Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
jonthefox

The "do they mean us?" thread

By jonthefox, in Leicester City Forum

Recommended Posts

dogadug

dogadug

Posted
Posted

No I would have sacked him for choosing to start a season with Morgan and Konchesky playing.

For playing 5 at the back with full backs.

For not playing Albrighton regularly from earlier on.

For bringing on Albrighton and taking off Ulloa or vice versa.

There were a fair number of reasons at the time.

 

Literally every manager would be out of a job if you analysed every decision they've made over the course of the season. I'm sure even some Chelsea fans were unhappy with a few of the teams picked and decisions made by Mourinho over the course of the season! The positives from NP far outweigh the negatives, so have no idea why you and everyone else on there always focus on the few negatives rather than enjoying and celebrating the positives?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hackneyfox

hackneyfox

Posted
Posted

Literally every manager would be out of a job if you analysed every decision they've made over the course of the season. I'm sure even some Chelsea fans were unhappy with a few of the teams picked and decisions made by Mourinho over the course of the season! The positives from NP far outweigh the negatives, so have no idea why you and everyone else on there always focus on the few negatives rather than enjoying and celebrating the positives?

There were no positives after the Man U game until recently or very certainly very few.

I wouldn't have gone into a season with a defence including Morgan, Kinchesky and Simpson.

Morgan has got away with it since the signing of Huth, I'd like to see him replaced for next season.

Bet the bentleys roof ****** are the ones who were gutted when Sven left and believed he would have got us promoted. They know absolutely nothing about football.

******?

What a **** you are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Corky

Corky

Posted
Posted

Pearson is only the third manager since 1977, along with Milne and O'Neill, not to be involved in a relegation season from the top flight. And there are some popular managers in there including Wallace and Little.

 

Those two plus McLintock, Hamilton, McGhee, Taylor, Bassett and Adams all had a relegation at least partly to their name, often only being at the club for one season.

 

It won't mean he'll get a statue or an award for it but recent history favours a relegation for a Leicester City top flight manager and Pearson has avoided joining that list so far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bovril

bovril

Posted
Posted

I've never known a manager divide opinion like Pearson. Most of the opinions about him on BR are nonsense, but some of the reactions on this board are similarly bizarre. If I posted that Martin O'Neill comes across as a bit of awkward twat (he often does) hardly an eyelid would be batted, so why so sensitive over Pearson? To the point when people feel they need to write cringing apologies for ever doubting our benevolent leader.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Corky

Corky

Posted
Posted

I've never known a manager divide opinion like Pearson. Most of the opinions about him on BR are nonsense, but some of the reactions on this board are similarly bizarre. If I posted that Martin O'Neill comes across as a bit of awkward twat (he often does) hardly an eyelid would be batted, so why so sensitive over Pearson? To the point when people feel they need to write cringing apologies for ever doubting our benevolent leader.

 

The likes of Bassett, Levein, Kelly, Holloway, Sousa just weren't very good, for whatever reason. Sven wasn't around long enough to form a staunch opinion one way or the other. Adams had credit for getting the team promoted but the amount of points lost, style of football and ridiculous recruitment policy of signing mainly over-35s lost him some goodwill after that. O'Neill is almost universally loved, Taylor pretty much loathed.

 

Pearson is an interesting case. The supporters will point to getting two promotions, two play offs and a survival in the Premier League in five full seasons, the entertaining football that has been served and the fact he's been so much better than the four or so predecessors and the two in between his spells in charge. 

The detractors will point to his often naive tactics, his manner with the press, issues with supporters, the more negative football we've played, also the fact he is better in recent years than a lot of rubbish and we probably shouldn't have been there in the first place. We have had some appalling runs of form at points in seasons too.

 

Taking out the extreme views on either side, I think most will appreciate that, on balance, he's been good for the club. He took over a mess seven years ago and were he to leave next week we are far healthier on and off the pitch. He's not Bloomfield, O'Neill or Gillies' level but in the next group of Wallace and Milne among others.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ScouseFox

ScouseFox

Posted
Posted

I've never known a manager divide opinion like Pearson. Most of the opinions about him on BR are nonsense, but some of the reactions on this board are similarly bizarre. If I posted that Martin O'Neill comes across as a bit of awkward twat (he often does) hardly an eyelid would be batted, so why so sensitive over Pearson? To the point when people feel they need to write cringing apologies for ever doubting our benevolent leader.

Because it's rare any of the "haters" say things like "he comes across as a bit of an awkward twat". They say he is a clown who should be sacked for... getting us promoted as champions (twice) and keeping us up.

