HighPeakFox Posted 22 June 2018 Share Posted 22 June 2018 19 hours ago, Mark 'expert' Lawrenson said: The owners, the team, Pearson, Claudio, everything fell into place to create the unlikeliest title win in Premiership history and before that, credit goes to all, everybody played their part. Is the right answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murphy Posted 22 June 2018 Share Posted 22 June 2018 12 hours ago, HighPeakFox said: Can I just indulge you all and point out that 'to imply' and 'to infer' DON'T MEAN THE SAME THING. Thank you. @Gerbold, hang your head in shame, man This is true, but surely you should be asking for indulgence not offering it? You know what this forum needs? A pedant's corner. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turtmcfly Posted 22 June 2018 Share Posted 22 June 2018 1 hour ago, Babylon said: Well Pearson bought a new full back in Fuchs, a DM, a defensive 10. Even before he was sacked, it looked quite obvious to me that he was attempting to fix the problems that meant we weren't getting results in his favoured formation and caused the switch to a three at the back in the first place. He was a 442 man, always had been. With Fuchs signing it looked like he realised Schlupp certainly wasn't the long term answer. Understand that my response was in reply to one saying (literally) Mickey Mouse could have won us the title that year (a claim @Gerbold has since admitted was an exaggeration). What Pearson would have done is a moot point (he may have started the season with a flat back 4. It may not have worked out and he may have reverted to wing-backs). What Ranieri did is in the record books. The danger here is that by arguing against one absolutist standpoint you potentially look like an absolutist for the opposite one, which would be just as daft. Clearly Pearson had a massive part in our winning the league. But equally clearly, so did Ranieri. I prefer to think of them both through the lens of Isaac Newton's 'standing on ye shoulders of giants' remark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
st albans fox Posted 22 June 2018 Share Posted 22 June 2018 2 hours ago, Babylon said: Well Pearson bought a new full back in Fuchs, a DM, a defensive 10. Even before he was sacked, it looked quite obvious to me that he was attempting to fix the problems that meant we weren't getting results in his favoured formation and caused the switch to a three at the back in the first place. He was a 442 man, always had been. With Fuchs signing it looked like he realised Schlupp certainly wasn't the long term answer. Not convinced that NP would have gone back to 4 at the back. Didn’t we start the friendlies under Ranieri with 3 which shows that’s what the coaches were planning (presumably following on from pearsons plans). I might be wrong - I often am ..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norwichfox Posted 22 June 2018 Share Posted 22 June 2018 Not a great deal on topic posts here, very unusual for Foxes talk . Perhaps we should dispense with topic headings and go for the "random subject lottery read" approach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turtmcfly Posted 22 June 2018 Share Posted 22 June 2018 (edited) 39 minutes ago, Gerbold said: He didn't say "ye" ('cos I was there when he sayed it). By that time 'ye' had passed from usage - even amongst yokels like you @turtmcfly . Well, according to H. W. Turnbull's 'The Correspondence of Isaac Newton, 1661–1675 (volume1, page 416) that's exactly what he said (OK - according to Turnbull he used 'sholders')... A fuller version of the quote can be see at https://bit.ly/2Kd4qm9 Having said that, according to the second post here https://www.quora.com/At-what-point-did-people-stop-using-words-like-thou-ye-and-so-on what you would have heard as you handed him that morning's edition of Ye Sun was 'the'. So yeah, piss off. You're not getting a penny for your whip-round. Edited 22 June 2018 by turtmcfly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babylon Posted 22 June 2018 Share Posted 22 June 2018 2 hours ago, st albans fox said: Not convinced that NP would have gone back to 4 at the back. Didn’t we start the friendlies under Ranieri with 3 which shows that’s what the coaches were planning (presumably following on from pearsons plans). I might be wrong - I often am ..... Or it shows Ranieri thought he'd give it a go after it was successful and the coaches persuaded him otherwise. It's all guess work, although I'm sure from of our Japanese language friends on here said Okazaki was told he'd be playing that 10 role in a 4411 / 442 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts