I'm glad the squad isn't as unbalanced anymore

[fleckneymike]

I asked a genuine question about what he was trying to get at countless times and he avoided answering it, I just wanted to be clear about what his point was because it seemed to me that he had quickly tried to change what the debate was about. All I did was respond to his opinion with my own, yes it's a forum but that doesn't mean everyones opinion has to go unchallenged, that would be ****ing boring. It's not just jumping on the bandwagon, I've been a big fan of Nigel ever since he came in first time around, he was one of the first managers in a long time to create a Leicester side that we could be proud of, that said I don't jump to defend him at every oppertunity but in this case Fleckneymike didn't have a leg to stand on. I'm a fan of Wellens and Gallagher, while I think Beckford needs to be moved on, can hardly be accused of jumping on the bandwagon. My opinion will not change as a result of this season unless we are bad at the level we were under Sousa because I genuinley rate Pearson as a manager. It seems kids aren't allowed to voice an opposing opinion (on a forum for god sake) without some boring old fart jumping down their neck.

On at least 3 occasions I explained that my point was and still is that the balance of the squad is not much different from the one Pearson assembled in division One, assembled in the Championship, left us with in the championship and assembled at Hull. This apparent newly balanced squad (as of Tuesday when Knockeart officially signed) means we'll do much better despite the fact the balance of the squad only became an issue when Pearson returned and things didn't work.

Other posters then claimed that we now have more 'wingers' so therefore we are more balanced because Pearson likes to play two wingers, this conveniently ignored the fact that during Pearson's time in charge that we seldom played with two wingers we would have two wide players. This also ignores the fact that Knockeart played last season up front for Guingamp which some might argue classifies him as a forward (to go along with the six other forwards we have) or that in his first game we lined up 4231 with Knockeart playing directly behind the striker, i.e. in the middle. It also ignores the fact that at no point following his return last October did he loan a 'winger', or in fact during any point in his three years in charge has he loaned a 'winger' in order to improve the 'balance'. He has loaned out 'wingers' and sold them though.

So for the fourth and final time I still find it mildly amusing (and hypocritical) that a manager who bemoaned the lack of balance in the squad (despite it being positionally identical to the squad he left) proceeded to then build a squad which was very similar to the squad that he had last season which he thought unbalanced.

[foxpleasure]

When Nigel said that the squad was not balanced when he came back I took that to mean that we needed wingers. However after listening to his further comments I believe that he meant far more than that. For example wages, personality etc

[Fox92]

Could you really see Pearson managing a Premiership side ?

Could you see Wellens and Gallagher playing regularly in a side anywhere near the top of the Championship ?

I've nailed my colours to the mast regarding Pearson, l think he is a terrible manager and whats more his way of playing the game is as boring and ineffective given the players and money he's had available as anything since Taylor. His stats are rubbish as a manager if you take out our jaunt into division three and the following season. MOF got rid of him because he knew he was limited as a manager and l agree with him. To take him back was just crazy and ill advised. Why pick a man who as had no real success in a job if you plan on gaining promotion to the Premiership. l hope he gets us promoted, he really should, given the backing he's had, but to watch us in the top flight with him pulling the strings could be one horrendous experience as a city fan.

I'm not suprised by this post, it's in the same mould as what we've seen before. And I'm not going to bang on with another massive post again, because Babylon has done that already with a good post. However...

You think he is a 'terrible manager'. He kept Carlisle in the league, he kept Southampton in the Championship, he got us promoted from League One at the first time of asking (don't doubt how hard this task was. Look at other big clubs who were relegated to the third tier; did Nottingham Forest get promoted first time? No. Southampton, Leeds, Sheffield Wednesday? No. Huddersfield, Preston, Sheffield United? No). Pearson then guided us to fifth in the Championship, and ok we didn't make the play off final, but throughout the season we were solid, consistant and hard to beat. A spirit within the team existed and we looked like a decent force. This was all created with little, if not any, money. I'll look at the statistics, because they can never lie. He has the best win % of any Leicester City manager. He has lost less than 10 games at home in his two spells at the club. He took a relegated team, and made them the fifth best team in this division with little finances.

Your sentance, (which is underlined), sums it up for me lol Seriously? That is one of the most interesting things I've ever read. Of course his stats are going to be rubbish, you've took them out, there are none! It's like saying, well, Martin O'Neill wasn't that good for Leicester, if you take away the five years he was our manager.

