitude stinks and destroys confidence. Managers who had great careers often expect the players they manage to be of the same capabilities of them. I look at our squad for technical ability and it's just not there. Hence why it's never really worked out well for us. 

 

This is where someone like Rudkin (Im not blaming him because I don't know the extent of the role he's allowed) should be taking ownership of how the club wants to progress in the medium and long term. Looking to buy players capable of the next technical level alongside managers as well. The club works reactive rather than plans for the future. The same criticism could be labelled at the youth set up, there's no overall goal. We won't ever sustain top 10 success unless we begin to evolve our style.

 

You keep Shakespeare in and you know what we are getting. Safety and someone what knows our players, their abilities and our style. I'd rather do that with a bit of support trying to bringing some decent players in. Then going for any of the other current available managerial candidates. 

[CosbehFox]

6 hours ago, Realist Guy In The Room said:

A big name would be someone recognisable and statesman like.  Someone who is well respected in the game and has won things both as a player and as a manager.

 

A big name would have handled big players, big transfers and most of all, weight of expectation.

 

This is what we need.  Not a watered down version of Pearson.

Any suggestions then? Whose currently available who fits your criteria? 

[Sionnach gorm]

1 hour ago, Thracian said:

Yes, but he built sod all to follow that achievement and it's arguable that the foundations for the achievement itself were all laid by others. Ranieri's greatest impact might have been psychological, which is fair enough in itself, but it sure didn't sustain anything.   

Bolloks! Foundations my arse.  I agree with the confidence gig.  Fact is that Shakey is a shadow of Ranieri.  He is.  Ranieri, like him or not has been requested time and again by teams that know how to win and want to win (and has a record to prove it).  Pearson and Shakey are championship caliber managers!  There I said it!!!!! 

 

We want to play with the big boys or do we want a fair to middlin team?  I want a manger that won't allow a defeat like we just suffered.  Enough with this loyalist parochial mentality!

[Realist Guy In The Room]

36 minutes ago, Cardiff_Fox said:

Any suggestions then? Whose currently available who fits your criteria? 

Laurent Blanc.

[Nick]

42 minutes ago, Cardiff_Fox said:

Certainly not in the case of Mancini. His attitude stinks and destroys confidence. Managers who had great careers often expect the players they manage to be of the same capabilities of them. I look at our squad for technical ability and it's just not there. Hence why it's never really worked out well for us. 

 

This is where someone like Rudkin (Im not blaming him because I don't know the extent of the role he's allowed) should be taking ownership of how the club wants to progress in the medium and long term. Looking to buy players capable of the next technical level alongside managers as well. The club works reactive rather than plans for the future. The same criticism could be labelled at the youth set up, there's no overall goal. We won't ever sustain top 10 success unless we begin to evolve our style.

 

You keep Shakespeare in and you know what we are getting. Safety and someone what knows our players, their abilities and our style. I'd rather do that with a bit of support trying to bringing some decent players in. Then going for any of the other current available managerial candidates. 

 

What about candidates who are not available?

[Thracian]

 

For a "Championship" manager Pearson actually stands among the top three managers within my 60+ years of watching Leicester and his achievements were considerable considering our position before he arrived, and for all his personal failings as a communicator.

 

Shakespeare was part of that success and additionally responsible for maintaining our status - together with the players - which has given him a pretty good start in actual management as opposed to assisting.

 

Liking Ranieri or otherwise is irrelevent, but for the superstar boss you make him out to be, he's been sacked rather a lot and I think the last paragraph about him in Wiki perhaps sums up by own thoughts of him and his often tiresome catenaccio approach which is bout as dated as it gets.

 

"Throughout his career, Ranieri has also drawn criticism for over-rotating his squad and modifying his tactics and formations excessively throughout the course of a season, which earned him the nickname "the Tinkerman" in the British media.^[19] In the past, he has also been accused of using "old-fashioned" and overly defensive tactical systems by pundits and other managers, and was criticised for his failure to win a major league title, until he captured the Premier League title with Leicester in 2016."

 

That he did the latter on the back of other people's groundwork is fine (and not unusual) but the way he lead us from something to nothing in no time reflected, not the near genius you infer,  but an alarming weakness in his management skills.

 

Defeats like the Spurs game happen and often they are connected to the same sort of problems Shakespeare was faced with - ie an injury crisis made worse (through no fault of his own) by inadequate replacements. 

 

That doesn't in any way reflect a lack of ambition on Shakespeare's part - he screamed out for reinforcements as a consequence and had already referred to our recruitment process being well in hand even beforehand, thus suggesting he was not surprised by what happened.

 

So give me something that's fair or sensible about you suggesting he hasn't got the ability or ambition for the job. Or that he's somehow a parochial loyalist while actually pleading out loud for new signings!

 

Seems to me Shakespeare recognises our problems as much, and probably more, than anyone else  and would like to get on with doing something about them while people like you would delay what seems like an urgent process, even longer.  

 

You scream and shout but I'll stand by my comment that Ranieri "built nothing" here. Indeed, in some ways I reckon he all-but wrecked what had been put in place.

 

My favouring of Shakespeare is based on my belief that he can and will build something. He had a damn good grounding under Pearson but has additional qualities that Pearson will never have. 

 

 

  

             

 

 

 

       

[Goutboy]

Let's be honest, there is no real time to bring a new manager in now who would have the same depth of knowledge of the current squad and realistic plans on recruitment over the summer period. As a result, we change now and we get the same bunch of players next year (perhaps minus mahrez) who then won't identify with the new manager and I think a recipe for us getting relegated.

 

It has to be Shakespeare. Anyone who think a 6-1 meaningless defeat should bar him from the roll is delusional. Our players had given up by the time 3 of those goals went in and we were depleted of fit alternatives. 

 

We we definitely have some recruitment to do over the summer as the dross that ranieri bought last summer must go

[CosbehFox]

37 minutes ago, Realist Guy In The Room said:

Laurent Blanc.

Very realistic. He got a 22 million euro pay off at PSG and his time as France manager was blightered with heavy suggestions of racism.