Time for big Nige to return and save us again!

[Guest Basildon Fox]

3 minutes ago, Stinky said:

Oh that's not my point just that I couldn't have read that within a minute

 

That's not my job fortunately, there will hopefully be people at the club sussing this out. But if Nigel Pearson is the only credible candidate then we have declined more in the past 12 months than I originally thought. 

 

I think Stadt sums it up well above, there are aspects to his style we need but there will be managers out there that can have more of an instant impact. 

I think this is clear that we have fallen that far, that quickly.  We will be down to less than 11 senior players come the summer when everyone has gone on a free and we have had a fire sale for the rest.

[inckley fox]

12 minutes ago, Stinky said:

Oh that's not my point just that I couldn't have read that within a minute

 

That's not my job fortunately, there will hopefully be people at the club sussing this out. But if Nigel Pearson is the only credible candidate then we have declined more in the past 12 months than I originally thought. 

 

I think Stadt sums it up well above, there are aspects to his style we need but there will be managers out there that can have more of an instant impact. 

I just think there's an argument that he was the manager and builder of the FLC side to go and achieve the most success that any side has, in the seasons after leaving that league, in around four decades. The side he took up would have to go down as one of the best five or six second tier outfits in the whole history of the game. And in an era where sides just didn't go up and enjoy that sort of journey.

 

If you remove the club names from his CV and just looked at what he and his sides had done, there wouldn't even be a debate.

 

And if we want an instant impact, be prepared for short-termism of Sven and Micky Adams proportions. Do we want to go up playing a style which would have to be radically adapted in the EPL, with a boss like Martin or Farke or Mowbray who wouldn't want to? Or with a squad of loanees and journeymen? I'd prefer to be patient and then reap real benefits.

Edited 18 May 2023 by inckley fox

[Stinkenzo]

8 minutes ago, inckley fox said:

I just think there's an argument that he was the manager and builder of the FLC side to go and achieve the most success that any side has, in the seasons after leaving that league, in around four decades. The side he took up would have to go down as one of the best five or six second tier outfits in the whole history of the game. And in an era where sides just didn't go up and enjoy that sort of journey.

 

If you remove the club names from his CV and just looked at what he and his sides had done, there wouldn't even be a debate.

 

And if we want an instant impact, be prepared for short-termism of Sven and Micky Adams proportions. Do we want to go up playing a style which would have to be radically adapted in the EPL, with a boss like Martin or Farke or Mowbray who wouldn't want to? Or with a squad of loanees and journeymen? I'd prefer to be patient and then reap real benefits.

You're just putting the worst case scenario against an appointment that isn't Pearson though. Why must we wait and be patient in returning because we might get relegated again if we can get get someone in who can take us back inmediately? Fulham have been yoyoing for years and look to have finally nailed it which a manager I wouldn't say resembles Pearson. We built with Pearson for years and spent most of the PL season bottom of the league, not that I want to discredit the recovery. 

 

And what? Pearson's CV? He CV really isn't littered with success is it? He did a cracking job here, and has done a better job than neutrals would think at Bristol City. Besides that?

[dylanlegend]

50 minutes ago, Stinky said:

You're just putting the worst case scenario against an appointment that isn't Pearson though. Why must we wait and be patient in returning because we might get relegated again if we can get get someone in who can take us back inmediately? Fulham have been yoyoing for years and look to have finally nailed it which a manager I wouldn't say resembles Pearson. We built with Pearson for years and spent most of the PL season bottom of the league, not that I want to discredit the recovery. 

 

And what? Pearson's CV? He CV really isn't littered with success is it? He did a cracking job here, and has done a better job than neutrals would think at Bristol City. Besides that?

Got us promoted in his first season in League One. Then did well in championship got us to the playoffs.

 

Built a decent team at Hull who were challenging for promotion. 

 

Continued progression with us following Sven leaving. Got us to the playoffs then with practiclaly the same team won the championship with 100+ points. Kept us up in the PL and even in that season we never got ‘thrashed’ we was always in games and lost by 1 goal. Built the team and mentality which ultimtately led to us winning the Prem in 15/16. Fuchs, Kante, Okazaki we’re all Pearson signings even if we signed them after he left. 

 

Not much time at Derby but fell out with the owner.

