Jump to content

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Uncle Monty said:

Listened from 43.25. Enjoyed that, he does seem like a nice guy. Eludes a little bit that there was some unrest in the camp surrounding Ranieri's second season. Specifically about the rotation and for him, missing the first Champ League game was dissapointing. He does also say though, that the whole squad was not rotated at all the season previous and it was difficult to adapt to, for both the manager and players. Doesn't sound like he didn't like Ranieri though, in fact, he spoke quite highly of him.

Also shows how important the first game can be, the way he talked about the hull game.  I agree with him, if that game was won it would have been very different.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Chrysalis said:

Also shows how important the first game can be, the way he talked about the hull game.  I agree with him, if that game was won it would have been very different.

The media were all over us from day one, like he said too. I remember before the Hull game Sky did an interview with Simpson and they told him the bookies had us at shorter odds to get relegated than win the league again. They were waiting for it to go wrong and they got it right from the off. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Chrysalis said:

Also shows how important the first game can be, the way he talked about the hull game.  I agree with him, if that game was won it would have been very different.

Maybe but I think it was also due to the world tour throughout the summer when our players were treated like pop stars. Poor preparation coupled with the introduction of new players upset the squad dynamic. Inevitable, I suppose. 

Edited by Spudulike
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, pmcla26 said:

The media were all over us from day one, like he said too. I remember before the Hull game Sky did an interview with Simpson and they told him the bookies had us at shorter odds to get relegated than win the league again. They were waiting for it to go wrong and they got it right from the off. 


I still think the chance of us being relegated that year was probably more likely than us winning it again. We had a thin (but good) squad and were playing in the Champions League. We’d lost Kanté and hadn’t signed Wilf at that point. 
 

Regardless, it must be frustrating as a group of players to do what we did and still be seen in that light.

 

The Hull game was a big loss for us on the opening game as reigning Champions. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, StriderHiryu said:

Well I don't think it's so much that they didn't buy into it, but just culturally they were very different. I think that's what he was saying as he even had some positive words about Slimani. Our title winning team was by and large British, and even players like Mahrez had been at the club for a while to adjust and acclimatize. Imagine if we had signed Troy Deeney over Slimani as an example... whilst I don't either is a particularly stand-out player, Deeney would have fit our team like a glove.

 

Anyway the good news is that we learnt our lessons quickly. If you look at some of the other "shock champions" around Europe over the last 20-30 years, only Leicester and Wolfsburg are still relevant. Montpellier, Blackburn Rovers, Deportivo, Verona, Boavista... none of these teams managed to use their title win to propel their club forwards whereas we have.

That's a bit of a sweeping statement!

Fuchs, Schmeichel, Huth, Kanté, Okazaki, Ulloa, Mahrez, Inler, Benalouane, Wasilewski, de Laet, Amartey and Kramaric.

That's 13 non-British players.

But I think I know what Simpson is getting at. There was obviously a good chemistry and camaraderie in that squad, full of characters that were hard-working and professional and maybe where language wasn't a big issue. Maybe the language barrier proved an issue for the new signings as well as the struggle to adapt to the PL (Mendy, Slimani, Hernandez, Iborra), which led to Simpson making voicing that opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, shen said:

That's a bit of a sweeping statement!

Fuchs, Schmeichel, Huth, Kanté, Okazaki, Ulloa, Mahrez, Inler, Benalouane, Wasilewski, de Laet, Amartey and Kramaric.

That's 13 non-British players.

But I think I know what Simpson is getting at. There was obviously a good chemistry and camaraderie in that squad, full of characters that were hard-working and professional and maybe where language wasn't a big issue. Maybe the language barrier proved an issue for the new signings as well as the struggle to adapt to the PL (Mendy, Slimani, Hernandez, Iborra), which led to Simpson making voicing that opinion.

The players in bold speak fluent English and most of them had also either been at the club or in English football and became part of that core group. They got the Nigel Pearson culture that positively influenced the club and which remained intact even as we won the title.

 

I don't think the 2016 summer signings were "bad apples," they just didn't fit into the culture or weren't able to adapt. Not surprising given that many of the Leicester players careers are almost fairy tales in that they were discarded from other teams / told they weren't good enough. That's why I come back to Deeney who did time inside and has something to prove as being an example of someone that would have fit the culture. Or more recently Jonny Evans who despite being an amazing defender for many years in the division was let go by Man U.

 

Anyway no need to dwell on it as a Foxes fan! Those signings didn't work out, but we've learned our lessons and have probably one of the best overall transfer records in the division.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, foxfanazer said:

Speaks really well any you can tell being at Leicester was the best time of his life. Such an underrated part of our title win but the wider media. I'd like to think most Leicester fans appreciate just how good he was that season

And the following season tbf. He was one of the few who carried his firm over and was great during the CL run too.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue i think there is, he says oh he didnt sack Ranieri because of anything a few players said but then goes on to pretty much confirm players got pissed off with him. 

 

Im guessing our owners consulted certain players we know they are close to. 

