What has Ian Stringer done now?!

[yorkie1999]

Clearly not from the Stay or Go thread that states 19% to 81%

thats the problem with stats and percentages etc. 82 people out of 20 odd thousand vote he should go and all of a sudden its nearly half the fans.

[MPH]

Asking probing and awkward questions of Pearson is Stringer's job. If the manager and the club don't like it then they'll doubtless make their views known somehow or another as has been the case many times in the past.

 

But, while I accept Stringer might be seen as irritating, arrogant and egotistical at times (something hardly  out of place among football club people) he deserves respect for vainly trying to ask the sort of questions which some might think need an answer but which football people seem to have been trained to evade, perhaps as part of their Professional qualification requirement.

 

As for Pearson he'll face a much harder grilling if he ever becomes a Premiership manager so he needs to learn how to deal positively with being interviewed by anyone and everyone. Unfortunately I'm not sure learning and changing are among Pearson's strengths. 

 

 

He's a local BBC reporter not some nationally recognized hot shot who can afford to upset people....

[5waller5]

40%??? where did you get that crap from?

 

Two weeks ago the poll for him to go had 40% in favour.

 

That's when he stopped talking to Stringer.

 

Possibly ask your question in a less aggressive way and then you won't look so foolish when i prove it's not "crap".

[Thracian]

He's a local BBC reporter not some nationally recognized hot shot who can afford to upset people....

 

If he's not upsetting people he's probably not doing his job properly or asking the right questions. Local issues can be as important to local people as national ones and if the local paper/radio is not prepared to ask important or probing questions within its community then there's not a lot of journalistic point in their continued existence.   

[smudger63]

If he's not upsetting people he's probably not doing his job properly or asking the right questions. Local issues can be as important to local people as national ones and if the local paper/radio is not prepared to ask important or probing questions within its community then there's not a lot of journalistic point in their continued existence.   

Exactly! 

[Buzzell]

But Danns isn't good enough so why should it matter?

I'm sure Danns was doing a good job before the end of last season?

[MC Prussian]

I don't want MM .... but I don't agree he's the same as NP .... MM is actually quite funny - he's very dry and quite witty. 

So what - your only issue with Pearson is that he's not witty enough?

 

Jeez, there's just no pleasing people.

[Guest]

If he's not upsetting people he's probably not doing his job properly or asking the right questions. Local issues can be as important to local people as national ones and if the local paper/radio is not prepared to ask important or probing questions within its community then there's not a lot of journalistic point in their continued existence.

Yes but charm and disarm is a much more effective tactic to get the information you want.

It's no good if you just piss the person off you're interviewing because they'll just refuse to answer

[5waller5]

So what - your only issue with Pearson is that he's not witty enough?

 

Jeez, there's just no pleasing people.

 

 

No i have loads of well documented reasons why i think NP is very average. I was replying to a post that said him and MM were very similar characters ..... I disagreed with that post - i thought it was pretty clear. 

 

If I didn't like NP because he wasn't witty enough I'd say something like; "I don't like NP for no other reason than he's not witty enough"

[yorkie1999]

Two weeks ago the poll for him to go had 40% in favour.

 

That's when he stopped talking to Stringer.

 

Possibly ask your question in a less aggressive way and then you won't look so foolish when i prove it's not "crap".

Which poll? 40% of 300 odd votes on a forum doesn't exactly represent anything, and i can definitely say i have never seen anyone at the kp conducting a poll on whether we should get rid of nigel pearson. 

[5waller5]

Which poll? 40% of 300 odd votes on a forum doesn't exactly represent anything, and i can definitely say i have never seen anyone at the kp conducting a poll on whether we should get rid of nigel pearson. 

 

 

Amazing.

 

The same poll two weeks later is statistically relevant, and quoted against my point ... but the very same one two weeks earlier is not statistically relevant now.

Which poll? 40% of 300 odd votes on a forum doesn't exactly represent anything, and i can definitely say i have never seen anyone at the kp conducting a poll on whether we should get rid of nigel pearson. 

 

 

Oh and wasn't the approval rating in the mercury even lower???

[yorkie1999]

Amazing.

 

The same poll two weeks later is statistically relevant, and quoted against my point ... but the very same one two weeks earlier is not statistically relevant now.

