Pearson Part 3?

[cityfanlee23]

2 minutes ago, Col city fan said:

Without a fookin doubt I would.

To be honest even if he brought Walsh back then we sacked pearson the next day it would be worth it

[Babylon]

54 minutes ago, bovril said:

Somebody should write a psychoanalytical paper on 'Leicester fans and their extreme reactions to Nigel Pearson'.

Essentially it is the same people who were against him from day one.

 

"He'll never get us out of league one"

"He'll never get us out of the championship"

"He'll never keep us up"

 

People don't like being made to look stupid, as invariably he did at every turn. So they keep trotting it out. Eventually they'll be right and claim victory, but as the old saying goes a broken clock is right twice a day.

[st albans fox]

I don't believe Walsh would come back so the question is irrelevant 

 

Pearson would be a better manager this time around. Shakey has learned a lot from being with Claudio. Would Pearson take any of that on board or do it his way as he generally does? 

 

Would shakey key be happy to be no 2 to Nigel. I expect he would now want to be a no 1 somewhere. 

 

We arent looking for a manger to win the league or even take us into Europe. Just some mid table finishes so we can enjoy the games, win or lose.

 

the club should be putting humpty back together again in any event. Much that has been removed needs to be re instated. That doesn't require Pearson to return- the blueprint is already there. 

 

A forward thinking manger needs to be employed who will embrace all the sport science stuff - it made the difference when combined with some old fashioned management last season but we won't squeeze any more out of that now. 

 

Mr Pearson has too much baggage im afraid 

[Strokes]

Pearson is perfect to handle this, we are hated and despised. The man understands this and revels in it. Get him in!

[Babylon]

9 minutes ago, Donut said:

Neither did Pearson

 

Ranieri won the league not Pearson.

 

This "title winning squad" thing is so naff it really is. Pearson assembled a group of players.

 

Celtic have won all but one of their games this season in the SPL. So we should credit Ronny Deila for that?

 

Liverpool have improved a lot under Klopp. But the credit is Brendan Rogers' because he signed the majority of the players?

 

What youre saying is, if Mick McCarthy had a son who had his bumhole licked by a prostitute and was sacked, then whoever took over and won the league with them actually didnt win the league. Mick McCarthy did. Because he had good old Marcus Stewart up front and Gary Breen at the back rather than the new manager making them miles better.

 

Thats what happened at Leicester and whether you choose to accept that or not is your perogative but thats what happened.

Anyone want to point out Brendon Rodgers has a better Liverpool win ratio than Klopp, or should I.

[lgfualol]

25 minutes ago, cityfanlee23 said:

Ok so here's a proposal for you all.  

 

Pearson returns and we are guaranteed Walsh coming back to join him. 

 

Would you take that deal? Be keen to hear from those who don't particularly want to see him return. 

Only if Walsh came back as director of football. 

[Countryfox]

8 minutes ago, Donut said:

Neither did Pearson

 

Ranieri won the league not Pearson.

 

This "title winning squad" thing is so naff it really is. Pearson assembled a group of players.

 

Celtic have won all but one of their games this season in the SPL. So we should credit Ronny Deila for that?

 

Liverpool have improved a lot under Klopp. But the credit is Brendan Rogers' because he signed the majority of the players?

 

What youre saying is, if Mick McCarthy had a son who had his bumhole licked by a prostitute and was sacked, then whoever took over and won the league with them actually didnt win the league. Mick McCarthy did. Because he had good old Marcus Stewart up front and Gary Breen at the back rather than the new manager making them miles better.

 

Thats what happened at Leicester and whether you choose to accept that or not is your perogative but thats what happened.

 

You are so wrong, It was Pearsons great escape team that won the league.  

