MC Prussian Posted 22 February 2013 Posted 22 February 2013 Do read the posts before replying...... I refer you to the words "creative players" and "wingers and attacking players", it might help...... Reasonable response but I suggest you look at Marshall, he has now been here for over a year and is clearly going backwards, Dyer has been here forever and not improved one jot. I accept that since his second coming, NFP has had a lot to sort out and, quite frankly, he has done pretty well, but to suggest that this gave him no time to work with his squad is a nonsense. If he really was spending all his time on 'executive management' issues then he should have given day to day control of the first team squad over to his assistant and if he was not up to job, brought in someone who was. What I personally find confusing and frustrating is that NFP clearly made huge changes to our playing style during the summer, to great effect, but we have failed to develop from that excellent promise. The early season issues are still there and the evidence of matchdays suggests that they have not been seriously addressed. I didn't say he had no time to work with his squad. Everyone sees that he's been doing quite a good job so far - otherwise, he wouldn't be our manager in the first place. But still, it's a matter of strategy and time available. In order to implement your own style of play, first you're required to subtract any element that works diametral to your planned success. And getting rid of our "deadwood" clearly took some time and the process has not yet been completed. I regard this as a work in progress, with signs of success already there for everyone to see. Success doesn't come automatically, it doesn't come for free and it certainly doesn't come without making sacrifices. We're currently suffering from a blip (a minor one, I do hope). We have improved over the course of the season so far and I do believe the issues you're referring to have been addressed for most part and that we have the potential to push for second spot.
Babylon Posted 22 February 2013 Posted 22 February 2013 When talking about added value, I was talking about creative and attacking players, and you struggle to find any. Dyer and Fryatt were the only names you came up with and their improvements are marginal at best. That was only brought up after my reply and not in the post I replied to. So forgive me for thinking you meant every player, especially when you started replying to my replies about Thracian who clearly mentioned wasting defensive errrr talent. To my mind there are simply too many issues regarding NFP as a coach for me to be entirely comfortable with him. I addressed some of them in a previous post so I will not repeat myself. Now we are moving on to something else completely. I've stated time and time again on here about our inability at corners, both attacking and defending. I've brought up the lack of tactical support we get from the bench, some strange substitutions. I've never said he's perfect, but I will defend him when I think people are being a bit OTT.
marbelladave Posted 22 February 2013 Posted 22 February 2013 I didn't say he had no time to work with his squad. Everyone sees that he's been doing quite a good job so far - otherwise, he wouldn't be our manager in the first place. But still, it's a matter of strategy and time available. In order to implement your own style of play, first you're required to subtract any element that works diametral to your planned success. And getting rid of our "deadwood" clearly took some time and the process has not yet been completed. I regard this as a work in progress, with signs of success already there for everyone to see. Success doesn't come automatically, it doesn't come for free and it certainly doesn't come without making sacrifices. We're currently suffering from a blip (a minor one, I do hope). We have improved over the course of the season so far and I do believe the issues you're referring to have been addressed for most part and that we have the potential to push for second spot. Fair comment MC....... I do not agree but that's fine, a constructive debate opens the mind....... As for our (very) recent form being just a blip, I hope you are right. Personally I am more concerned with our inconsistency and our inability to change things when things are not going well.
Happy Fox Posted 22 February 2013 Posted 22 February 2013 Fair comment MC....... I do not agree but that's fine, a constructive debate opens the mind....... As for our (very) recent form being just a blip, I hope you are right. Personally I am more concerned with our inconsistency and our inability to change things when things are not going well. Look at the options we bring off the bench and you will see soon why. That is why it is imperative NP brings some loan players in he has already started to do that with Harry Kane now another 2 more please.
marbelladave Posted 22 February 2013 Posted 22 February 2013 That was only brought up after my reply and not in the post I replied to. So forgive me for thinking you meant every player, especially when you started replying to my replies about Thracian who clearly mentioned wasting defensive errrr talent. Now we are moving on to something else completely. I've stated time and time again on here about our inability at corners, both attacking and defending. I've brought up the lack of tactical support we get from the bench, some strange substitutions. I've never said he's perfect, but I will defend him when I think people are being a bit OTT. Fair enough, though it is worth remembering that this is a football message board and not every comment is fully thought through at the time it is made...... However it is actually a pleasure to be involved in a debate that goes a little deeper than the usual "Pearson is crap, oh no he isn't" standard even if, on occasions, it does descend into pedantry. As a matter of interest, I have made my reservations about NFP pretty clear, listing a number of areas (in posts above) where I think he could have done better, you mention some specifics yourself but fall short of questioning NFP's overall ability as a coach, (rather than as a 'manager' where I think he has done pretty well). I have suggested both here and elsewhere that help is needed in that area, maybe an 'attack' coach or a more influential first team coach would be my suggestion. Leaving aside whether or not NFP would see such a move as an attack on his manhood, I think this could be hugely beneficial to us, after all even MO'N needed his John Robertson.......