If you'd have come on here just after we'd won the league cup and said "MON WAT A CLOWN COCO THE ONIEL CLOWN MAN lol SACK HIM THE IDIOT BETTER OFF OUT HIM CLOWN FACE" you would've been ridiculed, quite rightly.

Pearson is a bit of a twat, everyone knows that. He's our loveable old twat though. Like the uncle nobody really likes but he's your uncle so you let him give you a nuggy on your birthday and he produces the goods with the presents so you just forgive him. Nobody would argue that. People will continue to argue and ridicule idiots on bentley's roof saying we should sack him a matter of hours after our greatest escape, just a few years after he took us out of the third tier, then won the second.

Tactically inept lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Babylon

Babylon

Posted
Posted

The likes of Bassett, Levein, Kelly, Holloway, Sousa just weren't very good, for whatever reason. Sven wasn't around long enough to form a staunch opinion one way or the other. Adams had credit for getting the team promoted but the amount of points lost, style of football and ridiculous recruitment policy of signing mainly over-35s lost him some goodwill after that. O'Neill is almost universally loved, Taylor pretty much loathed.

Pearson is an interesting case. The supporters will point to getting two promotions, two play offs and a survival in the Premier League in five full seasons, the entertaining football that has been served and the fact he's been so much better than the four or so predecessors and the two in between his spells in charge.

The detractors will point to his often naive tactics, his manner with the press, issues with supporters, the more negative football we've played, also the fact he is better in recent years than a lot of rubbish and we probably shouldn't have been there in the first place. We have had some appalling runs of form at points in seasons too.

Taking out the extreme views on either side, I think most will appreciate that, on balance, he's been good for the club. He took over a mess seven years ago and were he to leave next week we are far healthier on and off the pitch. He's not Bloomfield, O'Neill or Gillies' level but in the next group of Wallace and Milne among others.

A fair summary!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hackneyfox

hackneyfox

Posted
Posted

I think it's fairly obvious Pearson didn't choose to not play Albrighton, rather he wasn't able to. I assumed he wasn't fit enough.

Yet he did play games and was then dropped.

He disappeared off the bench after 'the sacking' which seemed strange.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hackneyfox

hackneyfox

Posted
Posted

The likes of Bassett, Levein, Kelly, Holloway, Sousa just weren't very good, for whatever reason. Sven wasn't around long enough to form a staunch opinion one way or the other. Adams had credit for getting the team promoted but the amount of points lost, style of football and ridiculous recruitment policy of signing mainly over-35s lost him some goodwill after that. O'Neill is almost universally loved, Taylor pretty much loathed.

 

Pearson is an interesting case. The supporters will point to getting two promotions, two play offs and a survival in the Premier League in five full seasons, the entertaining football that has been served and the fact he's been so much better than the four or so predecessors and the two in between his spells in charge. 

The detractors will point to his often naive tactics, his manner with the press, issues with supporters, the more negative football we've played, also the fact he is better in recent years than a lot of rubbish and we probably shouldn't have been there in the first place. We have had some appalling runs of form at points in seasons too.

 

Taking out the extreme views on either side, I think most will appreciate that, on balance, he's been good for the club. He took over a mess seven years ago and were he to leave next week we are far healthier on and off the pitch. He's not Bloomfield, O'Neill or Gillies' level but in the next group of Wallace and Milne among others.

Think you've summed it up well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Stadt

Stadt

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted (edited)

What I don't understand about the anti-Pearson brigade is the absolute venom with which they berate him, you might not think he's up to the job or you might think he's out of his depth but there's no need for the vitriol for a manager who has been very successful for us.

Another thing that grates on the 'Pearsonites' is how quickly he gets written off when he's proven that he usually learns in the end albeit slowly. There's usually a clamour for an unrealistic or worse/similar target which is frustrating too.

Pearson is by no means perfect and sometimes the Pearsonites' (myself included) are perhaps too rash to defend him almost unconditionally but there's a frustration borne out of people that are completely irrational, people with 39 posts with all of them criticising Pearson that disappear when things are going well and people that are desperate to be proved right about him being a clown.

There's not a Pearson in clique or whatever but 90% of Pearson out posts are based on myths, vitriol, raging pessimism or just a dislike of the man, so Pearsonites get fed up with repetitive drivel; that gets 'shutdown' whilst well reasoned arguments are welcome but it's the scarcity of them which makes the in/out debates so mind-numbing.

Edited by Wookie
  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...