“Enough was enough” – Player explains why he simply had to leave Fulham

[SWSixer]

Super player for us. I for one miss him!

[toshes mate]

"I felt I got even less confidence (when Ranieri was hired by Fulham). Then enough was enough. In such a situation, I had to think about my own career. He understood it very well. There was no fight." Stefan Johansen

In other words Ranieri did not respond to a player's natural concerns about where the season was headed, and didn't even bother to try to explain where a really good servant of FFC for two successful seasons, one after a shaky start requiring him to adapt and become a better player, might have a future at the Club.  It shows what an empty vessel Jokanovic's replacement really was.  Shameful.

[bigalffc]

I appreciated his energy and commitment whenever he played for us and believe he would be a damn good squad member for us in the championship next season if he can be persuaded to stay.

[Woolly Mammoth]

Let's hope Stefan stays as he is the kind of warrior we need.

[ALG01]

Steff was a great player for us but was going off the boli at the end of last season.
BUT
You could not fault his effort and desire.

I think the prem was a bridge to far far for him week in week out but he certainly deserved more of a chance than he got.

[Wolf]

Johansen was runner-up in the Player of the Season vote 2016-17 and top scorer with 13 goals. In our promotion season 49 appearances and 8 goals (behind only Sessegnon and Mitrovic). I loved his dynamism and desire - he was great for us over 1 3/4 seasons in the Championship

[Sting of the North]

"I felt I got even less confidence (when Ranieri was hired by Fulham). Then enough was enough. In such a situation, I had to think about my own career. He understood it very well. There was no fight." Stefan Johansen

In other words Ranieri did not respond to a player's natural concerns about where the season was headed, and didn't even bother to try to explain where a really good servant of FFC for two successful seasons, one after a shaky start requiring him to adapt and become a better player, might have a future at the Club.  It shows what an empty vessel Jokanovic's replacement really was.  Shameful.

I think you are reading very much into this. I read it as Johansen just felt that he wasn't rated by Ranieri. Johansen wanted to play and Ranieri couldn't promise him game time. It happens, and is nothing strange at all. I am no fan of Ranieri whatsoever, however it is surely better for everyone involved (including FFC) that Johansen plays rather than rot on the sidelines? Stupid decision by Ranieri maybe, if you believe that Johansen is better than the alternatives, but from the article I don't see why this in particular was shameful. 

[TC's Sporran]

stef works with cairney and kmac. Cairney wasn't playing much early season and  without the player who the whole teamplay was built around last season - (not implying tc is a supreme footballer or the like, ) but identifying his weaknesses and putting players in to fill the holes.

without tc, stef and kmac then have to do a bit more and managers want instant results.
I guarantee those 3 in midfield next season would easily make the play offs. The championship has been so weak this season. So no biggie if anguissa and/or seri decide they are too good for the championship - which is usually the case for the mercenary attitude of todays players.
Now isf West Ham of Newcastle move in for Cairney and Stef moves to west brom permanently things could be a lot different and I don't think it would be that bad a thing as we do rely on Cairney a bit too much.

[Matt10]

stef works with cairney and kmac. Cairney wasn't playing much early season and  without the player who the whole teamplay was built around last season - (not implying tc is a supreme footballer or the like, ) but identifying his weaknesses and putting players in to fill the holes.

without tc, stef and kmac then have to do a bit more and managers want instant results.
I guarantee those 3 in midfield next season would easily make the play offs. The championship has been so weak this season. So no biggie if anguissa and/or seri decide they are too good for the championship - which is usually the case for the mercenary attitude of todays players.
Now isf West Ham of Newcastle move in for Cairney and Stef moves to west brom permanently things could be a lot different and I don't think it would be that bad a thing as we do rely on Cairney a bit too much.

100% agree. Individually, those players have struggled. As a unit, we would have had at least some sense of a common understanding in the midfield. Sure, they may not have done well against the big clubs, but certainly could have held their own against the teams we should have beaten this year.

With more confidence instilled in him, Johansen could have pulled the strings, and at least he would've taken some chances in trying to bag assists versus just trying to play safe all the time.