Also, let me remind you that Brendan Rodgers, Paul Lambert and Nigel Adkins all got promoted to the Premier League. Guess what, did they have any real success before they guided their teams to promotion? No. Oh look, Lambert won League One. So irrelevant, I so wouldn't have him as Leicester manager

And finally you're trying to put expectation on him. Sven didn't get us promoted having spent £15million, but Pearson "really should, given the backing he's had".

[Col city fan]

I'm not suprised by this post, it's in the same mould as what we've seen before. And I'm not going to bang on with another massive post again, because Babylon has done that already with a good post. However...

You think he is a 'terrible manager'. He kept Carlisle in the league, he kept Southampton in the Championship, he got us promoted from League One at the first time of asking (don't doubt how hard this task was. Look at other big clubs who were relegated to the third tier; did Nottingham Forest get promoted first time? No. Southampton, Leeds, Sheffield Wednesday? No. Huddersfield, Preston, Sheffield United? No). Pearson then guided us to fifth in the Championship, and ok we didn't make the play off final, but throughout the season we were solid, consistant and hard to beat. A spirit within the team existed and we looked like a decent force. This was all created with little, if not any, money. I'll look at the statistics, because they can never lie. He has the best win % of any Leicester City manager. He has lost less than 10 games at home in his two spells at the club. He took a relegated team, and made them the fifth best team in this division with little finances.

Your sentance, (which is underlined), sums it up for me lol Seriously? That is one of the most interesting things I've ever read. Of course his stats are going to be rubbish, you've took them out, there are none! It's like saying, well, Martin O'Neill wasn't that good for Leicester, if you take away the five years he was our manager.

Also, let me remind you that Brendan Rodgers, Paul Lambert and Nigel Adkins all got promoted to the Premier League. Guess what, did they have any real success before they guided their teams to promotion? No. Oh look, Lambert won League One. So irrelevant, I so wouldn't have him as Leicester manager

And finally you're trying to put expectation on him. Sven didn't get us promoted having spent £15million, but Pearson "really should, given the backing he's had".

Good post again...

[Mark_w]

On at least 3 occasions I explained that my point was and still is that the balance of the squad is not much different from the one Pearson assembled in division One, assembled in the Championship, left us with in the championship and assembled at Hull. This apparent newly balanced squad (as of Tuesday when Knockeart officially signed) means we'll do much better despite the fact the balance of the squad only became an issue when Pearson returned and things didn't work.

Other posters then claimed that we now have more 'wingers' so therefore we are more balanced because Pearson likes to play two wingers, this conveniently ignored the fact that during Pearson's time in charge that we seldom played with two wingers we would have two wide players. This also ignores the fact that Knockeart played last season up front for Guingamp which some might argue classifies him as a forward (to go along with the six other forwards we have) or that in his first game we lined up 4231 with Knockeart playing directly behind the striker, i.e. in the middle. It also ignores the fact that at no point following his return last October did he loan a 'winger', or in fact during any point in his three years in charge has he loaned a 'winger' in order to improve the 'balance'. He has loaned out 'wingers' and sold them though.

So for the fourth and final time I still find it mildly amusing (and hypocritical) that a manager who bemoaned the lack of balance in the squad (despite it being positionally identical to the squad he left) proceeded to then build a squad which was very similar to the squad that he had last season which he thought unbalanced.

Except he hasn't, which is what people were pointing out to you in the first place, we now don't have 8 people fighting for 2 places in central midfild which put him in an impossible position because we had 6 people who weren't playing and probably weren't happy. That's not me having a go at Sven, he obviously intended to play a different way (Although I still feel 8 is a bit over the top), but for Nigel who likes sides with width there was no way he was going to play with 4 central players as we did at times with Sven. Because of that the squad that he picked up was unbalanced because Sven had left us with only two wingers (You can't really have a go at Nigel for the squad he left us because not only did Sousa move on one of our wingers without replacing him, but Pearson was allowed to go right in the middle of the transfer window and for all we know had targets lined up in this area, his departure was sudden). For this reason the squad was unbalanced, you say Pearson didn't do anything to rectify that by bringing in a winger, but he did sign Ben Marshall who lets face it hasn't been too bad actually and who was used I believe solely as a winger at Sheffield Wednesday (Was it Nigel who identified that he could play CAM?). Plus he has signed Knockaert who can play there. The main issue was the sheer number of players who occupy the same position CM, with Sven's signings under Pearson's management we would have had Four CM's for each slot which is just insane. Not saying it's Sven's fault, but the squad he took over, for the style of play he likes, was clearly unbalanced, and not because of the number of Midfielders but because of the difference between the number of wingers and the number of central midfielders.

His stats are rubbish as a manager if you take out our jaunt into division three and the following season.

You're funny.

