Pearson Sacked

[Babylon]

Yeah but the last change of tactics was a turning point. Look at the hull game, we were terrible. We changed the tactics and got much better. Obviously at one point someone did come up with that tactical idea.

There was no massive tactical change other than Albrighton for De Laet. Pearson himself after the Hull game said he was disappointed the way the players went about it and that they had been scared to commit in that game. Hull also sat ridiculously deep as shown in the player maps, leaving no space for us to run into, something we more often than not struggle against... as I'm sure we will again.

[inckley fox]

Well Pearson did admit to not having a clue why our form had changed.

I doubt Cambiasso presented a list but I don't think it's beyond the realms of possibility that other staff including players had some input into our change of direction later in the season, after Pearson had exhausted his extensive repertoire of formation failures.

 

It's equally possible that this sort of input happens all the time. Or that it was happening more between October and the end of March, before Pearson decided to take charge of things in some kind of despotic revolution. Which is why he was sacked. Lots of things are possible and plausible, albeit less so in the 'was Cambiasso our clandestine manager?' case.

[Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot]

This forum really is full of utter fvckwits.

[MC Prussian]

No because pearson was too arrogant between September and April to accept help.

Well, his approachability between August and September and March until May more than compensated for his alleged "arrogance".

[orangecity23]

The Cambiasso tactic thing is total cobblers, but those who have always hated Pearson will jump on anything to try to stick the boot in.

 

The 3-5-2 was not some bizarre leftfield thing that came out of nowhere. It was an evolution (not a revolution) from Pearson's previous tactics and formations. It began at the Arsenal game when we switched to using 3 centre backs, as part of a back 5. In fact, this had its roots in previous seasons also - Pearson had tried out 3 centre backs in his first season back, against Palace when Liam Moore made his debut. After the Watford playoff game, he started the Championship season with 3 centre backs - the intention was to make the defence more solid. It was, but we didn't create much. Once the team had settled down after a few games, Pearson switched back to 4-4-1-1, then went more attacking. So, in the Prem, with the team vulnerable and with Huth and Upson available for the first time all season, Pearson goes back to a 5 at the back at the Emirates, to solidify the team. The team plays very well, but loses 2-1 to one of the best teams in the league.

 

It goes on for a while, and we just can't score. With a defence he can trust again, Pearson eventually goes back to a more attacking style, but finally having found a side that can have 3 at the back and pose a threat up front. He actually tried to make it more attacking against Hull at home, switching to De Laet and Schlupp as the wingbacks, but the execution was shit, and the wingbacks didn't really push forwards enough.

 

From what we've heard, all Cambiasso did was put together a list of where he thought we could win games, then gave a motivational speech to everyone, to give them some self belief that the great escape was possible. Not exactly 'running the show' is it?

[inckley fox]

The Cambiasso tactic thing is total cobblers, but those who have always hated Pearson will jump on anything to try to stick the boot in.

 

The 3-5-2 was not some bizarre leftfield thing that came out of nowhere. It was an evolution (not a revolution) from Pearson's previous tactics and formations. It began at the Arsenal game when we switched to using 3 centre backs, as part of a back 5. In fact, this had its roots in previous seasons also - Pearson had tried out 3 centre backs in his first season back, against Palace when Liam Moore made his debut. After the Watford playoff game, he started the Championship season with 3 centre backs - the intention was to make the defence more solid. It was, but we didn't create much. Once the team had settled down after a few games, Pearson switched back to 4-4-1-1, then went more attacking. So, in the Prem, with the team vulnerable and with Huth and Upson available for the first time all season, Pearson goes back to a 5 at the back at the Emirates, to solidify the team. The team plays very well, but loses 2-1 to one of the best teams in the league.

 

It goes on for a while, and we just can't score. With a defence he can trust again, Pearson eventually goes back to a more attacking style, but finally having found a side that can have 3 at the back and pose a threat up front. He actually tried to make it more attacking against Hull at home, switching to De Laet and Schlupp as the wingbacks, but the execution was shit, and the wingbacks didn't really push forwards enough.

 

From what we've heard, all Cambiasso did was put together a list of where he thought we could win games, then gave a motivational speech to everyone, to give them some self belief that the great escape was possible. Not exactly 'running the show' is it?

 

We played many of our 2013 pre-season friendlies in a 3-5-2 and began the season with that formation. When he dropped it Pearson said 'we'll see that formation again at some point.' It's not as if he'd never given it a thought.

