The "do they mean us?" thread

[Julian Joachim Jr Shabadoo]

The manager.

[Mark_w]

...Whoever was directing play by then

 

 

Seriously, let's stop this 'Nigel wasn't manager for the last few months' trolling, it's getting really tedious.

[foxfanazer]

...Whoever was directing play by then

[Fox Ulike]

And you sound like you're unable to digest one.

 

Skip the cliches - it really doesn't become you.

 

 

 

Are you flirting with me now?

 

 

 

 

Well this is awkward...

[Fox Ulike]

And to conveniently ignore the comedy of errors between October and March and equate that finishing position to Nigel Pearson's ability to manage a Premiership football club, is not only simplistic but incredibly naive.

 

But is it just simplistic and naïve to conveniently ignore the comedy of errors?? Would you not also say that it is artless, credulous and innocent?

 

What time's Countdown on?

[SpacedX]

Well it's not is it. You want to focus on a segment of a season to fit your view. The undisputable matter of fact is, we finished 14th, under Nigel Pearson. You can make up as many theories about how it was all his fault in the bad patches and a godsent miracle that was by no way his doing when we did well, but that would be, as you say, incredibly naïve.

"A segment of last season to fit my view" !!!!???? That'll be October through until late March then.

 

The 'bad patches' were characterised by tactical and strategic buffoonery, bewildering selections, the steadfast adherence to a suicidal zonal defence and off the field behaviour that, far from raising the stock of the club, reduced us to the laughing stock of the league. 

 

The 'Great Escape'? - we should never have been placed in that position, and that's the bit you missed. No I don't believe that he masterminded the turnaround...sorry, whether it's the minority view on 'Foxes Talk' or not. However, Pearson's ability to motivate, develop and protect the players was crucial in our recovery and for all his shortcomings that is a quality that so many managers would **** off and die for. 

 

Seriously though - that to me is his greatest strength, something you can't buy. NP has a long illustrious career ahead of him, and I'm certain one that will see him thrive as a manager in the Premiership. It just didn't in my opinion happen last season.

[fleckneymike]

From the Grauniad, perhaps the best description of Ranieri's appointment you'll ever read

 

3) All eyes on the Leicester City manager … again

“Uninspiring.” That was Gary Lineker, an honorary vice-president at Leicester City, responding to Claudio Ranieri’s appointment as Nigel Pearson’s successor. Ranieri has never stayed in a job longer than two seasons since leaving Chelsea in 2004. He was sacked by Greece after a dire start to their Euro 2016 qualifying campaign reached a nadir with a 1-0 home defeat by the Faroe Islands. It is fair to say that, although his managerial record as a whole is not dreadful, the 63-year-old’s appearance back in the Premier League feels like an energetic run-of-the-mill Britpop band popping up at a minimalist techno festival catering for hipsters. For the neutral his enthusiastic, ramshackle approach is refreshing in what has become a sterile managerial landscape but for Leicester fans who were perhaps hoping for a tactically tight young manager it’s understandable if they are underwhelmed. This is a fixture that Ranieri should win if he wants to avoid a steady stream of questions about his ability to take Leicester forwards. GB

Edited 7 August 2015 by fleckneymike

[Stevosevic]

Leicester v Sunderland

If new Leicester manager Claudio Ranieri can get his team playing with the passion they showed under Nigel Pearson in the last couple of months of last season, they will be absolutely fine.

It is the same for Sunderland boss Dick Advocaat, who only took charge with nine games to go.

The Foxes will play good football under Claudio Ranieri and I am expecting Sunderland to do the same.

But Advocaat made the Black Cats hard to beat at the end of last season to get them safe and getting the basics right will be his priority at the King Power Stadium on Saturday.

Lawro's prediction: 1-1

Swann's prediction: This is a tricky one for me - living in Nottingham I am not allowed to like Leicester and being a Newcastle fan I am not allowed to like Sunderland. So I'm going for 0-0. It will be the worst game of the week and the last game on MOTD - don't even bother watching it.

[SpacedX]

 

 

What time's Countdown on?

Ten minutes past two...

 

[kingcarr21]

God there are some absolute boring c**** in this thread.

[NotTheMarketLeader]

"A segment of last season to fit my view" !!!!???? That'll be October through until late March then.

The 'bad patches' were characterised by tactical and strategic buffoonery, bewildering selections, the steadfast adherence to a suicidal zonal defence and off the field behaviour that, far from raising the stock of the club, reduced us to the laughing stock of the league.

