Danns off to Bristol City on loan

[GingerrrFox]

What is a "Pearson player"?

I've seen it written on here before, but not quite sure who it covers.

A Pearson player is easy to spot. Often they are young usually under 25 but you also get older players such as Wes and Konchesky who fall into the Pearson player bracket. Essentially they are enthusiastic players, who work hard for the team, who give their all on the pitch and don't have a massive EGO.

That is basically it. If you look at Schmeichel, Drinkwater, Marshall, De Laet, Morgan, Konchesky, Moore, Schlupp, Waghorn, James that statement describes them perfectly. They may not be the greatest players individually but put them together and drive through that hard work ethos and that is what Pearson is after in his team. You could say Knockaert has a bit of an ego but even he has ridiculous work rate for the team while on the pitch.

[indierich06]

A Pearson player is easy to spot. Often they are young usually under 25 but you also get older players such as Wes and Konchesky who fall into the Pearson player bracket. Essentially they are enthusiastic players, who work hard for the team, who give their all on the pitch and don't have a massive EGO.

That is basically it. If you look at Schmeichel, Drinkwater, Marshall, De Laet, Morgan, Konchesky, Moore, Schlupp, Waghorn, James that statement describes them perfectly. They may not be the greatest players individually but put them together and drive through that hard work ethos and that is what Pearson is after in his team. You could say Knockaert has a bit of an ego but even he has ridiculous work rate for the team while on the pitch.

The question is, why would anyone think that getting rid of players that do not fall under this criteria is detrimental to our team?

[_Fatboyslow_]

Our squad was small, now it is tiny, and that worries me.

Our squad is like me mate, to much I'm the middle so we need to lose a few,

To loose at the back and I wish I could score more often, but some really quality as well.

[Mack]

indierich06 > Babylon

I don't agree with this.

With you Babylon it's more of a blind faith type of enforcement.

However with indierich06 it far more of a dog with 10 dicks rip anyone apart for not agreeing with his point of view, and to boot the amount of verbal diarrhea that comes out in the cause is inherent of a boy / man with far too much time on his hands.

Fortunately I have other things in my life and spitting elongated posts of poison and vitriol on here is way down my priority list.

But the facts remain the same... Our squad is now too small and already stretched while we loan our own players to other teams in the same league. Players that in my opinion could have had a positive effect on our season.

[Babylon]

I don't agree with this.

With you Babylon it's more of a blind faith type of enforcement.

Ahhhhh the old blind faith chestnut.

Blind faith is thinking without question that Pearson is going to get promoted or can do not wrong. I have never preached either. Sometimes though I believe you have to leave those in a better position than myself decide what is best.

I do not know Danns, I know not how committed he is, what may or may not have happened in the dressing room after Burton. With that in mind I find it rather difficult to lump the blame on someone (the manager in this case) when I don't know the full facts. I'm not saying the manager should go unquestioned, but there is a huge difference between posing a question and laying the blame at someones feet, which happens all to regularly.

Would you have been so keen to keep Beckford if you knew they never wanted to join Leicester in the first place, or that their commitment to the club wasn't good enough or whether they were disruptive bad apples? I don't know whether they are at fault (never said they are). Just the same as those who blame Pearson don't know who is to blame or what has happened.

I defend the manager on matters like this, not because I am blindly loyal to the manager. But because I believe you need proof to be able to point the finger, something that lots of people don't seem interested in. People have ripped him to shreds over "fall outs" without a single shred of anything credible to show he was at fault. Wondering whether the problem is Pearson is one thing, saying it is him is another entirely.

[Captain...]

But the facts remain the same... Our squad is now too small and already stretched while we loan our own players to other teams in the same league. Players that in my opinion could have had a positive effect on our season.

Facts?

Our squad is small but it is not too small, if it was too small we wouldn't be able to field a match day squad of senior players, we haven't failed to do that this season. If it was too stretched we wouldn't be able to compete in games, that has also not happened this season, even when we have lost we have normally created enough chances to win, we don't look tired on the pitch nor lacking in enthusiasm.

What benefit is there in spending money on wages for players like Danns, Beckford, wellens and Gallagher (the last 2 very much Pearson players) when they are down the pecking order and not going to get much game time except at the expense of our academy players in the development squad.

Fair enough Danns may have been able to make some sort of impact this season, but rightly or wrongly the manager rates king, drinkwater and James, all significantly younger and more consistent than Danns and more suited to the style we now play ahead of Danns. In that case send him out on loan keep him match fit and recall him in the case of injuries.

