The OH Leuven Thread

[inckley fox]

9 hours ago, ozleicester said:

You have obviously put a lot of thought in to this.

 

Im not particularly angry, i just feel for a fan who knows his team and league better than most ( if not all) of us do... being shouted down because he dares to suggest that Pearson is not the man for the job.

Well, it's a Leicester forum, not a Leuven one, and we obviously know Pearson much better than they do. I think we're allowed to debate the matter on here from a Leicester perspective!

 

And yes, I probably have too much time on my hands.

[Col city fan]

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, Clough was not much without Taylor and the same is true of Pearson.

What worked at City was the trinity of Pearson, Walsh and Shakespeare. The whole was greater than the sum of its parts.

Nigel on his own has never been anywhere near so successful.

[inckley fox]

2 hours ago, Webbo said:

Solano, Wood? Bad signings?!

Solano was pretty much past it by that point, I thought. He did a job for us in my opinion - though a lot of people disagreed at the time - but we didn't extend his deal and I think Pearson eventually decided against taking him to Hull, so he was hardly one of the most important buys. But yes, I take your point.

 

Wood was/is a good player and I was always a fan. We altered our style unfortunately when he signed, tending to go more direct when we'd previously been playing some quite attractive attacking football. For his only full season with us he was third choice striker, then we replaced him with another target man after that. So he was a good player who wasn't a huge success with us.

 

You could say something similar about Kramaric.

[Sampson]

The only reason Wood was our 3rd choice striker was because Vardy and Nugent were such an incredible strikeforce at that level - leading the line in stastically one of the greatest 2nd tier teams of all-time.

 

It was clear Wood was quality and he often showed it when he came off the bench Or when Vardy was out (who could forget that goal against Burnley?), he was Just unlucky to be behind an absolutely ridiculously good strike force at Championship level.

 

I think we all recognised he was a good player though who would've walked into any other Championship XI at the time. To call him a poor signing is clutching at straws to try and prove a pretty permicity point. I've been watching Leicester since the tail end of Gillies' era and no other management team can really even come close to tye quality pf recruitment and how thoroughly scouted and how often they got it right as Pearson/Walsh/Shakespeare did.

 

How much Pearson had to play in that is maybe a debate to have, but trying to flip it to listing a load of poor signings (many of whom were far from poor and most of the ones who were were who you listed were solely free transfers bought in as squad players and nothing more anyway) to try and highlight a point is silly. His transfer record here was ridiculously good, any other manager we've ever had is incomparable in those stakes.

Edited 5 September 2018 by Sampson

[inckley fox]

5 minutes ago, Col city fan said:

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, Clough was not much without Taylor and the same is true of Pearson.

What worked at City was the trinity of Pearson, Walsh and Shakespeare. The whole was greater than the sum of its parts.

Nigel on his own has never been anywhere near so successful.

Regarding Clough, I think the chemistry between him and Taylor was incredibly important, but there are arguments that Taylor buggering off in 82 wasn't the cause of his collapse. Alcohol obviously has to take a big slice of the blame. And things were already on the decline when Taylor left, because Forest had cashed in on most of their European Cup winning side. You could say things only got really bad as the booze set in, but even then he still achieved top three finishes post-Taylor, won a couple of League Cups and made an FA Cup Final before the downfall.

 

As for Pearson, you may well prove to be right, but I've not seen enough of his 'solo career' yet to be sure. If our board had been as impatient as Derby's, failed to back him up properly on scouting / recruitment then he wouldn't have lasted long with us either. What was it - eight weeks? I don't think it's long enough to call someone a failure. It's not as if everyone else during that time period thrived at Derby.

 

With Leuven, well, it's another country, a much lower level, I'm not sure what would happen if Puel took over at Yeovil, Mourinho at AFC Wimbledon etc. Different characteristics work at different levels. Maybe it's not a good fit for him, or maybe he's just being typically slow at getting started. It took him 60+ league games to really get going  in his second spell at Leicester, and I suppose he's only 25-30 into his Leuven spell. They might have to wait a bit longer! Either that, or people decide it's not working, that you can't expect that length of time to get it right, and King Power fire him (again).

[inckley fox]

1 minute ago, Sampson said:

The only reason Wood was our 3rd choice striker was because Vardy and Nugent were such an incredible strikeforce at that level - leading the line in stastically one of the greatest 2nd tier teams of all-time.

 

It was clear Wood was quality and he often showed it when he came off the bench Or when Vardy was out (who could forget that goal against Burnley?), he was Just unlucky to be behind an absolutely ridiculously good strike force at Championship level.

 

I think we all recognised he was a good player though who would've walked into any other Championship XI at the time. To call him a poor signing is clutching at straws to try and prove a pretty permicity point. I've been watching Leicester since the tail end of Gillies' era and no other management team can really even come close to tye quality pf recruitment and how thoroughly scouted and how often they got it right as Pearson/Walsh/Shakespeare did.

