Mark_w Posted 12 July 2015 Posted 12 July 2015 So why didn't they sack at the time of those incidents (and I don't think anybody on here thought the incident in Thailand was nothing at the time)? Why did they give him money to buy players this window? If they were planning on getting Hiddink or Klopp why didn't they sound them out first before they sacked Pearson? Or are successful billionaires too stupid to think of that? He's never been media friendly, why have they waited until now? They did sack him at the time of one of those incidents, they then reinstated him but we don't know what the thinking behind that was. The Thailand incident clearly wasn't nothing, but I think it's wrong to attribute that to Nigel Pearson, he was not at fault for what three stupid kids did as far as I'm concerned but I can imagine the owners may well disagree on that. You're right, it is entirely strange to sign players he wanted, so I don't think it was a particularly well though out decision. But that doesn't mean it wasn't influenced by past media incidents and the negative media response to them and the Thailand incident. Personally I think they could have quite conceivably made a snap decision over the media response to those incidents, or that could have contributed to them deciding to sack him in response to what was otherwise a minor disagreement. It'd be nice if they'd tell us.
shade Posted 12 July 2015 Posted 12 July 2015 I agree with both sides of this argument, ultimately the most important thing is where you finish and the last 10 games were amazing. that being said, we were unlucky occasionally, granted, BUT there was some clueless, turgid, toothless garbage served up for probably 40% of the season, I watched every single game and I can well remember the non-performances. overall though, I think we were getting it right when we started attacking, out of desperation more than anything, I guess....Pearson in.
Mark_w Posted 12 July 2015 Posted 12 July 2015 Why! What If a teams achievement was to stay up... And played boring negative football. Putting 10 men behind the ball and playing long balls. And stayed up skin of teeth. Would that mean a great season because they achieved what they set out to do? That would be a good season. We finished mid-table playing pretty entertaining attacking football for a decent proportion of the season and enjoyed one of the greatest games in the clubs history, when the goal was survival. That's a great season.
Webbo Posted 12 July 2015 Posted 12 July 2015 They did sack him at the time of one of those incidents, they then reinstated him but we don't know what the thinking behind that was. The Thailand incident clearly wasn't nothing, but I think it's wrong to attribute that to Nigel Pearson, he was not at fault for what three stupid kids did as far as I'm concerned but I can imagine the owners may well disagree on that. You're right, it is entirely strange to sign players he wanted, so I don't think it was a particularly well though out decision. But that doesn't mean it wasn't influenced by past media incidents and the negative media response to them and the Thailand incident. Personally I think they could have quite conceivably made a snap decision over the media response to those incidents, or that could have contributed to them deciding to sack him in response to what was otherwise a minor disagreement. It'd be nice if they'd tell us. It was probably an accumulation of things but it seems obvious to me that he fell out with the owners, refused to do something they asked or went off in a sulk as some have suggested, whatever . Pearson might have felt his actions were justified but it's the owners who pay his wages.
Fox92 Posted 12 July 2015 Posted 12 July 2015 I hate the word "luck" in football. There's no such thing. Over a 38 game season (46 in the football league) the league table doesn't lie. Chelsea won the league because they were the best and consistent team during the season, likewise QPR, Hull and Burnley were relegated because they were the worse. During a cup competition the "better" team might not win - ie Bradford beating Chelsea - but at the end of a league season the league table doesn't lie.
Strokes Posted 12 July 2015 Posted 12 July 2015 I appreciate I might be sounding picky and not appreciating what we did. But I do and Pearson is one of our greatest ever managers. But we can do better than last season in my opinion. And I believe that a new manager will be good for us and can hopefully look forward to a more enjoyable season for all 10 months. Not 2 monthsA season isn't 12 months long, what you are thinking of, is a year.