 

Leuven not sure but different

 

Watford got some good results (beat Liverpool 3-0 when they nearly went unbeaten for the whole season) , players (Ben Foster) have praised him since. Got unfairly sacked like very one does at Watford.

 

Gradually building a decent team at Bris City with a small budget.

 

Give him our budget and we’d be promoted in 2 seasons.

 

Also, I trust him to identify and sort out our issues. Players like Kasper etc have a lot of praise for NP and I think that’s down to his mentality. I want a manager who holds the respect that players won’t slack and think they are better than they are. Would love him to get stuck into the current squad and put some of them in their place.

[whoareyaaa]

2 hours ago, Stinky said:

You're just putting the worst case scenario against an appointment that isn't Pearson though. Why must we wait and be patient in returning because we might get relegated again if we can get get someone in who can take us back inmediately? Fulham have been yoyoing for years and look to have finally nailed it which a manager I wouldn't say resembles Pearson. We built with Pearson for years and spent most of the PL season bottom of the league, not that I want to discredit the recovery. 

 

And what? Pearson's CV? He CV really isn't littered with success is it? He did a cracking job here, and has done a better job than neutrals would think at Bristol City. Besides that?

Lol he must have told you to FOAD nothing wrong with us going for Pearson, it’s worked before and he possesses exactly what we are missing.

[Stinkenzo]

34 minutes ago, whoareyaaa said:

Lol he must have told you to FOAD nothing wrong with us going for Pearson, it’s worked before and he possesses exactly what we are missing.

For you to come to the conclusion he's told me to FOAD shows you can't have read much of what I've said in here. If he was appointed tomorrow I wouldn't have an issue with it. My point all along has been he is not the only one who possesses traits that we are missing. Why is he not linked with the Southampton job? Why will he not be linked with the Leeds job if they go down? If you ran a poll of all PL and Championship clubs as to who fans would most want to be their new manager, Pearson wouldn't be near the top of any except ours. It's purely sentimental why fans want him back and little to do with what he has achieved since he left us, which is basically steadying the ship at Bristol City. If some total random had done the job he's done there and was then linked with us, we'd laugh it off and feel insulted. There are managers that have multiple promotions from this league such as Parker since Pearson was here that I've seen fans turn their nose up at. 

[Guest Basildon Fox]

12 minutes ago, Stinky said:

For you to come to the conclusion he's told me to FOAD shows you can't have read much of what I've said in here. If he was appointed tomorrow I wouldn't have an issue with it. My point all along has been he is not the only one who possesses traits that we are missing. Why is he not linked with the Southampton job? Why will he not be linked with the Leeds job if they go down? If you ran a poll of all PL and Championship clubs as to who fans would most want to be their new manager, Pearson wouldn't be near the top of any except ours. It's purely sentimental why fans want him back and little to do with what he has achieved since he left us, which is basically steadying the ship at Bristol City. If some total random had done the job he's done there and was then linked with us, we'd laugh it off and feel insulted. There are managers that have multiple promotions from this league such as Parker since Pearson was here that I've seen fans turn their nose up at. 

I am not sure that will be true.  It all depends on what type of squad they will have and who will be left at each club.

 

If we had more players staying then it may be there are a number of candidates available who would take the squad straight back up but we will not be in that position.  We will have to start again, back to square 1 like just after the Sven debacle.

Edited 18 May 2023 by Zaphod Beeblebrox

[Dan]

I love the bloke but I think if we brought him back it's a really damning reflection on us as a club because what we want him for are things that should come from above him in this day and age. We want him to come in and basically be a manager / director of football because of how inept our current one is.

 

I feel like it wouldn't be the right thing to do yet I'm convinced what we will do will be worse.

[splinterdream]

It really was the Pearson/Walsh/Shakespeare trio though wasn’t it, and then Pearsons tactics in 14/15 almost cost us, I really don’t think he would lead us back to the glory years, we had top end scouting that had had us sign some real talent which has been said to be Walsh.

[inckley fox]

3 hours ago, Stinky said:

You're just putting the worst case scenario against an appointment that isn't Pearson though. Why must we wait and be patient in returning because we might get relegated again if we can get get someone in who can take us back inmediately? Fulham have been yoyoing for years and look to have finally nailed it which a manager I wouldn't say resembles Pearson. We built with Pearson for years and spent most of the PL season bottom of the league, not that I want to discredit the recovery. 