[Donut]

7 minutes ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

Well if me and others are "wallies" for wanting a club ran with the future in mind, with a culture focused on developing young players, for wanting everybody's opinions to contribute to the whole, for a club to be ran sustainably and ethically then yes, I'm a wally. For if wanting a modern, forward thinking, personable man leading the club I love means I'm a "wally" then yes I plead guilty, I'm a wally. And I'd like to thank all the wallies who would dare to want the same and who make their opinions known.

Was the club not being run sustainably under Ranieri then? was he throwing pots of money at players we couldnt afford or budget for, or breaking the wage structure? no.

 

What has Ranieri done that is "unsustainable" for the future of the club? hes not done a Harry Redknapp and bankrupted the club to win something. Hes guilty of massivley overachieving, and then having a group of players that owe a lot to him collectively performing terribly.

 

He obviously takes his share of the blame in that.

 

You also mentionned a culture of developing young players.

 

So when Pearson was bringing in Fuchs, Cambiasso, Phillips, Huth to name but a few, was Ranieri signing Gray, Amartey, Kaputska, Ndidi not with a view to the future when Ranieri brought them in? hes also given Chilwell a run in the side to start his career at Leicester off.

 

Where is there any evidence under Ranieri that everyones opinions werent taken on board? Shakespeare came out and said his relationship with Ranieri was absolutely fine. Is he a liar then?

 

What about the numerous meetings that took place with the players, ranging from tactical style to time off etc. I think its generally considered that Ranieri was very astute in man management which was highlighted in the title winning season. Did he achieve that by ignoring everyone?

 

You cant use the fact we released the psychologist to say that he didnt take EVERYONES opinion on board for example.

 

The bit about a "personable" man has been done to death. Why a "personable" man feels the need to act in such a rude way publically to almost everyone he comes across is just plain weird frankly. Thats the environment his persona is judged on.

 

If i was the nicest bloke outside of work in the world, yet at work i was rude to everyone, people would naturally form the opinion i was rude. I dont see why this is an outlandish claim frankly.

[Babylon]

27 minutes ago, cityfanlee23 said:

Ok so here's a proposal for you all.  

 

Pearson returns and we are guaranteed Walsh coming back to join him. 

 

Would you take that deal? Be keen to hear from those who don't particularly want to see him return. 

He'd probably actually bring in the fella who left for Spurs and then joined him at Derby as head of recruitment, Rob McKenzie.

[Donut]

3 minutes ago, Babylon said:

Anyone want to point out Brendon Rodgers has a better Liverpool win ratio than Klopp, or should I.

Roy Hodgson has a better win ratio than Alf Ramsey.

 

Your point holds no relevance to anything, or the point i initially made.

 

[HybridFox]

Just now, Donut said:

Roy Hodgson has a better win ratio than Alf Ramsey.

 

Your point holds no relevance to anything, or the point i initially made.

 

Big Sam takes the biscuit. 100%

[Wymsey]

Some have mentioned he's not effective without Steve Walsh.

Why isn't he, Walsh is not in charge of handling etc the players during games?

Had Shakespeare left as well, I wouldn't have him at the club, but as he's stayed I'm quite tempted at the prospect of him returning to be honest.

[Babylon]

Just now, Donut said:

Roy Hodgson has a better win ratio than Alf Ramsey.

 

Your point holds no relevance to anything, or the point i initially made.

 

Well it does, because they aren't currently better at all. So, you were wrong. A slip cost them the title pretty much, Klopp isn't even close.

 

You were wrong suck it up, just like you were about Pearson over and over again.

[Sharpe's Fox]

5 minutes ago, Donut said:

Was the club not being run sustainably under Ranieri then? was he throwing pots of money at players we couldnt afford or budget for, or breaking the wage structure? no.

 

What has Ranieri done that is "unsustainable" for the future of the club? hes not done a Harry Redknapp and bankrupted the club to win something. Hes guilty of massivley overachieving, and then having a group of players that owe a lot to him collectively performing terribly.

 

He obviously takes his share of the blame in that.