The 'Great Escape'? - we should never have been placed in that position, and that's the bit you missed. No I don't believe that he masterminded the turnaround...sorry, whether it's the minority view on 'Foxes Talk' or not. However, Pearson's ability to motivate, develop and protect the players was crucial in our recovery and for all his shortcomings that is a quality that so many managers would **** off and die for.

Seriously though - that to me is his greatest strength, something you can't buy. NP has a long illustrious career ahead of him, and I'm certain one that will see him thrive as a manager in the Premiership. It just didn't in my opinion happen last season.

Well Line X (is it Steve?),

I happen to whole hearted agree with your view.

You seen to be getting a bit of a bashing, so I thought you may need some support!

[Babylon]

Newly promoted side, second cheapest in the division, 14th place. You can say what you like about us being bottom for as long as we were, you can make a case that he was slow to adapt to the Premier League, but to suggest that overall last season was anything other than a success is ludicrous. To suggest a manager out of his depth could get that side 14th is ridiculous.

Yeah but Mark he wasn't signing the players or managing the team don't forget.

 

I don't "over-estimate the 'abilities and influence" of Pearson as a Premiership manager. I don't even mention them. I'm talking about Ranieri, and asking what he's gonna bring to the party? Do you have a sensible answer that doesn't involve Nigel Pearson as a puppet?

 

 

What the actual holy fvck??!

 

You sound like you've swallowed a thesaurus... "The rapidity of the transformation was miraculous..."

 

"Nigel's modus operandi although pragmatic was utterly lacking in innovation and adaptability that is a prerequisite at this level."

 

Was it indeed.

 

You might benefit from a perusal of this:

 

http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/

He's using the tactic of throwing in a few fancy words to make his view point less utterly mental.

[SpacedX]

Well Line X (is it Steve?),

 

You got it...

 

 

 

+

 

[SpacedX]

Yeah but Mark he wasn't signing the players or managing the team don't forget.

 

 

The original point made was that this is currently a team comprised solely of 'Nigel Pearson's transfer targets'. I dare to disagree.

 

I don't believe that the revival was strategically or tactically masterminded by Pearson. I do agree that prior to March this year he was attempting to manage us, albeit shockingly badly.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yns-Yz7bAeI

[Carl the Llama]

If I ever need some DIY doing, I know where I can find some tools.

[EnglishOxide]

"A segment of last season to fit my view" !!!!???? That'll be October through until late March then.

The 'bad patches' were characterised by tactical and strategic buffoonery, bewildering selections, the steadfast adherence to a suicidal zonal defence and off the field behaviour that, far from raising the stock of the club, reduced us to the laughing stock of the league.

People keep saying this but never provide examples. Provide some examples mate.

[Babylon]

The original point made was that this is currently a team comprised solely of 'Nigel Pearson's transfer targets'. I dare to disagree.

But it could well be though.

 

You aren't the first to bring out stuff like this, but it's usually from the same people who said Pearson was stubborn, pig headed, doesn't listen or take advice etc. We're then meant to believe he'd sit back and let someone like John Rudkin tell him who to buy.

 

Now none of us are privy to the workings of the club so we can't say categorically one way or the other, but I'd say that suggestion flies in the face of the person we're told Pearson was by those who didn't like him, along with every other comment that has been made from those around the club.

 

The owners may have requested for instance that we signed someone of Asian origin, but I don't believe for one minute that would serve that person up on a plate when you have a proven scouting department sat there who can go out and find you one that fits in with the managers plans and has some actual quality.

 

 

I don't believe that the revival was strategically or tactically masterminded by Pearson. I do agree that prior to March this year he was attempting to manage us, albeit shockingly badly.

Good for you, I do. Just as he was responsible for turning us around in the championship several times after bad runs, but apparently that's different because it was a different league. How convenient.

 

You keep going on about March, yet it was pretty clear to anyone with eyes that there were positive performances from around boxing day, from the point we stopped mucking about with defensive diamonds. Spurs, Liverpool, Villa, Palace, Arsenal, Spurs again... all decent performances pre march that didn't yield the points we arguably deserved. As well as good performances there were 4 wins and 3 draws between 28th Dec and the start of the final flourish starting against West Ham. Which wasn't a bad return considering so many were away and so many were against your big 6.

Edited 7 August 2015 by Babylon

[Miquel The Work Geordie]

**** man, I hope Ranieri does well here for himself as well as us; some of these pundits definitely drink their own piss

[SpacedX]

But it could well be though.

 

You aren't the first to bring out stuff like this, but it's usually from the same people who said Pearson was stubborn, pig headed, doesn't listen or take advice etc. We're then meant to believe he'd sit back and let someone like John Rudkin tell him who to buy.

