Kelechi Iheanacho

[Champions of England]

Bless you for trying to educate us all in your own special little way

Let me ask you what your predictions were when we got promoted and when Ranieri was appointed?

I'll tell you what I said and I had people like you telling me I didn't know what I was talking about.

First of all, before a ball was kicked I said our Championship team was better than WBA's PL team and I said Vardy and Drinky would play for England. I was right on both counts. The WBA fans told me to one back in five years when we've been in the league that long. Had to laugh at that.

When Ranieri was appointed I said we'd qualify for Europe and I said we'd challenge Spurs. I was called deluded of course, again by people like you. In September or October when we were top I said it wasn't a purple patch or good form, it was just how good we are and subsequently we wouldn't drop off. I said we'd do well during December and would be top at Christmas. I said for the rest of the season that we would win it because we have the mentality. I was right again.

I guarantee 100% that if you were arguing with me back then you would have been telling me how wrong I was and well you'd be wrong wouldn't you, just like you are now!

You'll see how wrong you are next season, when you realise that I do actually know what I'm talking about and you don't.

 

[BigFox]

Let me ask you what your predictions were when we got promoted and when Ranieri was appointed?

I'll tell you what I said and I had people like you telling me I didn't know what I was talking about.

First of all, before a ball was kicked I said our Championship team was better than WBA's PL team and I said Vardy and Drinky would play for England. I was right on both counts. The WBA fans told me to one back in five years when we've been in the league that long. Had to laugh at that.

When Ranieri was appointed I said we'd qualify for Europe and I said we'd challenge Spurs. I was called deluded of course, again by people like you. In September or October when we were top I said it wasn't a purple patch or good form, it was just how good we are and subsequently we wouldn't drop off. I said we'd do well during December and would be top at Christmas. I said for the rest of the season that we would win it because we have the mentality. I was right again.

I guarantee 100% that if you were arguing with me back then you would have been telling me how wrong I was and well you'd be wrong wouldn't you, just like you are now!

You'll see how wrong you are next season, when you realise that I do actually know what I'm talking about and you don't.

You also predicted that Powell would be our assistant among other things - how does that fit into your narrative o wise sage

You must log in or register to see images

I am laughing at you because you are a child stamping your feet shouting for approval and it is hilarious

As for my predictions from years ago I don't know or care - you are the one living in the past so tell me

 

[Wight Fox]

So... Iheanacho then...

 

[BigFox]

So... Iheanacho then...

Come to the transfers thread where I have posted some new rumours about the transfer - leave this as a pissing contest.

 

[HarboroughFox]

We need to get this signing done and dusted.

 

[Barwellfox]

Numerous sources say that the deal is done - just needs sorting out how much the player will have to give to his previous agent. According to the Nigerian press, the buy back fee is £37.5m for the four years, but if we achieve Champions League will increase to £50m. He actually turned down Monaco to sign for us - wants citizenship.

 

[FosseFilberto]

Oh deary me, no that's not what I'm saying at all and you're clearly not seeing what's blatantly right in front of you, you've even alluded to it in your post yet you still don't get it.

Yes Pearson took us on our longest winless run, while we were playing a style that didn't suit us. We were too defensive and didn't attack which contrasted to the start of the season when we had a go and picked up 10 points from the first five games if I remember rightly. After the last minute equaliser against Burnley things changed and we started setting out not to lose but that's exaclty what happened.

So we we both agree that we were crap until the final nine games, I'm confident about that so what happened in those nine games that changed our fortunes? In case you haven't already got the answer, it was our style of play. The same players who were bottom for 140 days while playing a style of football that didn't suit them and/or were out of position, all of a sudden were producing Champions form when played in a way that did suit them.

Ranieri didn't change that, in fact he openly told them to carry on doing what they were doing and they did. What he did was change from 3-5-2 to 4-4-1-1, bring in Simpson and Fuchs, who were always coming into the team once we lost a game, Kante who we had to replace Cambiasso and Okazaki who replaced Ulloa. The style of football remained the same and instead of just producing Champions form, we went all the way and ended up losing just once in 47 games.

Last season before the season started, Ranieri openly said we needed to evolve our style of play because teams will have worked us out. He wanted a more possession based game and that's what he tried to get us to play. Our back four were about 30m higher up the pitch for a start but he stopped us pressing from the front and wanted us to drop back. The problem with that was without pressing from the front we gave them too much space in the middle and because our defence was so high up it was easy to cut through us.