[DEMANN]

BIrchenall said that Cambiasso had drawn up a plan for the last 9/10 games, and that it was pretty much what happened. Not one of his 'jokes' either.

[ImBlue]

BIrchenall said that Cambiasso had drawn up a plan for the last 9/10 games, and that it was pretty much what happened. Not one of his 'jokes' either.

If you suggest to place any credit other than on Pearsons lap for last season, you are a fvckwit

[inckley fox]

If you suggest to place any credit other than on Pearsons lap for last season, you are a fvckwit

 

In which case what a master stroke it was for Pearson to allow Cambiasso's input, when very few managers in the footballing world would have shown such humility and approachability. How wonderful to have a manager without a hint of arrogance about him.

[st albans fox]

There was no massive tactical change other than Albrighton for De Laet. Pearson himself after the Hull game said he was disappointed the way the players went about it and that they had been scared to commit in that game. Hull also sat ridiculously deep as shown in the player maps, leaving no space for us to run into, something we more often than not struggle against... as I'm sure we will again.

Very salient babs

we were left with little choice of how to play

hull at home was the beginning where he tried to play 3-4-3 but the players hadn't got the hang of it, didn't commit as you said, and they defended deep.

The last sentence is key here. As Pearson has gone, we will never know what he would do next season against sides that sit deep and frustrate our aggressive style. Always troubled me that. Would he find a plan or was he left with no choice on the run in so circumstances dictated. did we set up for draws at burnley and sland or was he 'caught between two stools'?

never doubted the mans ability to run a dressing room. Always wondered on the tactical side and his dismissal means I'll not find out till he gets another chance elsewhere.

[DEMANN]

If you suggest to place any credit other than on Pearsons lap for last season, you are a fvckwit

Nigel Pearson singlehandedly kept us in the Prem...There...Don't be nasty to me again.

[Alf Bentley]

A simple question: Is there any reliable information that NP was sacked for non-footballing reasons (erratic conduct during the season, arguing over the Bang-Cock 3 or whatever)?

 

There has been speculation: that he was sacked due to erratic behaviour over the season and/or the "racist sex scandal", or that the owners wanted a big name or to splash the cash. But speculation is all that it was - on all sides of the argument.

 

Many now seem to be assuming that he was sacked for non-footballing reasons. Could anyone quote a reliable or official source for this assumption?

The official club statement just cited "fundamental differences of perspective", which could mean anything.

 

In the absence of any official/reliable information, I'll continue to assume that I don't know why he was sacked or whether it was justified, a massive source of frustration in itself given his successful trajectory.

 

As far as I'm aware, what we know is:

- Despite imperfections and uncertainties about his potential, he had been a highly successful manager who was continuing to progress and who had ended the season on a high

- He had been involved in 1 or 2 slightly odd bits of behaviour, which some seem to see as very important, but that I viewed as trivial and amusing

- His son and 2 others were sacked (rightly, in my opinion) after a scandal

- We can only speculate as to why NP himself was sacked as the club statement re. "fundamental differences of perspective" told us nothing about the source of the disagreement

- We don't know whose fault (if anybody's) that disagreement was

 

A question for those who think it reasonable for him to be sacked due to his "erratic" conduct: Would you also have sacked Clough, Ferguson and Mourinho for their well-documented erratic conduct? Or Cantona and Gascoigne? Would you have called for that argumentative, drunken depressive Churchill to be replaced by that nice, polite Neville Chamberlain? Would you have dismissed outrageous musicians from Mozart via Leadbelly, Elvis, Little Richard, the Stones, the Sex Pistols, the Libertines and Amy Winehouse....and replaced them with polite, family-friendly types like Donny Osmond and, er, Cliff Richard? I wonder if any of those taking a hard line are fans of Boris Johnson? If so, they should Google his name with "Petronella"...this is someone who might be PM in a couple of years time, and yet Pearson is unworthy to manage a football team because he makes 1 or 2 odd comments, behaves slightly oddly and has disagreed with his bosses about something unspecified? 

[st albans fox]

The world has changed Alf! whether I agree with you or not, you can't buy a Raleigh chopper anymore

[DEMANN]

A simple question: Is there any reliable information that NP was sacked for non-footballing reasons (erratic conduct during the season, arguing over the Bang-Cock 3 or whatever)?

 

There has been speculation: that he was sacked due to erratic behaviour over the season and/or the "racist sex scandal", or that the owners wanted a big name or to splash the cash. But speculation is all that it was - on all sides of the argument.

