Allardyce gone - Shaky, Walsh and NP available?

[KJT]

Walsh Shakespeare and Pearson, all on the same Wave length. Would love to have them back, there will be no stabbing others in the back and no player power or downing tools

[Col city fan]

26 minutes ago, KJT said:

Walsh Shakespeare and Pearson, all on the same Wave length. Would love to have them back, there will be no stabbing others in the back and no player power or downing tools

That’s how I feel about it. If true, the player power issue has gone on far too long at this club.

I’d also ask the question to those saying ‘we have moved on from NP, CS and SW and have different challenges’, well how have we moved on and what are the different challenges?

Football is football and football management is football management. Managerial teams are managerial teams. They are what they are. Clough and Taylor worked forty years ago. Pearson and Shaky worked 5 years ago.

There is no reason why they shouldn’t work now.

Edited 17 May 2018 by Col city fan

[yorkie1999]

1 minute ago, Col city fan said:

That’s how I feel about it. If true, the player power issue has gone on far too long at this club.

I’d also ask the question to those saying ‘we have moved on from NP, CS and SW and have different challenges’, well how have we moved on and what are the different challenges?

Football is football and football management is football management. Managerial teams are managerial teams. They are what they are. Clough and Taylor worked forty years ago. Pearson and Shaky worked 5 years ago.

There is no reason why they shouldn’t work now.

 

Don't forget, Clough and Taylor weren't very good when they went on their own. 

[Col city fan]

1 hour ago, yorkie1999 said:

Don't forget, Clough and Taylor weren't very good when they went on their own. 

A point I’ve made before. And neither have been any of our three. It’s the collective strength that makes it happen.

Singly, Nige, Shaky and Walsh = not brill

Together = pretty formidable management team.

[Nick]

On 16/05/2018 at 13:08, Outfox the Fox said:

With Allardyce leaving Everton, I guess Shakespeare will now be out of a job. All the talk over the last couple of months, is that Walsh will be replaced as Everton's Director of Football by the PSV Technical Director. Nige already works for the Thais. What are the chances of a return for the 'Triumvirate'?!

 

GTFO

[Donut]

23 hours ago, whoareyaaa said:

Rubbish mate, I didn't say one was more prominent than the other but to deny Pearson had any doing is extremely short sighted to say the least.

 

I have total respect for what Claudio did and the same goes for Pearson but you can't seem to get your head around the job Pearson actually done and would be a much better option than Puel miles better, the club will crumble under Puel.

 

23 hours ago, whoareyaaa said:

Cheers Mystic Meg

 

no I do believe Ranieri did play his part of course but he didn't have to do a lot, lets put it that way

 

That's clearly saying that Ranieri had the lesser involvement of the two.

 

That comment inisolation would be ok, as I know you give most of the title winnin credit to Pearson which is fair enough with the point of view you hold, but you shouldn't have also made a post saying one was more prominent than the other only to contradict yourself a few minutes later.

 

And if we are basing these discussions on evidence and "no evidence of going backwards" under Pearson, then there is also no evidence of going backwards under Puel. He has taken the club forwards from 14th to 9th in his time. The only times he has gone "backwards" with clubs in his career, is where he overachieved in the first place the season before.

 

So if we are going strictly on evidence, lets not bring personal prejudices into the argument, you again contradict your position by doing this.

 

17 hours ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

“Some” i think you mean 4 times as many Leicester fans.

 

 

Fact is Nige is who the people want

"4 times as many Leicester fans........Who the people want".

 

You've brought up a graph where 122 people, on a mediocre internet forum have clicked a button. A matchday crowd is over 30,000 alone, and there are many more Leicester fans beside that, whether exiled, unable to go, or watching from home wanting to be at the game.

 

122 may, or may not be "the people"..... you assume it is because you love Pearson more than your wife

[whoareyaaa]

1 minute ago, Donut said:

 

That's clearly saying that Ranieri had the lesser involvement of the two.

 

That comment inisolation would be ok, as I know you give most of the title winnin credit to Pearson which is fair enough with the point of view you hold, but you shouldn't have also made a post saying one was more prominent than the other only to contradict yourself a few minutes later.

 

And if we are basing these discussions on evidence and "no evidence of going backwards" under Pearson, then there is also no evidence of going backwards under Puel. He has taken the club forwards from 14th to 9th in his time. The only times he has gone "backwards" with clubs in his career, is where he overachieved in the first place the season before.

 

So if we are going strictly on evidence, lets not bring personal prejudices into the argument, you again contradict your position by doing this.

 

"4 times as many Leicester fans........Who the people want".

