Col city fan Posted 14 May 2013 Share Posted 14 May 2013 Many people on the forum are still crying out for 'stability'. 'Dont sack Pearson, they shout, because the club needs some 'stability''. Well look at the two clubs who have gotten into the play-offs. Palace and Watford both have managers who have been in their respective positions for less time than Pearson. Yet they are there and we aren't. Palace effectively smashed Brighton last night due to Ollie getting his tactics spot on AND having quality when it mattered (Zaha and Bolasie). Ollie has been in his job for what? 8 months? Personally, I think this whole 'stability' thing is nonsense. If you have the correct man in the correct position at the right time it works.. Whether this be over 6 mths or 6 years. McCarthy is proving this to be the case at Ipswich also. He has turned them round, pretty quickly, from a team flirting with relegation, to a safe, mid-table side. Wolves fans are now crying to themselves that they ever let him go. Not because of 'stability' for the club (he'd been there 5/6 years when he got sacked) but because he's simply a good manager and better than any they have had since. 'Stability' in football is a myth. It's the proverbial sacred Cow that many believe must be nurtured before any real success can be achieved' I say it isn't. A good manager is a good manager is a good manager... End of... I'm not relating this thread to Nigel Pearson but to a wider concept which I believe is actually guff.. Discuss.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez of Mahrez Posted 14 May 2013 Share Posted 14 May 2013 I think it's more that it costs us huge amounts every time we get rid of managers and have to change the playing squad dramatically, with no guarantee of success. That doesn't apply to Watford or Palace. Watford have got their Udinese thing going on and Freedman chose to leave Palace, with the squad remaining fairly similar through the January transfer window. You quote Watford and Palace but you could just as easily quote Wolves and Blackburn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fosseman Posted 14 May 2013 Share Posted 14 May 2013 If you've got a good manager you should keep him. That creates its own stability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hackneyfox Posted 14 May 2013 Share Posted 14 May 2013 What amazes me is that this is almost a generaltional split with younger fans being worried about change and the older curmudgeons wanting him sacked months ago. We have had a high turnover of managers over the last ten years but it isn't the turnover that got us relegated to the third, it was employing poor managers in the first place, rather then keeping them longer most wanted them sacked earlier. It almost seems at times that some posters are fans of Pearson rather than the team and yet you know, as has happened with ex players, that the minute they leave they will be described by the majority as having been poor. Alex Ferguson is proof that if you get the right manager they sometimes need some time. Chelsea, especially under RDM & Benitez are proof that changing a manager can lead to success. The most important thing for me is that the club has to have a policy of the style of play, managers should then be chosen who buy into that hence a lower turnover of players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harpendenfox Posted 14 May 2013 Share Posted 14 May 2013 As it happens there is an article on this in the Times today, page 58. I can't link it because it requires a sub. It quotes from a book on the this issue, which concludes that a change of manager provides a short term lift, before typically performances regress to the median. Of course there are always exceptions to the rule, as quoted in this thread. But typically, this is what happens. I guess another factor in this difficult decision is the freedom a new manager would have to buy new players. Clearly we are not far away from having a team capable of promotion, and I say that despite the horror of February to April. We have to address two weaknesses: 1. the need to have two or more styles of play in order to cope with different situations. So we need a strong passing game, but we also need to be able to 'mix it' to speak euphemistically. 2. we need slightly more mental strength in our team. I think we may have too many players without the requisite mental strength to succeed when the going gets tough. Our young squad is an asset, but I'd like three of our signings this summer to be experienced. One at the back, one enforcer in the middle of the park, and an aging forward who is happy to sit on the bench, but who can step up and offer something different when things aren't going well - a la Phillips Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricey Posted 14 May 2013 Share Posted 14 May 2013 Add Steve Bruce and Hull to the list as well. I do think stability is over-rated. People have been bringing up the fact that we are most successful when we stick by a manager, but do they not realise that we stuck by those managers because we were successful, not the other way round. There was a lot of fans that wanted to keep Holloway after relegation to League One, he'd not been here long and relegation was on the cards long before he arrived. The club could have stayed loyal to him then, but decided on a change, a change which worked wonders and we bounced straight back. It's changing managers midway through the season that I'm really against, as well as having several managers during a season, obviously. I'm not saying I want Pearson gone, I'm still not sure how I feel about that, but we need to disperse the myth that keeping him will create this 'stability' and that we will definitely be better for it. We will only be stronger next season with Pearson if he can see where we are going wrong and fix it for next season. The questions are, can he see those faults? and is he the man to put them right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davieG Posted 14 May 2013 Share Posted 14 May 2013 Stability is more to do with consistency of playing style and overall playing strategy where we have continually got it wrong is to select a procession of managers with fundamentally different playing styles this triggers the need for wholesale changes to the team at considerable cost and time. I initially thought that the Sven/Pearson change would be acceptable as Pearson seemed to have adopted a more expansive style similar to Svens but since our 2nd half of the season demise he's resorted back to his more conservative/defensive/hoofball approach which has ironically lead to us leaking more and scoring less goals. If Pearson is to stay then he needs to go back to the style of play with which he started off the season that was so successful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_Fatboyslow_ Posted 14 May 2013 Share Posted 14 May 2013 Stats where are the stats ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burbage Fox Posted 14 May 2013 Share Posted 14 May 2013 Many people on the forum are still crying out for 'stability'. 