Do players improve or regress under Pearson and his staff?

[ManorFox]

I am struggling to think of any who improved.

 

Maybe, James 

 

 

[Mack]

This is a very valid point.

Some seem to progress, some seem to regress.

 

King has certainly got better, Dyer also. James has come on this season also.

However Marshall has gone backwards lately, Kasper's distribution was much better when he joined, Wood seemed to lose his way after looking like a goal machine when he first came in.

 

I guess with all Management teams at all clubs some will thrive and some will not get along.

[indierich06]

I am struggling to think of any who improved.

 

Maybe, James 

 

King

Dyer

Hobbs

Morrison

James

Nugent

Schmeichel

Morgan

Cleverley

Fryatt

Keane

 

There's a few to be going on with, all of whom have gotten better while Pearson has been in charge. Those are just the ones I could think of off the top of my head, I'm sure there are more.

[MooseBreath]

King? No way he has improved since about four years ago.

Nugent? The former England striker? Now should be at the peak of his career, but scored about 1 in 20.

I don't think there are any definite examples of a player improving, yet there are numerous examples of regression.

[indierich06]

King? No way he has improved since about four years ago.

Nugent? The former England striker? Now should be at the peak of his career, but scored about 1 in 20.

I don't think there are any definite examples of a player improving, yet there are numerous examples of regression.

 

Before Pearson was here, Andy King was an academy player. Pearson has been the manager he has served under the longest, if he's improved at all since his debut in the first team, it's mostly down to Pearson.

 

Nugent has improved under Pearson IMO, he's scored about the same amount of goals as he did last season, but I think his all round game has improved a lot more this season. Just my opinion. He's certainly not regressed under Pearson.

[tomtom]

King? No way he has improved since about four years ago.

Nugent? The former England striker? Now should be at the peak of his career, but scored about 1 in 20.

I don't think there are any definite examples of a player improving, yet there are numerous examples of regression.

King isn't a worse player than he was 4 years ago, and his performance at Palace a few weeks back was as good as I've ever seen of his

[Fox92]

Surely Keane and Cleverly have? Hobbs as well. Morrison, considering we signed him from non league and he is now a solid Championship defender. Matt James has been looking good as well recently, I think he is essential to us.

[Captain...]

Ironically Danns and Beckford both improved under NP when he returned.

 

The majority of players have improved under NP at some point, but they seem to lack consistency, at one point this season Drinkwater looked the best midfielder in the league, but then his form disappeared, same can be said of King, who rediscovered his form, Wood and Nugent have both managed to look like world beaters and donkeys at various points this season, same goes for Knocky, Dyer and RDL for that matter.

 

Morgan and Kasper are the only ones who have been consistent.

 

I think my greatest criticism of NP is that he tends to have his first team, and play those 11 players until they are injured, hopelessly out of form, or have completely run out of steam, rather than use the whole squad, rotate and keep players fresh and fit, we have a lot of young/inexperienced players who will have dips in form, but trying to get them to play through it is detrimental to the team and to the players confidence.

 

With a rotational system, not playing doesn't mean you are dropped, so you don't knock players confidence, whereas with Pearson if you get dropped you are normally out of the line-up for a while, and then when you get your chance you aren't match fit.

 

Perfect example is the midfield 2, James, Drinky and King are pretty evenly matched on their day, but NP tends to have 2 of them as the main pairing until one of them has played shit for 5 matches in a row, then makes the change.

 

So I don't think players regress as such I just think they, especially the younger players, tend to be played into the ground and then left on the sidelines to recover, which leaves the impression of them being shit.

[chris_lcfc_85]

Always a mixture of both at any club. Look how Cameron Stewart has got worse since NP left Hull.

NP brought Ben Marshall and he was quality after a slow start but now he's gone downhill. Maybe he'll come back better next season....

The list is endless but what i do believe is that NP, along with his staff, have a good eye for talent. He plans for the long term future not just for a few months

[Tommy G]

Ask Ben Marshall

[David Hankey]

Well we certainly seem a graveyard for strikers, Look at Waghorn Vardy, Beckford & Wood to name just a few.

 

Most players, it appears need motivating, and that is an ingredient that is in short supply with Pearson.

 

Whatever is said and done on the training ground and the dressing room it tends not to relate to what happens on the pitch.

[chris_lcfc_85]

Well we certainly seem a graveyard for strikers, Look at Waghorn Vardy, Beckford & Wood to name just a few.

 

Most players, it appears need motivating, and that is an ingredient that is in short supply with Pearson.

 

Whatever is said and done on the training ground and the dressing room it tends not to relate to what happens on the pitch.

 

Totally disagree. If you went to the Watford playoff games as well as the last few games, you'd see the motivation was there and ALL of the players were playing for the manager

[muzzy1981]

I think my greatest criticism of NP is that he tends to have his first team, and play those 11 players until they are injured, hopelessly out of form, or have completely run out of steam, rather than use the whole squad, rotate and keep players fresh and fit, we have a lot of young/inexperienced players who will have dips in form, but trying to get them to play through it is detrimental to the team and to the players confidence.

 

With a rotational system, not playing doesn't mean you are dropped, so you don't knock players confidence, whereas with Pearson if you get dropped you are normally out of the line-up for a while, and then when you get your chance you aren't match fit.

 

Perfect example is the midfield 2, James, Drinky and King are pretty evenly matched on their day, but NP tends to have 2 of them as the main pairing until one of them has played shit for 5 matches in a row, then makes the change.