 

How much Pearson had to play in that is maybe a debate to have, but trying to flip it to listing a load of poor signings (many of whom were far from poor and most of the ones who were were who you listed were solely free transfers bought in as squad players and nothing more anyway) to try and highlight a point is silly. His transfer record here was ridiculously good, any other manager we've ever had is incomparable in those stakes.

I was making a pro-Pearson argument, I wasn't slating him at all, and I was emphasising that his recruitment record was outstanding. One of the best in the history of the game. I was just pointing out that some signings, and some aspects of his work, were open for criticism. You have to be willing to concede that there are some valid criticisms of the man, as is the case with anyone, even if they're hugely outweighed by the pros.

 

We can't say Wood was a successful signing. He's a good player, but he didn't quite fit. As I said before, the reason why he wasn't a great acquisition was that we altered our style of play after he signed, and after his first few games our form totally collapsed. We went from an automatic promotion place - and clear favourites to go up - to scraping through to the Play-offs on the final day. Pearson was nearly fired and part of the reason for that was that he'd spent a large amount of money, especially on Wood, and we hadn't achieved our main objective. The following season, Wood wasn't first choice and if you take a glance through some of the threads of the time, you'll see he was widely criticised for most of his cameos. They weren't all like the Burnley game. The season after that, we paid a record fee for a replacement. Then we sold him for a modest profit, but only a 5th of the fee he'd command a few years later.

 

To my mind, regardless of the guy's quality, you can't say that this represents a clearly successful signing, especially considering the fee was the highest Pearson had ever spent on a player. In fact, there's a fair argument that - even though I rate Wood - his arrival actually set us back.

 

But like I say, I'm writing from a pro-Pearson standpoint, as any Leicester fan should, but just pointing out that there are two sides to every debate. If you take a balanced view, weighing up all the praise and criticism that you can justify (some of the criticism is sheer rubbish), you still come to the conclusion that he was an excellent manager for us. I think there's no harm in Leuven fans looking at some of the things that went wrong for him at Leicester - the long-lasting slides in form, the tendency to take a long while to find his solutions but to find them in the end - because it may well put a few minds at rest. In other words, none of this is unusual for Pearson and there's a good chance he'll get there in the end.

[Foxy harry]

4 hours ago, Cujek said:

Was jist thinking the same!

Wouldnt even say Hamer was exactly a "bad" signing, was only ever going to be backup

[Lizhang]

17 hours ago, Permafrost said:

Not sure if NFP will still be there, but I’m making the trip over for the OHL v Lommel match on 13^th October.

 

Any tips on buying tickets, where to sit etc…

(I’ve already done the important research… pubs!)

If you 're  coming to watch the game, i suggest getting seats in either of the two main blocks of the stadium along the pitch. Preferably, the upper section (it's a rather modest stadium, so the higher seats are not really that high to begin with). Those are the best views to watch the actual game.
If you want to have some fun, get drunk, chant, socialize... then i suggest getting tickets behind the goal. You should know though, the atmosphere in the stadium is rather subdued for the moment. The buy-out has caused a rift between the hardcore and the club and many of the supporters, are staying away. Since last year, they have changed the names of the sections in the stadium (from letters to numbers) so i can't help you there since i don't know the corresponding numbers for those sections from the top of my head.

 

As far as pubs go, it's a small center, you can traverse the city from one end to the other in 30 minutes by foot. Most pubs are located in and around the "oude markt" (old market square) and the "grote markt" (grand market square). Though, there are quite a few right outside the train station. No matter where you are, the nearest pub is never more than 100 yards away. Many bars are not in those three hotspots though. Though very few of the pubs are "football pubs".

 

5 hours ago, inckley fox said:

Well, it's a Leicester forum, not a Leuven one, and we obviously know Pearson much better than they do. I think we're allowed to debate the matter on here from a Leicester perspective!

 

And yes, I probably have too much time on my hands.

It's a Leuven thread on a Leicester forum though. I haven't kept track of the rest of the forum that much, but i doubt there are many Leuven fans complaining about Pearson outside of this topic. If you guys rather discuss the club based on reading some tweets and some google translated articles, just say so. If you want to actually know what's happening, you might want to listen to people from Leuven. While you may know Pearson better, he's been with us for a year now. It's not like we are basing our opinions on a few games. He's been allowed to form the current team and had a big say in the transfers over the summer, he's lead the preparations/preseason unlike last year. If my count is correct, he's managed 37 competitive games for us (22 in last seasons regular competition, 10 in the play-offs, 4 in this years competition and 1 in the cup). I think that's enough to be allowed to form an opinion on the guy. And well, you can talk to ANY Leuven supporter, and they will all tell you it's been going downhill since he took over. I also think that we know the club and the league (not just the format and its consequences, but also what works and what doesn't) simply better (as shown by some silly statements regarding the club the past few pages). We also have at least a basic knowledge of the EPL (and even Championship) as a point of reference, while you simply do not know anything about our league. So while i appreciate the input of people here regarding Pearson, i think all in all, we are in a much better position to judge the current circumstances. Especially, since the circumstances for Pearson specifically, are nowhere near the same they were at Leicester to begin with. Not being able to fall back on the people he relied on at Leicester, is a pretty major deal imho, and might just be enough to make all those comparisons with how he worked and faired at Leicester, go out the window.