[Julian Joachim Jr Shabadoo]

I've nailed my colours to the mast regarding Pearson, l think he is a terrible manager and whats more his way of playing the game is as boring and ineffective given the players and money he's had available as anything since Taylor. His stats are rubbish as a manager if you take out our jaunt into division three and the following season.

If a chimp could talk...

This is ridiculous. Ignoring all important statistics in an attempt to justify your disapprovement of Pearson, it's purely idiotic. If you're going to ignore statistics, how about ignoring last season (as he was managing a squad which wasn't his own, part-way through a season)? Then you're left with 2 seasons in charge - one ending TOP of the league, the other ending in a play-off position. A "terrible" manager, would be someone capable of back-to-back relegations... so basically the opposite.

[Babylon]

On at least 3 occasions I explained that my point was and still is that the balance of the squad is not much different from the one Pearson assembled in division One, assembled in the Championship, left us with in the championship and assembled at Hull. This apparent newly balanced squad (as of Tuesday when Knockeart officially signed) means we'll do much better despite the fact the balance of the squad only became an issue when Pearson returned and things didn't work.

Other posters then claimed that we now have more 'wingers' so therefore we are more balanced because Pearson likes to play two wingers, this conveniently ignored the fact that during Pearson's time in charge that we seldom played with two wingers we would have two wide players. This also ignores the fact that Knockeart played last season up front for Guingamp which some might argue classifies him as a forward (to go along with the six other forwards we have) or that in his first game we lined up 4231 with Knockeart playing directly behind the striker, i.e. in the middle. It also ignores the fact that at no point following his return last October did he loan a 'winger', or in fact during any point in his three years in charge has he loaned a 'winger' in order to improve the 'balance'. He has loaned out 'wingers' and sold them though.

So for the fourth and final time I still find it mildly amusing (and hypocritical) that a manager who bemoaned the lack of balance in the squad (despite it being positionally identical to the squad he left) proceeded to then build a squad which was very similar to the squad that he had last season which he thought unbalanced.

And once again not it's not the same. How many times do you need the players listing out?

Wide players on the books when he came back. 1 or 2 if you include Gallagher.

Wide players at the start of his first championship season Dyer, DNG, Gradel = 3 or 5 if you include Gallagher, Adams.

How many games they play does not matter, he had the options there to change things if he wished.

[Col city fan]

And once again not it's not the same. How many times do you need the players listing out?

Wide players on the books when he came back. 1 or 2 if you include Gallagher.

Wide players at the start of his first championship season Dyer, DNG, Gradel = 3 or 5 if you include Gallagher, Adams.

How many games they play does not matter, he had the options there to change things if he wished.

lol

I can visualise you hitting your head against your table/desk/ own knees as you write this!

[Master Fox]

How many of Sven's signings remain?

Kasper

Konch

Danns

Nugent

Beckford

St Ledger

Considering the money and amount of players we signed last year, that's quite an impressive ship out by ol' Nige.

[bluesbrothers]

Oakley - DMF

King - AMF

Wellens - CMF

Moussa - RMF

Johnson - CMF?

Fernandes - CMF

Danns - CMF

Gallagher - AMF

Dyer - LMF

King - AMF

Wellens- CMF

Gallgher- AMF

Dyer - LMF

Danns - CMF

James - DMF

Marshall - AMF / RMF

Drinkwater - CMF

Knockeart - WF (Can't remember if he's left or right)

With all respect to Oakley, who i thought was steadier than a lot of people here gave him credit for, I'm more confident with James in a DMF position.

We're down from 4 out-and-out Center Midfielders to 3, which is progress.

We have two recognised wingers (finally!) which means we hopefully don't have to see Gallagher out there again. Again, he gets some unfair criticism, but is a reasonable AMF in the center of the park who's real job is goalscoring, which he does regularly.

King is not a CMF, he is an AMF. However, he might be the biggest loser from the new reshuffle - we don't need 3 AMF's and i think he may become a backup Centre Mid, which is a position where I feel he goes missing.

Overall, I think there is more balance, though we're still rather light on DMF players. The only real concern, as I said, is that we don't need 3 AMFs.

[Bettsj2]

On at least 3 occasions I explained that my point was and still is that the balance of the squad is not much different from the one Pearson assembled in division One, assembled in the Championship, left us with in the championship and assembled at Hull. This apparent newly balanced squad (as of Tuesday when Knockeart officially signed) means we'll do much better despite the fact the balance of the squad only became an issue when Pearson returned and things didn't work.

