Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
Stinkenzo

The OH Leuven Thread

By Stinkenzo, in Leicester City Forum

Recommended Posts

Arriba Los Zorros

Arriba Los Zorros

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Babylon said:

He proved he's a manager of limited ability by proving them wrong and getting promotion from league one, proving them wrong by getting promotion to the premier league and proved them wrong by keeping us up. Those who were against him from day one said he wasn't capable of doing any of those things. So all of those people who said he wasn't capable can count themselves proved well and truly wrong.

As usual you are spot on regarding Pearson.

 

The fact is the people that dislike him for whatever bizarre reason known to themselves haven't got a leg to stand on factually, hence them becoming increasing irrational and emotional in their anti-NP arguments.

 

Good examples - Seenitall, Barky.

 

I don't like Martin O'Neill as a man at all and wouldn't want to meet him but it doesn't stop me appreciating what a good job he did here and rating him highly as an LCFC manager.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
inckley fox

inckley fox

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

He really didn't. He proved that he's a manager of limited ability, as he has done in his other jobs. He may well be a good fit for OH Leuven, but no club with serious ambition would touch him with a barge pole. 

In your previous comment you said that plenty of Leicester fans would have reservations about Pearson and I was about to agree with you, adding that people could also have reservations about O'Neill and Ranieri, of course. Or any of our legendary players. So long as it doesn't spill into irrationally disliking someone who has been a key part of the fabric of the club, which wouldn't be very fan-like.

 

But then you add this, which sort of demonstrates that this is the case after all.

 

As anyone who doesn't prioritise being nice over being good will point out, he's the guy who took us from the third tier to the second tier play-offs before the board turned up. Then got us promoted. Then kept us up. And formed the side, and started the run of form, which led to us winning the title a year after his exit. If you didn't like having that thrown back at you - which I'm sure you do, if you're contributing posts like this one - then no, you wouldn't be much of a fan, because it was by far the most fantastic transition in the history of a club which you're supposed to be fond of.

 

If his ability is 'limited', then the limit is that he was the difference between a third tier side and a side which was a year off winning the title. It's quite a high limit. So what constitutes serious ambition for a second tier club in any league? How high do you think OH Leuven should be aiming?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NotTheMarketLeader

NotTheMarketLeader

Posted
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

We were bottom of the league for most of the season after we got promoted to the Prem with a team that should never have been down there. It was his tactics that did that. Yes, we survived, but I'm not convinced that was wholly down to him - there are credible reports that player power of one form or another played a major part in the change of tactics that eventually proved so successful. Besides, there's a difference between having reservations about him and saying he's not capable. I think he's a moderately capable manager equipped with the undoubted ability to motivate a team and create a very strong infrastructure behind the scenes - good qualities to have. I also think - and have always thought - that he's weak tactically, has little ability to change things around when the team is struggling and makes terrible substitutions. So a mixed bag overall, but not somebody I'd ever want back in charge of us. 

I agree with this; he did a great job for the club at the time overall.

 

Im told tactics where Shakey's domain, which was the weakness when Pearson was at the helm.

?

Doh! 

 

Edited by NotTheMarketLeader
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Babylon

Babylon

Posted
Posted
Just now, ClaphamFox said:

We were bottom of the league for most of the season after we got promoted to the Prem with a team that should never have been down there. It was his tactics that did that. Yes, we survived, but I'm not convinced that was wholly down to him - there are credible reports that player power of one form or another played a major part in the change of tactics that eventually proved so successful.

We survived, so those who said he wasn't good enough to do that were wrong. As for your credible reports, there isn't a single report that actually says anyone else was involved tactically. It was people on here who didn't like Pearson who purposely used a vague quote to push their agenda. You piece together the actual quotes by different people involved and there is no way anyone with a sound mind could come to any conclusion that it was any more than Cambiasso and Ulloa sitting down with the fixture list and plotting where we could pick up points.

 

Just now, ClaphamFox said:

Besides, there's a difference between having reservations about him and saying he's not capable.

And those reservations were what? How could any reservations not be proved wrong by two league wins and staying up in your first season when that's what the clubs goals actually were. Would his obvious flaws have got us any further, maybe not. But at the end of the day he achieved everything he was tasked to do.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Sampson

Sampson

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted

Imagine taking a club from League One to the Premier League and building a Premier League winning title and fans still not appreciating him.

 

Regardless of what flaws he had in his tactics, media style etc. He got results and brought the best out of players. How he managed to get that very average 09-10 squad to the play-offs and a couple of penalty kicks away from a game against a Blackpool side we'd beat comfortably in both games that season I'll never know.

 

In 20 years from now he will unquestionably be remembered as a great figure in Leicester's history.

  • Like 20
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Babylon

Babylon

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

We were bottom of the league for most of the season after we got promoted to the Prem with a team that should never have been down there. It was his tactics that did that. Yes, we survived, but I'm not convinced that was wholly down to him - there are credible reports that player power of one form or another played a major part in the change of tactics that eventually proved so successful. Besides, there's a difference between having reservations about him and saying he's not capable. I think he's a moderately capable manager equipped with the undoubted ability to motivate a team and create a very strong infrastructure behind the scenes - good qualities to have. I also think - and have always thought - that he's weak tactically, has little ability to change things around when the team is struggling and makes terrible substitutions. So a mixed bag overall, but not somebody I'd ever want back in charge of us. 

I should add that it's wrong to say someone is less of a fan because of their opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest seanfox778

Guest seanfox778

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, Filberts lovechild said:

Seems hypocritical of our owners to employ Nigel over there. He left due to fundamental differences with the owners in relation to what his son did with some Thai hookers. Honestly can't believe they have buried the hatchet on this unless one side has backed down???

I never thought it was fair he had to be made accountable for his son's actions in the first place. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Babylon

Babylon

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, hackneyfox said:

He clearly has a few 'problems', if he hadn't his record would mean he'd still be managing at a decent level in this country.

He has flaws, but whatever they were, it didn't stop us achieving all of the goals he was tasked with. So I'm not sure why anyone would be overly negative. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Babylon

Babylon

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

He wasn't. He was made accountable for his own response to his son being sacked.

 

1 minute ago, hackneyfox said:

I was told it was the way he reacted to his son's sacking that led to his own.


Imagine being angry that he was told one thing and then the club did another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hackneyfox

hackneyfox

Posted
Posted
Just now, Babylon said:

He has flaws, but whatever they were, it didn't stop us achieving all of the goals he was tasked with. So I'm not sure why anyone would be overly negative. 

I believe those goals could have been achieved quicker if he'd been less defensive with his tactics.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RumbleFox

RumbleFox

Posted
Posted
Just now, hackneyfox said:

I believe those goals could have been achieved quicker if he'd been less defensive with his tactics.

So he made a mistake (with his first ever season in the Prem) and learned from it?  Altered it and improved with the greatest survival in PL history?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...