Bettsj2 Posted 12 July 2015 Posted 12 July 2015 So Pearson strengthened the defence by signing Huth, Schlupp stepped up at left wing back and Albrighton on the other side... so he eventually sorted things out at the back, the strikers started scoring.... they got it right in the end, and that's what counts surely? Sorry but I have to interrupt here. In total, Nigel was with us in both spells for around 6 years. During 5 and a half of them, we looked more susceptible to set pieces than I can ever remember. The fact that he sorted it out 6 months from the end of his tenure doesnt display to me the ability to learn which is a critisism i've always had of him as a manager. I'm not in the camp of 'never liked him'. There were times when I thought he was excellent but frailties always existed. Even in our most dominant period walking the championship, many fans were constantly expecting it to go wrong because we knew that it could happen under Nigel. He's still angry at getting the sack? I'm angry that he never learned to wind his neck in rather than putting it on the chopping block. Get rid of his self destruct button and he'd still be here ready to prove his doubters wrong. The Thai incident may well have been the final straw but the season gone he loaded the gun more than enough times to get the bullet.
Unabomber Posted 12 July 2015 Posted 12 July 2015 August, September, April, May.... that's four pretty good months. December too
Mark_w Posted 12 July 2015 Posted 12 July 2015 August, September, April, May.... that's four pretty good months. Plus a pretty enjoyable spell that went across the end of December/star of January. Basically nearly half the season was great.
Frank to be Posted 12 July 2015 Posted 12 July 2015 Their slight connection? They received the royal warrant, then five years later their entire family was renamed by the king. I don't know whether their company name, and therefore our stadium's name, comes from that connection, but there's no doubt that the opponents to the king wanted them out of Bangkok airport in 2007. That's not to say that the king is a bad person, nor that they should be tarred with any of his criticisms, but the Thai monarchy has been very widely criticised, especially by human rights groups - rightly or wrongly I don't know, but that's what 'much-maligned' means - and they are firmly and proudly associated with this monarchy. Maybe they're right to be, maybe not, but they are. I've had a look through the Human Rights Watch pages and at no point is the Monarchy 'maligned'. Plenty of criticism of the political situation, sure, but nothing about the king. The king of Thailand is actually highly revered, and not because of lese majeste. Having lived there for several years, I could write about the complexities of that situation at length, but frankly I don't see the point. I'm sure the owners have benefitted to some degree from their royal connection. What this has to do with Nigel Pearson I still don't know. Might I remind you that you actually brought up this ridiculous line of inquiry as supposed evidence that Pearson was incorrectly fired. Now you're backing away from that i'm more than happy to move on. So if we're to assume that Pearson is to blame because of irrelevances such as his son, or how he speaks to men from the press, then why not ask questions about how our board made their money, or scandals which have involved them? I agree that it shouldn't be relevant, but only because we shouldn't be taking one thing (e.g. accusations of corruption against King Power and their close associates / Pearson's handling of the media) and using it to come to a set-in-stone conclusion about another (who is to blame for Pearson's sacking). If we do that, then I can find as many reasons to question the owners as you can to establish Pearson's incontrovertible guilt. As far as I'm aware the only 'scandal' King Power has been involved in was when some shop floor staff ran some small value scams at a shop on their premises at one of the airports. King Power is a very large business, over 7,000 direct employees (and thousands more working in shops in King Power complexes). The owners are billionaires. If you really think Top and Vichai had anything to do with trying to scam a few tourists out of a few thousand baht then I don't know what to say other than you're being ridiculous, again. You clearly didn't read beyond the first paragraph of the Independent link then. It discusses the new owners and the fact that they had bought Mandaric out back in the summer, it also includes an extract from the same October 2nd interview with Pearson in which he says that Sousa was present at the two play-off games and 'that tells you something'. If you read other extracts from the interview, in the BBC link, it will tell you that the owners were also present at the club at the time. Onto more interesting points. I read all of both articles, I was also alive at the time it all happened so can remember it well. To recap, you think the Sousa and Sven situations are evidence that our current owners have made mistakes in the past, and are likely to have done so again. You've provided two articles, one which is at best a cryptic message from Pearson, the