Liverpool away was the biggest early indicator of the huge difference in the way we were set up when we were so exposed down the flanks. Instead of having our two banks of four, we were all over the shop, some players went to press and then stopped and looked at each other not knowing whether they were supposed to press or not and then tried to get back into position and it was an absolute mess. I think it was Drinky or Kasper said "we don't know what the fook we're doing" after the United home game and it was obvious to me that they didn't. Wasn't it before the Copenhagen game that he changed tactics at the last minute and we were shocking until he sort of addressed it but we were poor that game.

So we eventually sack him and Shakey changes our style of play back to what made them successful and surprise surprise we start producing Champions form again.

So please explain to me how you think it's possible for three different managers with three different team sheets (with the same core players) and different formations, all manage to pick up points at the same rate?

It's quite blatantly our high energy, high intensity, counter attacking football, the only thing that has remained consistent when managers, players and formations have changed. Seriously how do you not see this?

I think you are just a touch deluded ... if your theory held weight there would be no need for any football managers .. all you need is a bunch of players that run around quickly

Here are some facts - under Claudio Ranieri's title winning season we lost just 3 games - something Leicester City have never done before in the top flight - now I put that down to a manager employing the right tactics game by game and playing the right players in the right positions to play to their paricular strengths - Vardy and Drinkwaterr were revelations and for me benefitted from Ranieri's complete faith in them together with the way he wanted to play ... add to that the mercurial talent of Mahrez, the amazing Kante and a bunch of committed players willing to work and the formula was perfect. To assume that another manager was capable of acheiving exactly the same as Ranieri did in that season is, quite frankly, just ludicrous ... but you stick to your FIFA game based theories buddy ... it's your prerogative ,

 

[LeicesterWizard]

According to the Nigerian press, the buy back fee is £37.5m for the four years, but if we achieve Champions League will increase to £50m

£50m for a striker that (presumably) would be a big reason for us achieving CL football is still peanuts in a maket where Sigurdsson and Mahrez are deemed to be worth as much ...

 

[Barwellfox]

They can bid the money - doesnt mean he wold go - just look at Vardy with Arsenal.

 

[Champions of England]

Let me ask you what your predictions were when we got promoted and when Ranieri was appointed?

I'll tell you what I said and I had people like you telling me I didn't know what I was talking about.

First of all, before a ball was kicked I said our Championship team was better than WBA's PL team and I said Vardy and Drinky would play for England. I was right on both counts. The WBA fans told me to one back in five years when we've been in the league that long. Had to laugh at that.

When Ranieri was appointed I said we'd qualify for Europe and I said we'd challenge Spurs. I was called deluded of course, again by people like you. In September or October when we were top I said it wasn't a purple patch or good form, it was just how good we are and subsequently we wouldn't drop off. I said we'd do well during December and would be top at Christmas. I said for the rest of the season that we would win it because we have the mentality. I was right again.

I guarantee 100% that if you were arguing with me back then you would have been telling me how wrong I was and well you'd be wrong wouldn't you, just like you are now!

You'll see how wrong you are next season, when you realise that I do actually know what I'm talking about and you don't.

Powell was a guess but I knew 100% that Shakey was getting the job while you were thinking there was a problem because it hadn't been announced and it would stop players from joining us. I was right and you were wrong, so what if I guessed the wrong assistant? It was just a guess based on very little.

What I talk about how good we are it's based on what I see on the pitch and that's very different. I saw how good we were before we kicked a ball in the PL and come the end of September 2015 I could see that we weren't in good form, we'd just carried on from the Great Escape because that's just how good we were. We weren't always playing well but we always got results regardless because we just know how to win games. This is why I said our form won't drop off and it didn't.

My predictions about where the club are heading also aren't predictions or opinion, they're fact because I know 100% what the owners plans are. Have any other clubs submit £40m bids for any player and I include Everton in this? I said we will be ambitious in the transfer market and that we have more money and more ambition than other clubs but keep getting told that everyone has the same ambitions, even though they blatantly don't. Again I was right.

So I said Shakey would already have the job and he confirmed an interview that he'd got it in France before his holiday, as I suggested. I told you all about the stadium extension and then it was announced weeks later. I told you all about our ambitions and that it would be reflected in the transfer market. I've been right about everything so far apart from Powell which as I said at the time as just a guess but knowing 100% Shakey had the job.