marbelladave Posted 22 February 2013 Posted 22 February 2013 Look at the options we bring off the bench and you will see soon why. That is why it is imperative NP brings some loan players in he has already started to do that with Harry Kane now another 2 more please. Accepted, but that does not explain why different setups with players in different positions has not been properly tried. There have been a fair number of occasions where we have seen considerable promise, Knockaert through the middle, Marshall on the right rather than the left, the Schlup - Dyer axis down the left are three of the more obvious suggestions. But in each case it seems they were tried somewhat grudgingly, the team was never set up to play differently and take advantage of the changes so their effectiveness was never going to be that great.
Babylon Posted 22 February 2013 Posted 22 February 2013 Fair enough, though it is worth remembering that this is a football message board and not every comment is fully thought through at the time it is made...... However it is actually a pleasure to be involved in a debate that goes a little deeper than the usual "Pearson is crap, oh no he isn't" standard even if, on occasions, it does descend into pedantry. As a matter of interest, I have made my reservations about NFP pretty clear, listing a number of areas (in posts above) where I think he could have done better, you mention some specifics yourself but fall short of questioning NFP's overall ability as a coach, (rather than as a 'manager' where I think he has done pretty well). I have suggested both here and elsewhere that help is needed in that area, maybe an 'attack' coach or a more influential first team coach would be my suggestion. Leaving aside whether or not NFP would see such a move as an attack on his manhood, I think this could be hugely beneficial to us, after all even MO'N needed his John Robertson....... Well, it's hard to say what he's like as a coach really. We don't know what kind of involvement he has on that side of it. Is he an O'Neill who barely utters a word all week, or someone hands on. If he's not particularly hands on, then clearly he needs to address any problems his team have. Out of everything, the most unforgivable thing (for me) is the corners. We've known about this for SO long, yet there is little variety. If we don't have many big players (we don't) then try and be a bit more creative with where you put the ball and the movement of the players.
shen Posted 22 February 2013 Posted 22 February 2013 Out of everything, the most unforgivable thing (for me) is the corners. We've known about this for SO long, yet there is little variety. If we don't have many big players (we don't) then try and be a bit more creative with where you put the ball and the movement of the players. It wouldn't even take much to copy a team like Ajax, who constantly score from set pieces with a wide variety of plays that all somehow involve de Jong Then again, we'd need a quality player to deliver those set pieces...
beemeroo Posted 22 February 2013 Posted 22 February 2013 Why does everything have to be so black and white on this board? Pearson is either an absolutely dreadful manager (by a very rigid set of criteria) or the second coming of the messiah (by a different, very rigid set of criteria). It's absolutely ridiculous and makes browsing these boards looking for interesting, insightful opinions feel like a chore.
Babylon Posted 22 February 2013 Posted 22 February 2013 It wouldn't even take much to copy a team like Ajax, who constantly score from set pieces with a wide variety of plays that all somehow involve de Jong Then again, we'd need a quality player to deliver those set pieces... So often we either hit the first man or float the ball past the far post. Is it too much to ask that we have one man going front past, one back post, one on the edge of the box incase the ball bounces out. We just seem to have everyone stood on the penno spot running about and one man on the keeper.