 

 

 

Completely agree with this, i'm hoping that next season Pearson makes better use of the whole squad. If you look at Hull and Cardiff they rotated a lot more than us, but they clearly had greater strength in depth. Perhaps some more rebuilding will allow Nige to rotate more. Others may argue we would have had greater strength in depth if Nige had not fell out with, Beckford, Danns, Mills and SSL and we may have got into the prem. But my instinct would say the disproportional earnings would have eventually cause problems. 

[chris_lcfc_85]

Completely agree with this, i'm hoping that next season Pearson makes better use of the whole squad. If you look at Hull and Cardiff they rotated a lot more than us, but they clearly had greater strength in depth. Perhaps some more rebuilding will allow Nige to rotate more. Others may argue we would have had greater strength in depth if Nige had not fell out with, Beckford, Danns, Mills and SSL and we may have got into the prem. But my instinct would say the disproportional earnings would have eventually cause problems. 

 

Does it not take 2? I understand Beckford had a mardy cos NP dropped him.... then he asked to leave so NP let him go.....

[Freeman's Wharfer]

The best thing about these kind of threads, eirther outright knocking Pearson or with subtle critical undertones, is that had Knocky despatched that penalty and we be waiting for our trip to Wembley next week they'd be nowhere to be seen...

 

But of course because Knocky missed the penalty we now have to question whether we want another year of Pearson hoof ball, whether he improves players or makes the regress, whether he falls out with people over nothing. It stinks of fickleness.

 

[Fox Ulike]

Most players improve up to about the age of 30. This really has very little to do with the quality of the Manager. Matty James would have progressed regardless of who was manager..

 

Where Pearson can take credit is by combining him with King to produce POTENTIALLY the best Midfield partnership outside of the Premiership.

 

Players who I think Pearson can take credit for are King, Schlupp and Moore.

 

Same with Knocky: French League 2 to (reported) interest from top Premier Clubs. In the space of 9 months.

 

Wes Morgan is now considered by many to be the best centre-back in the League. I don't think that was the case when he was at Forest.

 

Ben Marshall: Stoke reserve to England U21.

 

Had someone like O'Neill decided to play one of our youth team strikers at left-back, most on here would herald him a genius with an eye for spotting a player's true potential. But because it's Pearson people just moan that he's playing people out of position.

 

Pearson has his weaknesses, but developing and improving young players certainly doesn't appear to be one of them.

[Babylon]

Ask Ben Marshall

 

Marshall wasn't particularly great int he first place, said time and again last season that his goals masked fairly poor all round play.

[NORFOLK FOX]

Kasper has improved under Pearson..well under mike Stowell    

[MPH]

King? No way he has improved since about four years ago.

Nugent? The former England striker? Now should be at the peak of his career, but scored about 1 in 20.

I don't think there are any definite examples of a player improving, yet there are numerous examples of regression.

 

other than the fact 2 years ago in the championship he scored 15 goals when the 4 years ago season in the first division he only scored 7 goals when we walked the division you mean?

[Greatness_Since_1884]

Players certainly improve under him - all Svens signings still here have played better/the same since he came. Morgan has gone onto another level since Forest and has said as much.

Only problem is with young players you will get these fluctuations in form that we've seen and its how they respond to improve that is the making or breaking of them. But he and Walsh have a great eye for potential.

[Jon25747]

Nugent? The former England striker? Now should be at the peak of his career, but scored about 1 in 20.

I don't think there are any definite examples of a player improving, yet there are numerous examples of regression.

 

Nugent? The player who in their last 2 seasons has scored more league goals than in other in his career?

 

Don't just choose stats that highlight your point.

[indierich06]

Completely agree with this, i'm hoping that next season Pearson makes better use of the whole squad. If you look at Hull and Cardiff they rotated a lot more than us, but they clearly had greater strength in depth. Perhaps some more rebuilding will allow Nige to rotate more. Others may argue we would have had greater strength in depth if Nige had not fell out with, Beckford, Danns, Mills and SSL and we may have got into the prem. But my instinct would say the disproportional earnings would have eventually cause problems. 

 

Or maybe if they weren't all incredibly shit footballers on laughably high wages?

[Guest Col city fan]

Before Pearson was here, Andy King was an academy player. Pearson has been the manager he has served under the longest, if he's improved at all since his debut in the first team, it's mostly down to Pearson.

Nugent has improved under Pearson IMO, he's scored about the same amount of goals as he did last season, but I think his all round game has improved a lot more this season. Just my opinion. He's certainly not regressed under Pearson.

You're not asking the right question.

For me, the question is 'how good COULD King have been'?

He's got better in some ways (quicker, stronger) but has declined in others, most obviously goals.

If it could be argued that King could have become VERY good under the correct manager, then you're asking the right question.

IMO.

[Fox Ulike]

You're not asking the right question.

For me, the question is 'how good COULD King have been'?

He's got better in some ways (quicker, stronger) but has declined in others, most obviously goals.

If it could be argued that King could have become VERY good under the correct manager, then you're asking the right question.

IMO.

 

If you're arguing a metaphysical point of how good each player COULD have been in an alternative reality, then I'm out.

 

For the last part of the season, King looked an outstanding prospect. If even this can be turned on its head as a way to criticise the manager, then poor old Pearson really has no chance.

[indierich06]

You're not asking the right question.

For me, the question is 'how good COULD King have been'?

He's got better in some ways (quicker, stronger) but has declined in others, most obviously goals.

If it could be argued that King could have become VERY good under the correct manager, then you're asking the right question.

IMO.

But that's all speculation. We don't know if he could have gotten better under a different manager, so there's no real merit in speculating is there? All we can do is judge how he has fared under the manager's he's played under so far and I'd say he's gotten better as the years have gone on, but I think being on the sidelines with injury for a prolonged period last season has certainly set him back a bit. Would hope to see Kingy back to his best next season.