 

Now none of us are privy to the workings of the club so we can't say categorically one way or the other, but I'd say that suggestion flies in the face of the person we're told Pearson was by those who didn't like him, along with every other comment that has been made from those around the club.

 

The owners may have requested for instance that we signed someone of Asian origin, but I don't believe for one minute that would serve that person up on a plate when you have a proven scouting department sat there who can go out and find you one that fits in with the managers plans and has some actual quality.

 

 

Good for you, I do. Just as he was responsible for turning us around in the championship several times after bad runs, but apparently that's different because it was a different league. How convenient.

 

You keep going on about March, yet it was pretty clear to anyone with eyes that there were positive performances from around boxing day, from the point we stopped mucking about with defensive diamonds. Spurs, Liverpool, Villa, Palace, Arsenal, Spurs again... all decent performances pre march that didn't yield the points we arguably deserved. As well as good performances there were 4 wins and 3 draws between 28th Dec and the start of the final flourish starting against West Ham. Which wasn't a bad return considering so many were away and so many were against your big 6.

I'm not for one minute suggesting that Nigel Pearson 'sat back while John Rudkin told him who to buy'. Although his relationship with JR was clearly very different to Robinson. The policy on recruitment at L.C.F.C.is such that this is unlikely to be a team consisting solely of 'Nigel Pearson transfer targets' as was previously suggested and I do give credence to sources that suggest Nige was vehemently sorry, staunchly, (damn that thesaurus), firmly opposed to some of the proposed buys.

 

The championship is not comparable with the Premiership no, and it is last season that we are debating. 

 

Thanks for you reply though, and I do agree with many of the points that you make as opposed to simply discarding or refuting them or feeling the need to brand you a twat as one member was quite happy to do in response to my earlier post from behind the security of internet anonymity and relative refuge of his keyboard.

 

There were most definitely promising signs in the games that you mention, in particular, the cases of Liverpool and Spurs in which we were clearly the better team - and yeah, we deserved to and should have won. But there were many great player performances throughout the season, that's my point, This squad showed tremendous potential, so many fixtures that were there for the taking. Employing the attacking brand of football that we did post March (there, I said it again), I truly believe that we were capable of beating anyone on our day and you couldn't say that for the likes of Burnley, QPR, Villa, Hull, West Brom, Sunderland, Newcastle, West Ham and even mid table teams such as Stoke. Tactics, the defence, the strategy, the containment game was hugely negative and it held us back massively. Think Sunderland at home, Stoke at home...and if you can stand to go there, Hull at home. 

 

There should never have been a great escape. Properly deployed, the squad was capable of so much more and we should never have spent five months languishing at the bottom of the table propping up the likes of QPR, Hull, Burnley, Villa, Newcastle, Sunderland, West Brom, Yeah, we finished 14th as people keep pointing out...but I genuinely felt robbed and an overwhelming sense of what could have been.

 

The timing of Pearson's dismissal was atrocious and we will never know what he would have been capable of having the benefit of last seasons experiences behind him in addition to undeniably carving out a niche at City. 

 

We are on the cusp of a new era now and the loyalty and passionate support that this club has become renowned for must continue for Ranieri. 

Edited 7 August 2015 by Line-X

[Fox Ulike]

The original point made was that this is currently a team comprised solely of 'Nigel Pearson's transfer targets'. I dare to disagree.

 

I don't believe that the revival was strategically or tactically masterminded by Pearson. I do agree that prior to March this year he was attempting to manage us, albeit shockingly badly.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yns-Yz7bAeI

 

Sigh. I hate having to go all Columbo just to prove fairly obvious points. But here we go:

 

According to this article, published 30th July, we had a fee agreed with Caen "at the start of the month". Ie, 1st July.

 

http://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/595042/Arsenal-N-Golo-Kante-Leicester-Transfer-News-Gossip

 

Pearson was sacked June 30th.

 

Now then. The original point, to which you refer is that "With the exception of Bennalouane, these are all players Pearson wanted at the Club".

 

So unless you think that Pearson was sacked for objecting to the bid for Kante, then it seems highly likely that with the exception of Bennalouane, these are all players Pearson wanted at the Club. It's not rocket science, Professor.

 

This looks obvious, even for someone whose read as many books as what you have done.

Edited 7 August 2015 by Fox Ulike

[Dan]

How do these pundits / journos / 'experts' actually get away with coming out with such drivel every year?

[SpacedX]

 

So unless you think that Pearson was sacked for objecting to the bid for Kante, then it seems highly likely that with the exception of Bennalouane, these are all players Pearson wanted at the Club. It's not rocket science, Professor.

 

This looks obvious, even for someone whose read as many books as what you have done.

You make many assumptions, and please, spare the personal digs.

