Nigel Pearson’s steadfast belief has Foxes looking up

[Babylon]

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/leicester-vs-chelsea-nigel-pearsons-steadfast-belief-has-foxes-looking-up-10211006.html

 

It is said by psychologists that an individual cannot be ridiculed, shamed or insulted by another without first giving his consent. Nigel Pearson has spent a life in football refusing to give his. Sticks and stones might break his bones but words will never hurt him. You can say what you like about Pearson, frankly he doesn’t give a damn.

 

He is a coach who refuses to be pigeon-holed or packaged. He is as resolute and unbending as the black stuff they used to haul out of the ground where he was born and as forthright as those who did the digging. If you didn’t know he was a centre-half from Nottingham, it might take you 10 seconds to guess once the questions started at a post-match press conference.

 

Pearson has in this season alone dismissed one journalist as a “****”, instructed a Leicester fan behind the dugout to “**** off and die”, grappled, albeit in jest, with an opposing footballer, James McArthur of Crystal Palace, whom he once tried to buy, and clobbered Leicester’s most famous son, Gary Lineker, with a tax jibe after the presenter, in Pearson’s view, poured petrol on the 

For one mad hour or two during the McArthur episode it was thought Pearson had lost his job. He does not directly counter that idea even now, though characteristically there is more chance of snow falling in Mali than Pearson commenting on what he regards as an in-house affair.

 

So here he is, on the eve of the home game with Chelsea, on the point of delivering Leicester from the evil of relegation, a triumph of coaching that seemed beyond anyone’s expectations other than his own, and in its way as impressive as the work of the man in the opposing technical area tonight, Jose Mourinho.

 

Pearson is the anti-Jose in his disinclination to speak, his resistance to the spotlight. He has none of Mourinho’s outward charm or bombast, yet all of his intelligence and every ounce of his determination and belief, so much so that his was the lone voice of defiance in the dark days of recurring defeats when Leicester where anchored to the bottom of the Premier League and bolted to a negative zeitgeist.

 

After producing arguably the display of the season against Manchester United in September, reeling off four goals in 20 minutes to overcome a deficit that stood at 3-1 on the hour, Leicester would not win again for three months. After five successive defeats in December, including a loss at home to Liverpool which triggered the ire of the fan behind the dugout and speculation about Pearson’s position, there was a sense of inevitability about the end awaiting both him and his team. 

 

Perhaps he knew something we didn’t? Maybe the Thai ownership is more savvy than we imagine? Pearson was the man who brought Leicester to the gates of nirvana, playing vibrant, attacking football. They have moved the ball around well all season in the Premier League, but before this month of plenty had been consistently on the wrong end of fine margins.

 

Leicester had their share of the ball but, that amazing afternoon against United apart, struggled in the hardest part of the pitch in which to function, the opposition’s box. In the interest of balance, only against United in the return at Old Trafford have Leicester been utterly swamped, going in 3-0 down at the break, but even then were not breached after half-time.

 

It is entirely fitting that the four consecutive victories this month that have lifted Leicester out of the bottom three have had no discernible impact on Pearson’s mood. He plays a consistently flat bat to enquiries about the health of his team or the prospects of maintaining this run to the line.

 

A query about the rearranged fixture being problematic, or if he had a problem with it, met the standard forward defensive. “Whether I have or haven’t is irrelevant,” he said. “That is the schedule you have and what we do is work around it. We don’t work against it and use it as an excuse. That is what it is. This game is rearranged because of the League Cup final and it couldn’t be put in any earlier. There is not lot I can do about it.”

 

Pearson, you imagine, would have made a perfect companion in the Rovers Return snug for Ena Sharples, that old curmudgeon of Coronation Street, who always saw the rain coming on sunny days. Yet, like our Ena, there is an aura about Pearson that draws us in, a blunt instrument of truth reminding us never to get too carried away.

 

With five games to go, there is no chance of that, despite the fixture list throwing Leicester four games at home, including the juicy bones of Newcastle United and Queen’s Park Rangers.

 

Tonight’s encounter with Chelsea is a bonus ball they can afford to lose, a state of affairs unimaginable at the start of the month. The one away game remaining is at Sunderland, another gift since it pits them against the team that has replaced them in the Premier League dead zone.

