Fox92 Posted 21 February 2014 Posted 21 February 2014 Always liked and rated Pearson. Said all along to stick with him. That was my opinion then, and it still stands now. I'm not going to shove it in anybody's face who said the opposite should we get promoted, though.
LanguedocFox Posted 21 February 2014 Posted 21 February 2014 what a lot of hot air! I was one of the biggest critics of Sven at a time when most were kissing his bottom. If I remember rightly, I think you were pretty defensive of him at the time? And City weren't too good when O'Neil took over were they? He came in and changed half the first team as soon as he could. Go back thru the threads and read how many people were overjoyed at the thought of signing Mills and Beckford. How time distorts stuff.. I don't know... How is it hot air? The team that MON took over was doing much better than the teams that Pearson inherited: the manager he took over from wasn't sacked because he was useless, he was headhunted because he was thought to be good (unlike either Holloway or Eriksson). The quality of the team that MON inherited is shown by the fact that all bar three players (Claridge, Lennon and Izzet) who played against Palace in the play-off final were there when he took over in December 1995. That's not hot air: it''s fact.
Guest Col city fan Posted 21 February 2014 Posted 21 February 2014 So, let me get this right... you think taking over a team 3rd at the end of December sitting just two points off top ISN'T a better team to inherit than one sitting 13th and 14 points from the top in November? Weren't that good when O'Neill took over? We were two points off the top, playing good football. Why do you think Wolves wanted Magoo from us? We dropped like a stone when O'Neill joined, and yes he changed the team to become one that would end up being greater than what he took over, but that's not what I was saying at all. You seem to be completely missing a very simple point, for the sake of getting into an argument. I have absolutely no idea what you are waffling on about, this isn't about what people thought they were inheriting, or how good people thought players were. It's about facts, and the facts are they were shit, and they still are shit. The team Pearson has inherited both times has been nowhere near as good as the team O'Neill inherited, league positions quite clearly show that. It's not even a debatable point. As for being defensive of Sven, yes I was. I will be of almost every manager we get unless they are a shambles. I believe in giving managers time to prove themselves good enough or not. Your slating of him after a few weeks was as misguided as those doing the same to Pearson. There is no way of knowing how it will end up after that sort of time. There is no way the two sides can be compared! Who knows? Maybe the players wanted to play for McGhee and not for Martin.. therefore O'Neill inherited a problematic squad? What about the teams in the divisions at the time? Were they generally weaker in the O'Neill season than when Pearson took over? Who knows? What is the case is that the majority of people believed that Pearson took over a strong squad of players who required his guidance to get out of them what Sven couldn't. Finally, if you couldn't see that Sven was going to be one of the biggest faux pa's the club has ever made, then you were blinkered. Perhaps you should have said something earlier? With more pressure, the club might have brought Pearson back sooner. There's no point in fence-sitting mate, make your decision and stick with it.
Guest Col city fan Posted 21 February 2014 Posted 21 February 2014 How is it hot air? The team that MON took over was doing much better than the teams that Pearson inherited: the manager he took over from wasn't sacked because he was useless, he was headhunted because he was thought to be good (unlike either Holloway or Eriksson). The quality of the team that MON inherited is shown by the fact that all bar three players (Claridge, Lennon and Izzet) who played against Palace in the play-off final were there when he took over in December 1995. That's not hot air: it''s fact. All except Lennon, Izzett and Claridge?? Thats like eating a bar of fruit and nut, without the chocolate bit..
Corky Posted 21 February 2014 Posted 21 February 2014 what a lot of hot air! I was one of the biggest critics of Sven at a time when most were kissing his bottom. If I remember rightly, I think you were pretty defensive of him at the time? And City weren't too good when O'Neil took over were they? He came in and changed half the first team as soon as he could. Go back thru the threads and read how many people were overjoyed at the thought of signing Mills and Beckford. How time distorts stuff.. I don't know... We were third when O'Neill took over, slid down to 10th in February before finishing fifth. Quite similar to Holloway at Palace last season. O'Neill was phenomenal in the Premier League but before mid-April 1996 he wasn't all that special. Pearson in his first two years took us from a relegated rabble to a penalty shoot-out from Wembley, if anything his performance during that season triumphed O'Neill's half season before the play-offs. He didn't do enough during his first six months back after Sven left, but with his own players and squad we are performing. And the players he let go have proved to be nothing special and not missed at all.
