Major rebuild on its way Says Nigel

[Bob Weasel Fox]

Its not Svens fault or NP fault, its the players, they are clearly overpaid and not putting the effort in. Any other job they would be getting a written warning by now

[Haydos]

I believe Pearson is an excellent manager so I'm not concerned. This season is a write-off which is why I'm looking further ahead. Time will tell who is right and feel free to remind me next season of this post.

I am interested though as to what your starting 11 would be. You're laying in to Pearson, for playing 1 up front so I'd like to know what team you'd play so that we can then expose the huge weaknesses in your team caused by a disjointed squad.

For a start I wouldn't play 4-3-3, at least at home. I'm not just talking about starting 11's and I thought that was clear. I don't know what's going on inside the club but that is part of the MANAGER's job. We have slipped down the table since he's been there and I don't know how much longer people can use the 'Sven's mess' excuse.

By no means am I saying I want Pearson out. I've said in another post/thread that I think he needs to be given til next summer at least, as should any manager (be given a full season).

3-5-2 got us a result at Palace and if the feel is that 2 central midfielders with the players we have available is too weak then why not continue to use the 3-5-2. If we were to play 4-4-2, currently, I would go with Danns and Abe - more energy and balance, and King needs to be given a break and given a serious re-work on the training ground. He IS a talent and needs to be told what his role is and what is expected of him.

2 strikers? Beckford and Nugent. Nugent's been good enough so far and I have faith (or naivety) in Beckford based on his past scoring record.

Another thing, substitutes. Why aren't changes being made earlier? Why are managers so scared to make a change at half time? If it's looking shit after 45 minutes what's going to change in the next 20 after the restart? And Pearson seems even more reluctant than most.

As I've said, we've slipped down the table and Pearson needs to either bring his own players in (and judging by the 'mess' people seem to think he's been left with, that's a fair few) or start managing the current squad very soon.

[breadandcheese]

For a start I wouldn't play 4-3-3, at least at home. I'm not just talking about starting 11's and I thought that was clear. I don't know what's going on inside the club but that is part of the MANAGER's job. We have slipped down the table since he's been there and I don't know how much longer people can use the 'Sven's mess' excuse.

By no means am I saying I want Pearson out. I've said in another post/thread that I think he needs to be given til next summer at least, as should any manager (be given a full season).

3-5-2 got us a result at Palace and if the feel is that 2 central midfielders with the players we have available is too weak then why not continue to use the 3-5-2. If we were to play 4-4-2, currently, I would go with Danns and Abe - more energy and balance, and King needs to be given a break and given a serious re-work on the training ground. He IS a talent and needs to be told what his role is and what is expected of him.

2 strikers? Beckford and Nugent. Nugent's been good enough so far and I have faith (or naivety) in Beckford based on his past scoring record.

Another thing, substitutes. Why aren't changes being made earlier? Why are managers so scared to make a change at half time? If it's looking shit after 45 minutes what's going to change in the next 20 after the restart? And Pearson seems even more reluctant than most.

As I've said, we've slipped down the table and Pearson needs to either bring his own players in (and judging by the 'mess' people seem to think he's been left with, that's a fair few) or start managing the current squad very soon.

With Bamba in the Ivory Coast squad, we do not have three centre backs, so a 3-5-2 is a bit difficult. As it is, at Palace, we reverted back to a flat back four in the second half when Tunchev got subbed at half time.

The squad we have is not good enough as a collective. One thing we can all agree on is that the players we have, whilst they've proven themselves good at this level, do not compliment each other in the slightest. I will judge Pearson when he's had a chance to build his team. Yes, I don't want to see performances like we witnessed yesterday, but equally, it is clear that Pearson doesn't either.

Claridge said pretty much the same thing on the football league show last night, with regards judging Pearson. Granted, Claridge is mocked for his punditry, but he was bang on the money when it came to predicting how we would do at the start of the season.