You'll see during the season how right I am about how good we are, I'm that confident in our ability that I have no issue putting my neck on the line. I've vehemently backed us since we got promoted and they've never let me down so far, well apart from when they've been played in a system that doesn't suit them but then the managers are to blame for that.

 

[Champions of England]

I think you are just a touch deluded ... if your theory held weight there would be no need for any football managers .. all you need is a bunch of players that run around quickly

Here are some facts - under Claudio Ranieri's title winning season we lost just 3 games - something Leicester City have never done before in the top flight - now I put that down to a manager employing the right tactics game by game and playing the right players in the right positions to play to their paricular strengths - Vardy and Drinkwaterr were revelations and for me benefitted from Ranieri's complete faith in them together with the way he wanted to play ... add to that the mercurial talent of Mahrez, the amazing Kante and a bunch of committed players willing to work and the formula was perfect. To assume that another manager was capable of acheiving exactly the same as Ranieri did in that season is, quite frankly, just ludicrous ... but you stick to your FIFA game based theories buddy ... it's your prerogative ,

What you're missing is that Pearson ALREADY did that during the Great Escape.

He played Vardy through the middle with Ulloa and allowed Mahrez the freedom to do his thing. Drinky was poor first season and we had James and Cambiasso keeping him out of the team until James got injured and then when he came back in he was good. Without Cambiasso we needed to fill that void and quite obviously we had to bring Kante into the team, considering he tried Inler and it wasn't working, Kante wasn't Ranieri's first choice, I mean he didn't even want him but he put him into the team because Inler wasn't good enough, had he been we wouldn't have seen Kante.

So here you are trying to tell me that Ranieri was somehow this genius who brought all these players into the team but he didn't at all. He recognised what they were doing under Pearson during those nine games and told them to carry on. This isn't even a debate, he was very open about just letting them carry on with what they were ALREADY doing.

Tactics are important of course and some of the changes he made were brilliant but the style of play is the most important factor. That's the platform and tactical changes are determined based on how the game is progressing. As good as Ranieri's tactical changes were, it's nothing I've not seen Shakey do. His tactical changes against Atletico were as good as I've seen. He recognised that Griezmann was running the show and changed formation to nullify his threat while still maintaining our own. Top quality and as good as anything Ranieri ever did. I think Ranieri's best tactical change was against Norwich when it wasn't working through the middle so we went 3-5-2, put Albrigton on the right, pushed Mahrez into the middle and stuck Ulloa up top and all three combined for the goal. That was brilliant.

So rather than tell me about how my opinion is based on FIFA, I suggest you take a closer look at the team you support because you don't know very much. Shocking.

Pearson lost one in nine, Shakey four in 13 but those four were with half a team and against Arsenal, City, Everton and Spurs. If we had a full team I'd say we'd have lost one (Arsenal) not four. So talk about Ranieri only losing three but one in nine would be four in 38 and one in 13 would be less than 3 so you could say that this style of play averages three losses out of 38.

Of course it doesn't work that way but my point is all three managers have had similar results irrespective of formations and teamsheet so how do you explain that? Truth is you can't. You haven't been able to so far, you just come up with uneducated posts because you don't actually know what you're talking about.

 

[JohnTheFox]

What you're missing is that Pearson ALREADY did that during the Great Escape.

He played Vardy through the middle with Ulloa and allowed Mahrez the freedom to do his thing. Drinky was poor first season and we had James and Cambiasso keeping him out of the team until James got injured and then when he came back in he was good. Without Cambiasso we needed to fill that void and quite obviously we had to bring Kante into the team, considering he tried Inler and it wasn't working, Kante wasn't Ranieri's first choice, I mean he didn't even want him but he put him into the team because Inler wasn't good enough, had he been we wouldn't have seen Kante.

So here you are trying to tell me that Ranieri was somehow this genius who brought all these players into the team but he didn't at all. He recognised what they were doing under Pearson during those nine games and told them to carry on. This isn't even a debate, he was very open about just letting them carry on with what they were ALREADY doing.

Tactics are important of course and some of the changes he made were brilliant but the style of play is the most important factor. That's the platform and tactical changes are determined based on how the game is progressing. As good as Ranieri's tactical changes were, it's nothing I've not seen Shakey do. His tactical changes against Atletico were as good as I've seen. He recognised that Griezmann was running the show and changed formation to nullify his threat while still maintaining our own. Top quality and as good as anything Ranieri ever did. I think Ranieri's best tactical change was against Norwich when it wasn't working through the middle so we went 3-5-2, put Albrigton on the right, pushed Mahrez into the middle and stuck Ulloa up top and all three combined for the goal. That was brilliant.

