Having thought about this appointment overnight, I have come down on the side of being thoroughly fed up with the Pozzo approach to managers. I don’t think Munoz should have stayed and I expect Ranieri to be better than him, but what is the best we can expect from him? If he is really successful he will haul us up to mid-table, say 12th, and that will be great: job done. Then, if he stays, we will hit a rocky patch, perhaps around this time next season, and he will be sacked. And so it all begins again. If we suspected, as many did, that Munoz would not be up to the PL, he should have been replaced in the summer when more consideration could have been given to who followed him, as was done in 2015. Back then I was intrigued and optimistic about the appointments of QSF, Mad Walter and The Snake and, even though it was mid season, Gracia was a considered appointment. However, from the sacking of Gracia onwards (which was either too early or too late, depending on your point of view) the changes have all seemed panicky with the exception of Ivic, but he was such a bad fit that his appointment must have been poorly researched. As fans we initially hope that any player or manager at Watford will be so successful and happy that they will want to stay at the club for their whole career. Of course this is impractical, but it has to be the starting point. Players are slightly different because they are treated as assets by the club, but to have an inbuilt obsolescence in each managerial appointment cannot be healthy in my view. Everybody expects a Watford manager to only last 9 months on average and appointing a 70 year old only confirms that. It doesn’t really matter if Ranieri is a success for a bit or is himself sacked before Christmas because there’ll be another one along soon.
When Tufan and Etebo came on against Newcastle we finally saw some potential for a balanced midfield, but that was taken away from us thanks to Etebo having to make a mad dash to get back and do some defending
Yeah, I've purposely missed Etebo out of my comment due to his injury - he's the only one with a different profile I guess. But even then, he's not really an out and out DM.
Agreed. But one of the problems with the passing is that the running off the ball is so poor (or non-existent) that there are no easy passes available. This is where Ranieri can really improve us - by improving the teamwork and by inculcating a better understanding by each player of what their role is.
So why did Watford go for Ranieri? Ok, first question is an easy one to answer. Was it right to sack Xisco? Well, yes. He was clearly out of his depth, and shouldn't really have been retained after promotion in the first place, although I understand the reasons why they did. They felt he deserved a crack at the job as he earned the right, but we know how ruthless the owner is. It was fanciful in the extreme to expect a rookie coach, who still doesn't have the qualifications to manage in the Premier League, to pull together a new team and outwit the very best coaches in the business. Sheer lunacy for the club to think that could possibly work out. This decision has probably already cost us points from 3 or 4 winnable games. So on to Ranieri. There are positives and negatives with this appointment. On the positives, he is a highly respected and experienced coach/manager. With over 1200 games under his belt, he's probably the most high profile manager Watford have ever appointed (with the notable exception to GT the second time around). The list of clubs he's been at is hugely impressive. Chelsea, Roma, Juventus, Nantes, Atletico Madrid, Napoli, Valencia and more recently Sampdoria where he did well. He's good friends with the Pozzo family, and he's been to some of Watford's games in the past as their guest. The Italian feel to the club will no doubt suit him to a tee and it all could fit like hand and glove. On the negative side, most of his career, despite landing some really big jobs, has been pretty mediocre. Ok, the elephant in the room is the success at Leicester, but I believe there was a perfect storm of events that had a significant impact on that occurring. But if you do attribute the league title solely to him, then it's fair to ask questions as to why it all unravelled so badly the following season. The league champions only won 5 of their 25 matches and were 17th when he finally got sacked. The stint at Fulham was nothing more than a disaster too. I feel Ranieri's biggest hurdle is getting through the next 9 games unscathed. If he picks up more than 4 points he'll have done extremely well. But if, as I believe, we'll only pick up 4 points or under, then will the board stick by him? 7 or 8 defeats from his first 9 games would be unthinkable for Gino to retain faith, but that scenario is a very real one. Personally, I think they will understand the difficulty of the next 9 games. As long as we look better, a more competitive unit, that gives these bigger clubs a bit of a game, then I think he'll survive. He'll only go if we still look like a bit of a rabble, although I really don't think that will happen. So to go full circle on my original question. Watford went for Ranieri because not only was he available, he has vast experience and would fit in well with the owner and general setup at Watford. I think his recent performance at Sampdoria would have impressed the board and could also have had a large influence on their decision. Whether he's the right guy remains to be seen. Personally I would have preferred Diego Martinez, as his profile looked like a strong Gino pick and he actually lives in St Albans. But Ranieri it is. He'll either be a car crash or he'll do well and sort us out. I don't think there will be any middle ground. No doubt he's not cheap, and I hope this is a sign we will invest in January. You would have thought Ranieri has been given some assurances on that, and if that's the case, then I have some hope he could well turn us into a side that avoids the drop.