But anyway, two pages back, people wanted to make it seem as if i was some disgruntled outlier and not at all representative of the average OHL fan. Well, you can even read up on Bonanza's posts in this topic, who was very positive about Pearson at first (thinking he was the right manager for the team) and his later posts. Even the most positive supporters, the old geezers that have seen it all, are asking him to leave.

Edited 6 September 2018 by Lizhang

[Guest]

10 hours ago, Col city fan said:

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, Clough was not much without Taylor and the same is true of Pearson.

What worked at City was the trinity of Pearson, Walsh and Shakespeare. The whole was greater than the sum of its parts.

Nigel on his own has never been anywhere near so successful.

 

I really don't think there's much to back up this statement but if it is the case both Walsh and Shakey have been sacked from their latest jobs and if those in the know really think it's a triumvirate they could put the band back together.

[Xen]

56 minutes ago, FIF said:

 

I really don't think there's much to back up this statement but if it is the case both Walsh and Shakey have been sacked from their latest jobs and if those in the know really think it's a triumvirate they could put the band back together.

Now that Shakey has had a taste of management I'm not sure he'll be that keen on going back to playing second fiddle.

 

Similarly, Walsh supposedly went to Everton to be closer to family (or at least, that was part of the reason). Can't see him being so keen on uprooting again to move to Belgium.

 

No guarantees it would work anyway. The last season we had with the trio clearly wasn't particularly succesful, for the most part, spending half the season in the relegation zone.

 

 

Cant see it happening, personally.

[Col city fan]

2 hours ago, FIF said:

 

I really don't think there's much to back up this statement but if it is the case both Walsh and Shakey have been sacked from their latest jobs and if those in the know really think it's a triumvirate they could put the band back together.

Haven’t you just backed up this statement by what you’ve written?

Individually... nothing

Collectively.. a formidable management team

As history has shown

[shen]

9 hours ago, Lizhang said:

[...]

Not being able to fall back on the people he relied on at Leicester, is a pretty major deal imho, and might just be enough to make all those comparisons with how he worked and faired at Leicester, go out the window.

But anyway, two pages back, people wanted to make it seem as if i was some disgruntled outlier and not at all representative of the average OHL fan. Well, you can even read up on Bonanza's posts in this topic, who was very positive about Pearson at first (thinking he was the right manager for the team) and his later posts. Even the most positive supporters, the old geezers that have seen it all, are asking him to leave.

I suppose the argument inckley fox tries to put forward is that it can take time for Pearson to get things right. There's a possibility that things can go in the right direction again.

The sentiment that his team are playing without conviction and motivation and even the lack of organization, is worrying though. This might not be rectifiable without a major clear out or a new management team. My guess is the owners are willing to be patient, given that there's less at stake from an economic standpoint than at Leicester.

[Guest]

32 minutes ago, Col city fan said:

Haven’t you just backed up this statement by what you’ve written?

Individually... nothing

Collectively.. a formidable management team

As history has shown

No.

 

 

[Lizhang]

1 minute ago, shen said:

I suppose the argument inckley fox tries to put forward is that it can take time for Pearson to get things right. There's a possibility that things can go in the right direction again.

The sentiment that his team are playing without conviction and motivation and even the lack of organization, is worrying though. This might not be rectifiable without a major clear out or a new management team. My guess is the owners are willing to be patient, given that there's less at stake from an economic standpoint than at Leicester.

And i understand that. The thing is, if we need to wait for it to "click" (knowing it never might) then what does Pearson bring to the table, that another manager does not? He has the biggest budget as well as the best youth academy in our division to form a team. If he can't beat 7 other teams (our league is one of 8 teams) with this budget, with these youngsters, with these commodities, in one or two years, then why is he here? Get an experienced manager that knows the league, that knows Belgian football and he will enforce promotion within 2 seasons. Give any joker 5 years to work with what Pearson has at his disposal, and he will also win the league eventually. So i don't really see an upside to keep trying, hoping the "click" will come. As it stands, we are currently 5fth in the league (out of 8). It's still early, but 3 out of our 4 games have been at home. Should this be the position where we're going to end up, that means we'll be playing the relegation play-downs.