Other posters then claimed that we now have more 'wingers' so therefore we are more balanced because Pearson likes to play two wingers, this conveniently ignored the fact that during Pearson's time in charge that we seldom played with two wingers we would have two wide players. This also ignores the fact that Knockeart played last season up front for Guingamp which some might argue classifies him as a forward (to go along with the six other forwards we have) or that in his first game we lined up 4231 with Knockeart playing directly behind the striker, i.e. in the middle. It also ignores the fact that at no point following his return last October did he loan a 'winger', or in fact during any point in his three years in charge has he loaned a 'winger' in order to improve the 'balance'. He has loaned out 'wingers' and sold them though.

So for the fourth and final time I still find it mildly amusing (and hypocritical) that a manager who bemoaned the lack of balance in the squad (despite it being positionally identical to the squad he left) proceeded to then build a squad which was very similar to the squad that he had last season which he thought unbalanced.

I'm afraid it doesnt really matter how many times you repeat your 'point' and it really doesnt matter how many times people point out the errors in it.

You've made your mind up and wont back down.

I struggle to find any rationality in what you're saying, but well done for starting such a good thread. It's really brought to light a serious issue that needed discussing.

[_Fatboyslow_]

So you want to take out Pearson's record for two seasons so that you can question him ?

You miss out three midfielders to make your sums add up !

And you fully understand what Pearson is refering to with his comments such as "an imbalance in the squard" and the infamous " delusions of grandeur " which at the time caused something of a debate, with Pearson being quite cryptic of the ture meaning of his comments it is left for the individual to form his own view, or the media. Your main point about the number of midfielders is basically wrong as you choose to omit players still on the books and a imbalance in midfield can be simply an ineffective central pairing, let alone the issues rasied by playing players out of position. It's looks to me as you are trying to create a secniro to bash Pearson with. Then you prejudge him by saying that even if we got into the prem he would fail, talk about giving a dog a bad name.

As for the "wingers" who has Pearson signed that is proven in that role? Who can take on and beat defends, get to the byline and make telling crosses/passes ?

[fleckneymike]

And once again not it's not the same. How many times do you need the players listing out?

Wide players on the books when he came back. 1 or 2 if you include Gallagher.

Wide players at the start of his first championship season Dyer, DNG, Gradel = 3 or 5 if you include Gallagher, Adams.

How many games they play does not matter, he had the options there to change things if he wished.

Gradel played no games under Pearson in the championship so including him is slightly misleading, Adams is technically a central midfielder who can also play wide (like Danns) and who was only played wide because he was so shit in central midfield. I would always classify Gallagher as a wide midfielder/forward as that is where he has consistently played under Pearson. I would also include Vassel as a wide player (although he sustained a long term injury at West Ham away following Sven's departure so was not available to Pearson). So I would say the squad had at least 3 players capable (when fit) of playing wide in that squad (due to his injury I will not include Oakley).

I still dispute the squad is more 'balanced', I still view it as being as balanced as it was when he left and when he returned. I don't think we'll be playing 442 any time soon either.

[Happy Fox]

Gradel played no games under Pearson in the championship so including him is slightly misleading, Adams is technically a central midfielder who can also play wide (like Danns) and who was only played wide because he was so shit in central midfield. I would always classify Gallagher as a wide midfielder/forward as that is where he has consistently played under Pearson. I would also include Vassel as a wide player (although he sustained a long term injury at West Ham away following Sven's departure so was not available to Pearson). So I would say the squad had at least 3 players capable (when fit) of playing wide in that squad (due to his injury I will not include Oakley).

I still dispute the squad is more 'balanced', I still view it as being as balanced as it was when he left and when he returned. I don't think we'll be playing 442 any time soon either.

Of course it is more balanced look we have a more competant RB in Da Laet, the winger situation is sorted now with Knockaert and Marshall, upfront we have a target man Futacs, who is mobile and can score goals as opposed to Howard. The only area of the pitch which is lacking is defensive midfield it isn't a priority but would be nice to have.

[fleckneymike]

Of course it is more balanced look we have a more competant RB in Da Laet, the winger situation is sorted now with Knockaert and Marshall, upfront we have a target man Futacs, who is mobile and can score goals as opposed to Howard. The only area of the pitch which is lacking is defensive midfield it isn't a priority but would be nice to have.

How does that equate balance?

I know this is being dealt with in another thread but looking at our squad who honestly thinks we'll line up 442 this season?

[Mark_w]

How does that equate balance?

I know this is being dealt with in another thread but looking at our squad who honestly thinks we'll line up 442 this season?