I don't see the injustice, I don't remember the same problems with him doing the same with wellens or Gallagher, Beckford is a different case.

It is a win situation, saves us money and gets Danns game time a chance to get fit and prove his worth. I don't understand why it is such a crime.

[5waller5]

Facts?

Our squad is small but it is not too small, if it was too small we wouldn't be able to field a match day squad of senior players, we haven't failed to do that this season. If it was too stretched we wouldn't be able to compete in games, that has also not happened this season, even when we have lost we have normally created enough chances to win, we don't look tired on the pitch nor lacking in enthusiasm.

What benefit is there in spending money on wages for players like Danns, Beckford, wellens and Gallagher (the last 2 very much Pearson players) when they are down the pecking order and not going to get much game time except at the expense of our academy players in the development squad.

Fair enough Danns may have been able to make some sort of impact this season, but rightly or wrongly the manager rates king, drinkwater and James, all significantly younger and more consistent than Danns and more suited to the style we now play ahead of Danns. In that case send him out on loan keep him match fit and recall him in the case of injuries.

I don't see the injustice, I don't remember the same problems with him doing the same with wellens or Gallagher, Beckford is a different case.

It is a win situation, saves us money and gets Danns game time a chance to get fit and prove his worth. I don't understand why it is such a crime.

We were top of the league - we now aren't. Because we've had to resort to some of the second string players - Like Waghorn who simply aren't good enough.

We don't look tired and lacking in enthusiasm ... we look bereft of quality when we scratch beneath the first 11. Whitbread wouldn't be playing if we had St Legend available, Waghorn wouldn't be if we had 5 decent strikers at the club.

The squad is small .... and is now too small with only a couple of injuries. It's not like this wasn't noticed at the start of the season ... and the problem won't go away until we sign a few decent players to strengthen the squad.

[Babylon]

So you mean the squad isn't good enough,not that it's too small?

[5waller5]

So you mean the squad isn't good enough,not that it's too small?

There's not genuine competition for places when you factor in the size of the squad and that not everyone in it will be fit at the same time and on form at the same time. I mean it's too small to give real choice when needed. Not sure what you find difficult to understand babylon - unless by any chance you have deliberately misunderstood for the sake of it?

[Captain...]

We were top of the league - we now aren't. Because we've had to resort to some of the second string players - Like Waghorn who simply aren't good enough.

We don't look tired and lacking in enthusiasm ... we look bereft of quality when we scratch beneath the first 11. Whitbread wouldn't be playing if we had St Legend available, Waghorn wouldn't be if we had 5 decent strikers at the club.

The squad is small .... and is now too small with only a couple of injuries. It's not like this wasn't noticed at the start of the season ... and the problem won't go away until we sign a few decent players to strengthen the squad.

Hang on, so you think we should have at least 2 players of equal quality in every position? Do you think we are Manchester city or something? We have a first 11 and some competent deputies including U21 internationals and players with premiership experience.

They are not all playing at their best but then if you want to replace the replacements then you are talking about 3 players for every position.

And you want them all of equal quality so basically you want 4 David Nugents 2 to play up front, 1 as a replacement if there is an injury and 1 to replace the replacement in case the replacement is off form.

Them of course we need a plan b so lets have a couple Beckfords in there too.

Our squad isn't big, but it is lean and competitive and there is no dead wood, yes injuries will hit us harder but we have emergency loans and no disruptive bad influences in the squad and no players getting stale in the reserves.

It is much better now than last season with the likes of Ball Pantsil and Johnson just draining money from the club.

[Babylon]

There's not genuine competition for places when you factor in the size of the squad and that not everyone in it will be fit at the same time and on form at the same time. I mean it's too small to give real choice when needed. Not sure what you find difficult to understand babylon - unless by any chance you have deliberately misunderstood for the sake of it?

Well you specifically mentioned Waghorn not being good enough. The fact he, Schlupp and Futacs are actually there shows we aren't short in that department.

Which must mean you believe they aren't good enough, not that there aren't enough players to cover.

Again as was already pointed out by others we've had to trim the squad this year due to FFP. That's fact as there was as Peason article some time back.

If you are working to a budget and you have to cut back then you are going to lose depth (not that it made a difference last year).

Pearson could well have been faced with the decision of not signing Knockaert but getting in three low cost players to cover other spots instead. Or signing knocky and deciding that if we need cover during the season we fix the problem then rather than overloading the squad with unused players.

I made the comment the other day that sometimes I think you play fantasy football on here. By that I mean that your comments don't always take into account what perhaps the bigger picture is. That's not to say you are wrong!!