So rather than tell me about how my opinion is based on FIFA, I suggest you take a closer look at the team you support because you don't know very much. Shocking.

Pearson lost one in nine, Shakey four in 13 but those four were with half a team and against Arsenal, City, Everton and Spurs. If we had a full team I'd say we'd have lost one (Arsenal) not four. So talk about Ranieri only losing three but one in nine would be four in 38 and one in 13 would be less than 3 so you could say that this style of play averages three losses out of 38.

Of course it doesn't work that way but my point is all three managers have had similar results irrespective of formations and teamsheet so how do you explain that? Truth is you can't. You haven't been able to so far, you just come up with uneducated posts because you don't actually know what you're talking about.

I've got to say I don't think we'd have avoided defeat whatever side we put out against Spurs that night
Unlucky away at Arsenal with the late own goal and we shouldn't have lost at Man City given the penalty. Everton hard to say, we did seem distracted by the CL but Spurs just wiped the floor with us. Maybe we had wound down by then

 

[Champions of England]

I've got to say I don't think we'd have avoided defeat whatever side we put out against Spurs that night
Unlucky away at Arsenal with the late own goal and we shouldn't have lost at Man City given the penalty. Everton hard to say, we did seem distracted by the CL but Spurs just wiped the floor with us. Maybe we had wound down by then

Yeah but we had no defence or midfield and they've not managed to beat us when we've had our best XI on the pitch so I don't think they would have beaten us last season either.

 

[BigFox]

This thread is gold

 

[FosseFilberto]

You really believe that the formation, players or manger doesn't matter and just style wins games?

Yes you do.

You are just a kid that has played too much Championship manager or something right?

 

[FosseFilberto]

Yeah but we had no defence or midfield and they've not managed to beat us when we've had our best XI on the pitch so I don't think they would have beaten us last season either.

We had a weakened side no doubt, but Spurs were also in excellent form and playing with momentum ... so it's not all about us ...

.... but here's a fact you'll like ... Mautricio Pochettino has never managed any team to a league win against a Claudio Ranieri team ... in their entire managerial careers ...

Guess Claudio has just been lucky in always having players that run arouns a lot ... can't possibly be down to tactical nous eh?

 

[FosseFilberto]

What you're missing is that Pearson ALREADY did that during the Great Escape.

He played Vardy through the middle with Ulloa and allowed Mahrez the freedom to do his thing. Drinky was poor first season and we had James and Cambiasso keeping him out of the team until James got injured and then when he came back in he was good. Without Cambiasso we needed to fill that void and quite obviously we had to bring Kante into the team, considering he tried Inler and it wasn't working, Kante wasn't Ranieri's first choice, I mean he didn't even want him but he put him into the team because Inler wasn't good enough, had he been we wouldn't have seen Kante.

So here you are trying to tell me that Ranieri was somehow this genius who brought all these players into the team but he didn't at all. He recognised what they were doing under Pearson during those nine games and told them to carry on. This isn't even a debate, he was very open about just letting them carry on with what they were ALREADY doing.

Tactics are important of course and some of the changes he made were brilliant but the style of play is the most important factor. That's the platform and tactical changes are determined based on how the game is progressing. As good as Ranieri's tactical changes were, it's nothing I've not seen Shakey do. His tactical changes against Atletico were as good as I've seen. He recognised that Griezmann was running the show and changed formation to nullify his threat while still maintaining our own. Top quality and as good as anything Ranieri ever did. I think Ranieri's best tactical change was against Norwich when it wasn't working through the middle so we went 3-5-2, put Albrigton on the right, pushed Mahrez into the middle and stuck Ulloa up top and all three combined for the goal. That was brilliant.

So rather than tell me about how my opinion is based on FIFA, I suggest you take a closer look at the team you support because you don't know very much. Shocking.

Pearson lost one in nine, Shakey four in 13 but those four were with half a team and against Arsenal, City, Everton and Spurs. If we had a full team I'd say we'd have lost one (Arsenal) not four. So talk about Ranieri only losing three but one in nine would be four in 38 and one in 13 would be less than 3 so you could say that this style of play averages three losses out of 38.

Of course it doesn't work that way but my point is all three managers have had similar results irrespective of formations and teamsheet so how do you explain that? Truth is you can't. You haven't been able to so far, you just come up with uneducated posts because you don't actually know what you're talking about.

my 'uneducated posts' stem from having watched Leicester City live from the 1969/70 season to date ... just as a matter of interest, how long have you been watching them?

