This article is worth a look. It basically summarises a lot of the things that Leicester City fans know, but explains what a lot of us have been trying to put into words.
http://boxtoboxfootball.uk/trying-understand-leicester-little/
I doubt many fans of other teams or pundits will read it, but if they did they might be better informed as to why LCFC fans accept the sacking of Ranieri. We're very lucky at Leicester that our club is bigger than just one man.
Why we accept the sacking of Ranieri
posted on 10/3/17
comment by Nevsaysagoal2city (U5194)
posted 51 minutes ago
Joby that's BS did you read what i wrote?
Managing change is the harded job for any manager in any business/sport. CR could not do that and in imo the players did not want it as the old regime.
CR with either not strong enough not able etc poor decisions etc but the work force did not want it or did not have the skills to change.
Moving onwards all products have a sell by date and our team is reaching that point so change/evolution is inevitable and the players will not be able to stop that a second time that my opionion.
As for NP's role last year would not of happen because of him as this year is also part of his legacy to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm still not understanding this so bear with me.
I acknowledge that trying to change our style is hard to but it wasn't necessary to change anything, we had a formula that brought us unbelievable success. CR decided we had to change our style and then expected the players to be able to play the way he wants which was wrong. A good manager recognises the strengths of his players and plays to them. CR didn't do that and unsurprisingly the players didn't want to play his ridiculous formations and tactics. He was destroying the players by taking away the one way they know how to play. That's the reality.
Nothing to do with not wanting to change or thinking they will be moved on if they couldn't play that way because none of them could and there's no way the whole squad will be moved on. As always what happens is the manager gets the boot and its glaringly obvious to me that he dug his own grave. Once he realised his new style wasn't working he should have switched back but nope, it took Shakey to do it and surprise surprise we start to play like Champions again.
The shelf life of these players is shortening but right now they're still more than good enough to play the way they know how so it's crazy that it's taken until now. I've said many times before that I don't think there's anything wrong with the style, it works we just need some better players.
posted on 10/3/17
So it wasn't CR's fault for trying to make them play a different style of football they're not suited to, it was the players fault because they didn't have the ability to play a different style of football?
That just sounds crazy because it's the managers job to find a formula that suits his players not steer away from one that already does. Did we learn nothing from Hodgson to know that's not the way it's done?
posted on 10/3/17
Its very strange, one season flying high, the next season especially towards the end rarely could score and negative result after negative result. Poor performances too, Then Ranieri leaves Leicester City come out of hibernation. You can't say a manager who won the league by 10 points is not good enough just over half a season later.
Also Leicester City are admitting Shakespeare is better than Ranieri now lol which makes no sense.
I say this is more a damning cause for the players as in the stat below. I saw the match Man Utd came to play Leicester City recently and for first 20 minutes Leicester City were up for it but slowly it all became to easy for us. I think Leicester City players lacked effort like they had last season. The Liverpool game people say Klopp team was perfect for them but in reverse fixture your lot got thrashed so it wasn't the perfect fixture. The intensity when Leicester City attacked is the difference.
.....
Shakespeare has also collected as many wins in his first two matches as Ranieri mustered in his last 16 league games (two).
posted on 10/3/17
To an extent that analysis of Leicester vs. Man Utd and Leicester vs. Liverpool is correct, but it misses a few important points and comes to the wrong conclusion. We did indeed compete for 20 or 30 minutes against Man Utd before getting overcome. And once we went behind, that was it. However, we were never really on top like we were in the first half against Liverpool. The actual difference between the two was that the belief was back. I'm surprised it was back that quickly, but it seems the walloping the players got in the press and social media got to them, as well as backing them, the club and the fans into a corner and inadvertently unifying them.
posted on 10/3/17
comment by Posh Mufc Great Hafi Not Arrogant Just Better (U6578)
posted 19 minutes ago
Its very strange, one season flying high, the next season especially towards the end rarely could score and negative result after negative result. Poor performances too, Then Ranieri leaves Leicester City come out of hibernation. You can't say a manager who won the league by 10 points is not good enough just over half a season later.
Also Leicester City are admitting Shakespeare is better than Ranieri now lol which makes no sense.
I say this is more a damning cause for the players as in the stat below. I saw the match Man Utd came to play Leicester City recently and for first 20 minutes Leicester City were up for it but slowly it all became to easy for us. I think Leicester City players lacked effort like they had last season. The Liverpool game people say Klopp team was perfect for them but in reverse fixture your lot got thrashed so it wasn't the perfect fixture. The intensity when Leicester City attacked is the difference.
.....
