SpacedX

And you sound like you're unable to digest one. Skip the cliches - it really doesn't become you. You might benefit from a perusal of this: http://www.foxestalk.co.uk/forums/topic/101894-top-100-books-to-read-before-you-leave-school/

"However, your opinion on Nigel being 'bereft of ideas' can only be based on 4, possibly 5 games last season of which Leicester looked out of the games. It's a common opinion that even though we were losing matches and we were bottom of the league that the team were not completely outclassed tactically in almost any game we took part in." We certainly weren't outclassed for many of the games last season, which made it all the more frustrating. Had the manager demonstrated greater adaptability, a willingness to effect positive change both during and after these games and played the positive attacking football in both selection and set up, which characterised our end of season run then we most certainly wouldn't be holding the record for the longest stay at the foot of the premiership. We should in point of fact, never have been there. "In every other game the team were never tactically outclassed." Sorry, that's incredibly myopic and simply not true. Ultimately Nigel Pearson no matter how much you argue otherwise led this club to one of the greatest platforms it's ever been on and to call him tactically bereft after all the time he has not only been at Leicester but has been in football is clearly ridiculous and is certainly in a tiny minority of opinion. ??? Don't misquote me. Nigel Pearson is unquestionably a great Championship manager. Our promotion to the Premiership last season certainly comes at a time in which the league is appreciably more lucrative and is enjoying its greatest renown upon the world stage. The financial rewards associated with survival this season are exponentially greater than they have ever been and in my opinion, the club is always be indebted to his contribution to its history. Nigel Pearson was responsible for getting us here and he did that convincingly and with aplomb. However, his performance as a manger last year was lamentable, far from inspired, highly erratic, at times bewwildering and yes at this level, he was clearly out of his depth.

Not at all, don't contort my response. The original post that I replied to had stated in absolute terms that, 'these are all players that Pearson wanted at the club'. I merely cast aspersions on this as a statement of fact, respectfully noting that I'm not convinced. Very different to your ad-hominen "ffs what a load of cack" comment which may indeed garner some plus points in respect of your one dimensional online forum reputation but really doesn't portray your powers of debating in a very positive light. The scouting team may well in their inception have been assembled my NP and SW, under Robinson but are ultimately answerable to Rudkin and the owners who have ultimate say and I contend in the case of JR an entirely different relationship with NP. I do agree that there were individual players courted by Pearson, but to suggest that this squad consists entirely of 'Nigel Pearson' players or that he fully endorsed their recruitment without any incidence of friction or opposition is frankly absurd. We have indeed gone on 'winless runs before and turned it around' but this is the Premiership and what happened before in The Championship is simply not comparable. The addition of Huth, and the return of Kasper was I concede hugely significant for us, however Nigel Pearson had the necessary resources at his disposal to effect the style of attacking football that should have been the hallmark of our play all season and conceivably propelled us to mid-table. It wasn't - and for the large part of November through until March his decisions were often atrocious consigning us to the foot of the table for five months. When he did eventually deploy wing backs against Arsenal he opted to continue faith in the dreadful Konchesky and Simpson. Konchesky against Walcott??!!??? What could possibly go wrong? Everyone sitting around me that night at the Emirates could see that a goal was inevitable. One single incident - of so, so many which we've revisited innumerable times on here to the point of utter tedium. So what have I got? - not much that avoids trudging over the same old ground. What have I got otherwise? Perhaps the experience of attending every home game and a dozen away fixtures (including Swansea, which was diabolical) - which I do concede is entirely subjective, but based upon my possibly flawed observations from the stands and in the absence of internal insight, that is my perception and the purpose of a forum is to express ones viewpoint and perhaps counter others without demeaning yourself by referring to them as 'utter bullcrap'. Nigel's modus operandi although pragmatic was utterly lacking in innovation and adaptability that is a prerequisite at this level. The Fifth round of the cup away to Villa betrayed a manger utterly bereft of ideas, creativity and tactical prowess. The bewildering adherence to disastrous zonal defending was a case in point. In short, he was very quickly found out at this level. My belief is that the cup tie against Villa was the watershed. Soon after the defence was overhauled, the system changed, players previously steadfastly eschewed by Pearson were utilised and overnight the set up and direction became inspired. The rapidity of the transformation was miraculous and I'm sorry, given the way that Nigel operated, I don't believe that he was significantly responsible for this change in anything other than motivation and maintaining morale. Indeed even if he was involved, I maintain that his involvement was marginalised and there were other key individuals driving and directing tactics and strategy. Pearson certainly channeled this from the touchline well, a far cry from his earlier insistence upon a lap top perched up in the centre of the West Stand. Amid much criticism and a run of dire results, he gravitated to pitchside as the season progressed but was largely impotent and ineffectual in his presence (although James McArthur would no doubt beg to differ). Post March, I completely concede, as opposed to standing motionless arms folded, he was animated and fully immersed in the game and the most incredible run ensued. Again, this should have been the case all season, particularly given his ability to lift the squad. You disagree, you have disagreed before and I fully invite you to continue to do so and I will listen to and afford your opinions the respect that they deserve, but for better or for worse, Nigel has moved on now. We both ardently support the same team, I would however suggest that contrary to the original assertion, Nigel Pearson was not the sole architect of that team, either in terms of tactics or recruitment and as much as they may have played for him - they are not 'his players' they are the club's players. Right now, Ranieri and the current squad deserve our unconditional support. What develops then is the story of another season.