 

 

Oh and wasn't the approval rating in the mercury even lower???

Like a broken pencil.

[5waller5]

Like a broken pencil.

 

Lame.

 

Don't accuse someone of talking crap if you aren't willing to listen to their answer and proof why they're not.

[yorkie1999]

Lame.

 

Don't accuse someone of talking crap if you aren't willing to listen to their answer and proof why they're not.

Hang on, you're the one that's made the statement that 40% of leicester fans want rid of Pearson. I'm saying that's crap because you've based that on the results from a football forum of which, i'm guessing, 300 odd people voted on. i'd also hazard a guess that 80% of leicester fans have never even heard of this forum. You are twisting facts and figures to make it seem a fairly large proportion of the fans want to get rid of the manager.

[5waller5]

Hang on, you're the one that's made the statement that 40% of leicester fans want rid of Pearson. I'm saying that's crap because you've based that on the results from a football forum of which, i'm guessing, 300 odd people voted on. i'd also hazard a guess that 80% of leicester fans have never even heard of this forum. You are twisting facts and figures to make it seem a fairly large proportion of the fans want to get rid of the manager.

 

 

I've quoted the forum poll that we are posting on. It's not a bad source given the acceptance that this is one of the most pro-pearson forums. The mercury had a poll in which he polled a similar backing, and that was a different set of fans so given two sets of a few hundred people out of a fan base of 30-40,000 i'd say that wasn't a bad representative sample.

 

Anecdotally, of the 20 or so LCFC fans that i speak to in work and social settings i don't currently know any that are pro pearson. They range from being not bothered at all if he stays or goes to being passionately in favour of change.

 

Split hairs on the poll legitimacy ..... but quoting two polls with the factual results from them hardly warrants a response "where do you get that crap from?"

[Mack]

BBC local radio is not about sensation or stirring things up.

It's a public service, and Stringer would do well to keep that in his mind when he is pissing off Pearson.

[Guest Col city fan]

BBC local radio is not about sensation or stirring things up.

It's a public service, and Stringer would do well to keep that in his mind when he is pissing off Pearson.

And Pearson would do very well to keep that in mind when he childishly starts crying like a baby and refuses to give 'the public' answers to questions set by 'The Evil Stringer'...

[Bettsj2]

And Pearson would do very well to keep that in mind when he childishly starts crying like a baby and refuses to give 'the public' answers to questions set by 'The Evil Stringer'...

I think this is the misconception. I can thinknof a single questions Stringer has ever asked Pearson that would piss him off that Pearson COULD actually answer.

Questions like, 'Is your job under threat?', and 'Why are you playing badly?' Are not really questions that he can answer to a degree that will satisfy us. Especially not so close to the end of a game. You often find on here that peoples initial reaction to game changes as the days go on so ita not all together a shock if NP doesnt give Stringer the full team de-brief in the post match interview.

Earlier in the season Stringer asked him about Harry Redknapp every week for about 6 weeks. He said he ignores speculation and just gets on with his job but he kept on asking him even though its quite obvious that even if the owners were talking to other managers, the last person that would know about it would be NP!

As a commentator I like him. He has his flaws but he's streets ahead of what we've had before but his interviews with everyone not just NP are bloody awful. If he wants to move on into aerious journalism, he needs to start recognising that an interview cannot just be conducted with his agenda in mind.

[indierich06]

And Pearson would do very well to keep that in mind when he childishly starts crying like a baby and refuses to give 'the public' answers to questions set by 'The Evil Stringer'...

Come on Col - even you've got to admit that Stringer can be a right ****ing muppet sometimes. Asking stuff like 'have you taken this side as far as you can' after the Watford game, he's not looking for answers for the fans, he's always looking for that sensationalist angle to try and further his own career.

 

He's given Stringer plenty of chances and if he's finally had enough of the bloke then I can't really blame him to be honest. You ask any jounalist what they think of Ian Stringer's interviewing technique and they'll tell you he's a rank amateur. If I were running Radio Leicester, I'd be very concerned that this buffoon was doing lasting damage to the relationship between the club and the station. Is it too hard for them to appoint someone with, y'know, a bit of journalism training? I know 1st year journalism students who could do a better job than that clown. 

