davieG Posted 7 July 2010 Posted 7 July 2010 From the Merc. At first glance, former Leicester City boss Nigel Pearson and his successor Paulo Sousa appear not so much chalk and cheese, as granite and gorgonzola, writes Rob Tanner. City owner Milan Mandaric could not have acquired a more different manager to step into Pearson's shoes than the former Portugal international. They are at opposite ends of the football spectrum – or so it would seem. As players, Pearson was made very much in the traditional English mould. An uncompromising and reliable centre-back, he led Sheffield Wednesday and then Middlesbrough to Wembley. No frills, no spills – Pearson got the job done and led by example. An organiser and a role model, his team-mates looked up to him. Sousa was a true cosmopolitan midfielder and one of Portugal's Golden Generation, which included Louis Figo. He played more than 50 times for his country, but also enjoyed huge success in domestic football in Portugal,Italy, Germany, Greece and Spain, winning back-to-back Champions League titles with Juventus and Borussia Dortmund. As managers, they appear very different too. Pearson is a real tracksuit manager, who is very rarely seen out of his training kit. He was the Gaffer, the Boss. By contrast, Sousa is always immaculately dressed in a smart suit and, like most continental managers, has developed a love of a smartly-folded scarf to keep out the rigours of the English winter. His long, distinguished greying hair is more Vidal Sassoon, while Pearson's military style is more back-street barber. Pearson is quiet and understated, but can communicate with his players with just a cold, hard stare, although he is no shrinking violet when he wants to get his point across, to his team or to the officials. However, he normally appears restrained and in control. Sousa is constantly animated in the technical area and delivers his instructions with the exuberance, expressiveness and flamboyance associated with continental coaches. While you never quite know what Pearson is thinking, you are left in no doubt as to what is on Sousa's mind as he displays his emotion. Pearson has fantastic contacts within the domestic game and has unearthed some young, English gems, while Sousa knows the continental game inside out and has an international contacts book. While Pearson's City side were certainly no long-ball team, they could mix it up between going direct and keeping it neat and tidy, but they weren't averse to getting the ball forward quickly to the danger men. Sousa's City will be considerably more patient and will constantly build from the back. In fact, one criticism leveled at Sousa was that his Swansea side over-played last season and didn't get the ball into the danger areas quickly enough, resulting in the worst goal-scoring record in the division. But they share a belief in defensive strength providing a firm foundation, that you have to still be in it to win it, and keeping clean sheets is the key. Neither enjoy the media side of management either, but while Pearson gives nothing away in press conferences, Sousa's passion cost him his job at Queens Park Rangers. His reign lasted just 26 games until he revealed in a post-match press conference that his main striker, Dexter Blackstock, was being loaned out to Nottingham Forest without his knowledge. He was sacked by the QPR hierarchy "for divulging sensitive information''. Another similarity between the managers is that both are very much their own men. As Sousa proved in that QPR incident, he is no one's puppet and he will not compromise his beliefs on how to develop a successful team. He appears to share Pearson's philosophy that it is his neck on the chopping block if results are not forthcoming, so he may as well do the job his way. There will be no question of who is pulling the strings on the playing side of the club. Despite the apparent differences between the two, the one precious commodity both Pearson and Sousa share is that they are winners. Both proved it as players and, after adding a League One Championship title to his managerial CV, and taking City to the play-offs last season, Pearson's stock is rising as a manager. Thirty-nine-year-old Sousa is still very much in the fledgling years of his managerial career and, while his Swansea side faltered at the end of last season and missed out on the play-offs, it was their highest finish for 27 years. He is highly thought-of too. They may have their different methods, but Sousa and Pearson share a common goal – to build a successful football team. They may not exactly be peas from the same pod, but they are from the same allotment.
MrSpaM Posted 7 July 2010 Posted 7 July 2010 From the Merc. While Pearson's City side were certainly no long-ball team, they could mix it up between going direct and keeping it neat and tidy, but they weren't averse to getting the ball forward quickly to the danger men. Has the LM been watching the same games as us?
marbelladave Posted 7 July 2010 Posted 7 July 2010 I must have been watching a different game team...
Guest Posted 7 July 2010 Posted 7 July 2010 See I don't think we were just a long ball team, sure there were some matches when that's all we were but to label us as one dimensional under Pearson isn't doing the team justice in my opinion.
dandannieldanok Posted 7 July 2010 Posted 7 July 2010 Why do the Mercury feel the need to have to publish these scrape-the-barrel articles every once in a while. Anyone with at least vague knowledge of football will not be comparing the managers from the stance of their respective clothes and hairstyle.
irDeano Posted 7 July 2010 Posted 7 July 2010 "They may have their different methods, but Sousa and Pearson share a common goal – to build a successful football team." surely you could say that about any manager though?