 

And what? Pearson's CV? He CV really isn't littered with success is it? He did a cracking job here, and has done a better job than neutrals would think at Bristol City. Besides that?

It's the most probable scenario if you go for unproven managers, or people with inferior records.

 

If a side is relegated one of three things happens. First, you can build a new team, which may take a more than a year. We did this in the FLC last time, and it worked a treat. Brentford did it too. Okay, neither were recently relegated when they did it, but they stand as some of the better examples of how to be promoted and stay promoted. Second, you can depend on surviving talent and add to it, like most teams that bounce back. This isn't really an option because nearly everyone is going to leave. Third, you cobble together what you can from loanees and journeymen and try to bounce straight back up, in which case sides will need to be totally revamped upon promotion. Those teams usually come down within 1-2 years, and almost always struggle.

 

So option one looks best, if we can afford it. Or if we as fans have the patience. I know I'd prefer to be patient for a year or two and go on our journey, than hurry things and go on Fulham's or West Brom's.

 

As I said with Pearson, if we want to appoint a manager based on credentials, then his CV wipes the floor with every other realistic name floated. Just forget for the moment that we were two of those managerial spells:

 

Club 1:  takes over a team in a relegation battle mid-season, just secures tier four survival.

Club 2: slight improvement after mid-season takeover results in FLC survival.

Club 3: instant promotion from third tier, play-offs next year in the second.

Club 4: restructures a side in the FLC after relegation. Gets near the play-offs, leaves, club is promoted with most of the squad he assembled 18 months later.

Club 5: takes 2.5 years to turn a mid-table side into second tier champions. Keeps them up in mid-table. They win the league a year later with team he assembled (on a shoestring).

Club 6: struggles; sacked by a club with huge behind the scenes problems after only a few months in charge.

Club 7: takes a foreign side in relegation trouble in the second tier, falls just short of promotion in Year One, leaves after a massive dip in form in Year Two. Side is promoted 18 months later.

Club 8: adrift at bottom of EPL, sacked with them outside the relegation zone, after which they're relegated.

Club 9: improves team year on year in the FLC with a shoestring budget.

 

Am I being pessimistic about taking a punt on someone who doesn't apparently have the credentials? Maybe, but the reality is that you have a better chance of success in football, or any walk of life, if your approach is to appoint people based on their records rather than based on what you hope their records will be.

 

I don't want you to think that I'm blind to the possibility of anyone other than Pearson being able to succeed. All sorts of managers who favour all sorts of football could succeed. But, for the first time in many years when this conversation comes up, he seems to tick the boxes significantly more than the other suggestions.

[inckley fox]

9 minutes ago, splinterdream said:

It really was the Pearson/Walsh/Shakespeare trio though wasn’t it, and then Pearsons tactics in 14/15 almost cost us, I really don’t think he would lead us back to the glory years, we had top end scouting that had had us sign some real talent which has been said to be Walsh.

Top end scouting which his scout, appointed by him, undertook. A great team which he appointed, twice, and could well appoint again. And as for recruitment, it's curious that Walsh's recruitment was so roundly criticised after Pearson left (we used his targets, for instance, in summer 2016), and at his next club, whereas Bristol City are really quite pleased with the players he's acquired (with virtually no scouting network in situ). Perhaps the fact that at LCFC Pearson specified what he wanted, then green-lighted every signing (except, reportedly, Bakayoko), counts for more than we thought it did. And, conversely, doesn't Rodgers take any of the blame for the scout he appointed, and the green lights he gave to deals?

 

And I wish people would stop focusing so much on the distribution of results in 14/15. We finished mid-table, however we went about it. Was our 4-0 win over Derby in '98 less of a hammering because we scored all our goals in a 20 minute spell? Were we jammy Champions because Spurs had a better ppg than us for the months between December and April? If you say that Pearson was the worst manager in the league for much of the previous season, then you'd also have to say that he was the best for the rest of it. When, in truth, he was neither.

