If it was Rudkin, what's his motive?

STS - No, it's not that. There are no mentioned of either dungeons or masters.

comment by The_Dungeon_Master (U4830)
posted 25 minutes ago
If it was Rudkin, what's his motive?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Depends if you believe he stabbed him in the back or just that they didn't always see eye to eye and rubbed each other up the wrong way and may JR wasn't as supportive as he could have been?

You mentioned perspective earlier, it's mine that the vast majority of reasoning for the sacking was our slide down the table snd CR's lack of ability to stem that meaning he takes the responsibility himself.

I suspect there was a schism in the club over do we stick with the approach or do we need a different approach due to lack or preseason and extra CL games. It's likely Directors the former and CR the later with CS caught in the middle on shaky ground. Either way it's probably a blend as if we'd played for the season like we have for the last 6 games with the pre season we had we would be in free fall now...

Interesting points from JG.

My question is simply whether he believes Shakespeare and Stowell deserve any credit for our upturn in form, and why he's so disparaging just because they're not a "name".

I think Shakespeare handles himself incredibly well in the media, and he's the only man who's resided over our most successful period to remain.

Pearson, Walsh, Ranieri. Gone.

I don't prescribe to this brand development theory coming from a household name. Leicester didn't become a brand last year because of Ranieri, it was because we won the league. Success breeds brands. You can't fault the success our owners and their decisions have brought to our club.

They got it right again. It's hard to be critical.

Ranieri will always be a hero to me. But he got too much wrong this year. He has to take responsibility for that. Nobody else. Not even the man who pushed him. Because you can't push out a man who's taking the club in the right direction.

I think the upturn in form has more to do with the players wanting to show they had nothing to do with getting their boss fired and 40% pay cut f we go down if i am being cynical as boycott would say my mum could manager our team at the moment now they have their confidence back.

It is a lot in your own tongue translation when one is speaking in a foreign language.
Ask your local Italian what he would imagine from people “behind one”.
What is significant is that the people he alludes to also gave him a little problem last season.

Not I am sure Rudkin during what was a fantastic season for both. They were seen often socially together and also at functions and worked closely.

By the way on a separate issue during my time in Germany I also saw report on interview with Kevin Phillips just after Shakespeare’s appointment who was of course also one of the back room staff with Stowell and Shakey during early days of Ranieri regime. Apparently Ranieri had demanded the coaches discuss the coaching routines with him before training. Who did he think he was –manager? Apparently this meant that prepared routines had to be changed ……. I am sure though this was only a little problem

The first part yes, the second part I'm not so convinced - that didn't change between Swansea and Liverpool yet the changed was marked.
That said, 5 of Shakespeare's 6 wins have been at home, and in the West Ham win we really rode our luck. I know the Everton match came before the CL and had a changed side, but we still have a really big problem away from home that needs to be sorted out. Fortunately there should be enough points left in the remaining home matches to see us safe, but you don't want to rely on that. After all, it only takes one appointment of Jon Moss...

To echo Merseyside's point, it's worth noting that half the board at the time wanted rid of O'Neill and they failed miserably.

That narrative doesn't make sense as it suggests they were willing to accept a 40% pay cut for relegation if Raneiri was still in charge? I don't think it took his sacking to see where they were in the league table. I agree though it's unlikely to be that black and white and there would be something in it to play for the almost new man. But then you'd expect the same increase in form from Musa, Mendy and Slimani? And shoukd that's be because they're not being played consistently neither were Albrighton, Fuchs or Okazaki under CR to counter it. We see the constant thing about them putting in more effort, but number of passes has dropped by c40% so they're not putting in as much effort there. It's not one singular thing or another but a shades of grey, but it likely to have come from a couple of differing viewpoints, to which staff, players included are likely to have migrated towards. The main thing being division in the camp isn't what was needed.

John, I don't know if you've ever watched the TV show The Apprentice, but there's a common scenario that comes up on there about what people should do when the Project Manager is failing. i.e. Should they go with them and support them, but potentially allow the project to make fatal mistakes and fail, or should they make a stand against the project manager and try to prevent said failure from happening, causing more problems within the team but possibly preventing a terrible mistake from happening?