But as I pointed out, previously we had 8 central midfielders which just isn't a manegable number. We also only had 2 proper options out wide. Nigel has brought in another 2 wingers giving us two players for both positions (Which is apparently what Sven wanted?), and reduced the number of central midfielders from 8 to 5. How is the squad not more balanced now?

[Happy Fox]

How does that equate balance?

I know this is being dealt with in another thread but looking at our squad who honestly thinks we'll line up 442 this season?

Because we have players who are quality or have potential in their respective positions on the pitch, so therefore balance is their, we aren't going to play a Central midfielder on the wing like we might have done in the past.

I expect we will play 4-4-2 and 4-3-3 maybe alternating due to the opposition or playing a set formation for home games and likewise for away.

[_Fatboyslow_]

And another thing is Dyer really a winger or just another failed striker with pace !!!

:-0

[Oxfordfox83]

I love this thread-lots of sane people posting intelligent, reasoned arguments; and Fleckney posting eloquent nonsense. I can't help feeling you lost a bet and the punishment was 'start a fact-free argument and cling onto it as long as people respond'. Sorry for piling on the pain if so. Spelling out our new midfield it actually looks quite impressive-let's hope it lives up to its billing...

Oh, and for extra value, there's also bnet, embarrassing himself and whichever club he supports.

[Babylon]

Gradel played no games under Pearson in the championship so including him is slightly misleading,

It's not misleading, because he was part of the squad whether you like it or not.

Adams is technically a central midfielder who can also play wide (like Danns) and who was only played wide because he was so shit in central midfield.

Adams has spent large chunks if not most of his career wide left. Danns on the other hand has not.

I would also include Vassel as a wide player

Well if we are going to starting lumping in any old players to make up the numbers then sod it Steve Howard could play there is asked, and Fryatt, and Waghorn... in fact the whole team.

[Nick]

Oakley - DMF

King - AMF

Wellens - CMF

Moussa - RMF

Johnson - CMF?

Fernandes - CMF

Danns - CMF

Gallagher - AMF

Dyer - LMF

King - AMF

Wellens- CMF

Gallgher- AMF

Dyer - LMF

Danns - CMF

James - DMF

Marshall - AMF / RMF

Drinkwater - CMF

Knockeart - WF (Can't remember if he's left or right)

With all respect to Oakley, who i thought was steadier than a lot of people here gave him credit for, I'm more confident with James in a DMF position.

We're down from 3 out-and-out Center Midfielders to 3, which is progress.

We have two recognised wingers (finally!) which means we hopefully don't have to see Gallagher out there again. Again, he gets some unfair criticism, but is a reasonable AMF in the center of the park who's real job is goalscoring, which he does regularly.

King is not a CMF, he is an AMF. However, he might be the biggest loser from the new reshuffle - we don't need 3 AMF's and i think he may become a backup Centre Mid, which is a position where I feel he goes missing.

Overall, I think there is more balance, though we're still rather light on DMF players. The only real concern, as I said, is that we don't need 3 AMFs.

Great post +1

[fleckneymike]

It's not misleading, because he was part of the squad whether you like it or not.

Adams has spent large chunks if not most of his career wide left. Danns on the other hand has not.

Well if we are going to starting lumping in any old players to make up the numbers then sod it Steve Howard could play there is asked, and Fryatt, and Waghorn... in fact the whole team.

I am not lumping Vassel in, he played there for Villa, City and England.

[fleckneymike]

I love this thread-lots of sane people posting intelligent, reasoned arguments; and Fleckney posting eloquent nonsense. I can't help feeling you lost a bet and the punishment was 'start a fact-free argument and cling onto it as long as people respond'. Sorry for piling on the pain if so. Spelling out our new midfield it actually looks quite impressive-let's hope it lives up to its billing...

Oh, and for extra value, there's also bnet, embarrassing himself and whichever club he supports.

What is nonsense about thinking this squad is no more balanced or unbalanced than all previous Pearson squads, the Sven squad, heck even the Adams and O'Neill squads?

The excuse that your squad was unbalanced when positionally it mirrors fairly closely the set up that you've previously built yourself stikes me as odd.

Unless you're Martin Allen I don't believe you really get/build unbalanced squads.

[Leicfox]

Pearson will have his favourites and will fit them into a starting line-up whatever the formation or despite the fact the player is not playing in his preferred position.

We've seen it before and we'll see it again.

[indierich06]

Pearson will have his favourites and will fit them into a starting line-up whatever the formation or despite the fact the player is not playing in his preferred position.

We've seen it before and we'll see it again.

Yeah, he's bought in about 7 players this summer to stick on the bench so he can play his favourites in the first team week in, week out.