 

As for tactics, it's interesting that people often bought into this utter nonsense that Pearson was an old school motivator, whereas Ranieri, Puel and Rodgers were master tacticians, just because they said they were, and the pundits agreed. I know, first hand, from one of our PL winners that the team thought Ranieri was the worst tactician they'd ever worked for. Ultimately results are the measure of how well your tactics worked. And Pearson got them. The master tacticians, less so (apart from early Rodgers, early Puel, or early Ranieri - who adopted the same style of play as guess who).

[jv1]

I think this one is pretty simple - at championship level there aren’t many better - he wouldn’t be a massive risk either - some potential appointments scare the crap out of me and stink of mid table- I’d trust nige to clear out the knob heads and get us up in that top 6 - I’d take that right now for next year 

[MPH]

15 hours ago, The_77 said:

Would absolutely vote for him for President of the United States. 

 

can you imagine the press conferences?

[norwichfox]

Would love to see Nige back as Director of Football (but not as Manager) we desperately need his input again to put the infrastructure back to where it was when Nige was punted out the door last time.

[eblair]

Thing that was great about Pearson was his ability to build a club greater than sun of its parts.

 

i.e. Walsh as head of recruitment, Shakey as coach and listened to Rennie over injuries

 

Pearson could always identify areas where he might be weak, and keen to lavish praise on to others. Typing this out reminds me why any Leicester fan with more than 2 brain cells love NFP and ended up loathing Rodgers (despite his successes)

[RumbleFox]

Pearson with Kasper as Assistant and I’m tattooing me nob. 

[splinterdream]

3 hours ago, inckley fox said:

Top end scouting which his scout, appointed by him, undertook. A great team which he appointed, twice, and could well appoint again. And as for recruitment, it's curious that Walsh's recruitment was so roundly criticised after Pearson left (we used his targets, for instance, in summer 2016), and at his next club, whereas Bristol City are really quite pleased with the players he's acquired (with virtually no scouting network in situ). Perhaps the fact that at LCFC Pearson specified what he wanted, then green-lighted every signing (except, reportedly, Bakayoko), counts for more than we thought it did. And, conversely, doesn't Rodgers take any of the blame for the scout he appointed, and the green lights he gave to deals?

 

And I wish people would stop focusing so much on the distribution of results in 14/15. We finished mid-table, however we went about it. Was our 4-0 win over Derby in '98 less of a hammering because we scored all our goals in a 20 minute spell? Were we jammy Champions because Spurs had a better ppg than us for the months between December and April? If you say that Pearson was the worst manager in the league for much of the previous season, then you'd also have to say that he was the best for the rest of it. When, in truth, he was neither.

 

As for tactics, it's interesting that people often bought into this utter nonsense that Pearson was an old school motivator, whereas Ranieri, Puel and Rodgers were master tacticians, just because they said they were, and the pundits agreed. I know, first hand, from one of our PL winners that the team thought Ranieri was the worst tactician they'd ever worked for. Ultimately results are the measure of how well your tactics worked. And Pearson got them. The master tacticians, less so (apart from early Rodgers, early Puel, or early Ranieri - who adopted the same style of play as guess who).

Pearsons tactics 14/15 - he went through a period of not playing Albrighton when the team was crying out for him, then he went 5-4-1 for a televised game we were expected to lose, think it was Liverpool, the low block and ball out from cambiasso to vardy worked well and I think we got an unexpected draw, so Pearson stuck with the same system every week and teams just sat back, it was obviously not working but Pearson kept playing it.

 

As for Ranieri, ive no doubt he didn't do much tactically before the games, but his substitutions were perfect every time, without those subs at the right times, we'd never have won it

[inckley fox]

2 hours ago, splinterdream said:

Pearsons tactics 14/15 - he went through a period of not playing Albrighton when the team was crying out for him, then he went 5-4-1 for a televised game we were expected to lose, think it was Liverpool, the low block and ball out from cambiasso to vardy worked well and I think we got an unexpected draw, so Pearson stuck with the same system every week and teams just sat back, it was obviously not working but Pearson kept playing it.