 

Many now seem to be assuming that he was sacked for non-footballing reasons. Could anyone quote a reliable or official source for this assumption?

The official club statement just cited "fundamental differences of perspective", which could mean anything.

 

In the absence of any official/reliable information, I'll continue to assume that I don't know why he was sacked or whether it was justified, a massive source of frustration in itself given his successful trajectory.

 

As far as I'm aware, what we know is:

- Despite imperfections and uncertainties about his potential, he had been a highly successful manager who was continuing to progress and who had ended the season on a high

- He had been involved in 1 or 2 slightly odd bits of behaviour, which some seem to see as very important, but that I viewed as trivial and amusing

- His son and 2 others were sacked (rightly, in my opinion) after a scandal

- We can only speculate as to why NP himself was sacked as the club statement re. "fundamental differences of perspective" told us nothing about the source of the disagreement

- We don't know whose fault (if anybody's) that disagreement was

 

A question for those who think it reasonable for him to be sacked due to his "erratic" conduct: Would you also have sacked Clough, Ferguson and Mourinho for their well-documented erratic conduct? Or Cantona and Gascoigne? Would you have called for that argumentative, drunken depressive Churchill to be replaced by that nice, polite Neville Chamberlain? Would you have dismissed outrageous musicians from Mozart via Leadbelly, Elvis, Little Richard, the Stones, the Sex Pistols, the Libertines and Amy Winehouse....and replaced them with polite, family-friendly types like Donny Osmond and, er, Cliff Richard? I wonder if any of those taking a hard line are fans of Boris Johnson? If so, they should Google his name with "Petronella"...this is someone who might be PM in a couple of years time, and yet Pearson is unworthy to manage a football team because he makes 1 or 2 odd comments, behaves slightly oddly and has disagreed with his bosses about something unspecified? 

Things reach 'breaking point' sometimes. How many of those you mentioned could you imagine employing for any great length of time?...I'm a fan of all of them, but I'd imagine they weren't the easiest to manage. Football managers need managing too.

[Frank to be]

A simple question: Is there any reliable information that NP was sacked for non-footballing reasons (erratic conduct during the season, arguing over the Bang-Cock 3 or whatever)?

There has been speculation: that he was sacked due to erratic behaviour over the season and/or the "racist sex scandal", or that the owners wanted a big name or to splash the cash. But speculation is all that it was - on all sides of the argument.

Many now seem to be assuming that he was sacked for non-footballing reasons. Could anyone quote a reliable or official source for this assumption?

The official club statement just cited "fundamental differences of perspective", which could mean anything.

In the absence of any official/reliable information, I'll continue to assume that I don't know why he was sacked or whether it was justified, a massive source of frustration in itself given his successful trajectory.

As far as I'm aware, what we know is:

- Despite imperfections and uncertainties about his potential, he had been a highly successful manager who was continuing to progress and who had ended the season on a high

- He had been involved in 1 or 2 slightly odd bits of behaviour, which some seem to see as very important, but that I viewed as trivial and amusing

- His son and 2 others were sacked (rightly, in my opinion) after a scandal

- We can only speculate as to why NP himself was sacked as the club statement re. "fundamental differences of perspective" told us nothing about the source of the disagreement

- We don't know whose fault (if anybody's) that disagreement was

A question for those who think it reasonable for him to be sacked due to his "erratic" conduct: Would you also have sacked Clough, Ferguson and Mourinho for their well-documented erratic conduct? Or Cantona and Gascoigne? Would you have called for that argumentative, drunken depressive Churchill to be replaced by that nice, polite Neville Chamberlain? Would you have dismissed outrageous musicians from Mozart via Leadbelly, Elvis, Little Richard, the Stones, the Sex Pistols, the Libertines and Amy Winehouse....and replaced them with polite, family-friendly types like Donny Osmond and, er, Cliff Richard? I wonder if any of those taking a hard line are fans of Boris Johnson? If so, they should Google his name with "Petronella"...this is someone who might be PM in a couple of years time, and yet Pearson is unworthy to manage a football team because he makes 1 or 2 odd comments, behaves slightly oddly and has disagreed with his bosses about something unspecified?

Are you inckley fox in disguise?

What you've basically said is "these assumptions you guys are using are just assumptions, here's another bunch of assumptions that suit my view better". What have we learned? Nothing.

