caz05 Posted 17 February 2012 Posted 17 February 2012 Do the people you hire reply on the performances of a group of individuals under them? Do they have a budget to work to, but all the people in their team are contracted and cannot be fired no matter how bad they perform? Do they have to reply on other companies wanting those shitty employees off them before them can replace them with better? Does this person and their team come up against another person and their team twice a week on a football field to try and get three points? ...If not it's hardly comparable. Pearson may or may not fail in his task here, who knows. But three months is no time to sort out the mess. Do you think Hull were glad in the end they didn't sack him after his poor start there? Why did they bother giving him more than three months if you can see how it's going to end up after that amount of time?
hackneyfox Posted 17 February 2012 Posted 17 February 2012 Are we higher than when Sven was sacked? Hull are higher than when Pearson was there.
Corky Posted 17 February 2012 Posted 17 February 2012 I never liked Pearson first time round and thought it was a disaster having him back, was I right ? No, because it's not a disaster yet.
Babylon Posted 17 February 2012 Posted 17 February 2012 Are we higher than when Sven was sacked? Hull are higher than when Pearson was there. Yes. After the Millwall defeat we were in 13th position.... effectively 14th as Birmingham were directly behind us with THREE games in hand. The day Sven was sacked Hull were in 7th (joint 5th on points), for a few games afterwards before Pearson went on gardening leave they were 6th. They are currently 7th place and average the same amount of points as us over the last 8 games.
dannythefox Posted 17 February 2012 Posted 17 February 2012 Are we higher than when Sven was sacked? Hull are higher than when Pearson was there. Nope were lower and when he got sacked we was only two points off the play-offs. And I think Hull were in the top 6 when Pearson left I'm not 100% though.
Babylon Posted 17 February 2012 Posted 17 February 2012 Nope were lower and when he got sacked we was only two points off the play-offs. NO WE ARE NOT! 26th October we were 14th in the league. Even lower than the 13th I thought we were as Birmingham won their midweek game in hand. Carry on Svens ppg ratio and we'd be much more than 2 points off the play off by now.
fleckneymike Posted 17 February 2012 Posted 17 February 2012 Nope were lower and when he got sacked we was only two points off the play-offs. And I think Hull were in the top 6 when Pearson left I'm not 100% though. As an illiterate and innumerate roofer (youth wing) I stand to be corrected but we are indeed 1 place higher. BUT... Sven left us in 13th with 19pts after 13 games. 1.46 points per game NFP took over with us in 12th with 22pts after 16 games. 1.37 ppg (1ppg for the 3 games) We are now 12th with 42pts after 31 games. 1.35 ppg (1.33ppg for the 15 games) Now I may be mistaken but that seems to indicate we've got worse.
Babylon Posted 17 February 2012 Posted 17 February 2012 Hull were 9th when Pearson left. The day the Mercury ran the story about him being the favourite and getting approached that weekend they were 6th / joint 5th. Harsh to start taking stuff into account after that with what was going on. Even if you take into account stuff after that he was only one point off 5th... same as they are now.
lcfcbaby Posted 17 February 2012 Posted 17 February 2012 Sven went after a year in charge with the team looking an utter shambles. 14th place after the season before finish in 10th and the summer to prepare is just awful. Pearson leaving in the first place was the wrong decision and whilst many dispute his return we have to remember the state that Sven left our club in. 14th place and underachieving would be putting it mildly. The players weren't working as a team and the summer signings just looked like a bunch of players bought for that same reason rather than brought in to shape the team. Nigel Pearson may not be everyone's favourite choice however coming in midseason isn't an easy thing especially with a team where the mentality is low. He already knows some of the players from his previous stint and knows the championship well. With Pearson you know exactly what he will trying to do. He has attempted to change the squad from previously playing a failing 4-3-3 under Sven to a traditional 4-4-2. With the players we have that isn't an easy thing to do. So yes we are still underachieving but there have been some positives since Pearson took charge. Beckford who was slated from the start has scored some goals and his work ethic has improved dramatically. Nugent has continued to score goals. Whilst there was some problems with St Ledger that has been put in the past and the defence have managed to grab some clean sheets. The team at times has managed to play some decent football and often dominated games that we didn't go on to win. This team has potential and whilst many people are upset that Pearson didn't bring in anyone to replace Wellens it would have been difficult midseason to change the team anymore than It has already been changed.
dannythefox Posted 17 February 2012 Posted 17 February 2012 NO WE ARE NOT! 26th October we were 14th in the league. Even lower than the 13th I thought we were as Birmingham won their midweek game in hand. Carry on Svens ppg ratio and we'd be much more than 2 points off the play off by now. Maybe not lower then but worse off!
