LCFC_6410 Posted 4 April 2013 Share Posted 4 April 2013 I believe the average Leicester manger lasted 10 months before Nigel Pearsons return. How is this enough time to build a promotion worthy squad? A manger needs lots of transfer windows so he can buy players to fix the problems such as a problem we have of a lack of physicality. Sir Alex Ferguson emphasizes my point it took him 6 years to win the Premier League! Finally surely sacking Pearson now would just be a waste of a good squad that he has half built and if he had more time I'm sure would improve and finish! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bayfox Posted 4 April 2013 Share Posted 4 April 2013 I understand your point. But fergie had won a trophy in europe with aberdeen. No mean feat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seenitall Posted 4 April 2013 Share Posted 4 April 2013 Is that away in a manger? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LJS Posted 4 April 2013 Share Posted 4 April 2013 Ferguson also finished second in his first full season. Nothing wrong with sacking a manager after six weeks, let alone months, if things are going backwards. If a manager isn't good enough he isn't good enough. Sousa being a good recent example. At the same time if there is good progress he can have as long as Ferguson has had as far as I'm concerned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shearfox Posted 4 April 2013 Share Posted 4 April 2013 I think 99% of the managers we appointed over the past 10 years should never have got the job in the first place. Poor appointments means they are going to get the boot quickly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry - LCFC Posted 4 April 2013 Share Posted 4 April 2013 I think 99% of the managers we appointed over the past 10 years should never have got the job in the first place. Poor appointments means they are going to get the boot quickly. Agree, we've had some shockers over the years. However, Pearson is the best of the lot so I think we should allow some room for failure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bilbo Posted 4 April 2013 Share Posted 4 April 2013 Ferguson also finished second in his first full season. Nothing wrong with sacking a manager after six weeks, let alone months, if things are going backwards. If a manager isn't good enough he isn't good enough. Sousa being a good recent example. At the same time if there is good progress he can have as long as Ferguson has had as far as I'm concerned. With this sort of ridiculous opinion Martin O'Neill would have been sacked and we would have missed out on arguably the club's best years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seenitall Posted 4 April 2013 Share Posted 4 April 2013 I think 99% of the managers we appointed over the past 10 years should never have got the job in the first place. Poor appointments means they are going to get the boot quickly. Let's say we had 12 managers in this period, 99% of them being shitt would mean all of them would be shit except one ( we assume Nigel) and he would be around 90% shit, which is about right I guess, so well spotted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LCFC_6410 Posted 4 April 2013 Author Share Posted 4 April 2013 With this sort of ridiculous opinion Martin O'Neill would have been sacked and we would have missed out on arguably the club's best years. Yh this is the point im trying to get across you never no who's going to be the next Martin O'Neill if you dont give the manager enough time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LJS Posted 4 April 2013 Share Posted 4 April 2013 With this sort of ridiculous opinion Martin O'Neill would have been sacked and we would have missed out on arguably the club's best years. Clearly six weeks is an extreme example and your focus on it misses my point completely. If a bloke has been in charge for six weeks and lost ten games I suspect your view would be different. The point was if a manager is bad he is bad. And if someone is bad you get rid because keeping them on does harm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LJS Posted 4 April 2013 Share Posted 4 April 2013 Agree, we've had some shockers over the years. However, Pearson is the best of the lot so I think we should allow some room for failure. I don't see why being the best of a bad bunch is a good enough reason to accept failure. Pearson gets away with a lot because his spells in charge are surrounded by shit. Lucky man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox92 Posted 4 April 2013 Share Posted 4 April 2013 That's the thing, if Pearson was sacked the next manager would most probably rip the squad apart - just like Sven did, and he ended up getting rid of some of our best players, such as Hobbs... And Pearson hasn't exactly took us backwards either this season. Are managers given enough time? Think it depends in the chairman. Look at Lambert for example, but on the other hand, look at what Roman does at Chelsea, with most recently sacking the only man who has won the European Cup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LCFC_6410 Posted 4 April 2013 Author Share Posted 4 April 2013 I don't see why being the best of a bad bunch is a good enough reason to accept failure. Pearson gets away with a lot because his spells in charge are surrounded by shit. Lucky man. Yh but the next bloke in charge could be shit and put the club in a worse way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LJS Posted 4 April 2013 Share Posted 4 April 2013 Yh but the next bloke in charge could be shit and put the club in a worse way. I prefer not to live my life not taking risks in case the decision is the wrong one. The two decisions are different things. You make a choice to get rid of a manager based on his performance and you make a decision to appoint a new one based on his track record. Appointing a shit manager doesn't make sacking the old one a bad decision. It just makes the new appointment a bad one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bilbo Posted 4 April 2013 Share Posted 4 April 2013 Clearly six weeks is an extreme example and your focus on it misses my point completely. If a bloke has been in charge for six weeks and lost ten games I suspect your view would be