 

I'm also guessing that not long after, Puel was given the objective of slowly dismantling that dressing room power too. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

One minor criticism of the interview: would've liked to hear more about his time under Pearson, which was largely skipped over, but that's undue carping about an excellent interview.

Similar criticism here, would've liked to have heard about Pearson and Puel eras at the club. Minus that it was a great interview 

Link to post
Share on other sites

One add-on point.....

 

Claudio's change of mind over Simmo is further confirmation of how Claudio's lack of ego and willingness to reconsider benefited us.

 

I always thought that was a big thing. So many new managers would feel that they had to make major changes, bring in new players or whatever so as to stamp their authority on their new club, indulge their ego (or possibly compensate for its fragility).

 

Claudio was happy to keep and use most of the players he'd inherited from NP - and new signings acquired by Walsh/NP (Fuchs, Okazaki) or even to go with players lined up by them but not yet signed (trusting Walsh on Kante).

Instead, he mainly looked at how he could improve the formation and tactics (narrow defensive formation, faster breaks forward etc.). 

 

That was real wisdom over ego - and his treatment of Simmo seems to have been the same.

Simmo clearly wasn't in his plans initially, but he was a big enough man to reconsider and reverse his decision by tightening the defence and replacing De Laet with Simpson.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

He seemed very sincere to me - as if he'd genuinely learned from errors in his personal life and wanted to help others avoid such pitfalls. 

Couldn’t agree more. I think Simpson would be a fantastic coach when he retires. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Gamble92 said:

The issue i think there is, he says oh he didnt sack Ranieri because of anything a few players said but then goes on to pretty much confirm players got pissed off with him. 

Im guessing our owners consulted certain players we know they are close to. 

I'm also guessing that not long after, Puel was given the objective of slowly dismantling that dressing room power too. 

I would argue that the word "power" is wrong.

The strength of togetherness in the dressing room was/is a real positive.

Brendan has harnessed it and it's working.

Sadly that's one thing his predecessor he got wrong.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think player power in our case is usually a good thing. I’d much rather have players that wanted an underperforming manager sacked than players happy with mediocrity. They work with managers almost everyday of their careers, they know when a manager is worth their salt.

 

The lazy media narrative was that the players just turned on Ranieri, Claudio took them to the highest point in most of their careers, why would they just turn on him? Everybody lives the affable grandad image of Ranieri but he falls out with everybody, it’s happened at nearly all the clubs he’s managed. He was brilliant in 15/16 because he only tweaked things but then in 16/17 he started unnecessarily changing things up. Ken Way was sacked despite being popular with the players, apparently because Ranieri didn’t believe in sports psychology.

 

Recruitment was a massive reason we struggled, pre-season was badly arranged  too but absolving Ranieri of a lot of the blame is generous on his behalf. He’s never been a long term manager. He was perfect in 15/16, the stars aligned and everything worked out be he had to be sacked in 16/17 because we were going down 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

Only listened to the last 40 minutes, from his QPR-Leicester move to the end, but that was an outstanding interview.

 

[...]

Indeed, thanks to the OP for linking it here. Don't think I would've stumbled over it otherwise. You'd enjoy the interview with Brendan Rodgers as well and watch the one with Rio Ferdinand as well, who came across as very frank and forthcoming too.

Simpson, who I'm still split about considering his personal history, seems like an honest person as well and genuinely remorseful. Hope he does stay on the good path and wish him well at Huddersfield.

 

11 hours ago, Gamble92 said:

The issue i think there is, he says oh he didnt sack Ranieri because of anything a few players said but then goes on to pretty much confirm players got pissed off with him. 

 

Im guessing our owners consulted certain players we know they are close to. 

 

I'm also guessing that not long after, Puel was given the objective of slowly dismantling that dressing room power too. 

But why wouldn't our owners have consulted with the team? I mean, surely their opinion of Ranieri and their reading of the situation is valuable input to them as decision makers.
Stating what was obvious to most wouldn't be revolting or showing disloyalty, it would be showing loyalty to the club, owners and squad.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We would not have won the title without Simmo

 

I watched him make many last ditch tackles or get a head to a ball.

 

I hope his has sorted his personal life out and gas a great coaching career

 

Edited by foxinsocks
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, UpTheLeagueFox said:

I would argue that the word "power" is wrong.

The strength of togetherness in the dressing room was/is a real positive.

Brendan has harnessed it and it's working.

Sadly that's one thing his predecessor he got wrong.

It was like that Chelsea kind of dressing room that they had under Terry, Drogba etc - it's essential to a teams success, but if you lose the biggest names in there then theres no going back. Ranieri second season and Puel had no chance of turning the tide.

 

Thats why, similar to that Chelsea side, its pivotal to get someone who commands the respect of them like we have with Rodgers. We are extremely lucky really that it is someone of his ilk that we managed to get because i could have easily seen the same situation repeating itself. Still might if and when he leaves.

Edited by Gamble92
Spelling
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Cujek said:

Because they employ an interior designer that just googles "colour in fashion"

..great colour to key off!!!

As a neutral pallete you would use accessories to set against it, in effect, it being a blank canvas.

  As previously mentioned by other posters it is well used by designers for staging.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...