Frank to be Posted 13 July 2015 Posted 13 July 2015 ...all we can do is look at the decision from a football fan's perspective, and without the benefit of knowing all sorts of inner-workings which we can't possibly know, and without being able to look into the future. If you believe in the owners over Pearson then, much like all of the other things people believe in without having any evidence for, you're just believing in what you want to believe in, or what your imagination tells you to believe in. What you're saying is basically, "we don't know the reason, therefore we must assume there was no reason, and therefore it's a bad decision". That's not a reasonable way to shut down a debate. It is reasonable to assume there was a reason, so the debate moves on to what the reason may be.
inckley fox Posted 13 July 2015 Posted 13 July 2015 There's not many times you survive being about 1/25 to go down. We managed it. Well done Nigel, but next time we are in that position, we go down! Unless we win seven out of the next nine games, of course. Which we did. What you're saying is basically, "we don't know the reason, therefore we must assume there was no reason, and therefore it's a bad decision". That's not a reasonable way to shut down a debate. It is reasonable to assume there was a reason, so the debate moves on to what the reason may be. That's quite clearly not what I'm saying at all. Stop altering what I've said because you don't know how to adequately respond to it.
EnglishOxide Posted 13 July 2015 Posted 13 July 2015 Do you think our owners have had nothing to do with our recent success then? They hired your darling in the first place and have done a lot of good things for this club, so they don't look too incompetent to me. They sacked Pearson first time round. They hired Sousa. They hired Sven. They reappointed Nige to fix THEIR mess. They then sacked him again only to reinstate him an hour later, and then forcing him to take on the worlds media in those circumstances. Now they have sacked him after our most successful season in 15 years. If that is not incompetent I don't know what is.
Viva Posted 13 July 2015 Posted 13 July 2015 Oh that again... we were behind them for about half the of season before as well. We had clearly been very close to getting it right in a lot of games before that run, we didn't just go from being shit to brilliant. We started to convert decent performances like Arsenal, Spurs, Palace, Liverpool into win, that we hadn't before. Yes we were shit in a fair proportion of games, but so were the opposition in most of those games as well... only on a handful of occasions did we look well out of places. That's why people had confidence. We were shit against all the teams we should have been playing better against. From Burnley onwards up until nine games from the end.
Mark_w Posted 13 July 2015 Posted 13 July 2015 What you're saying is basically, "we don't know the reason, therefore we must assume there was no reason, and therefore it's a bad decision". That's pretty clearly not what he's saying. Edit: He beat me to it, but yeah.
Viva Posted 13 July 2015 Posted 13 July 2015 Unless we win seven out of the next nine games, of course. Which we did. That's quite clearly not what I'm saying at all. Stop altering what I've said because you don't know how to adequately respond to it. You can't rely on Championship winning form every season at the end. It just won't happen!
Frank to be Posted 13 July 2015 Posted 13 July 2015 They sacked Pearson first time https://instagram.com/p/5C5wq9nH1T/round. They hired Sousa. They hired Sven. They reappointed Nige to fix THEIR mess. They then sacked him again only to reinstate him an hour later, and then forcing him to take on the worlds media in those circumstances. Now they have sacked him after our most successful season in 15 years. If that is not incompetent I don't know what is. Pearson walked out the first time because Mandaric didn't beg him to stay and because he had a bad relationship with the board. Mandaric hired Sousa. Mandaric was pulling the strings when sven was hired. The owners sacked sven. The owners reinstated Pearson. The owners had faith and showed patience with Pearson during several times when it would have been easier to sack him. A near flawless record.
Frank to be Posted 13 July 2015 Posted 13 July 2015 Unless we win seven out of the next nine games, of course. Which we did. That's quite clearly not what I'm saying at all. Stop altering what I've said because you don't know how to adequately respond to it. What you've been saying throughout this thread, is that because we don't know the reason, it boils down to sacking a successful manager and is therefore a bad decision. You're ignoring the certain presence of a reason for his sacking.
Mark_w Posted 13 July 2015 Posted 13 July 2015 You can't rely on Championship winning form every season at the end. It just won't happen! Every season? It's happened once. And I think it's fair to say we were a much better side at the end of January than we were at the start, but the way the fixture list fell we had to face lots of very strong sides early on in the second half of the season and as a result struggled (both because our approach wasn't great in some of those games and because the opposition was much stronger), then did well against weaker sides towards the end. There's no doubt in my mind that Pearson had improved the team and was learning from his mistakes. Over the course of the season we were the 14th best side in the division and there is absolutely no reason to think we couldn't have equaled or bettered that under Nigel Pearson next season.