 

You also mentionned a culture of developing young players.

 

So when Pearson was bringing in Fuchs, Cambiasso, Phillips, Huth to name but a few, was Ranieri signing Gray, Amartey, Kaputska, Ndidi not with a view to the future when Ranieri brought them in? hes also given Chilwell a run in the side to start his career at Leicester off.

 

Where is there any evidence under Ranieri that everyones opinions werent taken on board? Shakespeare came out and said his relationship with Ranieri was absolutely fine. Is he a liar then?

 

What about the numerous meetings that took place with the players, ranging from tactical style to time off etc. I think its generally considered that Ranieri was very astute in man management which was highlighted in the title winning season. Did he achieve that by ignoring everyone?

 

You cant use the fact we released the psychologist to say that he didnt take EVERYONES opinion on board for example.

 

The bit about a "personable" man has been done to death. Why a "personable" man feels the need to act in such a rude way publically to almost everyone he comes across is just plain weird frankly. Thats the environment his persona is judged on.

 

If i was the nicest bloke outside of work in the world, yet at work i was rude to everyone, people would naturally form the opinion i was rude. I dont see why this is an outlandish claim frankly.

Why are you on about Claudio? He's gone. Claudio Ranieri isn't in the running to be manager of this football club. Nigel Pearson is. As is Roberto Mancini and Guus Hiddink, apparently. I'm comparing Nigel Pearson to others being considered. I'm not interested in the past, it seems you are. 

[inckley fox]

9 hours ago, Donut said:

Im a massive Leicester fan.

 

The whole thing is badly skewed though and some people are too blind to see it. Pinning all the blame onto people like Ranieri and Rudkin without even knowing whats happened or what some people even do at the club

 

Its so funny that theres a group of people who fall over backwards to hail a man who could win minor trophies like the championship, and yet want a man like Ranieri out the door as quickly as possible.

 

I appreciate all of this, though many people are obviously taking the view that Ranieri - working within a framework established by another manager, with a different set of skills - was phenomenal, whereas he was less effective operating within his own framework. They probably feel that in our current predicament, Pearson might be the better of our various legendary managers. I can see that too, and I'm sure you can as well.

 

But of course it's tremendously sad that our greatest ever manager has gone. The fact that it was necessary is a sorry reflection on football, even if the players' apparent lack of drive can be attributed to confusion / poor fitness / managerial errors and a subsequent loss of belief, rather than a straightforward lack of effort. But in the modern game, I understand that boards have to do what they can to ensure survival, even if it means making unpopular decisions, and that we did seem to be going down under Ranieri. 

 

That's not to say that I think the board have been expemplary. They could have gone through the vote of confidence routine back in December and tried to nip these gripes in the bud. They could have pushed for more transfer activity in January. Before that, they could have done away with the new cars, dealt with the contracts better and more even-handedly, not pushed for high profile but detrimental pre-season tournaments, intervened or pushed for replacements when certain members of staff were heading through the exit door, insisted on good pre-Ranieri practices being maintained etc. I strongly support this board, but they may have got carried away with their success, forgetting that what made it so extraordinary was that a man like Pearson could assemble a squad for so little money, and a man like Ranieri could take it to the title. They played a great part, but not in the way Jack Walker did with Blackburn in the 90s.

 

In your second comment, I think you're also glossing over the role Pearson had in that title win, and overlooking the fact that the challenge now is very different to what it was a year ago.

 

But I'd definitely concur that anyone who strips Ranieri of credit in favour of Pearson is in the wrong. All I'd add is that most of those who sing NP's praises do so because there is so much unreasonable disdain for his achievements, or perhaps because they feel we're in a moment when his considerable skills might be more useful, and not because they think Ranieri was anything other than very, very special.

[Countryfox]

3 minutes ago, Donut said:

Was the club not being run sustainably under Ranieri then? was he throwing pots of money at players we couldnt afford or budget for, or breaking the wage structure? no.