 

Your logic seems to be predicated based upon the fact that because these players were targeted prior to his dismissal, they were all exclusively at NP's behest. You original statement yesterday was that Ranieri has inherited a team consisting of 'Nigel Pearson's transfer targets'. As Babylon suggested, it is impossible to know the full details but I think that this is doubtful. I think it was Dan that posted a great link to the transfer/recruitment policies of each premiership club. There are many board approved acquisitions across half a dozen clubs that went against the grain of management last year. I suspect that there were several at City, although that is complete conjecture on my part.

 

I also don't agree with your contention that Ranieri is continuing with 'Pearson's players'. They play for the club. Your view that he will 'probably' continue with 'Pearson's formation and tactics' relate to those employed during the latter part of the season - (the turnaround) - and 'manager' or not at the time, I don't necessarily attribute in the main to him. My view, I accept that it's contentious, it may be in the minority and just as I'm not afraid to air it, I don't mind being flamed for it. Can't understand the need for belittling though purely based on an opposing viewpoint. 

Edited 7 August 2015 by Line-X

[Fox Ulike]

You make many assumptions, and please, spare the personal digs.

 

Your logic seems to be predicated based upon the fact that because these players were targeted prior to his dismissal, they were all exclusively at NP's behest. You original statement yesterday was that Ranieri has inherited a team consisting of 'Nigel Pearson's transfer targets'. As Babylon suggested, it is impossible to know the full details but I think that this is doubtful. I think it was Dan that posted a great link to the transfer/recruitment policies of each premiership club. There are many board approved acquisitions across half a dozen clubs that went against the grain of management last year. I suspect that there were several at City, although that is complete conjecture on my part.

 

I also don't agree with your contention that Ranieri is continuing with 'Pearson's players'. They play for the club. Your view that he will 'probably' continue with 'Pearson's formation and tactics' relate to those employed during the latter part of the season - (the turnaround) - and 'manager' or not at the time, I don't necessarily attribute in the main to him. My view, I accept that it's contentious, it may be in the minority and just as I'm not afraid to air it, I don't mind being flamed for it. Can't understand the need for belittling though purely based on an opposing viewpoint. 

 

Your view isn't contentious, it just has no basis in fact. Now, that's fine. We all make assumptions based on what we know about the club, and come up with opinions based on those assumptions. That's what an opinion is: a personal conclusion based on our own interpretation of one or more assumptions.

 

Now then. The reason you're getting grief is not because your opinion has no basis in fact, but because it has no basis in rumour or gossip either! There are no assumptions, you offer no interpretation of facts or statistics, no logical thought process or reasoning. You just jump straight in with an assertion that the tactics "employed during the latter part of the season" are not attributable to Pearson.

 

This is complete news to me, and I would think, every other human being on the planet. I don't then I've even seen a single tweet implying a conspiracy theory in which some unseen hand takes over from Pearson (conveniently just before we start winning), and from behind the scenes pulls us to safety. 

 

This is your opinion, is it not? That Pearson doesn't choose the players, and didn't choose the tactics for the final nine games of the season?

 

Despite your cringeworthy attempt at intellectualising your posts by pumping them so full of big words that they have to be read three times in order to extract meaning, all you are doing is just regurgitating the dullest and most obvious jibes that were constantly aimed at Pearson over the last 7 years: That is, he was responsible for all our failings, but never for our successes.

[Babylon]

I don't have time to reply to everything right now, but this key point.

The championship is not comparable with the Premiership no, and it is last season that we are debating. 

Oh course it's comparable. You're suggesting it's unrealistic that Pearson can have us playing badly (after starting the season very well), make lots of bad decisions and then eventually turn it around.

 

He's done exactly this previously in an easier league. If he's capable of making bad decisions and taking us on a bad run in a poorer league, it stands to reason he'd be capable of doing it in a better one, even more so! In fact that was one of the reasons I backed him as long as I did, because I knew he had it in his locker.

 

One of my biggest problems with him has always been he's a slow learner and he's slow to correct his own mistakes for one reason or another. I saw nothing different last year.

 

Using your logic someone else must have managed us in our promotion season, because we were useless at the end of the season before. Managers are capable of making mistakes and then fixing them, some take longer than others.

[stox259]

Can't understand the need for belittling though purely based on an opposing viewpoint. 

 

I think it's because you sound very condescending in your arguments. You use a confrontational language that sounds more akin to a solicitor rather than 'banter or debate with a mate'. it maybe unintentionally but you certainly rub people up the wrong way. there are ways and means of airing an opinion.

 

Paul Hines

Keith Weller lounge

Row T

Seat 153 

Edited 7 August 2015 by stox259