Next manager ( who do you want ).

[maddog]

Wagner. If Huddersfield lose the playoff final he will 100% be available and we could get him.

 

He's the sort of chap who would blow the socks off the owners and Rudkin in an interview for the job. 

[Stadt]

1 hour ago, Paddy. said:

Maybe I'm being a bit disingenuous but why all the calls for Marco Silva? He took over Hull when they were bottom and finished 3rd bottom, 6 points from safety. IMHO he did an okay job at Hull but nothing more, not enough to suggest he'd be a good choice for LCFC. Just my opinion.

They were as good as down and he almost kept them up with a small, terrible squad.

 

What he did at Estoril was amazing and he did well at Olympiacos too.

[LanguedocFox]

12 hours ago, baronfox said:

I think we need to look at a stat someone has mentioned earlier.

 

2 wins in 10 games is not really something that is positive for Shakespeare.

 

What do supporters of appointing him manager think to this statistic?

Can't speak for anyone else, but this supporter thinks that statistic is bullsh!t.

 

In our last ten PL games (and only the PL counts in this context) we won four, drew two and lost four. One of those defeats (Everton) was with a weakened team because of the CL quarter final; two defeats - Arsenal and Man City - we deserved at least a point in each; against Spurs we were dire.

 

I'm not saying that Shakespeare deserves the job, but if he is going to be judged, he should be judged fairly. When he got the manager's job, we were 17th, one point above the drop, with 21 points from 25 games. In his 13 games in charge, we got 23 points and ended up in 12th.

[CockneyFox]

Shakey has done a fantastic job but appointing him permanently would be a sticking plaster on a flesh wound. We may just about eek out another season from the current crop but we urgently need to start the long term rebuilding of the side that should have started 12 months ago. I'm not convinced he would be the man to lead that (and to be absolutely fair to him he hasn't had the chance yet to demonstrate it)

 

David Wagner or Marco Silva for me - both are exciting options and deserve a chance at the next level.

[LanguedocFox]

31 minutes ago, lgfualol said:

Wouldn't want Silva. 

 

Schmidt or Wagner if Huddersfield don't come up for me. Shakey to be assistant again. 

If Shakespeare is going to be assistant again, it's more likely as assistant to Pearson at Middlesbrough (where it looks like he will be going).

[WigstonWanderer]

Still think Shakey deserves it, though understandably opinion seems to have moved away from him over the last few matches, particularly the last 2.

 

However he has done a remarkable job:

 

- Saved the club from almost certain relegation.

- Coped with fixture congestion worse than any since promotion.

- Coped with the worst injury crisis since promotion.

- Delivered a respectable finish in the Champions League.

 

Would Conte himself have done any better with the players at hand? I honestly don't think so. Yes he has made a few mistakes, most notably the Gray for Benny sub vs Spurs, but he's still learning his trade. His worst crime appears to be that he isn't a big name, but I for one am suspicious of big egos for our club.

 

 

Edit:

 

Just to add that if the owners do decide to go for a big name, I really hope that they are fully prepared to back him with the very deep pockets required, because whoever comes in would almost certainly want to change to a more possession-oriented style that will require massive investment to bring in suitable players. If not I fear that we would face relegation just as we did when Ranieri tried his experiments.

[RonnieTodger]

Hilarious that people want Shakespeare gone because we lost 1-6 and want Silva. 

 

I don't know what more CS could've done. He steered us to comfortable safety when it was painfully obvious that we were going down and beat Sevilla. There's no guarantee that he will do well next season, but that goes for any incoming manager too. Give him a chance. 

[WigstonWanderer]

14 hours ago, Samilktray said:

Can't see us going for an exciting up and comer like Wagner or Silva, and would rather Shakey didn't get the gig. We'll probably go for another name in the Claudio/Sven mould

Worst possible outcome

[mozartfox]

If Wagner comes here I would think our penalties might be better.   He would also raid the Bundesliga for recruits.   

[Arriba Los Zorros]

13 hours ago, TonyN11 said:

Brendan Rogers could do a job for us........ but not for the 1st team.