 

What has Ranieri done that is "unsustainable" for the future of the club? hes not done a Harry Redknapp and bankrupted the club to win something. Hes guilty of massivley overachieving, and then having a group of players that owe a lot to him collectively performing terribly.

 

He obviously takes his share of the blame in that.

 

You also mentionned a culture of developing young players.

 

So when Pearson was bringing in Fuchs, Cambiasso, Phillips, Huth to name but a few, was Ranieri signing Gray, Amartey, Kaputska, Ndidi not with a view to the future when Ranieri brought them in? hes also given Chilwell a run in the side to start his career at Leicester off.

 

Where is there any evidence under Ranieri that everyones opinions werent taken on board? Shakespeare came out and said his relationship with Ranieri was absolutely fine. Is he a liar then?

 

What about the numerous meetings that took place with the players, ranging from tactical style to time off etc. I think its generally considered that Ranieri was very astute in man management which was highlighted in the title winning season. Did he achieve that by ignoring everyone?

 

You cant use the fact we released the psychologist to say that he didnt take EVERYONES opinion on board for example.

 

The bit about a "personable" man has been done to death. Why a "personable" man feels the need to act in such a rude way publically to almost everyone he comes across is just plain weird frankly. Thats the environment his persona is judged on.

 

If i was the nicest bloke outside of work in the world, yet at work i was rude to everyone, people would naturally form the opinion i was rude. I dont see why this is an outlandish claim frankly.

 

I love him too ...    But we are in the relegation zone ....    He was given one target , just the one ...     keep us up.    

[Babylon]

Just now, Wymeswold fox said:

Some have mentioned he's not effective without Steve Walsh.

Why isn't he, Walsh is not in charge of handling etc the players during games?

Had Shakespeare left as well, I wouldn't have him at the club, but as he's stayed I'm quite tempted at the prospect of him returning to be honest.

It would be a worry for me long term as I believe recruitment was absolutely key in us improving regularly under Pearson. Not many people get handed the players Pearson did for that kind of money and so often.

[Donut]

Just now, Babylon said:

Well it does, because they aren't currently better at all. So, you were wrong. A slip cost them the title pretty much, Klopp isn't even close.

 

You were wrong suck it up, just like you were about Pearson over and over again.

So they shouldnt have sacked Rogers then?

 

Klopp has had them in two major cup finals (yes which he has lost admittedly) and is going to improve their league position on where Rogers left them. So thats improvement

 

A slip cost them the title? How about the inability to defend for the entire season more like.

 

Ive not been wrong on anything about Pearson either. Has been instumental in where we are now.

[Strokes]

@Donut do understand that you can love both Pearson and Ranieri and respect both of them? Its not mutually exclusive.

[Magictv]

2 hours ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

This one sums the guy up. Puts facts out in front of people and they can't deal with it. 

Love a bit of Nige

[Donut]

3 minutes ago, Countryfox said:

 

I love him too ...    But we are in the relegation zone ....    He was given one target , just the one ...     keep us up.    

Which he was achieving.

 

And beyond that, in other competitions he was overachieving.

[Webbo]

I appreciate what Pearson did but he's the past now. Can't we move on?

[Countryfox]

1 minute ago, Donut said:

Which he was achieving.

 

 

 

 

[Donut]

Just now, Strokes said:

@Donut do understand that you can love both Pearson and Ranieri and respect both of them? Its not mutually exclusive.

I just find it funny when you have a manager that has clearly massively overachieved with a bunch of players that you would say the previous manager had "built" a title winning squad. When he just hasnt.

 

Course i understand you can love and respect both managers. What puzzles me, is the balance of love and respect is so badly skewed to the point it makes no sense.

[jmono84]

One thing no one can argue with is pearson has never parted company with us leaving us on a downward spiral... he always seems to do well with us. I wouldn't mind seeing him come back but can't see it happening!