PS All 3 managers have not had similar results Ranieri managed us to victories against Chelsea, Man City (twice), Spurs, Liverpool and Everton ... and to 2 draws againts UNited when it mattered...Arsenal was his only 'failing'..

In marked contrast Nigel Pearson has one win against United in a bizarre early season encounter ... ..go figure Einstein.

 

[BigFox]

my 'uneducated posts' stem from having watched Leicester City live from the 1969/70 season to date ... just as a matter of interest, how long have you been watching them?

PS All 3 managers have not had similar results Ranieri managed us to victories against Chelsea, Man City (twice), Spurs, Liverpool and Everton ... and to 2 draws againts UNited when it mattered...Arsenal was his only 'failing'..

In marked contrast Nigel Pearson has one win against United in a bizarre early season encounter ... ..go figure Einstein.

I remember that game - we were losing 3-1 and won 5-3.

Was a false dawn - we lost the next dozen or so and Pearson went mental and swore at our fans, attacked opposition players and was "sacked" for a day before we went on the great escape run. Still managed to call a reporter an ostrich then make a grovelling apology as well - good times...

 

[BobbyD]

What you're missing is that Pearson ALREADY did that during the Great Escape.

He played Vardy through the middle with Ulloa and allowed Mahrez the freedom to do his thing. Drinky was poor first season and we had James and Cambiasso keeping him out of the team until James got injured and then when he came back in he was good. Without Cambiasso we needed to fill that void and quite obviously we had to bring Kante into the team, considering he tried Inler and it wasn't working, Kante wasn't Ranieri's first choice, I mean he didn't even want him but he put him into the team because Inler wasn't good enough, had he been we wouldn't have seen Kante.

So here you are trying to tell me that Ranieri was somehow this genius who brought all these players into the team but he didn't at all. He recognised what they were doing under Pearson during those nine games and told them to carry on. This isn't even a debate, he was very open about just letting them carry on with what they were ALREADY doing.

Tactics are important of course and some of the changes he made were brilliant but the style of play is the most important factor. That's the platform and tactical changes are determined based on how the game is progressing. As good as Ranieri's tactical changes were, it's nothing I've not seen Shakey do. His tactical changes against Atletico were as good as I've seen. He recognised that Griezmann was running the show and changed formation to nullify his threat while still maintaining our own. Top quality and as good as anything Ranieri ever did. I think Ranieri's best tactical change was against Norwich when it wasn't working through the middle so we went 3-5-2, put Albrigton on the right, pushed Mahrez into the middle and stuck Ulloa up top and all three combined for the goal. That was brilliant.

So rather than tell me about how my opinion is based on FIFA, I suggest you take a closer look at the team you support because you don't know very much. Shocking.

Pearson lost one in nine, Shakey four in 13 but those four were with half a team and against Arsenal, City, Everton and Spurs. If we had a full team I'd say we'd have lost one (Arsenal) not four. So talk about Ranieri only losing three but one in nine would be four in 38 and one in 13 would be less than 3 so you could say that this style of play averages three losses out of 38.

Of course it doesn't work that way but my point is all three managers have had similar results irrespective of formations and teamsheet so how do you explain that? Truth is you can't. You haven't been able to so far, you just come up with uneducated posts because you don't actually know what you're talking about.

I'm sorry that's just fairy tale telling.

If Ranieri didn't have the players revolting, then he would have won the league again. I can't assume this because what happened is that leicester completely ballsed up their season (minus the CL which Ranieri was smashing). You can't say half your team weren't playing so you lost but they don't count so i'm chalking them. Fact of the matter is Shakey lost them and they are the facts. He chose to not put a full team out (for understandable reasons against some of them).

 

[BigFox]

I'm sorry that's just fairy tale telling.

If Ranieri didn't have the players revolting, then he would have won the league again. I can't assume this because what happened is that leicester completely ballsed up their season (minus the CL which Ranieri was smashing). You can't say half your team weren't playing so you lost but they don't count so i'm chalking them. Fact of the matter is Shakey lost them and they are the facts. He chose to not put a full team out (for understandable reasons against some of them).

Shakespeare also chose to have our LB Fuchs in the middle of the back 4, a position he had never played in his career when we had 2 fit proper reserve CBs in Amartey and Wasyl and we conceded 9 in the last 3 games - but that doesn't fit into the narrative so let's ignore it...