[dylanlegend]

BIrchenall said that Cambiasso had drawn up a plan for the last 9/10 games, and that it was pretty much what happened. Not one of his 'jokes' either.

Should have given the job to Esteban then if true..

[Alf Bentley]

The world has changed Alf! whether I agree with you or not, you can't buy a Raleigh chopper anymore

 

 

I didn't have a Chopper even in the 70s! My Mum would have seen them as too new-fangled and impractical.

 

Mind you, she didn't allow us a TV until I was 12 (my Dad engineered the breakthrough for the 1974 World Cup) - and watching ITV was strongly discouraged, even then. The Sweeney is the only ITV programme I can remember watching.

 

 

Things reach 'breaking point' sometimes. How many of those you mentioned could you imagine employing for any great length of time?...I'm a fan of all of them, but I'd imagine they weren't the easiest to manage. Football managers need managing too.

 

 

Fair comment, though slightly ironic. In the past, people sometimes alleged that Pearson wouldn't be able to manage big names....now it seems that the owners were unable to manage him.

 

Clough, Ferguson, Mourinho, Cantona & Gascoigne all managed a fair degree of longevity at various clubs. Maybe their superiors found it worth putting up with their difficult behaviour as they saw them as high-achievers....and the Thais didn't want to put up with difficult behaviour from NP as they didn't rate him or his potential so highly. In that case, I disagree with them. Of course, some justifiable explanation may emerge, but it hasn't yet.

[Alf Bentley]

Are you inckley fox in disguise?

What you've basically said is "these assumptions you guys are using are just assumptions, here's another bunch of assumptions that suit my view better". What have we learned? Nothing.

 

 

In that case, either I've explained myself poorly or you've not read what I said properly.

 

I said that I don't know why he was sacked - and suggested that nobody else on here does. Whether they support or oppose the sacking, nobody has anything other than speculation to base their opinions on.

 

My five hypenated points are indisputable facts stated as an attempt to establish what little we DO know.

 

My instinct is to strongly oppose the sacking based on that limited information - namely that he was doing an excellent job as a manager, his odd behaviour was unimportant and we had no information about the reason for his sacking (apart from there having been a disagreement, which goes without saying). There might be some very good reason for his sacking, but we've yet to hear any reliable information about it....which is a poor state of affairs in itself.

[DEMANN]

Should have given the job to Esteban then if true..

I ain't saying Cambiasso masterminded the turnaround. Just that what he said about winnable games etc pretty much came true. He was influential at the Club...I've no idea whether he influenced Pearson's decisions at all...You'd listen to someone with his experience though, wouldn't you?

[ARTY_FOX]

Well, his approachability between August and September and March until May more than compensated for his alleged "arrogance".

I was being sarcastic. I don't believe that at all.

Probably should of thought the post through, my bad.

[Webbo]

A simple question: Is there any reliable information that NP was sacked for non-footballing reasons (erratic conduct during the season, arguing over the Bang-Cock 3 or whatever)?

 

There has been speculation: that he was sacked due to erratic behaviour over the season and/or the "racist sex scandal", or that the owners wanted a big name or to splash the cash. But speculation is all that it was - on all sides of the argument.

 

Many now seem to be assuming that he was sacked for non-footballing reasons. Could anyone quote a reliable or official source for this assumption?

The official club statement just cited "fundamental differences of perspective", which could mean anything.

 

In the absence of any official/reliable information, I'll continue to assume that I don't know why he was sacked or whether it was justified, a massive source of frustration in itself given his successful trajectory.

 

As far as I'm aware, what we know is:

- Despite imperfections and uncertainties about his potential, he had been a highly successful manager who was continuing to progress and who had ended the season on a high

- He had been involved in 1 or 2 slightly odd bits of behaviour, which some seem to see as very important, but that I viewed as trivial and amusing

- His son and 2 others were sacked (rightly, in my opinion) after a scandal

- We can only speculate as to why NP himself was sacked as the club statement re. "fundamental differences of perspective" told us nothing about the source of the disagreement

- We don't know whose fault (if anybody's) that disagreement was

 

A question for those who think it reasonable for him to be sacked due to his "erratic" conduct: Would you also have sacked Clough, Ferguson and Mourinho for their well-documented erratic conduct? Or Cantona and Gascoigne? Would you have called for that argumentative, drunken depressive Churchill to be replaced by that nice, polite Neville Chamberlain? Would you have dismissed outrageous musicians from Mozart via Leadbelly, Elvis, Little Richard, the Stones, the Sex Pistols, the Libertines and Amy Winehouse....and replaced them with polite, family-friendly types like Donny Osmond and, er, Cliff Richard? I wonder if any of those taking a hard line are fans of Boris Johnson? If so, they should Google his name with "Petronella"...this is someone who might be PM in a couple of years time, and yet Pearson is unworthy to manage a football team because he makes 1 or 2 odd comments, behaves slightly oddly and has disagreed with his bosses about something unspecified? 