Corky Posted 17 February 2012 Posted 17 February 2012 The day the Mercury ran the story about him being the favourite and getting approached that weekend they were 6th / joint 5th. Harsh to start taking stuff into account after that with what was going on. Even if you take into account stuff after that he was only one point off 5th... same as they are now. I see. One of those games was against West Ham, which is as tough as they come.
caz05 Posted 17 February 2012 Posted 17 February 2012 Sven went after a year in charge with the team looking an utter shambles. 14th place after the season before finish in 10th and the summer to prepare is just awful. Pearson leaving in the first place was the wrong decision and whilst many dispute his return we have to remember the state that Sven left our club in. 14th place and underachieving would be putting it mildly. The players weren't working as a team and the summer signings just looked like a bunch of players bought for that same reason rather than brought in to shape the team. Nigel Pearson may not be everyone's favourite choice however coming in midseason isn't an easy thing especially with a team where the mentality is low. He already knows some of the players from his previous stint and knows the championship well. With Pearson you know exactly what he will trying to do. He has attempted to change the squad from previously playing a failing 4-3-3 under Sven to a traditional 4-4-2. With the players we have that isn't an easy thing to do. So yes we are still underachieving but there have been some positives since Pearson took charge. Beckford who was slated from the start has scored some goals and his work ethic has improved dramatically. Nugent has continued to score goals. Whilst there was some problems with St Ledger that has been put in the past and the defence have managed to grab some clean sheets. The team at times has managed to play some decent football and often dominated games that we didn't go on to win. This team has potential and whilst many people are upset that Pearson didn't bring in anyone to replace Wellens it would have been difficult midseason to change the team anymore than It has already been changed. :thumbsup:
Corky Posted 17 February 2012 Posted 17 February 2012 Maybe not lower then but worse off! We aren't, we're looking better away from home now, probably not as strong at home so there isn't much difference.
fleckneymike Posted 17 February 2012 Posted 17 February 2012 Nigel Pearson may not be everyone's favourite choice however coming in midseason isn't an easy thing especially with a team where the mentality is low. He already knows some of the players from his previous stint and knows the championship well. With Pearson you know exactly what he will trying to do. He has attempted to change the squad from previously playing a failing 4-3-3 under Sven to a traditional 4-4-2. With the players we have that isn't an easy thing to do. We garnered more points playing 433 (or a 442 diamond) than we have done playing a traditional 442. I wouldn't personally sack NFP as there are no suitable replacements currently but I would seriously question his decision to revert to 442 when we simply don't have the personell for it. Lloyd Dyer is a very limited player who cannot cross (prize for the first person to name the game in which we last scored from a Dyer cross) and yet we build a system around him and Gallagher.
Babylon Posted 17 February 2012 Posted 17 February 2012 As an illiterate and innumerate roofer (youth wing) I stand to be corrected but we are indeed 1 place higher. BUT... Sven left us in 13th with 19pts after 13 games. 1.46 points per game NFP took over with us in 12th with 22pts after 16 games. 1.37 ppg (1ppg for the 3 games) We are now 12th with 42pts after 31 games. 1.35 ppg (1.33ppg for the 15 games) Now I may be mistaken but that seems to indicate we've got worse. Nobody is disputing that, but many people say we are lower than we were.... which is incorrect! Is such a tiny fraction proof of being worse, when there are so many other factors to take into account, I don't know. The numbers show that Svens PPG ratio would still have us well off the pace and only one place higher up the league than where we currently stand. But what it also proves is that Pearsons return has been nothing like the "disaster" Bnet seems to think it is. It's been stagnant. This is mostly Svens squad, expensively assembled with the players he wanted, and he had a year to get across his ways. Pearson has had three months, a difficult transfer window, lots of injuries and we're higher in the league with a fractionally lower ppg ratio. The time to judge is when Pearson has also had a year. It doesn't mean there shouldn't be fair critisism of him, but people don't seem to be able to do that without coming up with ridiculous comments, or without taking in the whole picture.
