Are we in a better position than when Sven was fired?

[Happy Fox]

Statistically Sven has a better points per game average than NP (second spell)

[gazfox9]

But statistics say we've taken steps forward, so that's a bizarre view to have. For example, we've actually ventured into the top 6 with Pearson and we've actually been there for most of the season, we never once entered it under Sven.

I never saw any promise, statistically or otherwise, in the team that Sven built (not loaned) so I'm really not sure where youre coming from.

We were in the top 6 until it came to the crunch, and we've buckled horrendously. Sven was sacked thirteen games in and wasnt given any benefit of the doubt. Let me ask you this, if you reach the january transfer window and realise you need a couple of good loan signings to bolster your promotion charge, would you really rather have Pearson in charge over Sven? If given more time I just happen to think Sven would've fulfilled his objective.

[red5]

Sven was miles better than Pearson.

In fact a monkey is better than Pearson.

But...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................I still blame Sven.

[Fox92]

Voted for the last one... I just think it's pointless really (sorry like). Why do we have to compare everything? If it's not Pearson and Sven, it's Pearson and O'Neill.

But to put my point over, I think Pearson has brought in better quality players than Sven did. For probably half the price as well. I don't think people taking into consideration the wages of the players under Sven, compared to under Pearson, which is an important aspect to the finance side of the club.

[indierich06]

we never had a spell as bad as this under Sven

Yet despite this run, we've still done better this season than he ever did. We were never even in the playoffs during his tenure. Says it all really.

[Kitchandro]

We were in the top 6 until it came to the crunch, and we've buckled horrendously. Sven was sacked thirteen games in and wasnt given any benefit of the doubt. Let me ask you this, if you reach the january transfer window and realise you need a couple of good loan signings to bolster your promotion charge, would you really rather have Pearson in charge over Sven? If given more time I just happen to think Sven would've fulfilled his objective.

Sven's collapse was just as bad, it just happened at a different point.

Whereas Pearson had us going well in January and it's all gone wrong mid season, Sven was doing well up until March when we lost to Cardiff. After that, we went on a downward spiral and the team became unrecognisable by the time the next season started, not just in personnel but in style of play. He wasn't given the benefit of the doubt because we had been regressing for months and in no way looked like a side challenging for promotion. And I know you'll claim I'm making excuses for him but I don't care, Pearson was not backed like Sven was financially.

I'm not going to answer your question because it's stupid. What has bolstering the squad with loan signings got to do with anything if the current squad is crap, you've got no motivational skills, the players don't believe in you, you're tactically inept, etc? You make it sound as if it was inevitable that Sven would have us around the top 2 in January and would have brought in the players to see us over the line. Personally, I think that's fantasy land, we had been going backwards since March and were getting worse still when he was sacked. We weren't a couple of loan singings from being promoted, most of our squad was average to shit.

So, again, you've selective questions and a selective memory - i've no idea why you think what you think.

[Guest]

Yet despite this run, we've still done better this season than he ever did. We were never even in the playoffs during his tenure. Says it all really.

Exactly. There's some on here who can't see more than current form. Conveniently forgetting the point you make.

[gazfox9]

Sven's collapse was just as bad, it just happened at a different point.

Whereas Pearson had us going well in January and it's all gone wrong mid season, Sven was doing well up until March when we lost to Cardiff. After that, we went on a downward spiral and the team became unrecognisable by the time the next season started, not just in personnel but in style of play. He wasn't given the benefit of the doubt because we had been regressing for months and in no way looked like a side challenging for promotion. And I know you'll claim I'm making excuses for him but I don't care, Pearson was not backed like Sven was financially.

I'm not going to answer your question because it's stupid. What has bolstering the squad with loan signings got to do with anything if the current squad is crap, you've got no motivational skills, the players don't believe in you, you're tactically inept, etc? You make it sound as if it was inevitable that Sven would have us around the top 2 in January and would have brought in the players to see us over the line. Personally, I think that's fantasy land, we had been going backwards since March and were getting worse still when he was sacked. We weren't a couple of loan singings from being promoted, most of our squad was average to shit.

So, again, you've selective questions and a selective memory - i've no idea why you think what you think.

Svens collapse was nothing like what we're currently seeing. Pearson has been financially backed as well as any manager in the football league so thats crap. He may not have spent what sven did, but as sven himself said, he gave the club a list of players he was interested in and had nothing at all to do with transfer fees or salaries- the clubs to blame there.

And as for the crap squad, no motivational skills, players dont believe in you and tactically inept....remind me who were talking about here, sounds familiar!

[gazfox9]

Exactly. There's some on here who can't see more than current form. Conveniently forgetting the point you make.

But peter taylor took us to the top of the prem. Unfortunately the season didnt finish there and then. That doesnt make him our best manager ever does it???

[nickm]

Yes.

We have a much better squad now in terms of quality and affordability.

Not bothered about affordability, don't care about quality-just want promotion!