Babylon Posted 21 February 2014 Posted 21 February 2014 There is no way the two sides can be compared! Who knows? Maybe the players wanted to play for McGhee and not for Martin.. therefore O'Neill inherited a problematic squad? What about the teams in the divisions at the time? Were they generally weaker in the O'Neill season than when Pearson took over? Who knows? What is the case is that the majority of people believed that Pearson took over a strong squad of players who required his guidance to get out of them what Sven couldn't. Finally, if you couldn't see that Sven was going to be one of the biggest faux pa's the club has ever made, then you were blinkered. Perhaps you should have said something earlier? With more pressure, the club might have brought Pearson back sooner. There's no point in fence-sitting mate, make your decision and stick with it. Jesus ****ing Christ, I hope for your sake you are being purposely obtuse. There is no way the two sides can be compared! Who knows? Maybe the players wanted to play for McGhee and not for Martin.. therefore O'Neill inherited a problematic squad? What about the teams in the divisions at the time? Were they generally weaker in the O'Neill season than when Pearson took over? Who knows? This isn't a hard thing to grasp, the team O'Neill inherited WAS without question one of the best teams in the division. It had proven itself already with promotion under Little, and then by sitting 3rd in the table challenging for promotion. The ones Pearson took over had proved nothing, done nothing, were 13th and miles form the top of the league, and were quite clearly not one of the best in the league. What is the case is that the majority of people believed that Pearson took over a strong squad of players who required his guidance to get out of them what Sven couldn't. Sigh... it doesn't matter what people believed to be the case. It's about what it actually was, and it was 13th in the league. "People" were clearly wrong. Finally, if you couldn't see that Sven was going to be one of the biggest faux pa's the club has ever made, then you were blinkered. Perhaps you should have said something earlier? With more pressure, the club might have brought Pearson back sooner. There's no point in fence-sitting mate, make your decision and stick with it. It's not about fence sitting, it's about giving people a chance!!! Why would I say something about him when to me it wasn't clear he was crap? How could anyone say he was crap when we went on a storming run under him? He ****ed it up with the signings he made with the likes of Bruma and then in the summer with Beckord etc.
Babylon Posted 21 February 2014 Posted 21 February 2014 All except Lennon, Izzett and Claridge?? Thats like eating a bar of fruit and nut, without the chocolate bit..
Guest Col city fan Posted 21 February 2014 Posted 21 February 2014 We were third when O'Neill took over, slid down to 10th in February before finishing fifth. Quite similar to Holloway at Palace last season. O'Neill was phenomenal in the Premier League but before mid-April 1996 he wasn't all that special. Pearson in his first two years took us from a relegated rabble to a penalty shoot-out from Wembley, if anything his performance during that season triumphed O'Neill's half season before the play-offs. He didn't do enough during his first six months back after Sven left, but with his own players and squad we are performing. And the players he let go have proved to be nothing special and not missed at all. I'm raiding the memory banks a little here but wasn't the general feeling that our 'lofty' position under McGhee was a little false? Like being top under Taylor, but to a lesser degree? We'd played some nice football yes, but weren't we starting to leave ourselves very exposed defensively? I might be making that up, its a long time ago, but I think it was felt that the wheels could well come off under McGhee and that O'Neill would rebuild because he had to? I remember the tide turned completely with the signing of Claridge. Finally, we had a real goal threat and a foil for big Emile. I remember no-one really shed a tear when Mark McGhee left. We didn't really take to him.
Guest Col city fan Posted 21 February 2014 Posted 21 February 2014 Completely true.. the spine of the team was in place with these three.They made all the difference. Yes we were 13th in the league under Sven.. a couple of points or so off play-offs I believe? If you REALLY think that most people didn't believe that Nige would take Sven's squad and at least get them into the play-offs that season, again you have a short memory. Go back thru the threads.