Viva Posted 13 July 2015 Posted 13 July 2015 Pearson walked out the first time because Mandaric didn't beg him to stay and because he had a bad relationship with the board. Mandaric hired Sousa. Mandaric was pulling the strings when sven was hired. The owners sacked sven. The owners reinstated Pearson. The owners had faith and showed patience with Pearson during several times when it would have been easier to sack him. A near flawless record. Great post.
ImBlue Posted 13 July 2015 Posted 13 July 2015 They sacked Pearson first time round. They hired Sousa. They hired Sven. They reappointed Nige to fix THEIR mess. They then sacked him again only to reinstate him an hour later, and then forcing him to take on the worlds media in those circumstances. Now they have sacked him after our most successful season in 15 years. If that is not incompetent I don't know what is. Sacking a manager that didn't work out isn't incompetent, else every football owner is incompetent. The fact they went back to Pearson should be well regarded as they realised they made a mistake initially. How Pearson survived the season only god knows, so it wasn't a surprise when he got the sack. Yes it was bad communication to make a decision only to be reinstated as someone else doesn't agree but ultimately they got it right. I think it shows the owners can swallow there pride to make the right decision. Ironically, that was probably Pearsons downfall.
Mark_w Posted 13 July 2015 Posted 13 July 2015 What you've been saying throughout this thread, is that because we don't know the reason, it boils down to sacking a successful manager and is therefore a bad decision. You're ignoring the certain presence of a reason for his sacking. He's not ignoring it, but he can hardly decide whether it's a good or bad reason because he doesn't know what it is. All we know for a fact is Nigel Pearson's record as Leicester manager and it was great. I think everyone is willing to accept that if we're informed of the reason for his sacking, and it's a good reason, we won't be defending Nigel Pearson.
BigMicky Posted 13 July 2015 Posted 13 July 2015 We were shit against all the teams we should have been playing better against. From Burnley onwards up until nine games from the end. No, thats not correct at all. What constitutes as siht in your eyes? Spanked 5-0 every game would be siht. Not loosing by the odd goal.
Viva Posted 13 July 2015 Posted 13 July 2015 Every season? It's happened once. And I think it's fair to say we were a much better side at the end of January than we were at the start, but the way the fixture list fell we had to face lots of very strong sides early on in the second half of the season and as a result struggled (both because our approach wasn't great in some of those games and because the opposition was much stronger), then did well against weaker sides towards the end. There's no doubt in my mind that Pearson had improved the team and was learning from his mistakes. Over the course of the season we were the 14th best side in the division and there is absolutely no reason to think we couldn't have equaled or bettered that under Nigel Pearson next season. It has only happened once, but my point was that if we get ourselves into that mess again, we go down. Also from the start of October and the Burnley 2-2 game we were terrible against the other teams from Swansea down. Games we should have been performing better in. That only changed in the final few games of the season.
Babylon Posted 13 July 2015 Posted 13 July 2015 There's not many times you survive being about 1/25 to go down. We managed it. Well done Nigel, but next time we are in that position, we go down! What has that got to do with anything? As I said, we'd been very close to getting it right all year. I was fed up of saying it most weeks throughout the season. I couldn't put my finger on what it was, because what was a problem one week wasn't the problem the next. Individual errors at both ends of the pitch, whether stemming from being under too much pressure from the opposition or not are often what cost is. In the end it was only minor tweaks that transformed us. The addition of Huth being key, along with the tweak to formation and Albrighton thriving in the wing back slot. Pearson walked out the first time because Mandaric didn't beg him to stay and because he had a bad relationship with the board. Mandaric hired Sousa. Mandaric was pulling the strings when sven was hired. The owners sacked sven. The owners reinstated Pearson. The owners had faith and showed patience with Pearson during several times when it would have been easier to sack him. A near flawless record. At least it would be had to any evidence your first three points were correct.
Mike Oxlong Posted 13 July 2015 Posted 13 July 2015 The first paragraph is excellent. I agree with all of it. And, as you say later, without hearing any evidence as to whether or not a person should have been sacked from their job, my first instinct - and that of the courts - would be that it needs to be justified in order for me to agree with it. The owners have made some great calls and some wrong calls in the past, so why would we automatically assume that they've got this one right? It might well be the right decision, but there is no way on earth that any of us can know that it is. I don't think we are that far apart but my point is that there may be very good reasons on one or both sides for not making it public. My default position then is that I'm not in a position to make assumptions as to merits of the decision to get rid. Using the tribunal analogy, without any evidence there could not be a complete evidence based analysis. I don't assume that the owners have made the right call but nor can I assume that they have made the wrong one. The lack of info doesn't create a neutral value. It has an unknown value that if disclosed could be deemed to be positive or negative (depending on interpretation) . Hence the unknown info could make the decision plainly unreasonable or entirely reasonable. But we don't know either way and so it goes on ...........