[GamlaEnskede]

Eriksson was a world class manager who took the Leicester job for the same reasons he once signed up for Gothenburg, Benfica and Lazio -- a love for the underdog. To hire him and then fire him was definitely a "knee jerk reaction", proving the owners lack of knowledge and stamina. They've treated NP more fairly, learned from their mistake and given him a proper chance. Just like the three clubs above treated Eriksson -- and look where that got them.

[Guest]

But peter taylor took us to the top of the prem. Unfortunately the season didnt finish there and then. That doesnt make him our best manager ever does it???

Yes, being top of the prem for a week before sinking like a stone is directly comparable to being consistently top 6 in the Championship over a season up until the last month.

Congrats on missing the point though. I'm arguing that a longer term view of Pearsons tenure should be adopted. If we take a longer term view of Taylors time in charge we can hardly say much positive about it can we?

[Harry - LCFC]

actually Vitor was the only good thing Sousa bought to Leicester

Abe was pretty good in his first season I thought.

[Kitchandro]

Svens collapse was nothing like what we're currently seeing. Pearson has been financially backed as well as any manager in the football league so thats crap. He may not have spent what sven did, but as sven himself said, he gave the club a list of players he was interested in and had nothing at all to do with transfer fees or salaries- the clubs to blame there.

And as for the crap squad, no motivational skills, players dont believe in you and tactically inept....remind me who were talking about here, sounds familiar!

You're missing the point. Sven spent more money and he never even got us into the play-off places. Pearson spent less money and we've seen a team which at least showed the potential of being in the top 6, at times the top 2. It's gone horribly wrong but I see no evidence to suggest we were better off under Sven considering he spent quite a bit more and our league positions didn't improve.

In comparison, we did collapse just as badly because we had all the clout we could hope for, we werent trying to balance the books, and yet we became a team even more incapable of promotion than this one in the off season, which is about the same period of time that we have gone from hero to zero this season.

And I knew you'd try and change what I said about YOUR question into a Pearson insult. Lets get back to the real point here, your question was stupid. It makes no difference whether you think those things about Pearson, because if they are true for Sven as well your suggestion holds no water. Sven being useful in the loan market is an incorrect and irrelevent point.

[GamlaEnskede]

You're missing the point. Sven spent more money...

I think you are the one missing the point. This is about football, not balancing the books.

[foxesfan1989]

We are in a marginally better position because we actually own our players. Promotion prospects similar though.

[Guest]

I think you are the one missing the point. This is about football, not balancing the books.

But when making a direct comparison the investment is a relevant factor.

[Swiss_tony]

i don't see how you can do a like for like comparison since sven never got a full season from start to finish.

i don't think either manager is capable of getting us out of this division. i think sven came here for the money, you could even argue np did too second time around.

we had a costly squad with sven, we have a less costly one with np. the current one isn't good enough based on the table rather than anybody's rose tinted spectacles. although that may change.

[Dan LCFC]

Categorical yes. The main thing being we don't have Sven in charge.

[ozleicester]

No.... and ....

[Harry - LCFC]

I think you are the one missing the point. This is about football, not balancing the books.

Success is pointless if it is unsustainable. Would you want to flounder in financial difficulties should we fail to get promoted? At least with Pearson's strategy we're not going to damage our club by staying in the Championship. I don't know how much harm Sven did but it can't be ignored.

[Dan LCFC]

We were in the top 6 until it came to the crunch, and we've buckled horrendously. Sven was sacked thirteen games in and wasnt given any benefit of the doubt. Let me ask you this, if you reach the january transfer window and realise you need a couple of good loan signings to bolster your promotion charge, would you really rather have Pearson in charge over Sven? If given more time I just happen to think Sven would've fulfilled his objective.

How did Sven do when he had a chance to push on?

Sven's side bottled it in February too. It was never as high as this current side but never went on a run as bad as this, my point stands though - we didn't get any stronger from February onwards under Sven. We brought loanees in and if anything, they made us worse.

I think you are the one missing the point. This is about football, not balancing the books.

I'm glad you're not owner. Balancing the books should be the least any club does. Failing to spend within your means is absolutely criminal yet the vast majority of clubs in England do it without a second thought. It's terrible.

[ozleicester]

If we get/got promotion - 90 million pounds drops into the owners back pockets, that would more than cover any financial issues we may have had.

IMO, we had a better chance of promotion with Sven and his band of mercenaries than we do with NP and his "financially careful" and young hungry players.

[GamlaEnskede]

I'm glad you're not owner. Balancing the books should be the least any club does.

But the question here isn't whether we would be better off with new owners, is it? If that was the issue I would argue that it's unwise to hire an elite manager, ask him to build from scratch, then fire him and bring in a reasonably competent one who substitutes all the new players for his own lot. "Suboptimal" is probably what the accountants would call such behaviour.

[funkyrobot]

Sven's decision to invest the £1 million earned from the sale of fryatt on a half season loan of yakubu was absolutely shocking.