Why did Nige get lots of time, when Shakey gets very little?

[lgfualol]

Both are poor at top level. But for me, I am running out of time for Shakespeare because he has no managerial experience and has a better squad at his disposal. Pearson had Matty Upson and Dean Hammond. 

 

 

[shade]

I suspect the players have become mentally weak since the title win, they’re timid, fearful and negative, it wouldn’t surprise me if shakespeare is tearing his hair out.

[Izzy]

It's just loyalty really.

 

Some fans are still loyal to Pearson even now because of what he achieved with us and would gladly have him back tomorrow.

 

People just don't feel the same loyalty to Shakey (although he undoubtedly played his part behind the scenes) and that's why there's less love and patience for him.

 

[Ian Nacho]

One word. Expectations. 

[winteriscoming]

from what I remember there weren't that many options when pearson was there. No one really stood out to replace him. The only one I can think of is pulis oct/nov time. I just think this time around with Shakespeare there will be better options available. Well to be honest you'd struggle to find anyone worse!!!!

[GaelicFox]

Because there is a genuine reason a man reaches his 50’s and never been a full time Manager 

 

and those reasons are clear for all to see now 

 

pearson was a professional manager

 

shaky is a coach and a processional assistant manager 

 

 

[Stadt]

2 hours ago, lgfualol said:

Both are poor at top level

This is unfair, most of the season wasn't exactly stellar but ultimately we finished 14th. During pre-season we were happy to avoid relegation and that's exactly what Pearson achieved. He's had one top flight season and in that season achieved our goal then subsequently we won the league with a side he was instrumental in building. I can certainly understand the reservations about his managerial acumen in the top flight but the bottom line is he hasn't actually had much of a chance in the Premier league.

[chapero82]

4 hours ago, Col city fan said:

Just thought I'd start this thread, as I'm intrigued as to why large parts of the forum appear to have very quickly become very anti Shakespeare.

As far as I can see, Shakey tends to get his players playing football a lot like Pearson did. Two banks of four, keep the shape, keep it solid, don't do anything too dramatic, defend first etc. I think I can see lots of Pearsonesque tactics, in Shakespeare. 

Nigel had an awful lot of patience from an awful lot of this forum. And this was despite leading the club to its longest run without winning (I believe?), in our history. Yet, on the night he was supposedly sacked, then reinstated, there were fellas on here literally stating they had been in tears when they heard of the sacking.

Why did Pearson get time, patience and love, from many, yet Shakey gets 'one more game, lose it and he can go'?

Why the difference?

I Can’t remember getting whooped like we do under Shakespeare with Pearson!

[Lestoh1]

3 hours ago, dylanlegend said:

Craig Levein, Ian Holloway, Gary Megson, Dave Bassett, Nigel Worthington.

 

Is it any wonder we fell in love with Pearson after these drab managers.

 

Like it or not Pearson built this club up from its lowest ebb. 

 

Pearson for me is the best 'team building' manager we've had. Under his leadship we always seemed to have a 'direction', we just don't seem to have that at the minute. 

 

We seem to be falling into the 'let's buy this player and see how he gets on' whereas with Pearson you always felt like a new player would fit in perfectly. Whether he got lucky or not he was also excellent at building a strong backroom staff: sports science, Shakey and Steve Walsh.

 

Shakespeare could still do very well and I hope he does but we just don't seem to be playing well at the minute. 

 

Pearson also had a sort of 'charisma' about him that only certain managers have (Fergie, Allardyche, Mourinho) I like that in a manager, shakys a nice guy but I don't think he has that 'charisma'

Reckon dave bassett had the most impossible job in leicester history picking up peter taylors mess, but out of that came the teaming with mickey adams who went on to take over as manager and (dare i say it) achieved a more impressive promotion than pearson with a systematically ****ed club.

[dylanlegend]

53 minutes ago, Lestoh1 said:

Reckon dave bassett had the most impossible job in leicester history picking up peter taylors mess, but out of that came the teaming with mickey adams who went on to take over as manager and (dare i say it) achieved a more impressive promotion than pearson with a systematically ****ed club.