 

You've brought up a graph where 122 people, on a mediocre internet forum have clicked a button. A matchday crowd is over 30,000 alone, and there are many more Leicester fans beside that, whether exiled, unable to go, or watching from home wanting to be at the game.

 

122 may, or may not be "the people"..... you assume it is because you love Pearson more than your wife

He was with us for a season and a bit I repeat he didn't have to do a lot in that time apart from manage the squad, compared to Pearson who was here for 5 years and put together the squad that won the league, cleared out loads of shit etc. etc. etc. if you can't get that point then you may always place me on ignore.

 

again you are being short sighed with Puel there is no evidence to suggest he will be a success here, it wasn't a hard task to finish 9th with the state of the league and the squad we have, any manager would have done the same

[Donut]

23 hours ago, Babylon said:

Except at the end of the first season where we were in top 4 form, with worse players.

 

I doubt we'd have done it with him, as Ranieri's personality just took the focus off the players, but in a positive sense. Pearson does the same as a manager, but often making himself the target in the process and it's all a bit more negative. That was the biggest thing Ranieri did in my eyes, he was perfect for that. 

Lets put this into perspective

 

We were in top form for 9 games, which is not even a quarter of a season.

 

That's known as "a run of form", its nothing more. Lots of teams are capable of runs of form, it doesn't mean youll win a league.

 

If we had won those games over the course of the season, rather than in one short run, then we wouldn't have a discussion about top 4 form, form being the key word.

 

Again, im not saying the great escape wasn't great management at the time or a great achievement, but it was a small part of the title win, negligible.

 

[Guy]

On ‎16‎/‎05‎/‎2018 at 11:13, Beechey said:

Imagine not only bringing back someone you've sacked twice in Pearson, but also bringing back Shakespeare who you also sacked and Walsh who jumped ship as soon as he could.

 

No thanks.

Like Shakespeare, then Pearson was only sacked once by the present owners in relation to his son's misdemeanour in Thailand. Their predecessor Mandaric was responsible for Pearson's so called 'mutually agreed' departure in 2010 after the Cardiff penalty shoot out play offs semis loss ….

[Babylon]

1 minute ago, Donut said:

We were in top form for 9 games, which is not even a quarter of a season.

A quarter of a season would be 9.5 games, seeing as you can't get a result from .5 of a game, I think it's a bit pedantic to say 9 games isn't a quarter, when 10 games would be somewhat over a quarter.

 

1 minute ago, Donut said:

That's known as "a run of form", its nothing more. Lots of teams are capable of runs of form, it doesn't mean youll win a league.

It showed what we we capable of, of course it doesn't mean you'll win the league. But it showed we had a decent group and we added some great players to that group. Including one world class player.

 

1 minute ago, Donut said:

Again, im not saying the great escape wasn't great management at the time or a great achievement, but it was a small part of the title win, negligible.

If we'd not had that run we'd a) not have been in the league and b) not have had the confidence coming into the season. I wouldn't call that negligible. We had a once in the lifetime event where absolutely everything fell right for us. Take one or two things out and the whole thing IMO would have come down like a house of cards.

[Donut]

13 minutes ago, whoareyaaa said:

He was with us for a season and a bit I repeat he didn't have to do a lot in that time apart from manage the squad, compared to Pearson who was here for 5 years and put together the squad that won the league, cleared out loads of shit etc. etc. etc. if you can't get that point then you may always place me on ignore.

 

again you are being short sighed with Puel there is no evidence to suggest he will be a success here, it wasn't a hard task to finish 9th with the state of the league and the squad we have, any manager would have done the same

I don't want to put you on ignore, im interested in debate, but I was drawing attention to the way you contradicted yourself.

 

If youre saying theres no evidence he will be a success, why then quote an example of us being taken forward to show theres "no evidence"??

 

We went forward from Shakespeare. You said "any manager" could have taken us forward. But they weren't doing.

 

Why is Puel's career, which has also included title wins and champions league semi final appearances, an example of "no evidence" to suggest he will be a success?

 

He might not BE a success or have BEEN a success when his career is done, but you cant say there isn't evidence he knows what he is doing

[Donut]

2 minutes ago, Babylon said:

A quarter of a season would be 9.5 games, seeing as you can't get a result from .5 of a game, I think it's a bit pedantic to say 9 games isn't a quarter, when 10 games would be somewhat over a quarter.

 

It showed what we we capable of, of course it doesn't mean you'll win the league. But it showed we had a decent group and we added some great players to that group. Including one world class player.