[Guest Col city fan]

I think this is the misconception. I can thinknof a single questions Stringer has ever asked Pearson that would piss him off that Pearson COULD actually answer.

Questions like, 'Is your job under threat?', and 'Why are you playing badly?' Are not really questions that he can answer to a degree that will satisfy us. Especially not so close to the end of a game. You often find on here that peoples initial reaction to game changes as the days go on so ita not all together a shock if NP doesnt give Stringer the full team de-brief in the post match interview.

Earlier in the season Stringer asked him about Harry Redknapp every week for about 6 weeks. He said he ignores speculation and just gets on with his job but he kept on asking him even though its quite obvious that even if the owners were talking to other managers, the last person that would know about it would be NP!

As a commentator I like him. He has his flaws but he's streets ahead of what we've had before but his interviews with everyone not just NP are bloody awful. If he wants to move on into aerious journalism, he needs to start recognising that an interview cannot just be conducted with his agenda in mind.

Don't agree.. There's been plenty of times Stringer has asked Pearson a straightforward question to which he's received either near silence or some mumblings of something. I can't remember the game this season (must have been mid way through our terrible run) when Pearson gave the biggest cry-baby interview I think I've heard from him. And was pretty much slated for it.

It's not a misconception on my part.. Maybe on yours?

I think Pearson should turn it round and, rather than being mardy about it, start to joke about it.. Maybe turn some of Stringer's questions back on himself? ie deal with the situation with humour, almost piss-taking, rather than sulking.

For the final time, when Pearson doesn't talk openly to Stringer, in my eyes he doesn't talk openly to ME. As a paying customer I expect more from these interviews than petty mumblings, which is what we sometimes seem to get, based upon Pearson's mood and Stringer's questions.

[Mack]

And Pearson would do very well to keep that in mind when he childishly starts crying like a baby and refuses to give 'the public' answers to questions set by 'The Evil Stringer'...

 

For me it's not Stringer's job to start asking probing questions about the Manager's future etc.

When I am driving home from the game I want to hear Pearson's thoughts on what I've just seen, not an egotistic battle of wills.

[shade]

there's something almost sociopathic about Pearson, stringers a pissant but NP must be one of the most defensive, easy to offend people in football. there have been a few times when stringers asked an innocuous question and NP has misinterpreted it (I don't think he's as clever as he tries to come across) and you can hear the contained aggression in his voice. overall I think NP would benefit from being a little less serious, he's the antithesis of holloway, neither is ideal.

[Guest Col city fan]

there's something almost sociopathic about Pearson, stringers a pissant but NP must be one of the most defensive, easy to offend people in football. there have been a few times when stringers asked an innocuous question and NP has misinterpreted it (I don't think he's as clever as he tries to come across) and you can hear the contained aggression in his voice. overall I think NP would benefit from being a little less serious, he's the antithesis of holloway, neither is ideal.

Completely agree

[Bettsj2]

Don't agree.. There's been plenty of times Stringer has asked Pearson a straightforward question to which he's received either near silence or some mumblings of something. I can't remember the game this season (must have been mid way through our terrible run) when Pearson gave the biggest cry-baby interview I think I've heard from him. And was pretty much slated for it.

It's not a misconception on my part.. Maybe on yours?

I think Pearson should turn it round and, rather than being mardy about it, start to joke about it.. Maybe turn some of Stringer's questions back on himself? ie deal with the situation with humour, almost piss-taking, rather than sulking.

For the final time, when Pearson doesn't talk openly to Stringer, in my eyes he doesn't talk openly to ME. As a paying customer I expect more from these interviews than petty mumblings, which is what we sometimes seem to get, based upon Pearson's mood and Stringer's questions.

I see what you're saying and dont disagree NP doesnt help himself but using humour is the last thing he should do in those situations.

Can you imagine what would happen if after a shit defeat, he started some sort of banter session with Stringer? People think he doesnt care now, if he did that...

[fearless fox]

i dont know what the confusion is, ian asks the questions what we all want to know from pearson! 1 in 16 games ppl wake up!! and whats more we were sitting 2nd at the time in the table, he has no man management skills, loans out old school and then, when they get returned puts them in the team, i mean cmon!! anyway point is stringer  is hardered city and does ask the rite questions!!!!