-I don't dispute that he's been a good manager for us.

-It was more than 1 or 2 incidents.

 

As I've stated many times the owners has countless excuses to sack him during the season, not least the fact that we were bottom for 5 months. They provided funds for him in this transfer window.They employed him for 3 and a half years. This suggests to me that they were satisfied with him in the football sense.

[UpTheLeagueFox]

Pearson used to speak to the backroom staff and senior players to discuss ideas but ultimately he had the final say as it was his job on the line. Staff were encouraged to be honest and not just say stuff they thought NP wanted to hear. I know this goes against the 'arrogant Pearson' argument but he was open to ideas.

[Carl the Llama]

I ain't saying Cambiasso masterminded the turnaround. Just that what he said about winnable games etc pretty much came true. He was influential at the Club...I've no idea whether he influenced Pearson's decisions at all...You'd listen to someone with his experience though, wouldn't you?

I don't care what Cambiasso says I'm gonna have a baby. I will do whatever it takes to take care of my baby. I'm gonna dress my baby in all brand names and if I can't afford it then I guess I'm gonna steal it. Cambiasso thinks that I'm not ready to have a baby, but I have everything my baby will need:

 

If my baby gets cold and it needs a blanket, it's alright cause I have it.   And if my baby needs clothes it's cool cause I have tons of them.  And if my baby loses a pacifier I have 3 more.

 

I'm not having sex with not one, not two, but three different guys.  That's right, I'm a player. But that's cool because I got it like that. 

 

My life schemes are to jump out of school, to be on girls gone wild, and to have my baby.  And there's nothing stupid Cambiasso can say to change my mind.

[Alf Bentley]

-I don't dispute that he's been a good manager for us.

-It was more than 1 or 2 incidents.

 

As I've stated many times the owners has countless excuses to sack him during the season, not least the fact that we were bottom for 5 months. They provided funds for him in this transfer window.They employed him for 3 and a half years. This suggests to me that they were satisfied with him in the football sense.

 

I don't disagree with any of that, though you obviously see the "incidents" as much more important than I do. I don't think sacking him for being bottom would have been justified, when we were not cast adrift, the players were behind him and we were not that far short of being competitive. Certainly, though, if the owners had wanted rid, they could have used league position as an excuse earlier. That would also suggest that it wasn't his occasionally odd behaviour that cost him his job.

 

That might mean that there was a bust-up after the season ended, maybe over his son. Alternatively, it might mean that there was a bust-up over transfers - or that they'd been satisfied with him in a football sense (and maybe a personal sense) but felt that he'd reached his limit. We just don't know and are all speculating - and that is wrong and potentially damaging, surely?

 

Either Pearson's conduct justified his sacking or it didn't.

 

If it did, why not come out with it? Issue a statement saying "We thank Nigel for his good work, but have reached an impasse over off-the-field conduct" or whatever. Alternatively, if he did something truly out of order, surely he'd have been sacked for gross misconduct and it would have been in the club's benefit for the fans to understand this?

 

If it didn't, why not issue a statement saying "We thank Nigel for his good work, but have reached an impasse over the best way to achieve even greater success on the pitch" or "We feel that a manager with more experience is needed to take us further"?

 

Hopefully we'll start well under Ranieri. If not, by choosing not to reveal why they sacked Pearson, the owners are making a rod for their own back - and for Ranieri's back. Can you imagine if we start the season badly and are bottom after 6 matches? What will fans' attitude to the owners and to Ranieri be, when they don't know why a successful manager was sacked?

[EnglishOxide]

Pearson used to speak to the backroom staff and senior players to discuss ideas but ultimately he had the final say as it was his job on the line. Staff were encouraged to be honest and not just say stuff they thought NP wanted to hear. I know this goes against the 'arrogant Pearson' argument but he was open to ideas.

The fact that he also asked his players at the end of each season which opposition players caused them most problems so he can look into buying them also shows his open mindedness.