 

As for Ranieri, ive no doubt he didn't do much tactically before the games, but his substitutions were perfect every time, without those subs at the right times, we'd never have won it

He certainly switched to five at the back vs. Arsenal, then mostly stuck with it. We played a back four in the draw at Liverpool, which was a good 5-6 weeks earlier. At least one of the players, and Pearson, went on record as saying that sticking to that shape post-Arsenal was crucial to our survival. We went to a 3-4-1-2 which was occasionally a 3-4-3/5-4-1, and even though it didn't work initially, he allowed it to settle. So I think that's a pretty poor example of Pearson's tactical ineptitude.

 

Tinkering - and no, that's no reference to Year One Claudio, of course - is often confused with tactical nous. It's great when you have loads of options, not so great when you don't, or when you have a set of players who can't adapt.

[Dan]

7 hours ago, splinterdream said:

Pearsons tactics 14/15 - he went through a period of not playing Albrighton when the team was crying out for him, then he went 5-4-1 for a televised game we were expected to lose, think it was Liverpool, the low block and ball out from cambiasso to vardy worked well and I think we got an unexpected draw, so Pearson stuck with the same system every week and teams just sat back, it was obviously not working but Pearson kept playing it.

 

As for Ranieri, ive no doubt he didn't do much tactically before the games, but his substitutions were perfect every time, without those subs at the right times, we'd never have won it

It would appear a certain manager's squander may have played a part here. I am shocked!

[MattFox]

17 hours ago, inckley fox said:

Top end scouting which his scout, appointed by him, undertook. A great team which he appointed, twice, and could well appoint again. And as for recruitment, it's curious that Walsh's recruitment was so roundly criticised after Pearson left (we used his targets, for instance, in summer 2016), and at his next club, whereas Bristol City are really quite pleased with the players he's acquired (with virtually no scouting network in situ). Perhaps the fact that at LCFC Pearson specified what he wanted, then green-lighted every signing (except, reportedly, Bakayoko), counts for more than we thought it did. And, conversely, doesn't Rodgers take any of the blame for the scout he appointed, and the green lights he gave to deals?

 

And I wish people would stop focusing so much on the distribution of results in 14/15. We finished mid-table, however we went about it. Was our 4-0 win over Derby in '98 less of a hammering because we scored all our goals in a 20 minute spell? Were we jammy Champions because Spurs had a better ppg than us for the months between December and April? If you say that Pearson was the worst manager in the league for much of the previous season, then you'd also have to say that he was the best for the rest of it. When, in truth, he was neither.

 

As for tactics, it's interesting that people often bought into this utter nonsense that Pearson was an old school motivator, whereas Ranieri, Puel and Rodgers were master tacticians, just because they said they were, and the pundits agreed. I know, first hand, from one of our PL winners that the team thought Ranieri was the worst tactician they'd ever worked for. Ultimately results are the measure of how well your tactics worked. And Pearson got them. The master tacticians, less so (apart from early Rodgers, early Puel, or early Ranieri - who adopted the same style of play as guess who).

No coincidence we won the league the year Ranieri was flying back to Italy basically every week, and collapsed in the second season when he had more control and was around the place more.

[splinterdream]

13 hours ago, Dan LCFC said:

It would appear a certain manager's squander may have played a part here. I am shocked!

sorry for being a bit thick, not sure what you mean by this. I think Pearson just tried to not get hammered on that day, the opposition expected to walk all over us and pushed up on the press, I remember the commentary were surprised how well it worked, but it just wasn't a system you could use every week, but he did. The bloke is a legend and if he took us on, I'd be indifferent. I think he'd steady the ship but not sure he'd move us on and i wouldn't want to see his legacy here ruined

[whoareyaaa]

On 18/05/2023 at 14:41, splinterdream said:

It really was the Pearson/Walsh/Shakespeare trio though wasn’t it, and then Pearsons tactics in 14/15 almost cost us, I really don’t think he would lead us back to the glory years, we had top end scouting that had had us sign some real talent which has been said to be Walsh.

But we was in every game and played some good football, I think we lost most games by 1 goal.. next season the majority of the same squad went on to win the league, a squad which NP built along with the club but I'm sure he had a major say in the players coming in, you can't deny that.

[The Doctor]

56 minutes ago, splinterdream said:

sorry for being a bit thick, not sure what you mean by this. 

who was the Liverpool manager at the time?

[Spudulike]

So depressing seeing this thread bumping up. Please stop it 

[Arriba Los Zorros]

The lift we would get from having NP back would be worth it in itself.