Viva Posted 13 July 2015 Posted 13 July 2015 No, thats not correct at all. What constitutes as siht in your eyes? Spanked 5-0 every game would be siht. Not loosing by the odd goal. Shit in my eyes is not getting a win in any game at home against Burnley, West Brom, Sunderland, Stoke, Palace and Hull. Also the performances in many of those games was dire. I know it's a tough league, but they are the matches you need to be doing better out of. Also not scoring a single goal for 5 games in a row against teams from Swansea down is not great in my opinion.
EnglishOxide Posted 13 July 2015 Posted 13 July 2015 Pearson walked out the first time because Mandaric didn't beg him to stay and because he had a bad relationship with the board. Mandaric hired Sousa. Mandaric was pulling the strings when sven was hired. The owners sacked sven. The owners reinstated Pearson. The owners had faith and showed patience with Pearson during several times when it would have been easier to sack him. A near flawless record. I am convinced you are on the wind up. Your first and second points have already been debunked by inckley. Your third point is such nonsense that I don't even know where to start.
Viva Posted 13 July 2015 Posted 13 July 2015 What has that got to do with anything? As I said, we'd been very close to getting it right all year. I was fed up of saying it most weeks throughout the season. I couldn't put my finger on what it was, because what was a problem one week wasn't the problem the next. Individual errors at both ends of the pitch, whether stemming from being under too much pressure from the opposition or not are often what cost is. In the end it was only minor tweaks that transformed us. The addition of Huth being key, along with the tweak to formation and Albrighton thriving in the wing back slot. At least it would be had to any evidence your first three points were correct. Close to getting it right against the better teams. Against the teams that came to defend or were not as attacking, we didn't look close to scoring goals.
st albans fox Posted 13 July 2015 Posted 13 July 2015 Mandi was instrumental in hiring Sven? Really ???
filbertway Posted 13 July 2015 Posted 13 July 2015 This is annoying as I seem to be falling on the side of the people backing the owners decision. Though a lot of it seems to be fueled by the fact that they dislike Pearson. I believe Pearson will go on to have success with the next club he manages, with 5/6 years of experience of winning leagues or managing at the top level, some team are going to be very fortunate. As with Pearson, I will give the owners a fair chance to make the right decision and to see the club make progress. If we appoint a gaffer who keeps us up without regressing too much I will consider them to have done a good job for the club, despite making a seemingly odd and unpopular decision. (Pearson did the same to a lesser extent with his odd team selections and persisting with poor tactics)
BigMicky Posted 13 July 2015 Posted 13 July 2015 Shit in my eyes is not getting a win in any game at home against Burnley, West Brom, Sunderland, Stoke, Palace and Hull. Also the performances in many of those games was dire. I know it's a tough league, but they are the matches you need to be doing better out of. Also not scoring a single goal for 5 games in a row against teams from Swansea down is not great in my opinion. Your opinion is wrong.
Viva Posted 13 July 2015 Posted 13 July 2015 Your opinion is wrong. 2 wins in 24 after Man Utd in my opinion is pretty shit! If you only think 5-0 losses are bad then that's a strange way of thinking. So a club could lose 1-0 all season and get 0 points and that is not a shit season?! Joker
Finnaldo Posted 13 July 2015 Posted 13 July 2015 Shit in my eyes is not getting a win in any game at home against Burnley, West Brom, Sunderland, Stoke, Palace and Hull. Also the performances in many of those games was dire. I know it's a tough league, but they are the matches you need to be doing better out of. Also not scoring a single goal for 5 games in a row against teams from Swansea down is not great in my opinion. Yet 5-3 vs Man U, 1-1 vs Arsenal, 2-0 vs Southampton and 5-1 vs QPR were great. It balances out, you can pick out the results all you want, we also had some fantastic performances, and ended up 14th, a fantastic return in the first season back. I'm tired of people on both sides making it out it was Pearson or the board's fault- we don't know, we probably won't so we have to hope we get a good manager.
BigMicky Posted 13 July 2015 Posted 13 July 2015 2 wins in 24 after Man Utd in my opinion is pretty shit! If you only think 5-0 losses are bad then that's a strange way of thinking. So a club could lose 1-0 all season and get 0 points and that is not a shit season?! Joker Its common knowledge that if you are competing with teams in the league you are not shit. We were competative in all bar 1 and 1/2 games last season. So how does that make us shit? We finished 14th, if we were shit we would have finished bottom. You appear to be a bit over reactionary and it looks a little pathetic.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.