[toshes mate]

"I felt I got even less confidence (when Ranieri was hired by Fulham). Then enough was enough. In such a situation, I had to think about my own career. He understood it very well. There was no fight." Stefan Johansen

In other words Ranieri did not respond to a player's natural concerns about where the season was headed, and didn't even bother to try to explain where a really good servant of FFC for two successful seasons, one after a shaky start requiring him to adapt and become a better player, might have a future at the Club.  It shows what an empty vessel Jokanovic's replacement really was.  Shameful.

I think you are reading very much into this. I read it as Johansen just felt that he wasn't rated by Ranieri. Johansen wanted to play and Ranieri couldn't promise him game time. It happens, and is nothing strange at all. I am no fan of Ranieri whatsoever, however it is surely better for everyone involved (including FFC) that Johansen plays rather than rot on the sidelines? Stupid decision by Ranieri maybe, if you believe that Johansen is better than the alternatives, but from the article I don't see why this in particular was shameful. 

The key words from Johansen are 'even less confidence' and 'no fight' which is akin to Ranieri not changing his mind about what was affecting him as a player in a situation where the manager's performances had done absolutely nothing to turn fortunes around.  If that wasn't Ranieri's key task then I'd understand how it could be misread but, sorry to say, I don't think it can be read any other way with the 'enough is enough' tagged on.

[RaySmith]

stef works with cairney and kmac. Cairney wasn't playing much early season and  without the player who the whole teamplay was built around last season - (not implying tc is a supreme footballer or the like, ) but identifying his weaknesses and putting players in to fill the holes.

without tc, stef and kmac then have to do a bit more and managers want instant results.
I guarantee those 3 in midfield next season would easily make the play offs. The championship has been so weak this season. So no biggie if anguissa and/or seri decide they are too good for the championship - which is usually the case for the mercenary attitude of todays players.
Now isf West Ham of Newcastle move in for Cairney and Stef moves to west brom permanently things could be a lot different and I don't think it would be that bad a thing as we do rely on Cairney a bit too much.

100% agree. Individually, those players have struggled. As a unit, we would have had at least some sense of a common understanding in the midfield. Sure, they may not have done well against the big clubs, but certainly could have held their own against the teams we should have beaten this year.

With more confidence instilled in him, Johansen could have pulled the strings, and at least he would've taken some chances in trying to bag assists versus just trying to play safe all the time.

Those players didn't seem to be given much chance to show what they could do together, from what I remember.

Slavisa put the most of the new signings straight into the team, when they'd never played together, with the other players, or in the English Prem before.

Stef didn't seem to feature much under Slavisa, and nor did Macdonald, and Ranieri continued this

[Sting of the North]

"I felt I got even less confidence (when Ranieri was hired by Fulham). Then enough was enough. In such a situation, I had to think about my own career. He understood it very well. There was no fight." Stefan Johansen

In other words Ranieri did not respond to a player's natural concerns about where the season was headed, and didn't even bother to try to explain where a really good servant of FFC for two successful seasons, one after a shaky start requiring him to adapt and become a better player, might have a future at the Club.  It shows what an empty vessel Jokanovic's replacement really was.  Shameful.

I think you are reading very much into this. I read it as Johansen just felt that he wasn't rated by Ranieri. Johansen wanted to play and Ranieri couldn't promise him game time. It happens, and is nothing strange at all. I am no fan of Ranieri whatsoever, however it is surely better for everyone involved (including FFC) that Johansen plays rather than rot on the sidelines? Stupid decision by Ranieri maybe, if you believe that Johansen is better than the alternatives, but from the article I don't see why this in particular was shameful. 

The key words from Johansen are 'even less confidence' and 'no fight' which is akin to Ranieri not changing his mind about what was affecting him as a player in a situation where the manager's performances had done absolutely nothing to turn fortunes around.  If that wasn't Ranieri's key task then I'd understand how it could be misread but, sorry to say, I don't think it can be read any other way with the 'enough is enough' tagged on.

I still believe you are inventing something that wasn't necessarily the case. I read the "even less confidence" as Johansen feeling he was even further from playing time, and I read the "no fight" as Ranieri agreeing with Johansen that it was ok for him to find a new club (i.e. Ranieri was not particularly interested in keeping Johansen). The manager's key task is to get results. If Ranieri felt that he didn't believe that Johansen would be part of getting those results then I still don't see why this was shameful. I may of course be misreading it, but I think one should be careful to read too much into some short written sentences.

