Ric Flair Posted 7 November 2011 Posted 7 November 2011 But he couldn't get goals out of Fryatt or Waghorn (not when you consider our position and the number of wins we had) and then he signed them again and they still can't score. I'm very worried about his lack of ideas with front players and if we just continue with the current midfield, many of whom are his signings, then we're fooked. Both averaged a goal every 3 starts in The Championship? Not that shabby at all.
l444ry Posted 7 November 2011 Posted 7 November 2011 If Nigetl Pearson is the best we can get then so be it. I just got the impression the club were seeking a more high profile appointment to take the club into a different era. So, all in all, I'm a bit disappointed because Nigel and his football are as dull as dishwater.
Babylon Posted 7 November 2011 Posted 7 November 2011 But he signed those limited players twice and that is what worries me. As a manager I don't see where he has improved when it comes to strikers. Well no he signed Fryatt once, but he got goals out of them both. I also don't believe he's ever had the luxury of going out and spending £2.5/£3.5m on a premier league striker on god knows how much a week as Sven has.
Ric Flair Posted 7 November 2011 Posted 7 November 2011 Spot on, NFP has the highest win ratio when we were playing at the lowest level in our history. It really shouldn't count, horses for courses. His 46% win ratio is better Billy Davies's at Forest, Dave Jones at Cardiff and Roy Keane's at Ipswich or Sunderland. Who else would you give it to? Di Matteo is my choice but we don't seem to be pursuing that route.
Ric Flair Posted 7 November 2011 Posted 7 November 2011 If Nigetl Pearson is the best we can get then so be it. I just got the impression the club were seeking a more high profile appointment to take the club into a different era. So, all in all, I'm a bit disappointed because Nigel and his football are as dull as dishwater. Sense has been discovered on foxestalk! Amen.
Dr The Singh Posted 7 November 2011 Posted 7 November 2011 His 46% win ratio is better Billy Davies's at Forest, Dave Jones at Cardiff and Roy Keane's at Ipswich or Sunderland. Who else would you give it to? Di Matteo is my choice but we don't seem to be pursuing that route. Agreed, I would of went for Harjinder SIngh of JCT Punjab, but he turned the job down, saying were not big enough, and only a top 4 prem club would do!!
I am Rod Hull Posted 7 November 2011 Posted 7 November 2011 At Championship level, Micky Adams has a far better win ratio than Pearson for us (52% against 45%). I don't see many folk calling for him to return. What a ridiculous thing to post... Back on topic... Never expected Pearson to be linked to the job so it came as a bit of a shock. Now its sunk in I`ll be well chuffed if we pull this off. He`s exactly what we need.... Proper manager.... Welcome back Nige....
breadandcheese Posted 7 November 2011 Posted 7 November 2011 If Nigetl Pearson is the best we can get then so be it. I just got the impression the club were seeking a more high profile appointment to take the club into a different era. So, all in all, I'm a bit disappointed because Nigel and his football are as dull as dishwater. Everywhere Pearson has been, he has succeeded, so I think it's unfair to make out like his best is second rate. - His caretaker roles at West Brom and Newcastle were good. - At Southampton, he kept them up at our expense, doing the impossible. He then joined us as Southampton inexplicably let him go. Next season, Southampton got relegated. - We all know his record with us, winning League One at the first attempt (just ask Leeds, Man City, Forest how easy that is) and getting us into the play-offs. - At Hull, despite having to trim his budget, they are higher up the league than us and in and around the playoffs. He may not have a perma-tan, a foreign name, or a Happy Harry persona in the media, but his success speaks for itself. The style of football Pearson plays is similar to the style of football O'Neill plays, yet we would all happily take O'Neill back. It is effective and in patches, we do play good football. I am more than happy with a good manager rather than a name for the sake of it.
accessory Posted 7 November 2011 Posted 7 November 2011 What a ridiculous thing to post... Back on topic... Never expected Pearson to be linked to the job so it came as a bit of a shock. Now its sunk in I`ll be well chuffed if we pull this off. He`s exactly what we need.... Proper manager.... Welcome back Nige.... If you're happy to see us become the new Coventry, good luck to you. Many of us are underwhelmed at what threatens to be the third misjudged managerial appointment in 17 months.
Babylon Posted 7 November 2011 Posted 7 November 2011 All this Mickey Adams / Pearson win ratio stuff.... lets just add one point to that. Mickey Adams was managing a relegated team from the premier league containing players such as Muzzy Izzet amongst others. Nigel Pearson was managing a team he just got promoted from league one with a team made up of mostly free transfers and cast offs. If you're happy to see us become the new Coventry, good luck to you. Many of us are underwhelmed at what threatens to be the third misjudged managerial appointment in 17 months. Come on, who do you want to appoint then?
justfoxes Posted 7 November 2011 Posted 7 November 2011 I know Pearson had done well for us in the past , and a lot of people are saying were going backwards and going back to boring football and does this show the clubs ambition going back for Pearson and not a so called bigger name manager ! But Pearson might do better this time given he'll get a bigger transfer budget than before and a better squad give or take a few !! We as fans won't really have a say who gets the job, but as usual let's sit back and enjoy the ride of being a Leicester City supporter and just back our team as usual as we have the best supporters in the country !!
Burmesefox Posted 7 November 2011 Posted 7 November 2011 But he signed those limited players twice and that is what worries me. As a manager I don't see where he has improved when it comes to strikers. Yes, with limited funds otherwise he would have bought better. You buy with what you have, other =wise he would have made a cheeky bid for Messi.
Guest MattP Posted 7 November 2011 Posted 7 November 2011 If you're happy to see us become the new Coventry, good luck to you. Many of us are underwhelmed at what threatens to be the third misjudged managerial appointment in 17 months. What remote evidence is there to suggest anything like that would happen?
foxfanazer Posted 7 November 2011 Posted 7 November 2011 Everywhere Pearson has been, he has succeeded, so I think it's unfair to make out like his best is second rate. - His caretaker roles at West Brom and Newcastle were good. - At Southampton, he kept them up at our expense, doing the impossible. He then joined us as Southampton inexplicably let him go. Next season, Southampton got relegated. - We all know his record with us, winning League One at the first attempt (just ask Leeds, Man City, Forest how easy that is) and getting us into the play-offs. - At Hull, despite having to trim his budget, they are higher up the league than us and in and around the playoffs. He may not have a perma-tan, a foreign name, or a Happy Harry persona in the media, but his success speaks for itself. The style of football Pearson plays is similar to the style of football O'Neill plays, yet we would all happily take O'Neill back. It is effective and in patches, we do play good football. I am more than happy with a good manager rather than a name for the sake of it. great post
Babylon Posted 7 November 2011 Posted 7 November 2011 and a lot of people are saying were going backwards and going back to boring football supporters in the country !! 6 games with no goals scored this year already, compared to 9/10 in a whole season under Pearson. Bring on the boring football if this is exciting stuff.
accessory Posted 7 November 2011 Posted 7 November 2011 Everywhere Pearson has been, he has succeeded, so I think it's unfair to make out like his best is second rate. - His caretaker roles at West Brom and Newcastle were good. Really? His last game in charge at Newcastle (and his last to date in the top flight) ended in a 6-0 hiding! - At Southampton, he kept them up at our expense, doing the impossible. He then joined us as Southampton inexplicably let him go. Next season, Southampton got relegated. It was our monumental ineptitude which saved the saints that season, not anything special he did. - We all know his record with us, winning League One at the first attempt (just ask Leeds, Man City, Forest how easy that is) and getting us into the play-offs. He did well in League One (as did Matty Fryatt and Steve Howard, among others) but that doesn't prove his ability at the level we should be aiming for. Look how many people on here dismissed Dave Jones and Billy Davies as "play-off bottlers". Yet both of them have better playoff records than Pearson. - At Hull, despite having to trim his budget, they are higher up the league than us and in and around the playoffs. So why are their fans not pleading and begging for him to stay there? He may not have a perma-tan, a foreign name, or a Happy Harry persona in the media, but his success speaks for itself. Success is a relative concept. If you want us to be a top-half Championship side for the next couple of seasons then maybe Pearson could be your man. But we could and should be aiming higher. The style of football Pearson plays is similar to the style of football O'Neill plays, yet we would all happily take O'Neill back. It is effective and in patches, we do play good football. There's no comparison at all. Nineteen blanks in 62 games (a record of nearly one in three) during his time at the KC speaks volumes about the dour, turgid, mind-numbing dross he's served up there all too often (especially in home games). I am more than happy with a good manager rather than a name for the sake of it. Pearson has yet to convince me that he's a good manager. Even Ian Holloway has been able to get a side promoted from this league.
breadandcheese Posted 7 November 2011 Posted 7 November 2011 Really? His last game in charge at Newcastle (and his last to date in the top flight) ended in a 6-0 hiding! It was our monumental ineptitude which saved the saints that season, not anything special he did. He did well in League One (as did Matty Fryatt and Steve Howard, among others) but that doesn't prove his ability at the level we should be aiming for. Look how many people on here dismissed Dave Jones and Billy Davies as "play-off bottlers". Yet both of them have better playoff records than Pearson. So why are their fans not pleading and begging for him to stay there? Success is a relative concept. If you want us to be a top-half Championship side for the next couple of seasons then maybe Pearson could be your man. But we could and should be aiming higher. There's no comparison at all. Nineteen blanks in 62 games (a record of nearly one in three) during his time at the KC speaks volumes about the dour, turgid, mind-numbing dross he's served up there all too often (especially in home games). Pearson has yet to convince me that he's a good manager. Even Ian Holloway has been able to get a side promoted from this league. You write off his success as if it is second rate. There are not many managers at the age of 48 with a CV like his. There is not one major blemish on his CV.
l444ry Posted 7 November 2011 Posted 7 November 2011 Everywhere Pearson has been, he has succeeded, so I think it's unfair to make out like his best is second rate. - His caretaker roles at West Brom and Newcastle were good. - At Southampton, he kept them up at our expense, doing the impossible. He then joined us as Southampton inexplicably let him go. Next season, Southampton got relegated. - We all know his record with us, winning League One at the first attempt (just ask Leeds, Man City, Forest how easy that is) and getting us into the play-offs. - At Hull, despite having to trim his budget, they are higher up the league than us and in and around the playoffs. He may not have a perma-tan, a foreign name, or a Happy Harry persona in the media, but his success speaks for itself. The style of football Pearson plays is similar to the style of football O'Neill plays, yet we would all happily take O'Neill back. It is effective and in patches, we do play good football. I am more than happy with a good manager rather than a name for the sake of it. His football is nothing like O'Neill's. Martin's teams get it wide, get it forward and get 20 odd crosses per game, all with men getting in the box and with an agressive in your face attitude. Nothing like Pearson's at all!! I don't decry Nigel Pearson's record one little bit. He was the perfect manager at the time and put pride back into the club. I just wonder whether this great transfer budget he gets will be spent buying players that can play his dour style style of football even better. Martin O'Neill's teams have always played in the mode we came to love and admire. Nigel Pearson's teams have always been dour. And I'm not sure this leopard will change its spots. Either way, I'm a City supporter and whoever gets the job gets my support also.
nuttytimmy Posted 7 November 2011 Posted 7 November 2011 Surely the only fact of relevance is that we haven't made the playoff places since Pearson left - with a team of young loanees scouted by Steve Walsh and a bunch of cast-offs and frees. Pearson back, with Walsh's eye for a player and money behind them, could be deadly. How can we say we don't want Pearson back now, when most people have been clamouring for O'Neill - who hasn't managed in the Championship since he managed us and hasn't even been in football for a year! (And yes - I know what my sig is)
Leicester Lass Posted 7 November 2011 Posted 7 November 2011 Really? His last game in charge at Newcastle (and his last to date in the top flight) ended in a 6-0 hiding! Sir Alex Ferguson has overseen a 6-1 hiding this season, and Arsene Wenger an 8-2, what's your point? Choosing one game to make a 'point' is pretty absurd. Pearson's record when he was with us was pretty impressive, you cannot argue that he knows how to get results at this level. At this moment in time I'd much rather see us steadily picking up points that playing 'attractive football' and languishing in mid-table as we are currently. As others have said, it is a myth that football under Pearson was negative, sometimes you have no choice but to grind out results, particularly in this league. Our football so far this season hasn't even been easy on the eye, more often than not it has been 'dour, turgid, mind-numbing dross', and to make it worse, we haven't been getting results. In my opinion, Pearson will provide us with the thing we are craving most at the minute, which is consistency.
accessory Posted 7 November 2011 Posted 7 November 2011 All this Mickey Adams / Pearson win ratio stuff.... lets just add one point to that. Mickey Adams was managing a relegated team from the premier league containing players such as Muzzy Izzet amongst others. Nigel Pearson was managing a team he just got promoted from league one with a team made up of mostly free transfers and cast offs. Adams also had to deal with an exodus of players, bust-ups in the squad, administration and a transfer embargo. I'm pretty sure the likes of Hobbs, Fryatt, Oakley, Wellens, Gallagher and Howard were not exactly sold to us on the cheap.
Babylon Posted 7 November 2011 Posted 7 November 2011 I'm pretty sure the likes of Hobbs, Fryatt, Oakley, Wellens, Gallagher and Howard were not exactly sold to us on the cheap. Three of which he didn't buy and the other three may have cost money but got us relegated.
cc_star Posted 7 November 2011 Posted 7 November 2011 Everywhere Pearson has been, he has succeeded, so I think it's unfair to make out like his best is second rate. - His caretaker roles at West Brom and Newcastle were good. - At Southampton, he kept them up at our expense, doing the impossible. He then joined us as Southampton inexplicably let him go. Next season, Southampton got relegated. - We all know his record with us, winning League One at the first attempt (just ask Leeds, Man City, Forest how easy that is) and getting us into the play-offs. - At Hull, despite having to trim his budget, they are higher up the league than us and in and around the playoffs. He may not have a perma-tan, a foreign name, or a Happy Harry persona in the media, but his success speaks for itself. The style of football Pearson plays is similar to the style of football O'Neill plays, yet we would all happily take O'Neill back. It is effective and in patches, we do play good football. I am more than happy with a good manager rather than a name for the sake of it. All correct I think. Aside from that, what is this myth that Pearson played shit football & we've somehow become 70's Brazil since he left? Utter bullshit aside from the Derby game who forgot how to tackle we've been dull as dishwasher this season from the crap 1-0 win against Cov on the opening day right up to Barnsley, Cardiff, Birmingham & Millwall via Bristol City & Reading... We've been shit at times ok in others and just like watching Brazil once Where has these 2 myths come from? Perhaps its been exciting because we're much easier to beat so on the infrequent occasions we've won we've gone overboard about it.
Babylon Posted 7 November 2011 Posted 7 November 2011 Where has these 2 myths come from? Cardiff playoff game at home I think for the shit football thing... although you never see the away game we won mentioned.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.