Thracian Posted 23 October 2010 Author Posted 23 October 2010 I'd consider turning us from free-falling, abysmal relegation material into promotion contenders in the space of about a year with almost no money and previous management experience to be somewhat phenomenal, to be honest. But if you'd rather have had Sousa's attractive bottom-three side then... I can't see that Sousa even comes into the debate.
Finnegan Posted 23 October 2010 Posted 23 October 2010 I can't see that Sousa even comes into the debate. As for the reason for bringing them up, some have suggested we shouldn't have parted company with Pearson at all but it strikes me we are far better off. Given that Sousa and not Sven was Pearson's successor then I'd say he's somewhat integral to the debate of whether or not removing Pearson was a travesty or not.
Thracian Posted 23 October 2010 Author Posted 23 October 2010 Given that Sousa and not Sven was Pearson's successor then I'd say he's somewhat integral to the debate of whether or not removing Pearson was a travesty or not. Not really. Sven wouldn't have been recruited overnight and even without Sousa's brief tenure I don't think Pearson would have survived. Especially as the intended new investors seemed to want a household name.
Finnegan Posted 23 October 2010 Posted 23 October 2010 Not really. Sven wouldn't have been recruited overnight and even without Sousa's brief tenure I don't think Pearson would have survived. Especially as the intended new investors seemed to want a household name. If you're claiming that Sousa was purely a placeholder and that we'd been grooming Sven since Sousa was appointed then you're getting into the realms of the Chandler-esque conspiratorial and I'm not getting involved. As for "Especially as the intended new investors seemed to want a household name" ... yes... that's exactly people's complaints, I believe you're catching up now?
Thracian Posted 23 October 2010 Author Posted 23 October 2010 If you're claiming that Sousa was purely a placeholder and that we'd been grooming Sven since Sousa was appointed then you're getting into the realms of the Chandler-esque conspiratorial and I'm not getting involved. As for "Especially as the intended new investors seemed to want a household name" ... yes... that's exactly people's complaints, I believe you're catching up now? I'm not claiming anything in relation to Sousa, simply stating that Pearson went because the intended new investors saw Sven as a better man to invest their money in. And that I agree with them.
davieG Posted 23 October 2010 Posted 23 October 2010 I'm not so sure. He went to Notts County in L4 thinking that the money and ambition were there for him to be able to do something. And wasn't he rumoured to be in negotiations with a Gulf states league team when we got him. Aye but not as a Football Manager it was in effect a 'business' position.
Edmund Posted 23 October 2010 Posted 23 October 2010 Good post although you're forgetting the appointment of Derek Fazackerley. Another masterstroke by Sven giving the perfect balance in the backroom alongside Powell. Strikes me as a good cop bad cop leadership We were crying out for an authority figure after Pearson left, someone who could contain the dressing room. I don't think the Portuguese duo had that effect as it clearly wasn't part of their football philosophy. In DF we've got just that.
skinnydipper Posted 23 October 2010 Posted 23 October 2010 Aye but not as a Football Manager it was in effect a 'business' position. Not certain of my recollection but wasn't that just to preserve the dignity of the incumbent who had done quite well and got the boot as soon as they stopped winning?
davieG Posted 23 October 2010 Posted 23 October 2010 Not certain of my recollection but wasn't that just to preserve the dignity of the incumbent who had done quite well and got the boot as soon as they stopped winning? Don't think so as he recently expressed how pleased he was to be back on the training ground and in the technical area after being in the boardroom at notts.
skinnydipper Posted 23 October 2010 Posted 23 October 2010 Don't think so as he recently expressed how pleased he was to be back on the training ground and in the technical area after being in the boardroom at notts. Google say DavieG right "Director of Football" A good article about his time there
The Doctor Posted 23 October 2010 Posted 23 October 2010 For all your typically blustering but misguided diatribe, Pearson didn't even get us to the play-offs final let alone win it, we didn't score enough goals (ignoring anything that blunts your argument is, i appreciate, a characteristic of yours) and Pearson had not developed a team with either style or any possible indication that it was capable of elevation to the Premiership. Indeed we hardly had a single player of Premiership quality in our ranks. Sven gives us far more reason to be optimistic of genuine elevation in our status - and with the bonus of some decent football. no, but we would have reached wembley but for some dodgy reffing/an arrogant frenchman. And given our results against blackpool that season, we would would have been favourites to win there that day and probably would have as well. yes sven as manager takes us to the next level but to reach that we had to go through the torture of the sousa era and i think it would be perfectly reasonable to suggest we'd be in a better position now if we'd kept pearson.