[Bassey the warrior]

Good player who wasn't quite good enough to make the step up. I hope we keep him.

[toshes mate]

"I felt I got even less confidence (when Ranieri was hired by Fulham). Then enough was enough. In such a situation, I had to think about my own career. He understood it very well. There was no fight." Stefan Johansen

In other words Ranieri did not respond to a player's natural concerns about where the season was headed, and didn't even bother to try to explain where a really good servant of FFC for two successful seasons, one after a shaky start requiring him to adapt and become a better player, might have a future at the Club.  It shows what an empty vessel Jokanovic's replacement really was.  Shameful.

I think you are reading very much into this. I read it as Johansen just felt that he wasn't rated by Ranieri. Johansen wanted to play and Ranieri couldn't promise him game time. It happens, and is nothing strange at all. I am no fan of Ranieri whatsoever, however it is surely better for everyone involved (including FFC) that Johansen plays rather than rot on the sidelines? Stupid decision by Ranieri maybe, if you believe that Johansen is better than the alternatives, but from the article I don't see why this in particular was shameful. 

The key words from Johansen are 'even less confidence' and 'no fight' which is akin to Ranieri not changing his mind about what was affecting him as a player in a situation where the manager's performances had done absolutely nothing to turn fortunes around.  If that wasn't Ranieri's key task then I'd understand how it could be misread but, sorry to say, I don't think it can be read any other way with the 'enough is enough' tagged on.

I still believe you are inventing something that wasn't necessarily the case. I read the "even less confidence" as Johansen feeling he was even further from playing time, and I read the "no fight" as Ranieri agreeing with Johansen that it was ok for him to find a new club (i.e. Ranieri was not particularly interested in keeping Johansen). The manager's key task is to get results. If Ranieri felt that he didn't believe that Johansen would be part of getting those results then I still don't see why this was shameful. I may of course be misreading it, but I think one should be careful to read too much into some short written sentences.

The length of a sentence is immaterial but keeping it in context is everything.  Johansen couldn't wait to get away, which is FFC's loss (as was AK 'banished' to Turkey).  But that is just my opinion about what should have happened.

[Sting of the North]

The length of a sentence is immaterial but keeping it in context is everything.  Johansen couldn't wait to get away, which is FFC's loss (as was AK 'banished' to Turkey).  But that is just my opinion about what should have happened.

I agree that the length of a sentence as such is immaterial, but my point was basically that the sentences in themselves didn't give much context to the situation and therefore are easily interpreted in different ways by different readers. I agree that the handling of the Kamara situation such as it has been reported was very much less than ideal and that it hurt the team since Kamara was at least used as a sub (and in several cases as a starter). Kamara didn't leave because Ranieri didn't see him contributing on the pitch, which makes the situation different from the Johansen one to my understanding.

FWIW, I also think that it is a shame that Ranieri did not see a place for Johansen in his squad, but I just wanted to point out that I didn't feel the Johansen situation in itself such as it is reported was shameful (i.e. nothing to indicate that Johansen was unfairly treated, or that he was asked to leave or frozen out or anything).

[The Rational Fan]

The length of a sentence is immaterial but keeping it in context is everything.  Johansen couldn't wait to get away, which is FFC's loss (as was AK 'banished' to Turkey).  But that is just my opinion about what should have happened.

I agree that the length of a sentence as such is immaterial, but my point was basically that the sentences in themselves didn't give much context to the situation and therefore are easily interpreted in different ways by different readers. I agree that the handling of the Kamara situation such as it has been reported was very much less than ideal and that it hurt the team since Kamara was at least used as a sub (and in several cases as a starter). Kamara didn't leave because Ranieri didn't see him contributing on the pitch, which makes the situation different from the Johansen one to my understanding.

FWIW, I also think that it is a shame that Ranieri did not see a place for Johansen in his squad, but I just wanted to point out that I didn't feel the Johansen situation in itself such as it is reported was shameful (i.e. nothing to indicate that Johansen was unfairly treated, or that he was asked to leave or frozen out or anything).

The Johansen got chances against Brighton, Watford, Cardiff, Huddersfiled and West Ham this season. If he performed well, he would have stayed in the team. He didn't perform much worse than the others, but he didn't look up to premier league either.