In an ideal world I'd agree with everything you say. You are dead right, ideally we want cover in all positions, ideally we want quality coming off the bench. My point is its not an ideal world and I can understand exactly what difficult decisions may have had to be made.

[indierich06]

I don't agree with this.

With you Babylon it's more of a blind faith type of enforcement.

However with indierich06 it far more of a dog with 10 dicks rip anyone apart for not agreeing with his point of view, and to boot the amount of verbal diarrhea that comes out in the cause is inherent of a boy / man with far too much time on his hands.

Fortunately I have other things in my life and spitting elongated posts of poison and vitriol on here is way down my priority list.

But the facts remain the same... Our squad is now too small and already stretched while we loan our own players to other teams in the same league. Players that in my opinion could have had a positive effect on our season.

Ahh the sound of a man who knows when he's beaten but he's too proud to admit it. I like how you didn't try and defend any of the points I made against you. The only people I will 'rip apart' are people who lie and slander my football club and the people employed by it. As I've said (many, many, many times...) don't post a load of bollocks and lies and I won't have to do it. Simple.

[Bluetintedspecs]

Lots of love in the room I see

[MPH]

There's not genuine competition for places when you factor in the size of the squad and that not everyone in it will be fit at the same time and on form at the same time. I mean it's too small to give real choice when needed. Not sure what you find difficult to understand babylon - unless by any chance you have deliberately misunderstood for the sake of it?

How would you define 'genuine'?

Its very rare for someone who is willing to sit on the bench who is as good as or better than the 11 picked to play...

We have cover for every position... Schlupp did a great Job at LB too... But its unrealistic for you to expect someone to come in and be better... and by better i mean significantly better... game changer better. Now sure people go in and out of form... but its just rare to have two people of equal skill for the same position

And i would dispute your point about it being too small... we have cover for every position..

[Babylon]

And i would dispute your point about it being too small... we have cover for every position..

If we were missing one player it would be another CB with only three first team choices (not including Moore). The rest as you say we have cover in every position.

[_Fatboyslow_]

And i would dispute your point about it being too small... we have cover for every position..

Too small .. Mmm so as Col says we need bigger players to fill the gaps in the team ...... Thus could be my big chance !!!!!

[Mack]

Ahh the sound of a man who knows when he's beaten but he's too proud to admit it. I like how you didn't try and defend any of the points I made against you. The only people I will 'rip apart' are people who lie and slander my football club and the people employed by it. As I've said (many, many, many times...) don't post a load of bollocks and lies and I won't have to do it. Simple.

Not at all.

I've just accepted you were probably bullied at school and are now using foxes talk as some sort of revengeful therapy and I just dont have the time to pick through your spiteful essays.

However the points of view I made remain the same, Danns could have helped as could have Beckford, especially given the small size of our squad and our lack of depth in many areas.

I addition I do believe that Pearson has a type of player he prefers, and those who don't fit that mould either change or jog on. I like Pearson and think he is a talented manager, but it also takes all sorts in all walks of life including football and there should be a place for everyone unless their are guilty of some kind of gross misconduct.

I suppose it's all about managerial styles.

[Babylon]

GK: Kasper

GK Logan

RB: De Laet

RB: Moore

LB: Konchesky

LB: Schlupp (has played in that position before despite people insisting he's only a striker)

CB: SSL

CB: Whitbread

CB: Morgan

RM: Gallagher

RM: Marshall

LM: Dyer

LM: Knockart

CM: James

CM: Drinkwater

CM: King

CM: Wellens / Danns (one of whom has always been around)

ST: Nudent

ST: Vardy

ST: Waghorn

ST: Futacs

Not forgetting Lingard and maybe Keane if he comes back after treatment at United.

Except for one position (centre back) we have two permanent players for each spot. What on earth do people expect?

[MPH]

If we were missing one player it would be another CB with only three first team choices (not including Moore). The rest as you say we have cover in every position.

I guess you could include Moore AND Taft as cover for CB's...

although with two 'sicknotes' included in the three i could understand why someone would want another one with experience..

[Mack]

GK: Kasper

GK Logan

RB: De Laet

RB: Moore

LB: Konchesky

LB: Schlupp (has played in that position before despite people insisting he's only a striker)

CB: SSL

CB: Whitbread

CB: Morgan

RM: Gallagher

RM: Marshall

LM: Dyer

LM: Knockart

CM: James

CM: Drinkwater

CM: King

CM: Wellens / Danns (one of whom has always been around)

ST: Nudent

ST: Vardy

ST: Waghorn

ST: Futacs

Not forgetting Lingard and maybe Keane if he comes back after treatment at United.