 

What about 'Arry Redface? .... fantastic job at Birmingham

Sorry what? he was in charge 3 games. 

[Arriba Los Zorros]

14 minutes ago, RonnieTodger said:

Hilarious that people want Shakespeare gone because we lost 1-6 and want Silva. 

 

I don't know what more CS could've done. He steered us to comfortable safety when it was painfully obvious that we were going down and beat Sevilla. There's no guarantee that he will do well next season, but that goes for any incoming manager too. Give him a chance. 

People are fickle sheep, are and reacting emotionally to losing 1-6 because they have probably had the piss taken out of them for it and want to find somebody to blame.

 

Not appointing Craig Shakespeare would be a disaster. We don't have the quality to just walk into the top 10 regardless of who is in charge. We can't afford to transition and change style of play right now as we're not stable enough. It's just fortunate that many of the posters on here have no say at all in the club's decisions.

[NotTheMarketLeader]

13 hours ago, Cardiff_Fox said:

You are having a laugh here. 

 

Ranieri had nothing to do with our Champions style. He admitted himself he barely changed the style we had done. 

 

Ranieri set about changing that this season and we turned to utter rubbish. He put the leash on the likes of Vardy. We return to this style against Liverpool and absolutely rip into them. Just like Sevilla where we were high tempo and in their faces. 

 

Shakespeare has already said he's sat in on recruitment meetings and mentioned attitude being a huge part of a player working well here. A bit of dig at the signings of Slimani and Musa who appear not to get along with the rest of the squad at all. 

People now are reinventing the past to make out Ranieri had nothing to do with us winning the title, because it went tits up this season it seems.

 

What you've said there is not accurate at all, so let's get back to what actually happened.

 

Ranieri ditched Schlupp and De Leat and replaced them with Fuchs and Simpson and made that NEW defensive team defended narrow, the priority to pack the middle and force the attacks wide.

 

Unlike where previously the full backs bombed on, Simmo and Fuchs were instructed to stay back and defend at

all costs.

 

He also in inverted the wingers Albrighton and Mahrez different to what went before.

 

He made Vardy the main man own the middle, unlike the previous season where he was often either wide or on the bench.

 

Yeah....it went really badly with those those tactical changes compared to that which everyone's precious Nige operated the season before didn't it.

 

Sorry this information doesn't concur with 90% of views on here that Ranner's had nothing to do with the title win, but if you have those ideas you have either got short memories, you are easily swayed by some opinions or you are as thick as ****.

[NotTheMarketLeader]

12 hours ago, Cardiff_Fox said:

Yep see Sampson's post and Kevin Phillips article on Sky. 

 

Simpson was a result of Ranieri replacing De Laet. Mahrez, Vardy, Albrighton were all permanent fixtures under Pearson at the end of his time. Okazaki played exact the same role as Nugent and was signed at a time when Pearson was manager (identified alongside Walsh as a player they wanted to the previous three transfer windows). Ranieri made minor tweaks. Drinkwater's role I'll give him due but even that was partly assisted by James injury and Cambiasso leaving. 

 

The style comes from those before Ranieri. Without a shadow of doubt. The formation changed and tactical tweaks were made. 

 

However as soon ranieri started to alter that pressing and high tempo style we faulted. 

Your last sentance I agree with at least, but the rest of it amounts to :

 

CR had nothing to do with the title win as there were players here from the previous season which Pearson managed. 

[Happy Fox]

More info re Roger Schmidt

 

http://theinsidechannel.com/guide-roger-schmidts-tactics-bayer-leverkusen/

 

Even before his side’s crazy, manic, amazing, awful 5-4 defeat to Wolfsburg last weekend Roger Schmidt has been a frequent topic of conversation in European football this year. Michael Caley has written the best piece on Bayer Leverkusen’s distinctive style, but there have been others as well. There are two basic parts to understanding what Bayer Leverkusen wish to do under Schmidt, both of which we’ll explain below.