Babylon Posted 17 February 2012 Posted 17 February 2012 We garnered more points playing 433 (or a 442 diamond) than we have done playing a traditional 442. I wouldn't personally sack NFP as there are no suitable replacements currently but I would seriously question his decision to revert to 442 when we simply don't have the personell for it. Lloyd Dyer is a very limited player who cannot cross (prize for the first person to name the game in which we last scored from a Dyer cross) and yet we build a system around him and Gallagher. Considering the fractionally different ppg ratio, I would suggest the squad left by Sven wasn't capable of playing a 433 either.
Guest Basildon Fox Posted 17 February 2012 Posted 17 February 2012 It doesn't really matter if we are slightly better or worse since Pearson became manager when you consider what the aim was at the beginning of the season. We are not going up or down and except for the cup (which we will probably go out of tomorrow) there is very little to play for. I hope that Pearson is given the summer to rebuild the team to fit his style as it does not matter whether we finis 8th or 20th imo, however I can see him being dispensed with by the Thais unless we get a proper run of results.
fleckneymike Posted 17 February 2012 Posted 17 February 2012 Nobody is disputing that, but many people say we are lower than we were.... which is incorrect! Is such a tiny fraction proof of being worse, when there are so many other factors to take into account, I don't know. The numbers show that Svens PPG ratio would still have us well off the pace and only one place higher up the league than where we currently stand. But what it also proves is that Pearsons return has been nothing like the "disaster" Bnet seems to think it is. It's been stagnant. This is mostly Svens squad, expensively assembled with the players he wanted, and he had a year to get across his ways. Pearson has had three months, a difficult transfer window, lots of injuries and we're higher in the league with a fractionally lower ppg ratio. The time to judge is when Pearson has also had a year. It doesn't mean there shouldn't be fair critisism of him, but people don't seem to be able to do that without coming up with ridiculous comments, or without taking in the whole picture. I think the criticism stems from the 'stagnation'. What was the point in replacing Sven with someone who is no better? This may be Sven's squad but it is Nigel's midfield (and I know folks will cite than Sven had ages to get rid of the Wellens etc or that Sven played Wellens et al) and most City fans would agree that that is where our main failings are. What irks me and I suspect many others is the style of play, yes were were maddeningly inconsistent since QPR but we also witnessed some beautiful football. NFP is far more pragmatic in his approach and we seldom play the expansive football which less expensively assembled squads seem capable of. I am firmly in the 'never wanted hime back' camp when it comes to NFP much in the same way I'd never want Micky Adams to return. Nothing in NFP's history indicates that he will play the style of football which has seen WBA, Swansea, Norwich, Blackpool promoted. Therefore I see little point in persisting with him beyond the end of this season.
Babylon Posted 17 February 2012 Posted 17 February 2012 I think the criticism stems from the 'stagnation'. What was the point in replacing Sven with someone who is no better? But we won't know if he's better or not until he's given a chance. Yes we all wanted someone to come and and suddenly transform us, but if Sven couldn't do it, and Pearson can't do it. Maybe, just maybe, it's this group of players that aren't good enough... and not the managers. But Sven takes the blame for putting them together. This may be Sven's squad but it is Nigel's midfield (and I know folks will cite than Sven had ages to get rid of the Wellens etc or that Sven played Wellens et al) and most City fans would agree that that is where our main failings are. But that midfield was good enough last time under Pearson to get to the playoffs, so they aren't that bad. It might not be working now, but he's dealing with the cards he has been dealt. He's not going to replace the whole midfield in January. We've had two come in and DD looks a prospect, Marshall will get his chance soon enough. The replacing of the old guard might take him a while. What irks me and I suspect many others is the style of play, yes were were maddeningly inconsistent since QPR but we also witnessed some beautiful football. NFP is far more pragmatic in his approach and we seldom play the expansive football which less expensively assembled squads seem capable of. Where was Svens beautiful football this season, I didn't get a whiff of it. Last years borrowed team is gone and The football under NP with these players has been no worse than under Sven, in fact personally I have probably enjoyed some of the footy more this season under NP than I did Svens 13 games. Nothing in NFP's history indicates that he will play the style of football which has seen WBA, Swansea, Norwich, Blackpool promoted. Therefore I see little point in persisting with him beyond the end of this season. Plenty of teams have got promoted with other styles of football. What was wrong with the football against saints, cardiff, forest at home? It's about producing that kind of football consistantly.
