One Craig Shakespeare

[Guest]

Well someone in this thread said the coaches he brought in can't even speak English so they would have minimal impact.

 

like you some people on this thread talk bollox.

[st albans fox]

Pearson wasn't really a crap one was he?.

Just played certain players out of position.

I was told a few years ago by a scout that Pearson was known for being a bit 'simple' when it came to tactics. This fella was from Yorkshire so i guess people like Pearson were talked about 'round the dinner table'. Anyway, the following season was our 102 pointer! It's one of those things you'll never really know until he gets a new job and we can see further evidence.

Rainieri is probably too far the other way but at the moment, he is allowing us to play, most of the time.

[bald reynard]

Ranieri certainly knows his stuff and we have a style and tactics to cause many teams in the division a problem and he has shown more than enough nous to change if it is required. If we continue to improve and establish ourselves as a PL team and Shaky has the input we believe him to have when it comes time for Ranieri to move on Shaky could be in prime position to take over.

If Ranieri has any say in the matter (ie he can name his successor - which is possible), Hasselbaink will take over.  They're like father and son and the job he is doing at Burton will probably only reinforce that scenario.  Perhaps a long way to go on that though ...... !

[Fox92]

I was told a few years ago by a scout that Pearson was known for being a bit 'simple' when it came to tactics. This fella was from Yorkshire so i guess people like Pearson were talked about 'round the dinner table'. Anyway, the following season was our 102 pointer! It's one of those things you'll never really know until he gets a new job and we can see further evidence.

Rainieri is probably too far the other way but at the moment, he is allowing us to play, most of the time.

 

Further evidence of what? He saved Carlisle from relegation, he saved Southampton from relegation, he turned us around twice and in between built a good squad at Hull (one of my best mates supports Hull and he gives Pearson a lot of credit)... A lot of people, respectable people, say a lot of stuff but can still be wrong.

[Jimmy]

Further evidence of what? He saved Carlisle from relegation, he saved Southampton from relegation, he turned us around twice and in between built a good squad at Hull (one of my best mates supports Hull and he gives Pearson a lot of credit)... A lot of people, respectable people, say a lot of stuff but can still be wrong.

think he was talking about at Prem Level, no one doubts he'd be a great manager for a championship club

[dedlock]

NP presided over dragging City into 21st century in terms of the comprehensive off field team.He could not have done it without the commitment and investment of the owners.

 

There is now a major team at the training ground, CS is a part as is SW. CR has shown he is an astute man,O.K. he has an assistant he regularly worked with,no surprise,They are part of the coaching/backroom team he inherited.Seems to be a sensitive,smooth transition.

[Richard]

Nobody can really argue Pearson was anymore than competent when it comes to tactics, his failure to find a suitable formation through our rough patch last season shows that, what he does better than most is create a team with a great ethic

[st albans fox]

Yes, I was talking solely about tactics. There's plenty of evidence that Pearson is more than competent in building good squads, team spirit and support structures.

[Dickov22]

Nobody can really argue Pearson was anymore than competent when it comes to tactics, his failure to find a suitable formation through our rough patch last season shows that, what he does better than most is create a team with a great ethic

think he was talking about at Prem Level, no one doubts he'd be a great manager for a championship club

[Jimmy]

Just. You. Wait

for what? he needs to get a job and I can't see Newcastle taking him, so who's left Villa if Sherwood goes? I've said elsewhere I only see Pearson managing in the prem again if he wins another promotion

[Wymsey]

Are you a troll?

 

 

Everything about Leicester, you moan about.

[Jimmy]

Are you a troll?

 

 

Everything about Leicester, you moan about.

who?

[Wymsey]

Dickov22.

[Richard]

Just. You. Wait

he played 442 everywhere until we got to the prem, realised it didn't work then tried every other formation under the sun to get things working, landed on 352 and here we are. I don't anything I've said there is either untrue or particularly tactically innovative. He relied on a fantastic team ethic, great fitness levels and the quality that Steve Walsh brought in, we never showed any signs of a plan B when things weren't going well.

 

Oakley at right mid anyone?

 

*Disclaimer: I was a fan of Pearson and was disappointed when he left - so don't throw that card at me

[Dickov22]

he played 442 everywhere until we got to the prem, realised it didn't work then tried every other formation under the sun to get things working, landed on 352 and here we are. I don't anything I've said there is either untrue or particularly tactically innovative. He relied on a fantastic team ethic, great fitness levels and the quality that Steve Walsh brought in, we never showed any signs of a plan B when things weren't going well.