Which is precisely why I said 'I don't believe' rather than stating it as an absolute. It is merely an opinion (that I am fully aware many will not share), based upon the entire season - and contrary to your statement there is compelling evidence to support this. Forums are for that purpose, to air a range of polarised opinions - you disagree, as you are entitled to do. Regarding known transfer and scouting policy at LCFC, NP certainly did not have carte-blanche and the assumption that the current range of players were solely at his behest, or that he did not oppose some of the targets is frankly naive and laughable.

This is all highly debatable. I'm not convinced that NP did want some of our players and he certainly was marginalised in the transfer and scouting process. Again 'Pearson's transfer targets'? - Who precisely? and how do you know this? 'Pearson's formation and tactics'???? Prior to March they were an uninspired shambles which saw us rooted at the bottom of the table. Post Easter and the revival, I don't believe he was anything more than a puppet, on borrowed time, principally to maintain the morale of both team and fans whilst our strategy was orchestrated by strings being pulled elsewhere. You over estimate the abilities and influence of the man as a Premiership manager. I will to an extent miss his measured and cautious approach, but in the Premiership you don't get that time and space - either on or off the field. I will also miss the respect that he commanded from the squad. I wish him well, and believe that there is a lower league team primed for ascendency under his stewardship - and perhaps one day, a chance again as a top flight manager. I'm convinced that the incredible ups and downs of 2014 - 2015 will have conferred the experience and eventual reflection to prove this to be the case.

Many of these hacks have a cursory knowledge at best about the lower echelons of the Premiership, which is why they regurgitate the same simplistic and hackneyed opinions based more upon casual consensus than any real depth of understanding. The absolute worst and least insightful predictions that I've seen yet, were from John Aizlewood in his pre-season review in last weekend's Sunday Times. Those with a history of hypertension or anger management issues may wish to avoid. City are unfashionable and to write them off and consign the club to relegation primarily based upon the departure of Cambiasso and Pearson before a ball is even kicked in anger, is simply lazy journalism.

?????? More owing to, and I'm going back here, a complete lack of creativity - and the rigid adherence to 4-4-2 was possible in the Championship to devastating effect.. Wes, together with a string of in favour players seemed to be guaranteed a starting place which some didn't seem to be playing for and I am in full agreement that the captaincy does not make you immune from being dropped. Wes consistently turned in some woeful performances throughout November through to February although credit to him for turning this around so convincingly - although the addition of Huth nailed to his side and marshalling that defence was key to this. Worse still was the adherence to the dreadful Simpson and Konchesky for the large part of the season and the suicidal and outmoded tactic of zonal defence. All of which coincided with our plight at the foot of the table and all of which can be attributed in the main to Pearson's stubborn reluctance to effect change. Beyond motivating the team and keeping morale high, which was an appreciable achievement, tactically, I don't believe that NP had much of a hand in the 'great escape'.

By Mark 'Bollocks'

I hear that the Carpathians are wonderful for hiking this time of year.

A criminal record, a dissertation and a dose.

No, it was pretty much unsegregated seating which is what I'm saying and why it continually bred trouble. From out of the penned Kop enclosures below the noise was incredible but you could also hear the clatter of the coins on the mesh.

Posted Today, 02:33 PM Line-X, on 19 Jun 2015 - 1:40 PM, said:

Not always. Sometimes 2 was empty, but for bigger games it was used for an away allocation. I remember Derby County in the Milk (league) Cup in 1986 I think as one example. The game that ended in the riot in Highfields.

During the eighties in particular, the fighting up in the Double Decker was horrendous. Most of the Main Stand used to watch that instead of what was happening on the pitch. Then from below you could hear the constant clatter of sharpened coins against the mesh separating pen 2 and 3. The acoustics in the Kop were brilliant though...one of the main reasons Filbert Street was so loud.

??

It instantly reminds me of ALF and that Tony bloke who founded Blue Tuesday when Brian Little walked out.