[shen]

4 minutes ago, Lizhang said:

And i understand that. The thing is, if we need to wait for it to "click" (knowing it never might) then what does Pearson bring to the table, that another manager does not? He has the biggest budget as well as the best youth academy in our division to form a team. If he can't beat 7 other teams (our league is one of 8 teams) with this budget, with these youngsters, with these commodities, in one or two years, then why is he here? Get an experienced manager that knows the league, that knows Belgian football and he will enforce promotion within 2 seasons. Give any joker 5 years to work with what Pearson has at his disposal, and he will also win the league eventually. So i don't really see an upside to keep trying, hoping the "click" will come. As it stands, we are currently 5fth in the league (out of 8). It's still early, but 3 out of our 4 games have been at home. Should this be the position where we're going to end up, that means we'll be playing the relegation play-downs.

And I understand your frustration entirely.

 

The point of keeping Pearson is of course his track record with us. A bit of patience through rough patches and look where we ended up.

That's not to say this will get replicated (inckley fox decribed it best why there are numerous caveats), but judging by the mentality Pearson displayed here, he's all about getting the foundations in order. He was really into sports science and I believe he was integral in getting our club up to absolute elite level in England during his time here. Likewise, I'm sure he had a say in the excellent scouting setup created during his time here, although this was mainly Walsh's area. 

 

The culture and language(s) in Belgium might prove too big a stumbling block and maybe he's just not the same without Walsh and Shakespeare at his side, but football is pretty international. What is inherently 'Belgian' about the football being played in your division?

[TaggertvsWise]

44 minutes ago, Lizhang said:

And i understand that. The thing is, if we need to wait for it to "click" (knowing it never might) then what does Pearson bring to the table, that another manager does not? He has the biggest budget as well as the best youth academy in our division to form a team. If he can't beat 7 other teams (our league is one of 8 teams) with this budget, with these youngsters, with these commodities, in one or two years, then why is he here? Get an experienced manager that knows the league, that knows Belgian football and he will enforce promotion within 2 seasons. Give any joker 5 years to work with what Pearson has at his disposal, and he will also win the league eventually. So i don't really see an upside to keep trying, hoping the "click" will come. As it stands, we are currently 5fth in the league (out of 8). It's still early, but 3 out of our 4 games have been at home. Should this be the position where we're going to end up, that means we'll be playing the relegation play-downs.

Love this expression. ??

[Lizhang]

34 minutes ago, shen said:

And I understand your frustration entirely.

 

The point of keeping Pearson is of course his track record with us. A bit of patience through rough patches and look where we ended up.

That's not to say this will get replicated (inckley fox decribed it best why there are numerous caveats), but judging by the mentality Pearson displayed here, he's all about getting the foundations in order. He was really into sports science and I believe he was integral in getting our club up to absolute elite level in England during his time here. Likewise, I'm sure he had a say in the excellent scouting setup created during his time here, although this was mainly Walsh's area. 

 

The culture and language(s) in Belgium might prove too big a stumbling block and maybe he's just not the same without Walsh and Shakespeare at his side, but football is pretty international. What is inherently 'Belgian' about the football being played in your division?

There is no reason why he shouldn't be able to combine laying the groundwork for the longterm, with short term results imho. I don't know why those should be mutually exclusive, as it seems to be with Pearson. Especially considering the tools he has at his disposal, which are the best in our small league.
What is so inherently Belgian about our league? Well, like i said before, many coaches play very cynically, no nonsense, but rather tactical and sly. Our current national team not withstanding, our leagues aren't the ones with the best technical players, only a few (2-3) teams in Belgium had the luxury of having a big budget and could attract those players, all the other teams had very small budgets in comparison, and had to make due with what they had, playing rather defensively and cunning.

 

3 minutes ago, TaggertvsWise said:

Love this expression. ??

Not sure if there is another expression for it. The bottom 4 teams, get to play a mini competition at the end of the season, that decides which team gets relegated.

Edited 6 September 2018 by Lizhang

[inckley fox]

11 hours ago, Foxy harry said:

Wouldnt even say Hamer was exactly a "bad" signing, was only ever going to be backup

Again, I was just pointing out a list of signings that you could question either in terms of quality or in terms of improving us. I could argue a positive case for a lot of them too (Webbo pointed out that it's hard to say Solano failed to serve a purpose, and he's probably right), if it were relevant to the thread. In the case of Hamer, he was signed as back-up, but within six months he was only third choice because we brought in a 40+ year old to replace him as understudy, and he was loaned out. Lots of questions have been asked when any of our understudies (Hamer, Scwarzer, Zieler, Jakupovic) had to fill in, and it may be that we've only just found an understudy that works, so I'm not sure he did serve his purpose.