Oakley at right mid anyone?

*Disclaimer: I was a fan of Pearson and was disappointed when he left - so don't throw that card at me

I think he'll go somewhere else and prove you wrong. Although not sure he needs to after the miracles he worked here.

[Richard]

I think he'll go somewhere else and prove you wrong. Although not sure he needs to after the miracles he worked here.

I'm sure he will, I just don't think a Premier League side will take a chance on him given his poor relationship with large parts of the media, if Ranieri wouldn't have had such a good start I think he might have had a better chance. 

 

Lower mid-table in the Prem is his limit imo

[Dickov22]

I'm sure he will, I just don't think a Premier League side will take a chance on him given his poor relationship with large parts of the media, if Ranieri wouldn't have had such a good start I think he might have had a better chance.

Lower mid-table in the Prem is his limit imo

I think he'll get the Villa job and turn them around. Time will tell.

[Babylon]

he played 442 everywhere until we got to the prem, realised it didn't work then tried every other formation under the sun to get things working, landed on 352 and here we are. I don't anything I've said there is either untrue or particularly tactically innovative. He relied on a fantastic team ethic, great fitness levels and the quality that Steve Walsh brought in, we never showed any signs of a plan B when things weren't going well.

 

Oakley at right mid anyone?

Did we not get promotion and into the playoffs playing with Oakley wide right sometimes. It's very easy to moan about things like that but we always improved. There has been an evolution in how we played under Pearson, from quite rigid to pretty fluid at times during promotion and the good spells last year.

 

Pearson wasn't quick on his feet when it came to tactical changes, it's certainly not his strong point. But he's hardly a tactical moron some would have us believe.

[Sol thewall Bamba]

he played 442 everywhere until we got to the prem, realised it didn't work then tried every other formation under the sun to get things working, landed on 352 and here we are. I don't anything I've said there is either untrue or particularly tactically innovative. He relied on a fantastic team ethic, great fitness levels and the quality that Steve Walsh brought in, we never showed any signs of a plan B when things weren't going well.

 

Oakley at right mid anyone?

 

*Disclaimer: I was a fan of Pearson and was disappointed when he left - so don't throw that card at me

 

That actually worked quite well and they made the thinking behind it very clear. 

[Fox92]

he played 442 everywhere until we got to the prem, realised it didn't work then tried every other formation under the sun to get things working, landed on 352 and here we are. I don't anything I've said there is either untrue or particularly tactically innovative. He relied on a fantastic team ethic, great fitness levels and the quality that Steve Walsh brought in, we never showed any signs of a plan B when things weren't going well.

 

Oakley at right mid anyone?

 

*Disclaimer: I was a fan of Pearson and was disappointed when he left - so don't throw that card at me

 

He played 352 - which everyone wanted him to play - at the start of the season we won the league. It didn't work during the Middlesbrough game and the first half we were utterly atrocious. 

[MooseBreath]

I don't remember anyone wanting him to play 352 at the start of that season. He had a habit of experimenting early in the season and then settling back to 442 when nothing else worked. Pearson was great but he wasn't very good with tactics.

[inckley fox]

I don't remember anyone wanting him to play 352 at the start of that season. He had a habit of experimenting early in the season and then settling back to 442 when nothing else worked. Pearson was great but he wasn't very good with tactics.

 

In addition to the brief 3-5-2 in 2013-14, he also had a spell playing 4-3-3 in 2009-10, and last season we tried 4-3-3, 3-5-2, 4-2-3-1, 4-1-2-1-2 as well as 4-4-2.

 

I'm never quite sure what value it has to say Pearson wasn't good with tactics. He played a range of systems and won a higher percentage of his games than anyone in our history. People say O'Neill wasn't up to much tactically either, so it's telling that - when we talk of the 15 mostly miserable failures we've had as manager in the past 20 years - the two who were most tactically inept were also by far the best. If we add Little and Adams to the list of good managers, we're hardly helping the pro-tactical awareness argument either.

 

On the other hand, Taylor was lauded for his tactical knowledge. Bobby Robson said he was one of the most tactically astute managers he'd spoken to. Levein considered his greatest strength to be in the tactical side of the game, as did Megson and Sousa. It's also widely accepted that Sven was a better tactician than Pearson.