[inckley fox]

It's fair to say NP hasn't got off to a good start and that his management of yesterday's game was questionable, but it amazes me that the same people who were arguing that Sven hadn't had enough time after twelve months want Pearson sacked within two. A few very important and very realistic points:

1 'We were only two points off the play-offs under Sven' - that's after thirteen games; so with the same points-per-game average you'd be more than two points off come twenty-six games. NP's points-per-game average is only slightly below that of Sven (about 1.3 instead of 1.45 I saw someone say), so if we'd stuck with Sven and failed to improve we'd still be about four-five points off by now.

2 'He signed 5/6ths of this midfield' - no he didn't! He didn't sign King or Danns for a start. He signed Wellens, Dyer and Gallagher, the latter two of which have both scored more goals this season than Sven's new star striker. He also signed them back in 2008 and 2009, at which time they all did a perfectly decent job. They were budget signings for a budget team, incomparable with buys like Mills or Beckford.

3 'They are a pale shadow of their former self, under Sven' - We had been poor for six or seven months by the time Sven was fired. That also happened to be the most expensive period of squad-building in our club's history. Some people have very short memories. You can argue Sven could have been given longer, but nobody can seriously say he did a good job at the club.

It may or may not work out in the end for Pearson, but to blame him for the personnel - including those he brought in during a very different era indeed - is absurd. To say it was all going well under Sven is equally dumb. Some people are still dreaming of David Beckham and Owen Hargreaves.When I read what Pearson said about 'delusions of grandeur' I felt insulted. Then I came on here.

[Kitchandro]

For a start I wouldn't play 4-3-3, at least at home. I'm not just talking about starting 11's and I thought that was clear. I don't know what's going on inside the club but that is part of the MANAGER's job. We have slipped down the table since he's been there and I don't know how much longer people can use the 'Sven's mess' excuse.

By no means am I saying I want Pearson out. I've said in another post/thread that I think he needs to be given til next summer at least, as should any manager (be given a full season).

3-5-2 got us a result at Palace and if the feel is that 2 central midfielders with the players we have available is too weak then why not continue to use the 3-5-2. If we were to play 4-4-2, currently, I would go with Danns and Abe - more energy and balance, and King needs to be given a break and given a serious re-work on the training ground. He IS a talent and needs to be told what his role is and what is expected of him.

2 strikers? Beckford and Nugent. Nugent's been good enough so far and I have faith (or naivety) in Beckford based on his past scoring record.

Another thing, substitutes. Why aren't changes being made earlier? Why are managers so scared to make a change at half time? If it's looking shit after 45 minutes what's going to change in the next 20 after the restart? And Pearson seems even more reluctant than most.

As I've said, we've slipped down the table and Pearson needs to either bring his own players in (and judging by the 'mess' people seem to think he's been left with, that's a fair few) or start managing the current squad very soon.

But Abe and Beckford have been shit. Beckford's been an absolute donkey. Abe was shocking at Forest, who are a terrible team themselves, and Wellens was a lot better when he came off the bench.

Some of your points are fair but I don't know how you can have a go at him for not picking those 2 who aren't good enough and are as gutless as anyone else in the squad.

[Kitchandro]

It's fair to say NP hasn't got off to a good start and that his management of yesterday's game was questionable, but it amazes me that the same people who were arguing that Sven hadn't had enough time after twelve months want Pearson sacked within two. A few very important and very realistic points:

1 'We were only two points off the play-offs under Sven' - that's after thirteen games; so with the same points-per-game average you'd be more than two points off come twenty-six games. NP's points-per-game average is only slightly below that of Sven (about 1.3 instead of 1.45 I saw someone say), so if we'd stuck with Sven and failed to improve we'd still be about four-five points off by now.

2 'He signed 5/6ths of this midfield' - no he didn't! He didn't sign King or Danns for a start. He signed Wellens, Dyer and Gallagher, the latter two of which have both scored more goals this season than Sven's new star striker. He also signed them back in 2008 and 2009, at which time they all did a perfectly decent job. They were budget signings for a budget team, incomparable with buys like Mills or Beckford.