Bayer Leverkusen’s Use of Gegenpressing

Gegenpressing should be a familiar concept to most fans at this point. For those unfamiliar, the concept is relatively simple. When you lose the ball, you attempt to win it back as quickly as possible. There are multiple reasons for doing this:

• Attacking the opponent as soon as they win the ball disrupts their attack before they can build up any possession or start to probe for an opening in the defense.
• Pressuring the ball so quickly can force mistakes more easily than sitting off the ball and organizing the defense from a deeper position.
• When you win the ball back from your opponent at that point in their attack it is easier to catch them out of position because their players likely began moving forward when they won the ball so by winning it back quickly you’re now attacking a defense rushing back to try and set up to stop your attack.

Gegenpressing basically consists of two distinct parts:

• Most of the team moves slightly to cut off passing lanes so that the player on the ball cannot make a pass.
• 2-3 of the players closest to the ball converge on it simultaneously in order to force the turnover.

This gif below shows how Borussia Dortmund, the kings of the gegenpress, used the system against Real Madrid two seasons ago in the Champions League on the way to their surprise appearance in the final:Note how the three Dortmund players move when they close down on the Real Madrid wide man. The three still frames below show what’s happening. The two players closest to the sideline close directly on the ball. The third player, the one more infield, follows his man to cut off the passing lane until he basically runs into the Madrid man and forces the turnover. So the two players closest to the sideline squeeze and the third man, more infield, is the one who makes the tackle.

easy passing lane for Madrid, seems like they should build up the play easily

the man marked “key man” tracks his man rather than the ball

now the key man can step in and converge on the ball with his two teammates, forcing the turnover

And now with Dortmund in possession you can see that Madrid is out of position and it’s easier for Dortmund to attack them. The key idea with gegenpressing is summed up in a quote from Jurgen Klopp: The press is a more effective playmaker than any player. Put another way, you don’t need a player to create chances with his passing or running when you can win the ball in positions where you instantly have opportunity to score. Learn more: Try our daily newsletter free for one week! In terms of their pressing, Leverkusen is very like Dortmund. When you lose the ball, you try to win it back immediately and hit your opponent quickly. If they win the ball, you just go back to the beginning: try to win it as soon as possible, attack, and keep going. What sets them apart is what they do after they have the ball, which we’ll talk about in three parts.

Bayer Leverkusen Throws Men Forward

Borussia Dortmund are fast, but they can slow the game down and recycle the ball when necessary. They aren’t nearly as methodical as Pep Guardiola’s Bayern Munich, but they are willing to slow things down as needed. Roger Schmidt’s Leverkusen is another story entirely. To begin, their default formation is less 4-2-3-1 or even 4-4-2 and more of a 4-2-4. Here’s a still from their recent match with Wolfsburg:What’s most interesting about this is that Leverkusen are actually lining up a bit like Diego Simeone’s Atletico: four at the back, two center midfielders sitting a bit deeper, two wide men tucked inside, and two central attackers. But whereas Atletico tends to sit deep, invite their opponent to have possession, and then waits for the time to hit them, Schmidt’s Leverkusen are far more aggressive, surging forward in numbers and trying to force the opponent into errors in their own defensive half. We’ll come back to this in a moment.

 

View image | gettyimages.com

So when Leverkusen win the ball, their players bomb forward, attacking the spaces between defensive players and offering the man on the ball multiple passing options. Pushing this many players forward is important for two reasons:

• Having so many players in advanced positions makes it easy to move the ball quickly and with accuracy.
• The advanced positioning of the players also allows them to press with numbers whenever they lose the ball.

The result of this aggression is that Leverkusen end up with an extreme attacking formation. The two center backs stay deep, one or two of the center midfielders stay back, and then the rest of the team surges forward. At times it’s almost something like a 2-4-3-1 or 3-3-3-1:The interesting thing is that in looking at this you can still discern the roots in 4-4-2 or 4-2-4. The ML, DM, DM, and MR players are a back four, MC and MC are midfielders, AL and AC are wings, and the two FCs are the strikers. But they are pushed so far forward that it almost starts to look like some experimental three man defense in a Bielsa-type system.