The answer is rarely clear cut and there is merit on both sides. But inevitably the Project Manager feels betrayed by his subordinate after Lord Sugar points the finger of doom at him and complains in the taxi afterwards that he didn't get the support he needed and that Sugar has just made the greatest mistake in his illustrious career. This happens regardless of whether the perceived problem at the time was a mistake or not. (The "If only you'd supported me more, this would have worked" paradox.)

Even if right of reply was ever granted, I doubt we'll ever truly know.

The change back in tactics and intensity the players are being asked to play at is blatantly obvious.

It was the pig man, Shakespeare.

I reckon it was you, Wahl.

comment by Cesc + Costa - The Spanish Duo (U21341)

posted 3 minutes ago

It was the pig man, Shakespeare.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bore off Tarquin.

comment by Merseysidefox (U4842)
posted 1 hour, 25 minutes ago
.........................They got it right again. It's hard to be critical.

Ranieri will always be a hero to me. But he got too much wrong this year. He has to take responsibility for that. Nobody else. Not even the man who pushed him. Because you can't push out a man who's taking the club in the right direction.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They sacked Nige.

Dung using your how many times have you seen the team get the project manager sacked to cover their short comings or mistakes by ganging up on them ?

In like one week the pig changed everything and made Lester a winning team again. In one week.

It's not possible.

How many times have I seen them try: Often. How many times have I seen them succeed without merit: Very, very rare.

I don’t watch the program Dunge –sorry… but maybe sadly there is some relevance to Ranieri’s dilemma –but little to real life business

In normal business at the level where an individual senior role is totally results driven and responsible for multi million turnover – he is also responsible for selecting his immediate team.

Even when I go in shorter term on a turn- round I select close associates who I can trust to 100% carry out required actions – a must and a given.

When the permanent MD or Works Director is appointed he is able to select his on key executives who he can work with without any doubts about ability or trust. If one fails –they all fail.

This is not necessarily a reflection on any existing employees but a need for a team to be effective.

In the program you describe the team is made up not of colleagues but competitors – who gain from the project leader failing. any similarity?

Similarly in football –managers usually are able to bring 100% their team and previous manager’s staff leave with him. Especially at highest level.

This was a mistake I always believed with Ranieri.

Absolutely not a reflection on the abilities of the people involved – especially Shakespeare who has great credence as a number 2. However they had been part of different regime for a number of years not only with us but at other clubs

It was never a marriage made in heaven and as much Ranieri’s fault as the club.

Is there any need to be so hurtful about a person's appearance, Wahl?

If it's a nice person I won't say anything about how they look, but Shakespeare both looks ugly and has an ugly personality as well, so I'm cool making fun of him.

You say it's a mistake John, but it's a mistake that happened as we won the league. If anything there is more correlation between people from the old regime leaving with things going south.

There's an interesting argument to say that successful clubs have a long term setup and people to guide that. If that's so, then maybe the problem we've had this season was Ranieri trying (with the best of intentions but unsuccessfully) to deviate from that? I'm sure that's CofE's view anyway.

Ranieri's mistake was two-fold:

1. He tried to make changes
2. He did so without full control of his team and players

The manager has to lead his team. He needs to take on board opinions, and inspire so that people "want" to follow. There will be dissenters, and they need to be removed immediately.

As JG points out, the problem was that Ranieri was unable to stamp his authority on the players as they had an ally. He needed to be strong and remove any backroom team not bought in to his ethos.

If the owners stopped him doing this, they were clear they believed in other "leaders" more than him. If this was the case, the people they choose to run the club and be on their board are very very clear.

Shakespeare and Rudkin were clearly trusted a lot more than Ranieri.

I think that's probably fair, even if I fully agree we would never have won the league without him last year. His tactical changes made the difference.

Only time will tell whether Shakespeare has the tactical nouse, but I beleive he comes from the apearaon school of "building a team" and will see out any player he sees as a dissenter.

Ranieri wasn't able to do that.

I don't for a minute think the Players sought an ally or needed one, the problem was clearly that the team isn't good enough to play the way Ranieri wanted them to ( and he should have known this ) , yet still he persisted with it, that was his massive mistake.

I think I subscribe more toward TB's post there as well, Merseyside. After the summer transfer window made pretty much zero effect on style of play, any longer term plan to change the style of play needed to be at best postponed.