 

If we'd not had that run we'd a) not have been in the league and b) not have had the confidence coming into the season. I wouldn't call that negligible. We had a once in the lifetime event where absolutely everything fell right for us. Take one or two things out and the whole thing IMO would have come down like a house of cards.

The point was if we had maintained a poor consistent level to reach 14th, there would have been no excitement, despite us achieving the same amount of points.

 

It was momentum that came all at the end. Imagine if we won all those games early and then struggled? the perception would be totally different.

 

every team is capable of a run of form. Its just a temporary thing.

 

I don't think it was a huge part of the title. It was a part, and like you say obviously it kept us up, but it was needed to keep us up because we were so bad leading up to that, and I think it should be viewed in isolation. It was an excellent achievement from being dead and buried, but Ranieri made lots of changes that were more significant. That's my view

[whoareyaaa]

1 minute ago, Donut said:

I don't want to put you on ignore, im interested in debate, but I was drawing attention to the way you contradicted yourself.

 

If youre saying theres no evidence he will be a success, why then quote an example of us being taken forward to show theres "no evidence"??

 

We went forward from Shakespeare. You said "any manager" could have taken us forward. But they weren't doing.

 

Why is Puel's career, which has also included title wins and champions league semi final appearances, an example of "no evidence" to suggest he will be a success?

 

He might not BE a success or have BEEN a success when his career is done, but you cant say there isn't evidence he knows what he is doing

Shakespeare was cut at the earliest opportunity I guarantee he would have finished 9th if not higher if given the whole season... lets not forget who we played and the form at the backend of the previous season.

 

Under Puel we are boring, drab and offer nothing ok we have turned up in a few games and went on a slight run of form but he wasn't able to maintain it and it has showed from the 5 wins from 20 !! the players don't know what they are doing his team selection are as consistent as a whores next shag and imo doesn't translate well with the fans or players.

 

Would I take a man (Pearson)/Team back who got us to where we are today. Yes Sir 

[KJT]

I ask myself does Rudkin, Puel and Appleton work together for the benefit of the club, are they a better threesome than Walsh, Shakespeare and Pearson?

[Donut]

15 minutes ago, whoareyaaa said:

Shakespeare was cut at the earliest opportunity I guarantee he would have finished 9th if not higher if given the whole season... lets not forget who we played and the form at the backend of the previous season.

 

Under Puel we are boring, drab and offer nothing ok we have turned up in a few games and went on a slight run of form but he wasn't able to maintain it and it has showed from the 5 wins from 20 !! the players don't know what they are doing his team selection are as consistent as a whores next shag and imo doesn't translate well with the fans or players.

 

Would I take a man (Pearson)/Team back who got us to where we are today. Yes Sir 

The form at the end of last season was new manager bounce. Every manager has bounce. Puel had bounce. We had lots of early home wins v teams like Hull, Sunderland, Watford too that were either very bad, or had nothing to play for.

 

Im sorry, but you cannot "guarantee" Shakespeare would have finished 9th.

 

You cannot make these statements where you make stuff up when you don't like someone that theyre absolutely certain to ruin the club despite not ruining anyone previously, whilst making stuff up that people who haven't won leagues and haven't finished 9th in the Premier League would be absolutely certain to do so with your guarantee.

 

I actually like your posting, you post rational posts unlike the chief biscuit boy here, we all know who he is, but youre much better than posting things like this.

 

Not to say I agree with what you say all the time but you make justifications for the opinion

 

Edited 17 May 2018 by Donut

[Col city fan]

45 minutes ago, KJT said:

I ask myself does Rudkin, Puel and Appleton work together for the benefit of the club, are they a better threesome than Walsh, Shakespeare and Pearson?

My initial, instinctive answer would be ‘not in a million years’.

[Sharpe's Fox]

1 hour ago, Donut said:

4 times as many Leicester fans........Who the people want".

 

You've brought up a graph where 122 people, on a mediocre internet forum have clicked a button. A matchday crowd is over 30,000 alone, and there are many more Leicester fans beside that, whether exiled, unable to go, or watching from home wanting to be at the game.

 

122 may, or may not be "the people"..... you assume it is because you love Pearson more than your wife

Find a survey proving me wrong with a  sample that isn't just you and your blow up sex doll with Puels face sellotaped on who you think talks to you

[KJT]

1 hour ago, KJT said:

I ask myself does Rudkin, Puel and Appleton work together for the benefit of the club, are they a better threesome than Walsh, Shakespeare and Pearson?

Simple example as an Electrician, when you are building, installing or fixing something. The parts all need to connect or else the damn thing won't work! Its a bummer after you spent time and money on it as well.

[David Hankey]

Ranieri also available after leaving Nantes!!