3 'They are a pale shadow of their former self, under Sven' - We had been poor for six or seven months by the time Sven was fired. That also happened to be the most expensive period of squad-building in our club's history. Some people have very short memories. You can argue Sven could have been given longer, but nobody can seriously say he did a good job at the club.

It may or may not work out in the end for Pearson, but to blame him for the personnel - including those he brought in during a very different era indeed - is absurd. To say it was all going well under Sven is equally dumb. Some people are still dreaming of David Beckham and Owen Hargreaves.When I read what Pearson said about 'delusions of grandeur' I felt insulted. Then I came on here.

Completely spot on.

[Corky]

I do see the problems he faces with the current squad but we are not any better defensively, which was a hallmark of Pearson's time with us. We conceded 34 goals in 46 home games in the two years he was here before, so it gave us a chance to get victories and nick games. Concede goals like we did yesterday and we're going to struggle. Added to the times they virtually walked through us before Kasper came to the rescue and it could've been worse.

We're not playing with any style and there's little flair in the team. No movement into space and quick passing. We go long or we go forward then stop and turn around.

We need players who have the confidence to try and take risks, beat people and unlock defences. It won't come cheaply but if we're serious we need to do it.

[5waller5]

I do see the problems he faces with the current squad but we are not any better defensively, which was a hallmark of Pearson's time with us. We conceded 34 goals in 46 home games in the two years he was here before, so it gave us a chance to get victories and nick games. Concede goals like we did yesterday and we're going to struggle. Added to the times they virtually walked through us before Kasper came to the rescue and it could've been worse.

We're not playing with any style and there's little flair in the team. No movement into space and quick passing. We go long or we go forward then stop and turn around.

We need players who have the confidence to try and take risks, beat people and unlock defences. It won't come cheaply but if we're serious we need to do it.

THe trouble is that buying a couple won't come cheap at all and then they'll play in a team of 9 others who are flat and down in the dumps .... they'll quickly be dragged down to their cautious unimaginative level ... It's why NP needed to motivate the current players and hopefully turn a honeymoon into a season .... unfortunately his flight was cancelled!

[5waller5]

It's fair to say NP hasn't got off to a good start and that his management of yesterday's game was questionable, but it amazes me that the same people who were arguing that Sven hadn't had enough time after twelve months want Pearson sacked within two. A few very important and very realistic points:

1 'We were only two points off the play-offs under Sven' - that's after thirteen games; so with the same points-per-game average you'd be more than two points off come twenty-six games. NP's points-per-game average is only slightly below that of Sven (about 1.3 instead of 1.45 I saw someone say), so if we'd stuck with Sven and failed to improve we'd still be about four-five points off by now.

2 'He signed 5/6ths of this midfield' - no he didn't! He didn't sign King or Danns for a start. He signed Wellens, Dyer and Gallagher, the latter two of which have both scored more goals this season than Sven's new star striker. He also signed them back in 2008 and 2009, at which time they all did a perfectly decent job. They were budget signings for a budget team, incomparable with buys like Mills or Beckford.

3 'They are a pale shadow of their former self, under Sven' - We had been poor for six or seven months by the time Sven was fired. That also happened to be the most expensive period of squad-building in our club's history. Some people have very short memories. You can argue Sven could have been given longer, but nobody can seriously say he did a good job at the club.

It may or may not work out in the end for Pearson, but to blame him for the personnel - including those he brought in during a very different era indeed - is absurd. To say it was all going well under Sven is equally dumb. Some people are still dreaming of David Beckham and Owen Hargreaves.When I read what Pearson said about 'delusions of grandeur' I felt insulted. Then I came on here.

A couple of those points were mine .... You've got a point 5/6ths is an exaggeration. You've made your point well ... may have changed my opinion just very very slightly!!!

[Guy]

Yeah... you're right!!! Good one too!!! Which is probably why i didn't associate him with McGoo!!

Yeah... you're right!!! Good one too!!! Which is probably why i didn't associate him with McGoo!!

As were the likes of the awesome Scott Taylor and erm....less awesome Kalac - the rest (as they say) is history!