other Milan Mandaric discussing the appointment of Sven. My argument is that our current owners had little to do with either the Sousa or Sven situation. The Independent article supports that, as it makes it clear that it was in fact Mandaric still pulling the strings at that time, and since Sousa came before that, before the Thais had even bought the club, it's reasonable to assume that Mandaric was pulling the strings during that time, too. I'm sure the current owners were shown around, that's only natural since they were interested in buying the club. I don't doubt that Pearson suspected he was about to be replaced and walked out. My point is that I don't think (this is just a theory) that you can use the failure of Sousa and Sven as evidence that our owners have made mistakes in the past and probably have done again, because it was in fact Milan Mandaric pulling the strings at the time, and therefore those mistakes were both his. What has happened since also supports that. Mandaric was trigger happy, absolutely loved sacking managers. The current owners had the patience of saints with Pearson. Seems to me much more likely that it was Mandaric messing around, chopping and changing managers like he always did that created that whole situation. Not for the first time, we get to the bottom of your argument. You think he was to blame for getting the sack because of his media persona, because he 'rubs people up the wrong way', including the fans. Well, the last poll I saw had 84% of them against the sacking of Pearson, so he's clearly not upset us too badly. As for the media - why should we care whether he gets on with them or not? Many reporters speak well of him, others don't. But the same goes for everybody from Clough to Ferguson, it's hardly a valid criticism of a good manager. You've misinterpreted my point. I'm not saying he got fired for his abysmal media handling and I certainly don't care that he was so bad at it. Infact I liked the way he mishandled them, it made for great entertainment. My point here is that we know, beyond any doubt, that Pearson is capable of rubbing people up the wrong way. We know he has a bad relationship with the media, he admitted in your article that he had a bad relationship with Mandaric. He has been involved with spats with fans and opposition players. With that in mind, it would hardly be a surprise to learn that Pearson went too far this time in a new incident between him and the owners and had to be sacked.
UpTheLeagueFox Posted 12 July 2015 Posted 12 July 2015 In total, Nigel was with us in both spells for around 6 years. During 5 and a half of them, we looked more susceptible to set pieces than I can ever remember. The fact that he sorted it out 6 months from the end of his tenure doesnt display to me the ability to learn which is a critisism i've always had of him as a manager. Fair enough - but two play offs, two league titles and PL safety in his five full seasons with us suggests he got more right than wrong. Even in our most dominant period walking the championship, many fans were constantly expecting it to go wrong because we knew that it could happen under Nigel. But it didn't. He's still angry at getting the sack? I'm angry that he never learned to wind his neck in rather than putting it on the chopping block. Get rid of his self destruct button and he'd still be here ready to prove his doubters wrong. The Thai incident may well have been the final straw but the season gone he loaded the gun more than enough times to get the bullet. His off field charge sheet wasn't great last season, nobody doubts that, and I agree he handed the owners some ammunition. But he's taken us from League One to PL safety in relatively good time. And back in 2008 we would barely have believed that.
escos Posted 12 July 2015 Posted 12 July 2015 I was a fan of Pearson. He got the best out of the players and achieved some great success. However, after all the 'incidents' over the season is it really that hard to understand why he was sacked? In my honest opinion I am still shocked he wasn't sacked instantly after telling a fan to **** off and die. That for me was unacceptable.
EnglishOxide Posted 12 July 2015 Posted 12 July 2015 Pearson is still "very angry" about his dismissal, I'm led to believe. If that is the case, after two weeks to reflect, then I can't help but feel he may have a stronger case than the owners in terms of who we should be siding with here. It suggests that he didn't do something on the spot and out of order.
sylofox Posted 12 July 2015 Posted 12 July 2015 I hate the word "luck" in football. There's no such thing. Over a 38 game season (46 in the football league) the league table doesn't lie. Chelsea won the league because they were the best and consistent team during the season, likewise QPR, Hull and Burnley were relegated because they were the worse. During a cup competition the "better" team might not win - ie Bradford beating Chelsea - but at the end of a league season the league table doesn't lie. So had we gone down by 1pt you don't think we would have been unlucky? You only need to be unlucky in one game to go down. Was we not unlucky to concede 2 penalties at Liverpool? Or you think we deserved that draw.