Just proves the old adage is true. You're never more than 6 feet away from someone who's managed Watford.
If Ranieri can look at the opposition during any of our games and say to himself “oh look, they’re doing something there… maybe I should do something about what they’re doing” then he’ll be a significant improvement.
His Fulham record was pretty disastrous… but if you examine it more closely it might not be as bad as it seems. He took over from Joka after 12 games, they were on 5 points, rock bottom and already on an incredible -20 goal difference. Ranieri then proceed to get 9 points from the next 8 games, moving them up a place and limiting their goal difference to -25. So a much better return than Joka managed over the previous 12 games. Obviously it all then went horribly wrong, but maybe it was just gravity kicking in again?
It will only continue this way. If we stay up, we will always hit a bad run, panic and sack the manager. If we go down and aren't in the automatic promotion slots we will panic and sack the manager. Surely we all know and accept this will be the case ? The first 4 years post promotion we were never really involved in the relegation fight but still dispensed with approx a manager a season.
'panic' - or, as they would no doubt put it: 'react'. And it was the lack or inadequacy of his reactions that helped do for Munoz.
I'm sorry if you find the comments offensive. I dont view it as a competition, I just found it very strange to be told by men who are obviously quite inexperienced that I'm as/more inexperienced than them when I'm obviously not. A lot of men of all ages keep track of their numbers. I'm surprised by how uptight and conservative some of the people on this forum are but I guess the English do have a reputation for that. In my experience people who are uptight and conservative about this topic are generally quite disconnected from their sexuality. Generally speaking English people aren't very good in bed and being uptight and conservative is clearly one of the reasons for that. That's why in my opinion people should be more open about this topic. Pretty much everyone I know is open minded about this topic so encountering people who are uptight about it on this forum is like being on another planet for me.
So Xisco's brother was doing the tactical analysis? God knows what he was telling Xisco then, I think we're better off without him as well.
Surprised we even had one in the first place! I imagine his analysis went a bit like: We'll play 4-3-3, pass it around the back for no reason, give it to Sarr and pray that he can do something, don't worry about the analysis of the opposition.
Reminds me of my Jockanese mate's description of the archetypal Scotchlandish footballer: "Short, stocky, ginger, short-tempered, violent and not very good at football."
Didn't it take us something like 30 minutes to even have a shot on goal at Leeds? That is some achievement.
So this begs the question... Did Xisco big up his time at Valencia so much that the Pozzo's went "if Ranieri is so good, why don't we just...."
Pearson ? (Following the narrative that Ranieri didn't really win it for Leicester). Bertie Mee (propping up Aidy)
I'm just wondering why Chumlax has such a big problem with my body count. To me it's just a normal thing like my shoe size. Why do you equate being sexual with being a teenager or an alcoholic? That doesnt make sense.
Because the era of being a teenager is when your sexual conquests and alcohol consumption MAY be of interest to SOME OF your peers. After that it just becomes embarrassing to raise it and want to discuss with grown ups, whereas your shoe size is relevant every time you buy shoes. Size 12 in case you were wondering.