Except for one position (centre back) we have two permanent players for each spot. What on earth do people expect?

We are short at centre back agreed.

Can Schlupp really be considered as a full time full back? Going forward he was good at the weekend but in defence he made more than once mistake.

De Laet is a good player but I think he must be made of glass because he's constantly picking up knocks that lead to one or two games on the sidelines.

I would not consider Gallagher as a back up for anything, mainly because of his negative attitude towards that club that has been documented, unlike the mere speculation about other players lately, in addition Marshall is only young and is having a weaker spell which is consistent with youngsters, we need someone more experienced to cover in my opinion.

In central midfield we are also one short for me. Dinkwater and King has been ok but beyond that for me we lack a driving force through the middle (that could be supplied by Danns when needed but the manager does not play him) so we need another to provide the drive.

Up font we are lacking a competent goalscorer in my opinion. Nugent is a superb second striker but we need a main focal point in attack, and despite Vardy and Waghorn's hard work they both get a nose bleed in front of goal. I'd pick Beckford but...

[5waller5]

For me, in this order we should strengthen the squad ......

1 Striker

2 Centre Back

3 Right Mid

4 Centre Back

5 Left Back

6 Centre Mid

I am assuming that Danns / Wellens / Gallagher won't feature for the club again. Just a case of when we can get rid.

Unfortunately as I'm not the manager i can only play fantasy manager (sorry Babs - maybe if you put me forward I could do it for real). But budget allowing I'd work down that list until my budget was spent.

This would give us the size of squad that NP himself said that was required only 6 months ago. (22 less 3 above plus the 6 new ones)

[5waller5]

How would you define 'genuine'?

Its very rare for someone who is willing to sit on the bench who is as good as or better than the 11 picked to play...

We have cover for every position... Schlupp did a great Job at LB too... But its unrealistic for you to expect someone to come in and be better... and by better i mean significantly better... game changer better. Now sure people go in and out of form... but its just rare to have two people of equal skill for the same position

And i would dispute your point about it being too small... we have cover for every position..

For me genuine would be defined as an in-form confident and fit version of this player is better than the incumbent when they are lacking form, confidence or fitness. Not a like for like level of ability, but close enough to offer a genuine alternative when the first choice isn't firing on all cylinders or needs a rest.

I'm not sure that It's such a radical approach as people seem to react on here to - i would say that most managers would be aspiring to have their squad with this balance. It just seems that as usual NP's thinking is the only way and any other way is crass stupidity (until Nigel changes his mind then it makes perfect sense)!

[sphericalfox]

For me, in this order we should strengthen the squad ......

1 Striker

2 Centre Back

3 Right Mid

4 Centre Back

5 Left Back

6 Centre Mid

I am assuming that Danns / Wellens / Gallagher won't feature for the club again. Just a case of when we can get rid.

Unfortunately as I'm not the manager i can only play fantasy manager (sorry Babs - maybe if you put me forward I could do it for real). But budget allowing I'd work down that list until my budget was spent.

This would give us the size of squad that NP himself said that was required only 6 months ago. (22 less 3 above plus the 6 new ones)

6 midfielders? Jeebus wept, that'll cover all eventualities! I agree that we need another striker, just the one mind.

[5waller5]

6 midfielders? Jeebus wept, that'll cover all eventualities! I agree that we need another striker, just the one mind.

No, 2 midfielders, a striker and 3 defenders, if we signed all six and let the three midfielders mentioned go.

[Babylon]

For me genuine would be defined as an in-form confident and fit version of this player is better than the incumbent when they are lacking form, confidence or fitness. Not a like for like level of ability, but close enough to offer a genuine alternative when the first choice isn't firing on all cylinders or needs a rest.

I'm not sure that It's such a radical approach as people seem to react on here to - i would say that most managers would be aspiring to have their squad with this balance. It just seems that as usual NP's thinking is the only way and any other way is crass stupidity (until Nigel changes his mind then it makes perfect sense)!

Don't you think all managers want that? Just because we don't have it doesn't mean it's not wanted.

The fact is it's just not feasible really is it unless money is no object. If you have a £15m budget and and want even ability throughout the squad that realistically means spreading the cash evenly over all players which means you could end up with 22 players of equal value and ability.

The drawback to that is the fact that it could mean a lower quality first 11. So you top load the squad with quality meaning the first 11 are of greater ability and the back up not so much. This is what almost every team in the world does and had to do because money does not grow on trees.