Leverkusen’s Fast Shooting

The second point here is that Leverkusen want to shoot the ball quickly. So they’re surging forward and always looking for a chance to have a pop at goal. One suspects that the offseason signings of Hakan Calhanoglu and Karim Bellarabi were made because both players are skilled shooters from distance. The other typical member of their front three, winger Son Heung-Min, is a holdover from the previous regime but is equally comfortable sprinting at the defense and shooting from range. The screen captures below show how this works in practice. It’s incredibly fast, but it is not at all dependent on long passing. For Leverkusen the players do most the movement and the ball simply covers the short distances between them. The images below from one of Leverkusen’s breaks against Wolfsburg shows how this works. Once Leverkusen win the ball there are only two (short) passes in the entire attack, but the ball covers about 60 yards in that time and it ends with Karim Bellarabi taking a shot that Wolfsburg keeper Diego Benaglio just manages to push round the post. But the whole attack, from the time they win the ball nearly inside their own box to win they shoot from the edge of the Wolfsburg box only takes about 20 seconds.

attacking the ball in wide areas

the ball has been won, now the Leverkusen players are streaming forward

 

the same player is dribbling, he has four players streaming in behind him

there are two main passing options here, a reverse ball to Calhanoglu near the top of the image or sliding the ball over to Bellarabi

To get a better appreciation of how unique Leverkusen is on this point, go read Caley’s piece on them.

Leverkusen’s Coverage of the Field

This is the point I particularly want to emphasize. I mentioned above that you can actually discern some surprising similarities between Atletico Madrid and Bayer Leverkusen. I’ve not seen anyone else make this point because it seems radically counter-intuitive. Atletico sit back in two incredibly deep banks of four, absorb pressure, and then launch counter attacks. Leverkusen push their men forward, hassle the ball, and attack at every opportunity.

But here’s the similarity: Both teams try to reduce the amount of space in which the game is played. Put another way, both teams keep all of their players very close together so as to maximize the effectiveness of the system. This is seen most noticeably when the ball is on one wing or the other because the entire squad will shift toward the ball, leaving the opposite wing completely vacant. Essentially the teams are betting that they can defend the play better by pressing the ball and eliminating the possibility of a long pass than by actually trying to defend a long pass.

 

View image | gettyimages.com

 

For fans of American football, it’s similar to the logic of a team sending six or seven players on a blitz. They’re betting that they can defend the play more effectively by hitting the quarterback before he can throw the ball than by simply trying to defend the wide receiver. You see something similar in basketball with teams that run a full court press. They think their best defense is to disrupt a team as they bring the ball up the floor rather than to sit back and try to defend once they have advanced the ball. The screen capture below illustrates this point nicely. This is moments after a throw in about halfway into the Wolfsburg defensive half on Leverkusen’s right wing. You can see all 10 outfield players in the frame:The four red shirts in the defensive half are the four defenders, the two players closest to the midfield line are the central midfielders, and the four most advanced players are the attacking four. So what Leverkusen is doing is basically the same thing Simeone tries to do: Pack tons of players into one small part of the pitch and make sure the game is played primarily in that area.

However, Leverkusen’s approach is far more risky than Simeone’s. If the game isn’t played in the part of the pitch where Atletico sets up (basically their own defensive third), it doesn’t hurt them because it means their opponent is having a ton of pointless possession in non-dangerous areas of the field. But when you push the game into advanced midfield areas and try to make everything happen there, as Leverkusen is doing in the above clip, you run a significant risk: If you can win the ball, you’re golden. You now have six, seven, or even eight players ready to pour forward and attack the opposition goal.

But if you fail to win the ball and the opponent is able to play the ball into an open bit of space your entire defense is left badly out of position and, thus, completely exposed. (Caley has also written well on this point.) That’s what happens here as Wolfsburg is able to get the ball out of the area that Leverkusen was attacking.