Corky Posted 12 July 2015 Posted 12 July 2015 Break the season down into marks out of 10. First five games- 9/10 (Great start, 8 points from five hugely difficult matches) Next 13- 1/10 (Just woeful) Three around Christmas/ New Year- 7/10 (Two wins against relegation rivals and a good display at Anfield) Next 8- 2/10 (Good effort at Arsenal, Everton and Spurs, awful home matches against Stoke, Palace and Hull) Last 9- 9/10 (Five excellent home wins, great first half v Chelsea, two crucial away victories, did what was required at Sunderland) 28/50- 5.6/10.
Webbo Posted 12 July 2015 Posted 12 July 2015 If that is the case, after two weeks to reflect, then I can't help but feel he may have a stronger case than the owners in terms of who we should be siding with here. It suggests that he didn't do something on the spot and out of order. If the owners get really angry will that prove them right?
EnglishOxide Posted 12 July 2015 Posted 12 July 2015 If the owners get really angry will that prove them right? What reason would they have to be angry?
Webbo Posted 12 July 2015 Posted 12 July 2015 What reason would they have to be angry? don't know, just seemed a bit of a silly thing to assume someone's guilt or innocent based on how angry they were?
EnglishOxide Posted 12 July 2015 Posted 12 July 2015 So you are just being argumentive for the sake of it then. Your question is such a non-question.
Guest ttfn Posted 12 July 2015 Posted 12 July 2015 Break the season down into marks out of 10. First five games- 9/10 (Great start, 8 points from five hugely difficult matches) Next 13- 1/10 (Just woeful) Three around Christmas/ New Year- 7/10 (Two wins against relegation rivals and a good display at Anfield) Next 8- 2/10 (Good effort at Arsenal, Everton and Spurs, awful home matches against Stoke, Palace and Hull) Last 9- 9/10 (Five excellent home wins, great first half v Chelsea, two crucial away victories, did what was required at Sunderland) 28/50- 5.6/10. And I think that tells the story of the season quite well. 41 points was about par as far as I was concerned at the start of the season and we got there in the end. The utter jubilation of the last 9 games has made the 6 months which preceded them seem like a bad dream but it happened and it was bloody miserable turning up every week knowing that we'd lose by the odd goal, and for a time in October/November knowing that we probably wouldn't even create a decent chance. I'd say at least half of the season was really bad, a third was bloody brilliant and the the rest meh. Most teams just have a season of meh.
Webbo Posted 12 July 2015 Posted 12 July 2015 So you are just being argumentive for the sake of it then. Your question is such a non-question. No, I honestly thought it was a stupid thing to say.
EnglishOxide Posted 12 July 2015 Posted 12 July 2015 No, I honestly thought it was a stupid thing to say. Yet you thought to answer my question, with a question that had no reasoning to it.
Webbo Posted 12 July 2015 Posted 12 July 2015 Yet you thought to answer my question, with a question that had no reasoning to it. What you're saying is because someone's angry that proves their innocence? Pardon me if I question the validity of your theory.
Bob Weasel Fox Posted 12 July 2015 Posted 12 July 2015 No one is saying that the owners are saints, nobody is saying that Pearson is the worst person on earth. We all know what Pearson is like, how many people he's fell out with. We know how the owners have stood by him when they've had ample opportunity to sack in the last year, they've backed him with money during this transfer window. But apparently our owners, who have never knowingly done this club or it's fans a bad turn, are involved in an evil plot to sack a totally innocent man for reasons that nobody has ever stated. It's laughable. Great post Webbo
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.