I agree that promotion was more impressive, but to be fair again it wasn't by building an up and coming young team (The NP way) it was a group of old has beens that were chucked together (Deane, Ferdinand, Ian Walker) whereas with the Pearson team he basically laid the foundations for our title win. I enjoyed the football we played under Pearson, you would rarely go away from a game feeling dissatisfied - win, lose or draw

[Dan]

I agree generally with the point that Pearson earned the time. Pearson proved over a number of years he improved this team year upon year.

 

Shakespeare, so far, hasn't.

[Dan]

6 hours ago, Paddy. said:

It's a fair question but I think for a me it's a question of Pearson being the right man at the right time for where we were when we were in League 1 and then in the Championship. Even when results weren't great it was still clear that we were moving forward as a club. To be fair, he probably had taken the club as far as he could after the great escape.

 

Whereas NP was the right man at the right time (Imho) Shakey is the wrong man at the wrong time (Again, my opinion). We've moved on and have (did have?) a chance to move on to a new level and I don't think Shakey is the man to do that.

 

To be clear, I don't think NP is the man for right now either. I massively respect him but that ship has sailed.

I don't agree with that to be honest. The early recruitment under him just before he got the boot (Fuchs, Okazaki, Huth, Kante soon to follow) was very encouraging. I remember Fuchs, CL player at the time, said something along the lines of "one phonecall with Nigel Pearson convinced me to join".

 

I think with that squad he'd have had us a lot higher than the year before. Granted, not champions.

[foxy boxing]

shakys first job as manager is managing in the Premier League instead of first plying his trade in League 1 or League 2. It's tough as well going from a number 2 to the number 1 job and dealing with everything a manager has to deal with whearas a number 2 doesn't .

[HankMarvin]

One did it on a shoestring budget 

 

the other is sitting in the most expensive squad Leicester have ever assembled, his shortcomings are magnified as expectations have grown.

[Dr The Singh]

Man that lives in the shadow, almost always will fail

[Livid]

It has been incredibly frustrating since we won the league. A lot of us assumed we would step up to be a little more than what we had been in the past.

 

I was never Pearson's biggest fan or critic but he took over the club at its lowest ebb and turned it around. Shakespeare has took on the job  where there's a lot of maybe unrealistic expectations about where we should be (We should be better than 17th though FFS) the Silva fiasco is the cherry on top of the icing on the cake of some absolutely abysmal transfer dealings. How heads haven't rolled after spending all those millions and only seemingly having aquired two starters is insane.

 

I wasn't sure at the time CS was the man for the job but he was the obvious choice to get us out of the mess we were in and I couldn't have named anyone else. He needs to start getting results though starting on Monday, I just can't see it.

 

It almost feels like the club needs to hit the reset button.

[SheppyFox]

He built here, shakey inherited

[Mark_w]

12 hours ago, Col city fan said:

Just thought I'd start this thread, as I'm intrigued as to why large parts of the forum appear to have very quickly become very anti Shakespeare.

As far as I can see, Shakey tends to get his players playing football a lot like Pearson did. Two banks of four, keep the shape, keep it solid, don't do anything too dramatic, defend first etc. I think I can see lots of Pearsonesque tactics, in Shakespeare. 

Nigel had an awful lot of patience from an awful lot of this forum. And this was despite leading the club to its longest run without winning (I believe?), in our history. Yet, on the night he was supposedly sacked, then reinstated, there were fellas on here literally stating they had been in tears when they heard of the sacking.

Why did Pearson get time, patience and love, from many, yet Shakey gets 'one more game, lose it and he can go'?

Why the difference?

I'm pretty sure Shakespeare will and indeed is getting time and patience from a fair proportion of the fan base, but it's going to be a little less vehement because there was always clear positive progression under Pearson, it's going to be more difficult for Shakespeare to demonstrate that because he's starting with a much better side that's very recently won the top flight of English football. The attachment to Craig is obviously going to be less strong, because he wasn't the manager when we won League One and the Championship, he wasn't the person we saw putting everything in place for us to get back to the Premier League with a side that had an awful lot of potential and he wasn't the person we saw putting together a Premier League winning scouting set-up. He no doubt played a big role in all of those things, but he wasn't the person at the forefront of it so he wasn't going to inspire the same level of affection. It's way too early to be thinking about sacking him though.