This causes the entire Leverkusen system to break down and the sequence ultimately ends with Wolfsburg scoring the match’s opener. (I’ll do a post working through this specific goal later this week.) So if you’re comparing the system Simeone uses with that of Roger Schmidt at Leverkusen, here are the three key points:

• The systems are similar in that both want their teams to be compact, to play the game in a small part of the pitch, and to aggressively attack the ball whenever it gets into that area.
• They differ in that Simeone is incredibly risk averse whereas Schmidt is a completely insane maniac. So Simeone sets up shop in the safest, least risky part of the field–his own defensive third. Schmidt sets his team up in midfield or even in the attacking third.
• Thus Atletico games tend to be matches of, to borrow a concept from science, punctuated equilibrium–most of the match passes with relatively little action as the opponent bangs their head against the red and white striped bus that is the Atletico defense. But then there are brief moments of frantic action as Atletico win the ball and storm forward. So you might have 80 minutes of tedium and 10 minutes of thrilling action. Leverkusen reverses that arrangement by forcing the game to be played at such a frantic high pace in midfield. Interestingly, however, both approaches tend to create a similar number of goals. There is an average of 2.9 goals per game in Leverkusen matches. Atletico matches actually average 3 goals per match. So the difference isn’t in goals scored, but in the pace of the game.

Conclusion

Roger Schmidt may not be the game’s best manager, but he is amongst its most interesting. His aggressive style forces teams to play at an unheard of level and creates thrilling football. The Bundesliga is already known for being exceptionally fast, but the addition of Schmidt has pushed it to a new level. If you’re wanting to see fast-paced soccer and entertaining attacking football, watching Leverkusen is a great place to start.

[Ric Flair]

Schmidt, Wagner or stick with Shakespeare.

[CosbehFox]

29 minutes ago, NotTheMarketLeader said:

People now are reinventing the past to make out Ranieri had nothing to do with us winning the title, because it went tits up this season it seems.

 

What you've said there is not accurate at all, so let's get back to what actually happened.

 

Ranieri ditched Schlupp and De Leat and replaced them with Fuchs and Simpson and made that NEW defensive team defended narrow, the priority to pack the middle and force the attacks wide.

 

Unlike where previously the full backs bombed on, Simmo and Fuchs were instructed to stay back and defend at

all costs.

 

He also in inverted the wingers Albrighton and Mahrez different to what went before.

 

He made Vardy the main man own the middle, unlike the previous season where he was often either wide or on the bench.

 

Yeah....it went really badly with those those tactical changes compared to that which everyone's precious Nige operated the season before didn't it.

 

Sorry this information doesn't concur with 90% of views on here that Ranner's had nothing to do with the title win, but if you have those ideas you have either got short memories, you are easily swayed by some opinions or you are as thick as ****.

Cheers for the diplomatic reaction to a difference in opinion. 

 

I didn't say tactics or changing personnel. I said 'style'.

 

Our style of play  (high tempo, in your face) had originated during the great escape.

 

There was a clear switch in formation for starters when Ranieri arrived which I mentioned in my other post. Tweaked it too with Vardy etc. Kept some good bits like playing a 10 and half aka Okazaki. That was his genius. Acknowledging the good bits which is a incredible trait to have as most managers immediately try to put their stamp on things. 

 

I've said elsewhere god knows why he so quickly stepped away from it. We do need to make the change but it needs to be gradual with players capable of doing it. 

[WigstonWanderer]

9 hours ago, Miquel The Work Geordie said:

Schmidt or Silva if Shakespeare doesn't get the job. Mainly hoping for Schmidt because he looks like a baddie off Time Crisis or another 90s arcade game.

 

Reminds me of someone out of Harry Potter

[CockneyFox]

47 minutes ago, Arriba Los Zorros said:

People are fickle sheep, are and reacting emotionally to losing 1-6 because they have probably had the piss taken out of them for it and want to find somebody to blame.

 

Not appointing Craig Shakespeare would be a disaster. We don't have the quality to just walk into the top 10 regardless of who is in charge. We can't afford to transition and change style of play right now as we're not stable enough. It's just fortunate that many of the posters on here have no say at all in the club's decisions.

How does challenging Shakey's long term potential as a manager make us any of those things? Probably a good thing you're not involved in the process either...!

 

It would hardly be a disaster to not appoint someone who has been a caretaker manager for one quarter of a season, no previous managerial experience and no track record in the transfer market when we have £100m to spend.

 

Appointing any external manager would be a risk of course, but you cannot deny there is big risk associated with appointing Shakey too.