 

9 hours ago, Lizhang said:

It's a Leuven thread on a Leicester forum though. I haven't kept track of the rest of the forum that much, but i doubt there are many Leuven fans complaining about Pearson outside of this topic. If you guys rather discuss the club based on reading some tweets and some google translated articles, just say so. If you want to actually know what's happening, you might want to listen to people from Leuven. While you may know Pearson better, he's been with us for a year now. It's not like we are basing our opinions on a few games. He's been allowed to form the current team and had a big say in the transfers over the summer, he's lead the preparations/preseason unlike last year. If my count is correct, he's managed 37 competitive games for us (22 in last seasons regular competition, 10 in the play-offs, 4 in this years competition and 1 in the cup). I think that's enough to be allowed to form an opinion on the guy. And well, you can talk to ANY Leuven supporter, and they will all tell you it's been going downhill since he took over. I also think that we know the club and the league (not just the format and its consequences, but also what works and what doesn't) simply better (as shown by some silly statements regarding the club the past few pages). We also have at least a basic knowledge of the EPL (and even Championship) as a point of reference, while you simply do not know anything about our league. So while i appreciate the input of people here regarding Pearson, i think all in all, we are in a much better position to judge the current circumstances. Especially, since the circumstances for Pearson specifically, are nowhere near the same they were at Leicester to begin with. Not being able to fall back on the people he relied on at Leicester, is a pretty major deal imho, and might just be enough to make all those comparisons with how he worked and faired at Leicester, go out the window.

But anyway, two pages back, people wanted to make it seem as if i was some disgruntled outlier and not at all representative of the average OHL fan. Well, you can even read up on Bonanza's posts in this topic, who was very positive about Pearson at first (thinking he was the right manager for the team) and his later posts. Even the most positive supporters, the old geezers that have seen it all, are asking him to leave.

So you were expecting Leicester fans to simply agree with you? If you're posting on a Leicester forum, be it a Spurs fan in a Spurs thread or a Leuven fan in a Leuven thread, I'd expect people to be seeing things from a predominantly Leicester perspective, not purely providing 'input' to your argument. I would have expected opinions which were directed at one of our best ever managers still to meet a response and you've had some fairly informed ones.

 

If you're uncomfortable with that because only you and other Leuven fans know anything about your league (which simply isn't true by now, because a lot of us have watched a few Leuven games, know about the club's history, have followed their fortunes, know your owners, boss, some of your players and, of course, listen to you guys) then why post on this forum if you purely wish to be a voice of unchallenged authority? What were you hoping for? Agreement? Okay, you'll find some agreement on here, sure, because we still have fans knocking around who wished Pearson had never existed and that Sven Goran Eriksson had led us to glory, but you'll find a lot more people, naturally, questioning your views.

 

As for your specific points (here's the long-winded bit, sorry!), regardless of who a manager is or how long he's been previously been there, it's very unusual to be calling for his head after 4 league games of a season, when the pieces are still in flux (even if 4 games is a higher percentage of your season than it is of ours). You were itching for him to be fired after 3, when you were still 2nd, and if that is the prevailing mood now at the ground you may make it very difficult for him to be successful, or any other manager for that matter, in such an impatient environment. And, as has been stated again and again, you've not had much success throughout your history - certainly not the sort of instant success you're looking for now - so maybe some of you guys need to look at yourselves too.

 

The Play-offs were not for promotion and I doubt you were expecting him to challenge top flight clubs for a UEFA place, so we're talking about a reign of 26 league matches, for which his record is 11 wins, 10 draws, 5 defeats, I believe, and about 1.5 points per game. You were 2nd in the overall table last year, and I think I'm right in saying you were in the bottom half when he took over.

 

I'd say that these bare facts were cause for patience at any club, regardless of how many games you've attended or how well you know the league, when you consider that you were bottom but one in the previous season's final table. When you consider that this significant improvement, even if it's stalling at the moment in the early games of the season, has been under his guidance, it seems extraordinary that your fans are so desperate for him to leave. Especially when the fans whose forum you're posting on, and who know your manager and owners a lot better than you do, have long been warning you that he takes time.

 

And when you say 'if you want to know what's actually happening', and therefore imply that you as a fan are the guy who 'knows what's really happening', then I find that hard not to laugh at with any fan of any club anywhere. After 26 league games of Pearson's last spell at Leicester, you wouldn't have found out what was really happening, and especially not what was going to happen, by looking on this forum. Nor after 50.

 

He may well not be a success for you - and I fully respect that your fans will have a better feel for what works in Belgian football than I do - but your posts smack of someone who wants a Belgian manager, isn't sure about the new foreign owners, doesn't believe fans from outside of Belgium can offer meaningful opinions and is determined that this new era shouldn't succeed. I really hope for his sake, King Power's and whoever your future managers are (unless they're Belgian) that you aren't representative of the people who back that club.