MattyFromLE Posted 22 February 2013 Posted 22 February 2013 No, I am suggesting perhaps just perhaps half the players listed. The likes of Sheehan, Schlupp (as a striker) and that every other youngster that Thracian has banged on about for the last 5 years haven't actually been that good and were already above their natural level. Players like King are already playing at their level. The only one there is even a clear argument of them being good enough was Gradel. He took over a bunch of relegated players, added a loads of frees cand cast offs, a couple of money signings and turned them into a play off team. How is that not improving players? People like Wayne Brown, Solano, Dyer, Chris Powell, Berner, Michael Morrison were players from lower leagues or players that people that had given up on. He signed Hobbs who went on to be sold at a profit, did he not improve? Fryatt was pretty much gubbins prior to Pearson arriving and then every year under him here and at Hull he scored a lot of goals. Morgan similarly was derided on here by almost everyone and he's turned into a great player for us. You said it's about adding Value, well Knockaerts value will also be considerably more than it was previously, and how do any of us know whether he's improved on the player he was last year. At Hull he got in the likes of Chester for a couple of hundred k and Dull were valuing him £2/£3/£4m. I'm not arguing he's perfect, I'm arguing against the fact he's made out to be incapable of "adding value" or improving players. Our youth team has produced nothing of any real prem quality since Heskey, and before that I can't even remember one we made that someone else wanted. Perhaps the problems here with regards not getting talented youngsters improving through the ranks lie somewhat deeper than Nigel Pearson, because this problem has been around for a long long time. Comparing us to United is bonkers, because they have the pick of the countries talent. They can also buy the worlds best kids like Ronaldo. They spent £12.24 million on the lad, it's not like the quality wasn't there. And it took him years to turn into the consistent player his is now, and yet you judge Pearson because you don't think Knockaert has improved in 6 months, something you can't even prove anyway. Ferguson has been at United for god knows how long, Pearson was here for a couple of years, and now another year for his second stint. United can ship them out to teams like us for experience, we did that with Gradel and it blew up in our face... it's easier for them to blood them at other teams AND retain them, kids want to be at United so they go back... are they bothered about being at Leicester? All three full seasons he's had we've been competing for something, that hasn't given us the luxury to chuck in the kids to aid them either. And we've not had the luxury of loaning them out that often, perhaps only a month or two at a time due to not having a huge squad, as we needed their backup. Sometimes it's easier for people in say Derbys position, where they have nothing to play for, not the pressure from the top and nothing to lose by blooding the kids. Amazing post! Couldn't agree more with this.
Babylon Posted 22 February 2013 Posted 22 February 2013 Amazing post! Couldn't agree more with this. I'M APPRECIATED!!!! Yay. Bit of a rant, putting that down to 30 minutes sleep in the last 48 hours though.
marbelladave Posted 22 February 2013 Posted 22 February 2013 Well, it's hard to say what he's like as a coach really. We don't know what kind of involvement he has on that side of it. Is he an O'Neill who barely utters a word all week, or someone hands on. If he's not particularly hands on, then clearly he needs to address any problems his team have. Out of everything, the most unforgivable thing (for me) is the corners. We've known about this for SO long, yet there is little variety. If we don't have many big players (we don't) then try and be a bit more creative with where you put the ball and the movement of the players. I hear (and feel) what you say about corners, but I feel exactly the same way about our setup, everyone knows how we are going to play, about our vulnerability to shots from distance, our inability to decisively defend corners, about our fragility in central midfield, yadda, yadda, yadda........ Yet despite these issues we are still in a playoff spot with games in hand so we must be doing something right, just think where we might have been had the bulk of those issues been addressed......... Of course you are correct in that we do not have the faintest idea what goes on in training but by the only evidence we have, ie the matches themselves, it is pretty clear that none of the problems listed above are being tackled.
Corky Posted 22 February 2013 Posted 22 February 2013 Bang on Babs. We've had some duds but on the whole Pearson's got us value for money on most signings.
Babylon Posted 22 February 2013 Posted 22 February 2013 I hear (and feel) what you say about corners, but I feel exactly the same way about our setup, everyone knows how we are going to play, about our vulnerability to shots from distance, our inability to decisively defend corners, about our fragility in central midfield, yadda, yadda, yadda........ The reason I highlight corners above all else, is that the other things you mention aren't a constant problem. Some times it is, sometimes it isn't. I think it's harder to correct when it works one day and not the other. The corners haven't work for two years +, to the point I'd rather actually have a throw-in in that area than a corner kick.
marbelladave Posted 22 February 2013 Posted 22 February 2013 The reason I highlight corners above all else, is that the other things you mention aren't a constant problem. Some times it is, sometimes it isn't. I think it's harder to correct when it works one day and not the other. The corners haven't work for two years +, to the point I'd rather actually have a throw-in in that area than a corner kick. Depends on what you mean by 'constant problem', they have all been noticeable since very early in the season....... Totally understand where you are coming from though, if you can't manage to put a couple of corner routines together in training, well............