 

So if, when we talk of tacticians, what we mean is preparing the best side and the best system to get the right result, then surely Pearson and O'Neill were among the best we ever had. If it's playing a range of different systems effectively, Pearson's still up there. If it's meticulously, scientifically preparing how we set up for a game, than I'm not sure he's done too badly on that score either.

 

Of course managers who win leagues with bigger squads and better players mix it up more than Pearson, or even Ranieri can afford to. In some cases, at least. But I suspect the immense quality at their disposal, rather than the fact that they switch things around a lot, is the key factor in their success. It doesn't seem to have been a key factor in ours either.

[ThaiFox]

In addition to the brief 3-5-2 in 2013-14, he also had a spell playing 4-3-3 in 2009-10, and last season we tried 4-3-3, 3-5-2, 4-2-3-1, 4-1-2-1-2 as well as 4-4-2.

 

I'm never quite sure what value it has to say Pearson wasn't good with tactics. He played a range of systems and won a higher percentage of his games than anyone in our history. People say O'Neill wasn't up to much tactically either, so it's telling that - when we talk of the 15 mostly miserable failures we've had as manager in the past 20 years - the two who were most tactically inept were also by far the best. If we add Little and Adams to the list of good managers, we're hardly helping the pro-tactical awareness argument either.

 

On the other hand, Taylor was lauded for his tactical knowledge. Bobby Robson said he was one of the most tactically astute managers he'd spoken to. Levein considered his greatest strength to be in the tactical side of the game, as did Megson and Sousa. It's also widely accepted that Sven was a better tactician than Pearson.

 

So if, when we talk of tacticians, what we mean is preparing the best side and the best system to get the right result, then surely Pearson and O'Neill were among the best we ever had. If it's playing a range of different systems effectively, Pearson's still up there. If it's meticulously, scientifically preparing how we set up for a game, than I'm not sure he's done too badly on that score either.

 

Of course managers who win leagues with bigger squads and better players mix it up more than Pearson, or even Ranieri can afford to. In some cases, at least. But I suspect the immense quality at their disposal, rather than the fact that they switch things around a lot, is the key factor in their success. It doesn't seem to have been a key factor in ours either.

 

Agree with this, which is why I wasn't adverse to O'Neill coming back as I felt his tactics would fit in much better with our current players. In fact the football played under Pleat, Taylor, Megson, and Levein, was some of the worst I have ever seen. How Pleat is considered an 'expert' after the dire shite he dished up for us is beyond me.

[CosbehFox]

Saw Shakey in the new Grand Central complex yesterday. Ray Wilkins was there too.

[inckley fox]

Agree with this, which is why I wasn't adverse to O'Neill coming back as I felt his tactics would fit in much better with our current players. In fact the football played under Pleat, Taylor, Megson, and Levein, was some of the worst I have ever seen. How Pleat is considered an 'expert' after the dire shite he dished up for us is beyond me.

 

Pleat's another great example, yes.

 

Supposedly great tacticians seem to come into two categories - those who have a comprehensive understanding of a range of different systems and tend to exploit them. That's great with large squads and top quality players, not so good if you need to get the best out of a smaller squad of players who are mostly on the borderline of good enough and not good enough. The other seems to be the tactical innovator. But take Klopp and, what is it, geggenpressing? The idea of being adventurous and then closing down counter-attackers quickly so you can pick the ball up in dangerous positions, with the opposition ill-prepared, became a popular one after his success in Germany, and he also gave it a name, but it's not actually new. Maybe it's new when applied to a 4-2-3-1, but there have been plenty of sides do much the same.

 

As far as I'm concerned the best tactician is one who gets results, using whatever system necessary. Ranieri's doing it right now, but throughout our history they've tended not to be the guys respected for their tactical prowess. Pleat, Taylor, Megson, Eriksson, Sousa, Ranieri were all meant to be fine tacticians. Wallace, Lee, Little, O'Neill, Bassett, Adams and Pearson weren't. There are good and bad managers in both lists, but on balance I'd say we've been better served by the latter group of names, than by the former.

 

And, looking at those names, I have to wonder whether prestige comes into it. Pleat was a major coup for us, Taylor was the great English hope after his u-21 stint, Eriksson and Ranieri are big figures on a worldwide scale, Sousa was widely expected to be. We looked up to them, expected them to be privy to some sort of knowledge beyond your standard Leicester-manager-fare. Lee, Little, O'Neill, Adams, Pearson, on the other hand, came from the lower leagues and surprised us by being up to the job. We'd never have expected them to be particularly tactically-cultured.