[Lizhang]

59 minutes ago, inckley fox said:

So you were expecting Leicester fans to simply agree with you? If you're posting on a Leicester forum, be it a Spurs fan in a Spurs thread or a Leuven fan in a Leuven thread, I'd expect people to be seeing things from a predominantly Leicester perspective, not purely providing 'input' to your argument. I would have expected opinions which were directed at one of our best ever managers still to meet a response and you've had some fairly informed ones.

 

If you're uncomfortable with that because only you and other Leuven fans know anything about your league (which simply isn't true by now, because a lot of us have watched a few Leuven games, know about the club's history, have followed their fortunes, know your owners, boss, some of your players and, of course, listen to you guys) then why post on this forum if you purely wish to be a voice of unchallenged authority? What were you hoping for? Agreement? Okay, you'll find some agreement on here, sure, because we still have fans knocking around who wished Pearson had never existed and that Sven Goran Eriksson had led us to glory, but you'll find a lot more people, naturally, questioning your views.

 

As for your specific points (here's the long-winded bit, sorry!), regardless of who a manager is or how long he's been previously been there, it's very unusual to be calling for his head after 4 league games of a season, when the pieces are still in flux (even if 4 games is a higher percentage of your season than it is of ours). You were itching for him to be fired after 3, when you were still 2nd, and if that is the prevailing mood now at the ground you may make it very difficult for him to be successful, or any other manager for that matter, in such an impatient environment. And, as has been stated again and again, you've not had much success throughout your history - certainly not the sort of instant success you're looking for now - so maybe some of you guys need to look at yourselves too.

 

The Play-offs were not for promotion and I doubt you were expecting him to challenge top flight clubs for a UEFA place, so we're talking about a reign of 26 league matches, for which his record is 11 wins, 10 draws, 5 defeats, I believe, and about 1.5 points per game. You were 2nd in the overall table last year, and I think I'm right in saying you were in the bottom half when he took over.

 

I'd say that these bare facts were cause for patience at any club, regardless of how many games you've attended or how well you know the league, when you consider that you were bottom but one in the previous season's final table. When you consider that this significant improvement, even if it's stalling at the moment in the early games of the season, has been under his guidance, it seems extraordinary that your fans are so desperate for him to leave. Especially when the fans whose forum you're posting on, and who know your manager and owners a lot better than you do, have long been warning you that he takes time.

 

And when you say 'if you want to know what's actually happening', and therefore imply that you as a fan are the guy who 'knows what's really happening', then I find that hard not to laugh at with any fan of any club anywhere. After 26 league games of Pearson's last spell at Leicester, you wouldn't have found out what was really happening, and especially not what was going to happen, by looking on this forum. Nor after 50.

 

He may well not be a success for you - and I fully respect that your fans will have a better feel for what works in Belgian football than I do - but your posts smack of someone who wants a Belgian manager, isn't sure about the new foreign owners, doesn't believe fans from outside of Belgium can offer meaningful opinions and is determined that this new era shouldn't succeed. I really hope for his sake, King Power's and whoever your future managers are (unless they're Belgian) that you aren't representative of the people who back that club.

I'm not expecting people here to simply agree with me. I'm expecting them to not just blow off the arguments i and others have raised, without knowing what the hell they're talking about, as certain posters in here have done on previous pages. And while you may have watched a few games, clearly many in here have not, yet are eager to dismiss any criticisms towards Pearson.

So, you've read up on the history of the club. Really. So now you have a decent view of what has happened. Lol, i doubt any of the (likely English) articles you've read, will give you a decent understanding of the actual history, which in Leuven, has been very politically influenced. The fusion of the three Leuven clubs was enforced by politicians, the new club has been funded with taxpayer's money for over a decade, and any history of "not being succesfull" prior to that moment, can be disregarded. The political games that have been played, as well as dozens of underlying powerstruggles, can not. So no, you do not know the club. Trust me. We've been regarded as one of the main favorites since the fusion, in the second league since we entered it, to get promoted. We've been promoted twice in the past 7 years. This is a small country, so there are not that many cities that can actually sustain a professional club. And we simply are one of the biggest (if not the biggest) on average in the second division. Unfortunately, we've had less luck in first division, only managing 4 seasons there. The fact that we never won the league in first division, does not mean we aren't a top second division team that should always be fighting for promotion. Like i said before, we are playing against teams from small cities and towns here.

 

We're not calling for his head based on the outcome of the past 4 games. We're looking at progression since he came, and unless the 3 deadline day transfers can make a serieus impact, it's hard to see him turning this around in a reasonable timeframe. The play on the pitch is nothing short of attrocious. And no, we weren't bottom half when he took over. There were also no incomming transfers of note before the deadline, so the first manager didn't have a lot to work with those first few matches.