 

Is Pearson feeling the pressure? To a degree, but only in a limited sense. He knows as a coach he is only as good as his players, and in them he trusts. “At this end of the table it is always more difficult,” he said. “In my experience, and having observed and worked with people when I have been an assistant or as a player, sometimes I have seen colleagues who found it difficult to deal with.

 

“When you are in sides that are winning, most people can deal with that sort of pressure, whereas at this end it can be quite a bit different. In my experience, sides in strong positions to either win things or achieve, those players are able to perform because they are good players.”

 

[cc_star]

I love him not talking about internal affairs, love his straight bat answers & love it when journaists take the time to write interesting articles about him or frame interesting questions to him, rather than idiots who get a sulk on because he won't answer moronic or obvious questions

[Fox Ulike]

Hmmm, yet more congratulations to Nigel Pearson on saving us from relegation… Can’t help but keep thinking of Derek Zoolander prematurely accepting the ‘male model of the year’ award…

 

https://youtu.be/7tdtNISDZwA

[davieG]

Hmmm, yet more congratulations to Nigel Pearson on saving us from relegation… Can’t help but keep thinking of Derek Zoolander prematurely accepting the ‘male model of the year’ award…

 

https://youtu.be/7tdtNISDZwA

Thankfully not Pearson though.

[indierich06]

Hmmm, yet more congratulations to Nigel Pearson on saving us from relegation… Can’t help but keep thinking of Derek Zoolander prematurely accepting the ‘male model of the year’ award…

 

https://youtu.be/7tdtNISDZwA

 

They might be prematurely giving him the accolades, but you can rest assured that he's not accepting them until we're safe. That's one thing you never have to worry about with Pearson.

[MooseBreath]

"Maybe the Thai ownership is more savvy than we imagine".

How racist do you have to be not to imagine a pair of billionaires might be a bit savvy just because they're from abroad? Disgusting comment.

[Grey Fox]

I love him not talking about internal affairs, love his straight bat answers & love it when journaists take the time to write interesting articles about him or frame interesting questions to him, rather than idiots who get a sulk on because he won't answer moronic or obvious questions

 

Hello Ian

[Babylon]

"Maybe the Thai ownership is more savvy than we imagine".

How racist do you have to be not to imagine a pair of billionaires might be a bit savvy just because they're from abroad? Disgusting comment.

I think you are getting the wrong end of the stick. I'd imagine he means that to everyone on the outside it looked a forgone conclusion he'd get the bullet, yet they stuck with him. Which many at the time thought was buying a one way ticket back to the championship.

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

"Maybe the Thai ownership is more savvy than we imagine".

How racist do you have to be not to imagine a pair of billionaires might be a bit savvy just because they're from abroad? Disgusting.

What the fvck are you on about? The quote means, "maybe the Thai ownership has  more knowledge  "than we imagined."

 

What the hell is racist about that? Jesus Christ! Sometimes I despair about people.

[MooseBreath]

What the fvck are you on about? The quote means, "maybe the Thai ownership has more knowledge "than we imagined."

What the hell is racist about that? Jesus Christ! Sometimes I despair about people.

Why would you imagine that the amount of knowledge they have has anything to do with their nationality?

[cc_star]

Why would you imagine that the amount of knowledge they have has anything to do with their nationality?

 

I took it to mean their footballing knowledge, not business acumen or general knowledge

[Babylon]

Why would you imagine that the amount of knowledge they have has anything to do with their nationality?

Just because he stated they are Thai, doesn't mean he's thaiing (see what I did there) together their knowledge with their nationality.

[davieG]

It seems to me that everytime someone mentions the owners nationality in whatever context Moosebreath accuses them of being racist.

[Fox Ulike]

Just because he stated they are Thai, does mean he's thaiing (see what I did there) together their knowledge with their nationality.

 

 

 

 

Exactly this. (minus the lame pun).

 

It's like when John Motson goes "Oh I say, the Frenchman certainly knows where the goal is." He's not being racist.