teblin Posted 22 February 2013 Posted 22 February 2013 No, I am suggesting perhaps just perhaps half the players listed. The likes of Sheehan, Schlupp (as a striker) and that every other youngster that Thracian has banged on about for the last 5 years haven't actually been that good and were already above their natural level. Players like King are already playing at their level. The only one there is even a clear argument of them being good enough was Gradel. He took over a bunch of relegated players, added a loads of frees cand cast offs, a couple of money signings and turned them into a play off team. How is that not improving players? People like Wayne Brown, Solano, Dyer, Chris Powell, Berner, Michael Morrison were players from lower leagues or players that people that had given up on. He signed Hobbs who went on to be sold at a profit, did he not improve? Fryatt was pretty much gubbins prior to Pearson arriving and then every year under him here and at Hull he scored a lot of goals. Morgan similarly was derided on here by almost everyone and he's turned into a great player for us. You said it's about adding Value, well Knockaerts value will also be considerably more than it was previously, and how do any of us know whether he's improved on the player he was last year. At Hull he got in the likes of Chester for a couple of hundred k and Dull were valuing him £2/£3/£4m. I'm not arguing he's perfect, I'm arguing against the fact he's made out to be incapable of "adding value" or improving players. Our youth team has produced nothing of any real prem quality since Heskey, and before that I can't even remember one we made that someone else wanted. Perhaps the problems here with regards not getting talented youngsters improving through the ranks lie somewhat deeper than Nigel Pearson, because this problem has been around for a long long time. Comparing us to United is bonkers, because they have the pick of the countries talent. They can also buy the worlds best kids like Ronaldo. They spent £12.24 million on the lad, it's not like the quality wasn't there. And it took him years to turn into the consistent player his is now, and yet you judge Pearson because you don't think Knockaert has improved in 6 months, something you can't even prove anyway. Ferguson has been at United for god knows how long, Pearson was here for a couple of years, and now another year for his second stint. United can ship them out to teams like us for experience, we did that with Gradel and it blew up in our face... it's easier for them to blood them at other teams AND retain them, kids want to be at United so they go back... are they bothered about being at Leicester? All three full seasons he's had we've been competing for something, that hasn't given us the luxury to chuck in the kids to aid them either. And we've not had the luxury of loaning them out that often, perhaps only a month or two at a time due to not having a huge squad, as we needed their backup. Sometimes it's easier for people in say Derbys position, where they have nothing to play for, not the pressure from the top and nothing to lose by blooding the kids. Great Post. Not to mention United keep sending us players on loan to develop players and sent them to Hull. Its so easy for people to take names of players and say look Pearson got this wrong, It's glad to see someone posting that he does get things right. End the end he is our most successful manager for 10 years and no one else has got us realistically close to promotion.
Thracian Posted 22 February 2013 Posted 22 February 2013 a ) The likes of Sheehan, Schlupp (as a striker) and that every other youngster that Thracian has banged on about for the last 5 years haven't actually been that good and were already above their natural level. Players like King are already playing at their level. b) He took over a bunch of relegated players, added a loads of frees cand cast offs, a couple of money signings and turned them into a play off team. How is that not improving players? People like Wayne Brown, Solano, Dyer, Chris Powell, Berner, Michael Morrison were players from lower leagues or players that people that had given up on. c) He signed Hobbs who went on to be sold at a profit, did he not improve? Fryatt was pretty much gubbins prior to Pearson arriving and then every year under him here and at Hull he scored a lot of goals. d) Morgan similarly was derided on here by almost everyone and he's turned into a great player for us. You said it's about adding Value, well Knockaerts value will also be considerably more than it was previously, and how do any of us know whether he's improved on the player he was last year. e) I'm not arguing he's perfect, I'm arguing against the fact he's made out to be incapable of "adding value" or improving players. f) Our youth team has produced nothing of any real prem quality since Heskey. Perhaps the problems here with regards not getting talented youngsters improving through the ranks lie somewhat deeper than Nigel Pearson, because this problem has been around for a long long time. g) "...Yet you judge Pearson because you don't think Knockaert has improved in 6 months, something you can't even prove anyway. h) "...it's easier for them (Manchester United )to blood them at other teams AND retain them, kids want to be at United so they go back... are they bothered about being at Leicester? i) All three full seasons he's had we've been competing for something, that hasn't given us the luxury to chuck in the kids to aid them either. Some may think it an "amazing post" but it's got