 

I also have no issues with foreign coaches. I've simply stated that Pearson clearly doesn't know the league and we should get a manager that does. Most of them, will be Belgian, yes. Our leagues aren't the most sexy, so most aren't really eager to come here. That doesn't mean only Belgian managers can do well. There have been a few French managers that did well at small teams, quite a few from the Balkan countries as well. Haven't seen many from across the pond though. You should also know, that there were alternatives to the Thai, a group of Belgian investors that matched a Chinese offer, but were disregarded because of... politics. But yes, in this regard, you are correct, i would likely have seen the club stay in local hands, if for nothing else, but being able to put pressure on local owners, which is a lot more difficult to do when the owners live and work on the other side of the globe.

Edited 6 September 2018 by Lizhang

[Permafrost]

I'll sort him out when I'm over there

[shen]

21 hours ago, Lizhang said:

There is no reason why he shouldn't be able to combine laying the groundwork for the longterm, with short term results imho. I don't know why those should be mutually exclusive, as it seems to be with Pearson. Especially considering the tools he has at his disposal, which are the best in our small league.
What is so inherently Belgian about our league? Well, like i said before, many coaches play very cynically, no nonsense, but rather tactical and sly. Our current national team not withstanding, our leagues aren't the ones with the best technical players, only a few (2-3) teams in Belgium had the luxury of having a big budget and could attract those players, all the other teams had very small budgets in comparison, and had to make due with what they had, playing rather defensively and cunning.

 

Not sure if there is another expression for it. The bottom 4 teams, get to play a mini competition at the end of the season, that decides which team gets relegated.

On the contrary, there are probably several reasons. They're not mutually exclusive no, but short-termism has often been the killer for many managers. Transition periods take time and Pearson has proven here (and at Hull) that he lays some solid ground work that could benefit Leuven as well in the long term. Ranieri and Bruce benefitted greatly from the squads that Pearson had largely assembled.

 

From your description of the Belgian leagues, I don't really see why Pearson would have problems adapting his style and not be successful. Maybe there's a mentality thing, as Pearson's squads have mainly consisted of hard-working no-nonsense players who excel at one or two things.

 

Maybe it's down to confidence. During our Great Escape season we looked enthusiastic but were lacking in belief and quality. It looked hopeless until results and luck finally turned. Pearson and the players kept faith and managed to succeed.

 

Or maybe Pearson is just shit after all and he got stupendously lucky here.

[inckley fox]

On 06/09/2018 at 15:35, Lizhang said:

I'm not expecting people here to simply agree with me. I'm expecting them to not just blow off the arguments i and others have raised, without knowing what the hell they're talking about, as certain posters in here have done on previous pages. And while you may have watched a few games, clearly many in here have not, yet are eager to dismiss any criticisms towards Pearson.

So, you've read up on the history of the club. Really. So now you have a decent view of what has happened. Lol, i doubt any of the (likely English) articles you've read, will give you a decent understanding of the actual history, which in Leuven, has been very politically influenced. The fusion of the three Leuven clubs was enforced by politicians, the new club has been funded with taxpayer's money for over a decade, and any history of "not being succesfull" prior to that moment, can be disregarded. The political games that have been played, as well as dozens of underlying powerstruggles, can not. So no, you do not know the club. Trust me. We've been regarded as one of the main favorites since the fusion, in the second league since we entered it, to get promoted. We've been promoted twice in the past 7 years. This is a small country, so there are not that many cities that can actually sustain a professional club. And we simply are one of the biggest (if not the biggest) on average in the second division. Unfortunately, we've had less luck in first division, only managing 4 seasons there. The fact that we never won the league in first division, does not mean we aren't a top second division team that should always be fighting for promotion. Like i said before, we are playing against teams from small cities and towns here.

 

We're not calling for his head based on the outcome of the past 4 games. We're looking at progression since he came, and unless the 3 deadline day transfers can make a serieus impact, it's hard to see him turning this around in a reasonable timeframe. The play on the pitch is nothing short of attrocious. And no, we weren't bottom half when he took over. There were also no incomming transfers of note before the deadline, so the first manager didn't have a lot to work with those first few matches.

 

I also have no issues with foreign coaches. I've simply stated that Pearson clearly doesn't know the league and we should get a manager that does. Most of them, will be Belgian, yes. Our leagues aren't the most sexy, so most aren't really eager to come here. That doesn't mean only Belgian managers can do well. There have been a few French managers that did well at small teams, quite a few from the Balkan countries as well. Haven't seen many from across the pond though. You should also know, that there were alternatives to the Thai, a group of Belgian investors that matched a Chinese offer, but were disregarded because of... politics. But yes, in this regard, you are correct, i would likely have seen the club stay in local hands, if for nothing else, but being able to put pressure on local owners, which is a lot more difficult to do when the owners live and work on the other side of the globe.