[toshes mate]

The length of a sentence is immaterial but keeping it in context is everything.  Johansen couldn't wait to get away, which is FFC's loss (as was AK 'banished' to Turkey).  But that is just my opinion about what should have happened.

I agree that the length of a sentence as such is immaterial, but my point was basically that the sentences in themselves didn't give much context to the situation and therefore are easily interpreted in different ways by different readers. I agree that the handling of the Kamara situation such as it has been reported was very much less than ideal and that it hurt the team since Kamara was at least used as a sub (and in several cases as a starter). Kamara didn't leave because Ranieri didn't see him contributing on the pitch, which makes the situation different from the Johansen one to my understanding.

FWIW, I also think that it is a shame that Ranieri did not see a place for Johansen in his squad, but I just wanted to point out that I didn't feel the Johansen situation in itself such as it is reported was shameful (i.e. nothing to indicate that Johansen was unfairly treated, or that he was asked to leave or frozen out or anything).

Okay, after all you have said, I will withdraw the word 'shameful' and instead use the word 'disreputable', which also adequately describes the replacement of Jokanovic by Ranieri.  He goes down as one of the poorest managers I have seen at Craven Cottage, something I believed the Khans may have realised was their greatest flaw after the appointment of Jokanovic proved to be so successful.  That is simply a case of looking at the character of the two as in don't judge a book by its cover.    Apparently they haven't learned a thing which is also 'disreputable'. 

[Sting of the North]

The length of a sentence is immaterial but keeping it in context is everything.  Johansen couldn't wait to get away, which is FFC's loss (as was AK 'banished' to Turkey).  But that is just my opinion about what should have happened.

I agree that the length of a sentence as such is immaterial, but my point was basically that the sentences in themselves didn't give much context to the situation and therefore are easily interpreted in different ways by different readers. I agree that the handling of the Kamara situation such as it has been reported was very much less than ideal and that it hurt the team since Kamara was at least used as a sub (and in several cases as a starter). Kamara didn't leave because Ranieri didn't see him contributing on the pitch, which makes the situation different from the Johansen one to my understanding.

FWIW, I also think that it is a shame that Ranieri did not see a place for Johansen in his squad, but I just wanted to point out that I didn't feel the Johansen situation in itself such as it is reported was shameful (i.e. nothing to indicate that Johansen was unfairly treated, or that he was asked to leave or frozen out or anything).

Okay, after all you have said, I will withdraw the word 'shameful' and instead use the word 'disreputable', which also adequately describes the replacement of Jokanovic by Ranieri.  He goes down as one of the poorest managers I have seen at Craven Cottage, something I believed the Khans may have realised was their greatest flaw after the appointment of Jokanovic proved to be so successful.  That is simply a case of looking at the character of the two as in don't judge a book by its cover.    Apparently they haven't learned a thing which is also 'disreputable'.

Just to clarify, I was only referring to the treatment of Johansen. I do think that "shameful" is a fairly fitting word to use to describe the appointment of, as well as the reign of, Ranieri. Poor decisions by the Khan's and poor contribution by Ranieri. This includes Ranieri's comments such as those about Sessegnon as well as the Kamara saga. A complete mess could also be used to describe the whole process.

[sarnian]

I like Johansen but at the end of the day he is plainly just too slow for the premiership.  Last season he was booked 14 or 15 times and nearly every one was for pulling back or hacking down a player that had reacted too quickly for him. As we have all found out this season the premiership is a far quicker league than the championship

[Sting of the North]

I like Johansen but at the end of the day he is plainly just too slow for the premiership.  Last season he was booked 14 or 15 times and nearly every one was for pulling back or hacking down a player that had reacted too quickly for him. As we have all found out this season the premiership is a far quicker league than the championship

I believe many of those were so called professional fouls that he took in order to prevent a counter attack (although admittedly sometimes following his own mistakes). I believe such fouls are something that more Fulham players should do when needed, with a player like Odoi guilty of not doing several times as an example. As such, I see such fouls as mostly a good thing. I also don't think that he is necessarily too slow, but this season unfortunately gave little room for players to adapt to the PL in a reasonable time frame. Just as has been discussed elsewhere, it has been hard for most players to do themselves any kind of justice in such a dysfunctional environment.