Shakespeare has also collected as many wins in his first two matches as Ranieri mustered in his last 16 league games (two).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Like many on the outside, you're not familiar with what's been going on over the years at our club so it makes sense that it would seem strange but the reality is it's very simple.
Pearson, largely aided by Cambiasso, developed a formula that played to the strengths of the players and we won seven out of nine. Our game was built on high energy and intensity, high pressing, counter attacking football. Ranieri simply carried this on, making only slight tweaks. He switched from 3-5-2 to 4-4-2 and tactically in terms of substitutions and changing formations mid game he got spot on.
This season he's tried to change our style of play because everyone thought we'd been sussed out. He's attempted to play a more possession based game with our defenders pushing up and leaving us well exposed and it's just not worked because they're not good enough to play a possession based game.
All Shakey has done is gone back to playing the way we know how to play. Nothing amazing, just very basic and something that would have saved Ranieri his job had he done it.
posted on 10/3/17
To be fair, CofE, I don't think it is that simple. For instance, we don't high press all the time. But what does happen at our best is that the midfielders (particularly Albrighton) are ready to press when Vardy and Okazaki do, so they all go together. That's for me why Vardy is so important to the team - because his is the responsibility to lead out and then others go with him.
That hasn't been happening for much of the season; either Vardy hasn't been putting in the effort to do this (perhaps under instruction to conserve his energy for elsewhere, but we can only speculate on the exact reason and where the "blame" lies) or, when he has, the midfield hasn't gone with him and the opposition have been able to easily pass around us. Essentially, we haven't been defending as a team, we've left gaps and opposition players have been able to look up on the ball and pick us off. Then our defence gets exposed. The last two matches, while they haven't been perfect defensively, have gone a long way toward remedying that.
And exactly how much influence Cambiasso had back in the day also remains speculation.
posted on 10/3/17
comment by The_Dungeon_Master (U4830)
posted 22 minutes ago
To be fair, CofE, I don't think it is that simple. For instance, we don't high press all the time. But what does happen at our best is that the midfielders (particularly Albrighton) are ready to press when Vardy and Okazaki do, so they all go together. That's for me why Vardy is so important to the team - because his is the responsibility to lead out and then others go with him.
That hasn't been happening for much of the season; either Vardy hasn't been putting in the effort to do this (perhaps under instruction to conserve his energy for elsewhere, but we can only speculate on the exact reason and where the "blame" lies) or, when he has, the midfield hasn't gone with him and the opposition have been able to easily pass around us. Essentially, we haven't been defending as a team, we've left gaps and opposition players have been able to look up on the ball and pick us off. Then our defence gets exposed. The last two matches, while they haven't been perfect defensively, have gone a long way toward remedying that.
And exactly how much influence Cambiasso had back in the day also remains speculation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah but choosing when to press and when not to was also part of our tactics and what we've gone back to.
The players haven't known whether to press or not this season, some did, some didn't, some went to then changed their mind, they had no idea. It seems to me the tactics weren't clear but now they are.
posted on 10/3/17
Certainly against Sevilla and Copenhagen away our tactics looked bizarre. But otherwise I don't think we've attacked and defended enough from the front.
Ranieri needs to take responsibility for that. Even when we went back to 4-4-2 we didn't press high.
However, this doesn't excuse the players performance over the last 6-8 games in my eyes.
posted on 10/3/17
It’s always a multitude of factors isn’t it? Football is a team game and money and good ownership is also part of the equation. Ranieri wasn’t the entire reason for our success last season and he isn’t totally responsible for our failures this season.
I’ve already stated that poor recruitment tied CR’s hands and he was badly let down here. I also think the formation and playing style argument only takes us so far. There is visibly more energy and effort from the players in the last two games. Vardy ran himself into the ground against Liverpool.
In fact of the starting players and substitutes who played against Hull I only counted 3 whose efforts haven’t been evidently lifted over the last two games. Gray and Schmeichel (because they were already having good seasons) and Mahrez (who still isn’t anything like the 2015/16 vintage). I’m sure that the players understanding their roles has a lot to do with it, but is that really all there is to it? It seems unlikely that it’s really that simple and is, in fact, a bit strange. Some would say damning.
I don’t think Ranieri was the problem on his own by any stretch of the imagination and I am still nervous about slipping back to relegation form for that reason. It’s just I can accept the owners view that he was becoming part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
posted on 10/3/17
Joby what ever the reasons for getting to this point the owners only had two options push CR upstairs. Would he of wanted or was there a position or get rid if they had to stay in the EPL at all costs and weren't going to consider playing the season out.
You can't replace a whole or part of a team and even given the poor teams around us a dead cat bounce might be enough to keep us up.
Just wait for CR's and NP's books to come out!!!!!