LanguedocFox Posted 21 February 2014 Posted 21 February 2014 All except Lennon, Izzett and Claridge?? Thats like eating a bar of fruit and nut, without the chocolate bit.. There are eleven players in a football team, plus half a dozen more on the bench. O'Neill benefitted from having a good set of players who were playing in a successful team: Lennon, Izzett and Claridge were brilliant, but they added to what was already there. Pearson had to do a rebuilding job.
Babylon Posted 21 February 2014 Posted 21 February 2014 They hadn't come off and didn't come off under him so we will never know, we'd been in the premier league the season before! People went f'ing mental when Magoo left and we sang about the **** for about 5 years after his departure before every game. So obviously we were a wee bit annoyed. I'm raiding the memory banks a little here but wasn't the general feeling that our 'lofty' position under McGhee was a little false? Like being top under Taylor, but to a lesser degree? We'd played some nice football yes, but weren't we starting to leave ourselves very exposed defensively?I might be making that up, its a long time ago, but I think it was felt that the wheels could well come off under McGhee and that O'Neill would rebuild because he had to? I remember the tide turned completely with the signing of Claridge. Finally, we had a real goal threat and a foil for big Emile.I remember no-one really shed a tear when Mark McGhee left. We didn't really take to him.
Corky Posted 21 February 2014 Posted 21 February 2014 There are eleven players in a football team, plus half a dozen more on the bench. O'Neill benefitted from having a good set of players who were playing in a successful team: Lennon, Izzett and Claridge were brilliant, but they added to what was already there. Pearson had to do a rebuilding job. Yep, took on a prolific striker in Roberts, fine keeper in Poole, solid, dependable full backs in Grayson and Whitlow along with a midfield including Parker and Taylor.
Babylon Posted 21 February 2014 Posted 21 February 2014 Completely true.. the spine of the team was in place with these three. They made all the difference. Yes we were 13th in the league under Sven.. a couple of points or so off play-offs I believe? If you REALLY think that most people didn't believe that Nige would take Sven's squad and at least get them into the play-offs that season, again you have a short memory. Go back thru the threads. They made the difference, really? Because we were 3rd without them and finished 5th with them. I'm not doubting what they did for us, or they ended up better than what they replaced. But that season, we had already been doing better without them. Yes we were 13th in the league under Sven.. a couple of points or so off play-offs I believe? If you REALLY think that most people didn't believe that Nige would take Sven's squad and at least get them into the play-offs that season, again you have a short memory. Go back thru the threads. READ. THE. POSTS. This is not about what people BELIEVED it is about FACT. "People" believed Vardy was shite and Beckford would be the one that got away at the start of this very season. "People" are wrong, facts are not.
Guest Col city fan Posted 21 February 2014 Posted 21 February 2014 There are eleven players in a football team, plus half a dozen more on the bench. O'Neill benefitted from having a good set of players who were playing in a successful team: Lennon, Izzett and Claridge were brilliant, but they added to what was already there. Pearson had to do a rebuilding job. See above... The bulk of people believed that Pearson had inherited a very good squad, and that Sven was the problem: Kasper, Konch, Wellens, King, Dyer, Nugent, Mills, Beckford..... and others...if anyone could turn those around, it was felt, Pearson could.
LanguedocFox Posted 21 February 2014 Posted 21 February 2014 I'm raiding the memory banks a little here but wasn't the general feeling that our 'lofty' position under McGhee was a little false? Like being top under Taylor, but to a lesser degree? We'd played some nice football yes, but weren't we starting to leave ourselves very exposed defensively? I might be making that up, its a long time ago, but I think it was felt that the wheels could well come off under McGhee and that O'Neill would rebuild because he had to? I remember the tide turned completely with the signing of Claridge. Finally, we had a real goal threat and a foil for big Emile. I remember no-one really shed a tear when Mark McGhee left. We didn't really take to him. I think your memory is playing tricks. McGhee brought in some good players (although he also inherited a good team from Brian Little) and before he left in December 95, we had been top of the division for eight weeks and second for another five: Nothing like Taylor's false dawn. Statto.com has the figures - http://www.statto.com/football/teams/leicester-city/1995-1996 . MON's first match was number 23, a two-all draw away to Grimsby when we were third - the last time we were that high all season.