more holes than a cullinder. a) As one who laments having points twisted and grumbles about points that can't be proved this is so hypocritical. Various youth players were cited by me as better than what we had in the team at the time, nothing more nor less although I did say that King had the potential to go further if used properly and, at one stage, he scored double figures for the season more than once while he hardly ever scores now. In effect he's gone backwards. As for Sheehan and Schlupp (as you mention them), Sheehan was better than what we had yet was never fully y developed - although we rated him good enough to have another contract. And none of us can be sure of where Schlupp will find his level. b) Pearson got us up from a place that was lower than we'd ever been before. The players you mentioned helped. But you'd expect them to at that level and I don't remember any of them improving. Brown wasted the ball as readily as he did when he joined, Dyer's key weaknesses - his one-footedness and lack of balance when shooting were never improved. Berner and Brown did important jobs for us but it didn't last once we went up. c) Hobbs was another who was wasteful,in his distribution and that didn't change. Fryatt was always going to score his share of goals at Championship level but remain a flawed player and he's only played once this season as I can see. some improvement. d) Yes, Morgan's done okay but is exactly the same player he's been for a while and mostly since he joined us. Knockaert did seem to improve briefly for his time here, becoming more of a team player and releasing the ball in more defensive situations, but he's gone back to being his old self now, running into blind alleys, ignoring available team-mates, being unreliable defensively and posing a singularly limited threat in front of goal for all his spectacular moments At the risk of being accused of "banging on" about him I think he has potential but opponents seem to be roughing him up lately and he's been increasingly ineffective and when that happens our team rhythm suffers because the passing doesn't flow. f) QED and in your own words. We've not developed anyone through to Premiership quality for years - and under Pearson we've slipped back in terms of developing anyone even to sustained Championship level although, to be fair, the standard of our team has risen. Not that the standard is an excuse. Emerging players should be inspired and benefit from having better players around them but the involvement of the likes of Schlupp and Moore has not been sustained and I don't think they improved noticeably for their time in the team - or out of it (given that they've not returned). Whether Schlupp will break through for his United experience remains to be seen but I see no reason why not providing he gets the chance somewhere. g) It's opinion but I don't think Knockaert's improved in recent weeks. Maybe he lost his focus with all the attention he got recently or maybe opponents have sussed how to deal with him. For me he's got to pass the ball in non-threatening situations, use his skills where they're likely to hurt and be much more of a goalscoring threat. i) There's been lots of times Schlupp in particular could have been involved. If the kids aren't good enough it's a condemnation of the club's recruitment anyway and if they are involved and they don't break through then it's a condemnation of our internal "finishing school". Either way it's less than impressive and Pearson has to share some of the responsibility. As mentioned elsewhere, Southampton seem to get real value out of their best youngsters.
shen Posted 22 February 2013 Posted 22 February 2013 So often we either hit the first man or float the ball past the far post. Is it too much to ask that we have one man going front past, one back post, one on the edge of the box incase the ball bounces out. We just seem to have everyone stood on the penno spot running about and one man on the keeper. If we do not have anyone capable of delivering a ball consistently to either post, then the best strategy might indeed be to hit it into the six yard area and hope for the best.
marbelladave Posted 22 February 2013 Posted 22 February 2013 If we do not have anyone capable of delivering a ball consistently to either post, then the best strategy might indeed be to hit it into the six yard area and hope for the best. Strangely the quality of our corner kicks have improved a little in recent games........ Thanks to Paul Gallagher.......
sphericalfox Posted 22 February 2013 Posted 22 February 2013 Depends on what you mean by 'constant problem', they have all been noticeable since very early in the season....... Totally understand where you are coming from though, if you can't manage to put a couple of corner routines together in training, well............ Delivery from corners has definitely improved. Even Waggy has been making it past the first man. Is it me or have the number of corner opportunities reduced though?
Babylon Posted 22 February 2013 Posted 22 February 2013 If we do not have anyone capable of delivering a ball consistently to either post, then the best strategy might indeed be to hit it into the six yard area and hope for the best. The point I was making was that if we can't hit the area we want, we should spread people about in an attempt to get someone where the ball lands
Babylon Posted 22 February 2013 Posted 22 February 2013 cullinder? Small city in America, awful roads, lots of pot holes and grumpy market workers.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.