rabbid Posted 23 October 2010 Posted 23 October 2010 simply stating that Pearson went because the intended new investors saw Sven as a better man to invest their money in. And that I agree with them. pearson wasnt replaced by ericson!
Kitchandro Posted 24 October 2010 Posted 24 October 2010 no, but we would have reached wembley but for some dodgy reffing/an arrogant frenchman. And given our results against blackpool that season, we would would have been favourites to win there that day and probably would have as well. yes sven as manager takes us to the next level but to reach that we had to go through the torture of the sousa era and i think it would be perfectly reasonable to suggest we'd be in a better position now if we'd kept pearson. Spot on sir! Thracial - if we had kept Pearson in the summer, there is absolutely no doubt that we would be in a better league position than we are now. We may well have been challenging for promotion again - I strongly believe we would have. We were robbed in the play-offs and did the double over Blackpool in the season. We were extremely unlucky not to get to Wembley and DJ is extremely lucky to have gone up with Blackpool because he's shit! He just had a flukey period! I don't care if Sven is the manager now, he's not proved anything yet whereas Pearson had, I'd rather we had him. And finally, I don't think we were boring at all under Pearson. Towards the end of the season especially we were fantastic and scored plenty of goals.
ACF Posted 24 October 2010 Posted 24 October 2010 Stick to your General Chat. Wow, you are a MASSIVE cunt.
Candidcamera Posted 24 October 2010 Posted 24 October 2010 I do think that this post is premature even turning a blind eye on Swansea. Holloway had an impact initially and look what happened. Sven himself has said give him until Christmas before we judge him. I fail entirely to see what Pearson has to do with judging Sven. The only reason he lost the playoff was Wayne Brown's absence. We have all seen for ourselves early this season what a gap there has been at centre half.
Thracian Posted 24 October 2010 Author Posted 24 October 2010 Spot on sir! a) Thracian - if we had kept Pearson in the summer, there is absolutely no doubt that we would be in a better league position than we are now. b) We may well have been challenging for promotion again - I strongly believe we would have. c) We were robbed in the play-offs and did the double over Blackpool in the season. We were extremely unlucky not to get to Wembley. d) DJ is extremely lucky to have gone up with Blackpool because he's shit! He just had a flukey period! I don't care if Sven is the manager now, he's not proved anything yet whereas Pearson had, I'd rather we had him. e) And finally, I don't think we were boring at all under Pearson. Towards the end of the season especially we were fantastic and scored plenty of goals. a) Agree. We could hardly have done worse. b) Perhaps. But it was Pearsons players who gave us our poor start to the season, unlucky as they were in seeing perfectly god goals disallowed. c) How conveniently you forget that we didn't even raise a gallop in the first leg. We had our chance to win, but lost. What might have happened against Blackpool is irrelevent but I'd certainly never think of Blackpool as a banker win. d) DJ consistently scored goals for Blackpool in two spells and was instrumental in getting them up. Some fluke! e) Yes when we were forced to go for it cos we had nothing to lose we did well, which only emphasises the negativity of our overall approach. Because, unfortunately when we did have things to lose we were cagey. Ipswich away 0-0 in a game we should have won easily. S****horpe 1-1 (dominated until our goal then went all negative), Barnsley 0-1 (never tried to attack and win the match. hardly had a shot), Doncaster 0-0 (sheer tedium), Cardiff in the play off first leg (didn't dare attack the game). And there were more. Total goals scored 61. (Nothing like enough to match the 90 and 89 that earned automatic promotion or to be an attractive side).
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.