[MooseBreath]

Just because he stated they are Thai, does mean he's thaiing (see what I did there) together their knowledge with their nationality.

Then why mention the nationality? And if that is what was meant, the implication can only be that no owners are "savvy" at all. I think it's unlikely that's what was meant. Seems pretty clear that he's associating specific nationalities with an innate inability to be "savvy", which I'm pretty sure is racism. It's mild, granted, but it's still racism.

[Babylon]

It's like when John Motson goes "Oh I say, the Frenchman certainly knows where the goal is." He's not being racist.

That's racist, that's positive stereotyping.

[MooseBreath]

It seems to me that everytime someone mentions the owners nationality in whatever context Moosebreath accuses them of being racist.

I've picked up on it two or three times in the past, yes. I just think it's strange that in a country where you can't say boo to a Muslim, casual racism towards various other races and nationalities is absolutely fine.

[Babylon]

Then why mention the nationality?

Because they are Thai, would seem the most obvious answer.

 

Are we not allowed to mention any owners / managers / players nationality when discussing their abilities or lack of? If on commentary tonight they say "The Algerian showed a good turn of pace there", it doesn't mean they are surprised he's quick, because they think all Algerians are slow. It just means he's Algerian and he's quick.

[MooseBreath]

Because they are Thai, would seem the most obvious answer.

Are we not allowed to mention any owners / managers / players nationality when discussing their abilities or lack of? If on commentary tonight they say "The Algerian showed a good turn of pace there", it doesn't mean they are surprised he's quick, because they think all Algerians are slow. It just means he's Algerian and he's quick.

That wouldn't be the same because no surprise is expressed over the Algerian being quick. A better comparison would be "this Algerian is quicker than we imagined" which could be interpreted as "as an Algerian, we didn't expect him to be quick".

[Babylon]

That wouldn't be the same because no surprise is expressed over the Algerian being quick. A better comparison would be "this Algerian is quicker than we imagined" which could be interpreted as "as an Algerian, we didn't expect him to be quick".

Ahhhhh.... so it's your problem then. Stop trying to interpret innocent comments into something that's racist. Perhaps save the scorn for when someone actually says it like that and no twisted interpretation is needed.

[davieG]

That wouldn't be the same because no surprise is expressed over the Algerian being quick. A better comparison would be "this Algerian is quicker than we imagined" which could be interpreted as "as an Algerian, we didn't expect him to be quick".

Or perhaps they'd forgotten his name or couldn't pronounce it but their intent was the the guy (assuming it's a men's football match ) himself was quicker than they thought.

[Fox Ulike]

That wouldn't be the same because no surprise is expressed over the Algerian being quick. A better comparison would be "this Algerian is quicker than we imagined" which could be interpreted as "as an Algerian, we didn't expect him to be quick".

 

I think you're reading waaaaay too much into this. 

 

What he's saying is "the owners, who happen to be Thai, are more savvy than we imagined."

 

That's racist, that's positive stereotyping.

 

No it's not, because (in both examples) nationality is just  being used as an adjective to describe an individual. He's not saying anything in particular about the nationality.

 

If I say "The big Frenchman" am I being racist? or am I just saying that this bloke is both big and French? Or am I saying that all French people are big.

[Fox Ulike]

I've picked up on it two or three times in the past, yes. I just think it's strange that in a country where you can't say boo to a Muslim, casual racism towards various other races and nationalities is absolutely fine.

 

Just out of interest: If I wanted to describe someone, and I said "he's about 6 foot, black, and wears glasses". Do you think I'm being racist?

[MooseBreath]

Ahhhhh.... so it's your problem then. Stop trying to interpret innocent comments into something that's racist. Perhaps save the scorn for when someone actually says it like that and no twisted interpretation is needed.

That was my interpretation. I was conceding that other people might interpret it in the other way yes, but my interpretation wasn't twisted, it was just how I saw it.

[MooseBreath]

Just out of interest: If I wanted to describe someone, and I said "he's about 6 foot, black, and wears glasses". Do you think I'm being racist?

No because you're not expressing any surprise that the subject is in possession of positive attributes. If you'd said "maybe the black man is more intelligent than we imagined" I'd say that would raise a few eyebrows.