different. The point was if a manager is bad he is bad. And if someone is bad you get rid because keeping them on does harm. I think you're confused - I'm replying to what you said i.e. "Nothing wrong with sacking a manager after 6 weeks, let alone months, if things are going backwards" what I'm saying is that with this logic the guy who most people would jizz in their pants if he came back would never have been given the opportunity to achieve what he did for the club. In other words what you are saying is ridiculous. We have tried the quick route to success by sacking managers, it hasn't worked so lets try something else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry - LCFC Posted 4 April 2013 Share Posted 4 April 2013 I don't see why being the best of a bad bunch is a good enough reason to accept failure. Pearson gets away with a lot because his spells in charge are surrounded by shit. Lucky man. Ok didn't quite put my point across as I would've liked. I agree being the best of the rest isn't good enough. But I personally see someone who can take us forward whereas I just don't think that was the case with the others. They didn't seem to have anything about them that made you think "yes, he'll take us places." With Pearson I do get that feeling (although not so much right now ). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LCFC_6410 Posted 4 April 2013 Author Share Posted 4 April 2013 Also If we change a manager every season it is expensive which could put the club into administration if the owners decide enough is enough or we could end up like wolves or Blackburn a club in decline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LJS Posted 4 April 2013 Share Posted 4 April 2013 I think you're confused - I'm replying to what you said i.e. "Nothing wrong with sacking a manager after 6 weeks, let alone months, if things are going backwards" what I'm saying is that with this logic the guy who most people would jizz in their pants if he came back would never have been given the opportunity to achieve what he did for the club. In other words what you are saying is ridiculous. O'Neill wasn't doing badly enough to merit being sacked in my view. That's what I thought at the time and that's what I think now. Again, you've focused on the wrong bit of my post. The six weeks thing was merely illustrative. You've then used evidence from a sample of one to bat it back. Never mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan LCFC Posted 4 April 2013 Share Posted 4 April 2013 They don't. So many have this attitude that sacking the manager solves everything, it's a huge problem in this country. Constantly looking at the short-term etc... it's a really sad scenario actually, the same fans who'll no doubt be whinging at players lack of loyalty but happily would get rid of any manager off form. Hypocritical and helps nothing but the next 5 games, in most cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sven' Thai Bride Posted 5 April 2013 Share Posted 5 April 2013 I think the key point is the general progress of the club, and not just on the pitch. Pearson seems the sort of manager who tries to build solid foundations for success by making sure the right processes are in place off the pitch, such as with the sports science stuff, right through the player recruitment. I reckon this must be the only thing that's keeping him in his job, and that's why I wouldn't mind sticking with him until at least the end of next season, allow him to see it through. The way he's managed the club (not necessarily the players) still seems a million miles better than under anyone post O'Neil. Give him one more summer transfer window to complete the squad, like Mackay has done with Cardiff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattyFromLE Posted 5 April 2013 Share Posted 5 April 2013 I think the key point is the general progress of the club, and not just on the pitch. Pearson seems the sort of manager who tries to build solid foundations for success by making sure the right processes are in place off the pitch, such as with the sports science stuff, right through the player recruitment. I reckon this must be the only thing that's keeping him in his job, and that's why I wouldn't mind sticking with him until at least the end of next season, allow him to see it through. The way he's managed the club (not necessarily the players) still seems a million miles better than under anyone post O'Neil. Give him one more summer transfer window to complete the squad, like Mackay has done with Cardiff. I agree 100% with this. I don't think sacking him is the answer - he's laid too many foundations for the stability of the club. To hault that would mean we start over again. I'm not talking new players, but back room staff, physio and training regimes. It's not just a case of sticking another name on the managers office door. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shade Posted 5 April 2013 Share Posted 5 April 2013 3 years is the minimum a manager should get unless its absolutely obvious they are out of their depth. if you're finishing mid table or above, there's every chance next season could be yours. like life, some people will do better than others, but there's always chance and luck involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonnieTodger Posted 5 April 2013 Share Posted 5 April 2013 They don't. So many have this attitude that sacking the manager solves everything, it's a huge problem in this country. Constantly looking at the short-term etc... it's a really sad scenario actually, the same fans who'll no doubt be whinging at players lack of loyalty but happily would get rid of any manager off form. Hypocritical and helps nothing but the next 5 games, in most cases. One of the truest things I've ever read on this forum. Spot on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hackneyfox Posted 5 April 2013 Share Posted 5 April 2013 No they probably don't have enough time. This one has had too long though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theessexfox Posted 5 April 2013 Share Posted 5 April 2013 There's no way people can be saying a fixed length of time a manager should be given, there's so many variables that no two situations are the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.