 

Many of us remember Rob Kelly's time with us - he had the same initial bounce but ultimately wasn't manager material.

 

Big decision for the club to work out whether Shakey's tenure was merely a bounce or whether there is something long term there worth buying into. I'd be happy with Shakey - he's done more than enough to justify continuing - but equally I'm not convinced he would be the best choice.

[Lovejoy]

I'm not going to hold it against Shakespeare that we lost 6-1 to Spurs with a reserve CB and LB in the heart of defence. A structured approach to recruitment and I see no reason why CS can't do the job based on what we've already seen. Others may shoot me down for this but I still don't see us as a top six club. I think breaking into it is the goal, but it could well take time.

 

However, gut tells me we will go with another manager. Marco Silva I'm not opposed to as on balance he's done reasonably well with Hull given what he started with. Schmidt would be exciting, but you kind of get the impression it could just as easily go tits up as be great. Mancini is moody, but has a good track record and on paper we'd be doing well to get him. he would arguably be the biggest draw for players.

[AmarteyAndChill]

36 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

Schmidt, Wagner or stick with Shakespeare.

I agree with this. 

[Gerard]

Not Shaky please.

 

He's done brilliantly and by all accounts is a great head coach that the players like and has lots of attributes to be a great number two.

 

I just feel that he hasn't got a first class game plan. After Ranieri his philosophy was if it ain't broke don't fix it and got the players playing the same tactic and formation that won us a title. I feel he's had a bit of new manager bounce and we'll struggle again next year with him in charge.

 

There are a lot of highly rated and experienced managers out there to be had, Silva, Schmidt, Wagner perhaps, etc and it would be good to shake the club up again and someone come in who has a new voice, new ideas and the players start with a clean slate. I feel the players are too comfortable with Shaky and that will probably lead to complacency. 

[volpeazzurro]

1 hour ago, Wookie said:

They were as good as down and he almost kept them up with a small, terrible squad.

 

What he did at Estoril was amazing and he did well at Olympiacos too.

Not only that, having only been there 5 minutes and they sold 2 key players in Snodgrass and Livermere. Watching Hull play football a few times on television led me to believe that they could escape. I thought he and they given the circumstances they've had to put up with since the start of the season I thought they were unlucky.

[volpeazzurro]

49 minutes ago, Cardiff_Fox said:

Cheers for the diplomatic reaction to a difference in opinion. 

 

I didn't say tactics or changing personnel. I said 'style'.

 

Our style of play  (high tempo, in your face) had originated during the great escape.

 

There was a clear switch in formation for starters when Ranieri arrived which I mentioned in my other post. Tweaked it too with Vardy etc. Kept some good bits like playing a 10 and half aka Okazaki. That was his genius. Acknowledging the good bits which is a incredible trait to have as most managers immediately try to put their stamp on things. 

 

I've said elsewhere god knows why he so quickly stepped away from it. We do need to make the change but it needs to be gradual with players capable of doing it. 

I think the style possibly did develop a little in the year before but I think this was despite Pearson and possibly more to do with Cambiasso's influence as Vardy alludes to in his book. Following a successful Championship season of passing attacking football, Pearson started to try and play a dour defensive game without the players that could play that style. A bit like Sousa in reverse,  he tried to play champagne and oyster passing football with beer and chips players. Cambiasso was an experienced winner who assisted greatly in the great escape. 

The mark of a good manager for me is the one that adopts the style of play best suited to the players at his disposal. He has to be capable of instructing and playing more than one style if possible. Arguably Guadiola is going to have to adapt a bit to that extent.

I think Ranieri had the knowledge but did he have the players capable of changing or willing to change, who knows.

The next manager needs to be a strong knowledgeable experienced individual imo. I don't see being grateful to Shakespeare as a reason to risk or experiment with our future unless there are no better candidates.

[AmarteyAndChill]

[foxes21]

27 minutes ago, AmarteyAndChill said:

Do our players fit his style of play though? He likes to play a 4-2-3-1 & play with possession. He's a bad choice imo.

It should be Shakespeare or Schmidt.