Jordan Posted 7 July 2010 Posted 7 July 2010 Pearson' date=' ever the drill-sergeant, used his intensity and intimidating presence as ways to overcompensate for his repressed sexual urges. Sousa, on the other hand, is the quintessential continental manager. The former Portuguese star is stylish, flamboyant, scarf-wearing--really, any word or phrase that evokes gayness will do.[/quote']
Corky Posted 7 July 2010 Posted 7 July 2010 See I don't think we were just a long ball team, sure there were some matches when that's all we were but to label us as one dimensional under Pearson isn't doing the team justice in my opinion.
marbelladave Posted 7 July 2010 Posted 7 July 2010 See I don't think we were just a long ball team, sure there were some matches when that's all we were but to label us as one dimensional under Pearson isn't doing the team justice in my opinion. One for me I think... We played was is politely known as 'direct' or 'percentage' football, the ball is got forward quickly and we contest hard for the second ball. If we have a big man (Howard) sometimes he can hold up the ball and play team mates in but mostly when we have a little man (Fryatt or Waghorn) it comes back off their defenders and we challenge hard for possession. Sometimes the second balls fall in your favour, sometimes it does not, which is why you can play mediocre one day and lose, and put in the same performance the next and win. Under Pearson we were organised, strong and determined, so we won rather more than we lost, simple as. There were some occasions when we tried to play a passing game but I clearly recall several occasions when we were being quite tidy, keeping possession well, yet Pearson (and others) on the sidelines was screaming at the players to get the ball forward more quickly... Against decent opposition (in generally short supply in the Championship last season) all this succeeded in doing was giving the ball back to the opposition as quickly as possible, if we were lucky and got a goal in front, we invariably sat back and defended deep, our 'direct' approach descended into the worst form of hoof ball.
MrSpaM Posted 7 July 2010 Posted 7 July 2010 See I don't think we were just a long ball team, sure there were some matches when that's all we were but to label us as one dimensional under Pearson isn't doing the team justice in my opinion. I'm not really labeling us as a long ball team, couldnt help but notice last season that every time we started hoofing it up the pitch was when we started to look shakey, it never worked for us really (bar Waghorns goal at Coventry) but pearson just kept on setting us up like that regardless. I'm hoping Saosa's going to get us playing proper passing football.
gazzer Posted 7 July 2010 Posted 7 July 2010 well it's a personal watershed... .. the first ever City manager younger than me
Flynny Posted 7 July 2010 Posted 7 July 2010 One for me I think... We played was is politely known as 'direct' or 'percentage' football, the ball is got forward quickly and we contest hard for the second ball. If we have a big man (Howard) sometimes he can hold up the ball and play team mates in but mostly when we have a little man (Fryatt or Waghorn) it comes back off their defenders and we challenge hard for possession. Sometimes the second balls fall in your favour, sometimes it does not, which is why you can play mediocre one day and lose, and put in the same performance the next and win. Under Pearson we were organised, strong and determined, so we won rather more than we lost, simple as. There were some occasions when we tried to play a passing game but I clearly recall several occasions when we were being quite tidy, keeping possession well, yet Pearson (and others) on the sidelines was screaming at the players to get the ball forward more quickly... Against decent opposition (in generally short supply in the Championship last season) all this succeeded in doing was giving the ball back to the opposition as quickly as possible, if we were lucky and got a goal in front, we invariably sat back and defended deep, our 'direct' approach descended into the worst form of hoof ball. Good analysis. What I found odd was that we often tried to match teams strengths rather than exploiting their weaknesses. Early on in the season QPR were playing great football and we started trying to pass the ball around like Arsenal. That game was fantastic and it was a good win but it was nerve-wracking. Conversely, when we played teams with Neanderthal defences and tough-tackling midfields, we often resorted to long-ball tactics rather than zipping around them with guile as we probably could have done. If we have a manager preaching short-passing and movement combined with a squad that know how to play directly we could be better able to do whatever works.
marbelladave Posted 7 July 2010 Posted 7 July 2010 Good analysis. What I found odd was that we often tried to match teams strengths rather than exploiting their weaknesses. Early on in the season QPR were playing great football and we started trying to pass the ball around like Arsenal. That game was fantastic and it was a good win but it was nerve-wracking. Conversely, when we played teams with Neanderthal defences and tough-tackling midfields, we often resorted to long-ball tactics rather than zipping around them with guile as we probably could have done. If we have a manager preaching short-passing and movement combined with a squad that know how to play directly we could be better able to do whatever works. Worrying about the opposition rather than concentrating on your own game is one of the most negative things in football. Give the opposition some respect, work out their strengths and weaknesses by all means but, in the main, play your own game and let the opposition worry about you!
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.