Babylon Posted 21 February 2014 Posted 21 February 2014 I think your memory is playing tricks. McGhee brought in some good players (although he also inherited a good team from Brian Little) and before he left in December 95, we had been top of the division for eight weeks and second for another five: Nothing like Taylor's false dawn. Statto.com has the figures - http://www.statto.com/football/teams/leicester-city/1995-1996 . MON's first match was number 23, a two-all draw away to Grimsby when we were third - the last time we were that high all season. Jamie Lawrence, Gary Parker, Scott Taylor, Corica, Kamark all signed by him and good performers that year and beyond for some of them.
Guest Col city fan Posted 21 February 2014 Posted 21 February 2014 I think your memory is playing tricks. McGhee brought in some good players (although he also inherited a good team from Brian Little) and before he left in December 95, we had been top of the division for eight weeks and second for another five: Nothing like Taylor's false dawn. Statto.com has the figures - http://www.statto.com/football/teams/leicester-city/1995-1996 . MON's first match was number 23, a two-all draw away to Grimsby when we were third - the last time we were that high all season. Yes we had... but the feeling was that we wouldn't stay third. I don't have the stats, but hadn't we started to lose some under McGhee? If not, I bow to your superior info. I simply recollect that we were starting to look shaky some time before McGhee went.
LanguedocFox Posted 21 February 2014 Posted 21 February 2014 Jamie Lawrence, Gary Parker, Scott Taylor, Corica, Kamark all signed by him and good performers that year and beyond for some of them. Not to mention future Inter Milan keeper Spider Kalak.
Babylon Posted 21 February 2014 Posted 21 February 2014 Yes we had... but the feeling was that we wouldn't stay third. I don't have the stats, but hadn't we started to lose some under McGhee? If not, I bow to your superior info. I simply recollect that we were starting to look shaky some time before McGhee went. Unlike the team Pearson inherited that looked ****ing brilliant against Millwall. Not to mention future Inter Milan keeper Spider Kalak. Don't mention the Bolton game, please.
Guest Col city fan Posted 21 February 2014 Posted 21 February 2014 Not to mention future Inter Milan keeper Spider Kalak.Yup..AC Milan though I believe?
Guest Col city fan Posted 21 February 2014 Posted 21 February 2014 Unlike the team Pearson inherited that looked ****ing brilliant against Millwall. Don't mention the Bolton game, please. Again... the blame at the time was laid at Sven's door. There was no way that a squad containing the aforementioned players should ever have lost three naught, at home, to the team Millwall put out that day. Even taking Mills and Beckford into account.
Guest Col city fan Posted 21 February 2014 Posted 21 February 2014 Jamie Lawrence, Gary Parker, Scott Taylor, Corica, Kamark all signed by him and good performers that year and beyond for some of them. Jamie Lawrence and Steve Corica!
LanguedocFox Posted 21 February 2014 Posted 21 February 2014 Don't mention the Bolton game, please. Or the one against West Brom. Hell of a signing, that man.
Munshi Posted 21 February 2014 Posted 21 February 2014 Pearson isn't the long term answer, neither is he the short term answer, he is THE answer.
Babylon Posted 21 February 2014 Posted 21 February 2014 Again... the blame at the time was laid at Sven's door. There was no way that a squad containing the aforementioned players should ever have lost three naught, at home, to the team Millwall put out that day. Even taking Mills and Beckford into account. But it did lose 3-0 at home to Millwall... it doesn't matter who people blamed, it lost 3-0 and was utter dog muck. Lots of the players have shown themselves to be dog muck also since then. Peltier, a laughing stock amongst Leeds fans. Bamba, aka bombscare.... wonder where that name comes from.. St Ledger, piss head injury prone waste of space. Johnson, fat Kebab eating never has been. Abe, done nothing... ever. Wellens, past his sell by date. Beckford, stroppy lazy striker, living off one season in league one. With much like Paintsil, Vassell and Fernandes to bring on. K Schmeichel (G) 1 L Peltier (D) 2 P Konchesky (D) 3 S Bamba (D) 6 S St. Ledger (D) 12 A King (M) 10 (74) M Johnson (M) 17 R Wellens (M) 19 (45) Y Abe (M) 22 (45) J Beckford (F) 20 D Nugent (F) 35
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.