[Ric Flair]

12 hours ago, Col city fan said:

Just thought I'd start this thread, as I'm intrigued as to why large parts of the forum appear to have very quickly become very anti Shakespeare.

As far as I can see, Shakey tends to get his players playing football a lot like Pearson did. Two banks of four, keep the shape, keep it solid, don't do anything too dramatic, defend first etc. I think I can see lots of Pearsonesque tactics, in Shakespeare. 

Nigel had an awful lot of patience from an awful lot of this forum. And this was despite leading the club to its longest run without winning (I believe?), in our history. Yet, on the night he was supposedly sacked, then reinstated, there were fellas on here literally stating they had been in tears when they heard of the sacking.

Why did Pearson get time, patience and love, from many, yet Shakey gets 'one more game, lose it and he can go'?

Why the difference?

Quite simple track record. Football is ruthless and it's hard to gain experience and be successful without time but you won't get time if you're doing poorly. What will give you even less time is showing zero identity as a manager and not adapting to change. He's kept things exactly the same and looks clueless. The honeymoon period in which the players had scores to settle is well and truly over and he's got no control over them. He's a dead man walking and I think this will be the last time he ever manages at this level.

[Happy Fox]

 Shakey needs to up His game quite significantly, if he was the owners first choice then why did it take an eternity to appoint him?

 

It smacked at the time that he was second choice so I couldn’t quite fathom why we gave him a 3 year contract. Anyway we cannot go back in time. But if the players are genuinely playing for him then they would be doing a tad tad sight better. 

 

[Koke]

14 hours ago, Kitchandro said:

In the Premiership?

 

No, not true at all. That's simply incorrect. We weren't trying to win games, please go back through the fixture list that season and jog your memory. After the Crystal Palace away defeat until the Tottenham away defeat about 90% of matches were like they are now, worse in fact.

 

This is true but we did have inferior players back then. Pearson was out of his depth in the Premier League, but Shakespeare has much better players and bigger transfer budget so that's why people have less patience for him than they did for Pearson.

[Countryfox]

12 hours ago, Ian Nacho said:

One word. Expectations. 

Great.

[Koke]

13 hours ago, lgfualol said:

Both are poor at top level. But for me, I am running out of time for Shakespeare because he has no managerial experience and has a better squad at his disposal. Pearson had Matty Upson and Dean Hammond. 

 

 

 

First away game I went to in 2014 was away to Chelsea where we played Liam Moore, Schlupp, Hammond, Chris Wood De Laet and an overweight Gary Taylor-Fletcher. 

 

If Pearson struggled with that team, Shakespeare would have taken them down Derby County style.

[Guest Basildon Fox]

Tactically we are an absolute mess and can not string any passes together.  The performance against a poor Bournemouth side was beyond unacceptable and should not be tolerated again e.g. an 8 man defence.  We have played our best football when adopting a higher press this season like we did when we won the title.  Smashing the ball up constantly for Vardy to chase can only work rarely now teams have adapted to the way we play.  At the moment we are going one way and that is down. 

 

If we play like this again on Monday then he has to go before the rot well and truly sets in.  I would rather lose trying to win then just stink the place out like we did against Bournemouth where they deserved to beat us by 3-4 goals.

[Fox92]

20 minutes ago, Koke said:

 

First away game I went to in 2014 was away to Chelsea where we played Liam Moore, Schlupp, Hammond, Chris Wood De Laet and an overweight Gary Taylor-Fletcher. 

 

If Pearson struggled with that team, Shakespeare would have taken them down Derby County style.

I remember being there, Nugent getting played through and I grabbed onto my brother's shirt because I couldn't believe it. A clear cut chance away at Chelsea..... it seemed to go so slow that bit........... then he missed  

 

We were a credit that day, I think even Mourinho said that. Moore seemed to put his body in front of everything.