You've got your reasons for having doubts about King Power and for preferring Belgian managers, I appreciate that (even if it doesn't seem a very helpful standpoint, given that KP are your owners and, for now at least, NP is your manager).

 

But when you say you want Pearson out not only because of the first four games of the season (which is odd to me, especially as you could go top if you win tomorrow) but also because of his tenure as a whole, I return to my original point that you were bottom but one the season before last, had a mixed start to last season, and were top but one by the end of it under Pearson (only one game off the promotion Play-Off in the first cycle). If you're basing your wish for him to be fired on that, it seems even more peculiar, regardless of how many sides there are in your league.

 

You're right, clearly, that you - as a Leuven fan - have a better grasp of the history, politics and rivalries of the club, even if your uncertainty at people taking an interest (the 'Really' comment, for instance, in response to me having read up on your club) is a little odd. And especially when you're on another club's forum. I would have thought a club which averages attendances of 4,000 and which has aspirations to be a big club would tend to be more positive about newcomers. Then again, I know how a lot of people felt about the newcomers to our club in the wake of our success, so I can't get on a high horse in that regard.

 

I can see that the atmosphere in your last game was incredibly toxic, which seems unusual given the progress that had been made over the past year. If local politics are, as you imply, a factor then those fans are going to make it very difficult for King Power and especially Pearson to be successful with you, whereas if it's about results then maybe memories are shorter than they should be, or people are a lot more demanding than they should be. From a distance it seems to me that you could be shooting yourselves in the foot if you want the owners to treat Leuven as a project in its own right, rather than as an insignificant feeder club.

 

But it's your club. If that's what you want, by all means go for it. Personally I'd be surprised if you didn't see a major improvement in the next 3-4 games, and I'd hang on until the end of the first cycle because if Pearson really is so lost at your level, it shouldn't be too hard to find an upgrade for the second cycle and avoid the relegation dogfight. However I can see it's not gone tremendously well of late, tomorrow is an extremely difficult fixture with key players missing, the supporters have turned (as weird as that seems to me) and so I wouldn't be surprised to see you get what you want before long. For better or for worse.

[Mullet1]

[inckley fox]

6 hours ago, shen said:

On the contrary, there are probably several reasons. They're not mutually exclusive no, but short-termism has often been the killer for many managers. Transition periods take time and Pearson has proven here (and at Hull) that he lays some solid ground work that could benefit Leuven as well in the long term. Ranieri and Bruce benefitted greatly from the squads that Pearson had largely assembled.

 

From your description of the Belgian leagues, I don't really see why Pearson would have problems adapting his style and not be successful. Maybe there's a mentality thing, as Pearson's squads have mainly consisted of hard-working no-nonsense players who excel at one or two things.

 

Maybe it's down to confidence. During our Great Escape season we looked enthusiastic but were lacking in belief and quality. It looked hopeless until results and luck finally turned. Pearson and the players kept faith and managed to succeed.

 

Or maybe Pearson is just shit after all and he got stupendously lucky here.

He would have had to be very lucky, and over two different spells.

 

Success isn't always instant. The obvious example is always Ferguson at Man U, but if you look at our best managers, only a small number had instant success - Orr in the 1920s, Little in 1991, Pearson in 2008, Ranieri in 2015. You could arguably add Gillies, Milne and O'Neill, but all three had a pretty lousy time in their first few months at the helm. Beyond that, Hodge took 5 or 6 years to win promotion, Wallace finished 17th in the second tier in his first season and we've already gone over Pearson's second spell a thousand times.

 

So it's likely it's a case of when things click for Pearson, more than if, and crucially whether he can get the time he needs at a club like Leuven, in a league like the First B. Or, who knows, maybe he - and his backroom staff - were just a good fit at Leicester.

Edited 7 September 2018 by inckley fox

[Lizhang]

inckley fox, you keep referring to our position in the standings since Pearson took over. I have stated many times, that we are looking at what happens on the pitch, just as much. The way we are losing points, the amount of chances we created, how players are progressing... Last year he had the most expensive side in the league, it shouldn't count as some grand achievement that he managed to play top 3 with such a side. Yesterday, we drew 1-1 against the side with 1/5th of our budget. Again Pearson's side was second best, but they managed to get in front, and again fold. We are currently 4th in the standings, but 4 of the other teams still have to play today's match. What's maybe more telling is that he changed EIGHT of his players compared to last week. He knows what he's doing isn't working, but he clearly doesn't know how to correct the situation. This to me just shows he's grasping at straws and has no understanding of our league. In the meantime, our two best players from last year aren't getting any time. One doesn't even make it to the bench, the other one is benched. Our most promising youth player (one that already was able to push the team forward) is nowhere to be seen.

Edited 9 September 2018 by Lizhang