Libertine Dream Posted 17 February 2012 Posted 17 February 2012 Nothing in NFP's history indicates that he will play the style of football which has seen WBA, Swansea, Norwich, Blackpool promoted. Therefore I see little point in persisting with him beyond the end of this season. Can I ask what was wrong with the football played against Cardiff, against Forest, away at Southampton, first half at Palace? To me that was the type of football we need to play, the way Barnsley played against us is the way to play in this division. Only a select few play like Blackpool and Norwich, some teams try to play that way and fall flat on their face.
Guest Basildon Fox Posted 17 February 2012 Posted 17 February 2012 But we won't know if he's better or not until he's given a chance. Yes we all wanted someone to come and and suddenly transform us, but if Sven couldn't do it, and Pearson can't do it. Maybe, just maybe, it's this group of players that aren't good enough... and not the managers. But Sven takes the blame for putting them together. I agree but still have my reservations that he is incapable of handling big names. With this in mind I am concerned that he may not be able to take the club to the top of the league. We need more than a load of talented youngsters being brought in to hopefully become a good team in 2 to 3 years. He certainly will not have that amount of time. Hope I am wrong but I have a feeling his tenure will end in the same way that Sven's did.
fleckneymike Posted 17 February 2012 Posted 17 February 2012 But that midfield was good enough last time under Pearson to get to the playoffs, so they aren't that bad. It might not be working now, but he's dealing with the cards he has been dealt. He's not going to replace the whole midfield in January. We've had two come in and DD looks a prospect, Marshall will get his chance soon enough. The replacing of the old guard might take him a while. Plenty of teams have got promoted with other styles of football. What was wrong with the football against saints, cardiff, forest at home? It's about producing that kind of football consistantly. That midfield is 3 years older and no longer good enough (I maintain Lloyd Dyer has never been good enough). I don't think anyone expected NFP to replace the entire midfield in January but we certainly expected some surgery in that area. He's removed two players who wanted out and replaced them with a CM and a winger. There is nothing wrong with our performances against Cardiff, Southampton and Forest but those are the exceptions not the rule, that is why they stand out. Teams have been promoted playing other styles but Stoke city aside non have progressed and I'd wager no one would volunteer to watch a Wolves match. NFP was appointed with the brief to get us promoted, nothing he has done so far has made that likely to happen in the foreseeable future so I see no point in persisting with him beyond the summer.
Babylon Posted 17 February 2012 Posted 17 February 2012 I agree but still have my reservations that he is incapable of handling big names. With this in mind I am concerned that he may not be able to take the club to the top of the league. We need more than a load of talented youngsters being brought in to hopefully become a good team in 2 to 3 years. He certainly will not have that amount of time. Hope I am wrong but I have a feeling his tenure will end in the same way that Sven's did. Does it matter about big names, Sven was a name and bought names and got us nowhere. Have saints got big names, did Swansea or Norwich? It's about building a team, not collecting names. And that is what he did here and at Hull. Beckford is the biggest name of all that we have and his performances seem to have improved dramatically of late.
Babylon Posted 17 February 2012 Posted 17 February 2012 That midfield is 3 years older and no longer good enough (I maintain Lloyd Dyer has never been good enough). I don't think anyone expected NFP to replace the entire midfield in January but we certainly expected some surgery in that area. He's removed two players who wanted out and replaced them with a CM and a winger. So there was surgery on the midfield then with the two signings? Pearson said his targets had to change and so did Andrew Neville, because of all the injurys etc. Does that not get taken into account? nothing he has done so far has made that likely to happen in the foreseeable future so I see no point in persisting with him beyond the summer. Nothing he has done in THREE months? Seems to me that your mind was made up before his first game. Ok so you don't want NP. Who is the manager who can turn around a team in three months and get us playing free flowing football that you think will get us promoted with this team? You don't seem prepared to even give Pearson a chance to change things, beyond the notorious Jan window so who should it be?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.