'Dont sack Pearson, they shout, because the club needs some 'stability''. Well look at the two clubs who have gotten into the play-offs. Palace and Watford both have managers who have been in their respective positions for less time than Pearson. Yet they are there and we aren't. Palace effectively smashed Brighton last night due to Ollie getting his tactics spot on AND having quality when it mattered (Zaha and Bolasie). Ollie has been in his job for what? 8 months? Personally, I think this whole 'stability' thing is nonsense. If you have the correct man in the correct position at the right time it works.. Whether this be over 6 mths or 6 years. McCarthy is proving this to be the case at Ipswich also. He has turned them round, pretty quickly, from a team flirting with relegation, to a safe, mid-table side. Wolves fans are now crying to themselves that they ever let him go. Not because of 'stability' for the club (he'd been there 5/6 years when he got sacked) but because he's simply a good manager and better than any they have had since. 'Stability' in football is a myth. It's the proverbial sacred Cow that many believe must be nurtured before any real success can be achieved' I say it isn't. A good manager is a good manager is a good manager... End of... I'm not relating this thread to Nigel Pearson but to a wider concept which I believe is actually guff.. Discuss.... Like it I work in an environment where the saying is... if you continue to do the same thing you will get the same results!!! so stabilty for the sake of stabilty is not an answer, you have to be doing the right things and if situations arise and you are not doing as well as expected then you need to either change or adapt.. no eveidence to me that NP can do either so for me, I fear if he stays we will get MORE OF THE SAME Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Hankey Posted 14 May 2013 Share Posted 14 May 2013 If you've got a good manager you should keep him. That creates its own stability. Exactly, fosseman, but we haven't. We need a BETTER manager who can get the players going through brick walls for him and this Club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les-TA-Jon Posted 14 May 2013 Share Posted 14 May 2013 Agree with many points. Stability is not necessarily synonymous with keeping the same manager. It still baffles me that most people reduce all of these debates down to: - NP's good enough/NP's awful - NP needs to stay/Taxi for NP - Stability/Managerial merry go round - Short term spending/Long term development The fact is that we've seen any/all of these scenarios both work and fail at countless clubs, in varied leagues and circumstances. It's just about whatever works, and sadly that's almost always impossible to predict. The same is true with managers. I like NP, but he certainly has lots of faults that anger me and leave me baffled at times. If he's sacked, I won't be too bothered, depending on the incoming guy (he'll get my support anyhow), but as I say, it's impossible to predict what will be successful. There's no reason why, with a few more experienced players in the summer, we can't 'do a reading/cardiff' next season. But I also wouldn't be surprised if we also continued our 'nearly there' form. As I said stability is not necessarily synonymous with keeping the same manager - if NP goes then that might not be a bad thing, but I think (given the financial situation of the club) whoever comes in needs to be of the same ilk as NP. Look at Swansea, up under Rogers, stayed up under him and then gone for liverpool - but they continued where they left off, because they got in a very similar manager with the same philosophy - think Ferguson to Moyes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jollie Posted 14 May 2013 Share Posted 14 May 2013 What amazes me is that this is almost a generaltional split with younger fans being worried about change and the older curmudgeons wanting him sacked months ago. We have had a high turnover of managers over the last ten years but it isn't the turnover that got us relegated to the third, it was employing poor managers in the first place, rather then keeping them longer most wanted them sacked earlier. It almost seems at times that some posters are fans of Pearson rather than the team and yet you know, as has happened with ex players, that the minute they leave they will be described by the majority as having been poor. Alex Ferguson is proof that if you get the right manager they sometimes need some time. Chelsea, especially under RDM & Benitez are proof that changing a manager can lead to success. The most important thing for me is that the club has to have a policy of the style of play, managers should then be chosen who buy into that hence a lower turnover of players. Smashed it, close the thread, hackneyfox have virtually single handedly changed my mind on this. i was thinking more ongbthe lines of keep Pearson but beef up the back room staff, get some new blood in, someone to give Pearson a different perspective on things, and help with Plan B...I fear though that Nigel wouldnt take advice... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nickyboy Posted 14 May 2013 Share Posted 14 May 2013 I am an advocate for stability and feel wholesale changes too often just disrupt progress In relation to stability though, I do believe we should stick with Pearson as he started this building project and it was working till either a) pressure for to the inexperienced players b)Pearson bottled it tactic wise or c)form just collapsed (choose applicable) The experience of our league collapse is to be learnt from and that includes with Pearson as well, why shouldn't he have the chance to? It was under Pearson we got to 2nd so we know he is capable. IF as a club the owners do want change, then to save a transition period then were going to need a manager who has the same ethos playing wise as how we have been playing, well over Christmas anyway, this will still fall under stability in my eyes, will mean we won't need a wholesale change of the squad. Only tweaks are needed in my eyes, improve a few positions in the first 11 and more importantly have impact players on the bench so we can change game plans when needed. So ill say it again....I do feel we need stability and personally that should be keep NP but if he was to go then keep stability in the way of playing style and ethos, we don't require major changes to go up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MooseBreath Posted 14 May 2013 Share Posted 14 May 2013 Getting on the right side of the fine margins in this league is a lot about luck. There is more luck involved in football than people seem to want to admit. In our league the margins are so fine it's almost like a lottery. Probability dictates that some clubs will get that little bit more luck while others will get less. That's why Cardiff won the league and Wolves got relegated. That's why Holloway can lead a club to promotion and another to relegation. A manager can have an effect but he can't guarantee promotion. A good manager will get you a top-10 finish - whether you finish 1st or 10th is down to luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cc_star Posted 14 May 2013 Share Posted 14 May 2013 Many people on the forum are still crying out for 'stability'. 'Dont sack Pearson, they shout, because the club needs some 'stability''. Well look at the two clubs who have gotten into the play-offs. Palace and Watford both have managers who have been in their respective positions for less time than Pearson. Yet they are there and we aren't. Palace effectively smashed Brighton last night due to Ollie getting his tactics spot on AND having quality when it mattered (Zaha and Bolasie). Ollie has been in his job for what? 8 months? Personally, I think this whole 'stability' thing is nonsense. If you have the correct man in the correct position at the right time it works.. Whether this be over 6 mths or 6 years. McCarthy is proving this to be the case at Ipswich also. He has turned them round, pretty quickly, from a team flirting with relegation, to a safe, mid-table side. Wolves fans are now crying to themselves that they ever let him go. Not because of 'stability' for the club (he'd been there 5/6 years when he got sacked) but because he's simply a good manager and better than any they have had since. 'Stability' in football is a myth. It's the proverbial sacred Cow that many believe must be nurtured before any real success can be achieved' I say it isn't. A good manager is a good manager is a good manager... End of... I'm not relating this thread to Nigel Pearson but to a wider concept which I believe is actually guff.. Discuss.... And yet, Watford have massively underachieved with the best players in the division by a mile and needed a once in a lifetime freak occurrence to beat us in almost 200 mins of football. Freedman is the good Palace manager, he saved them from relegation and then took them into the playoff places, Holloway had 1 win in 11 and probably had Palace fans calling for his head (if they're anything like our fans) and almost blew it. Also, you seem to be suggesting that Holloway, our worst ever manager that after a period of sackings took us to our lowest ever league position in our entire history... is a good manager. Stability is guff. Sacking managers is also guff. there is no exact science. The two examples you give haven't achieved a patch on what the last two champions of our division have achieved. Reading & Cardiff didn't sack their managers who achieved playoffs in their first full season. Both managers were allowed to continue their projects and add to their side (arguably something we should have done in 2010 rather than the ensuing circus which followed and sees us having to manage crippling debts). Both those sides practiced stability, both those managers continued rebuilding their sides after their respective playoff defeats (Cardiff lost 5-0 too). So two clubs who have changed managers, one underachieved in getting into the playoffs and one just like us was pretty lucky to in the end - One will miss out making your example a bit weird. One of them will get promoted but I'm not sure what you can learn from that given their circumstances, especially Watford's ownership model which is the reason for their 'success' rather than Zola. Two clubs stuck with their manager and not only won promotion but built a side capable of winning the division. I don't think you can draw anything either way, there is no exact blueprint - although out of the 4 sides as examples - 'stability' pisses all over 'change'. There's not much appetite among fans to start all over again... again, again. Many think it's time we gave the other way a turn & not throwing the manager out, instead allowing him to continue the rebuilding which is so clearly halfway done looking at the non-achieving, non-contributing players... and just for once in our recent history - actually add to the side... and maybe, just maybe emulate Reading & Cardiff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babylon Posted 14 May 2013 Share Posted 14 May 2013 Many people on the forum are still crying out for 'stability'. 'Dont sack Pearson, they shout, because the club needs some 'stability''. Well look at the two clubs who have gotten into the play-offs. Palace and Watford both have managers who have been in their respective positions for less time than Pearson. Yet they are there and we aren't. Palace effectively smashed Brighton last night due to Ollie getting his tactics spot on AND having quality when it mattered (Zaha and Bolasie). Ollie has been in his job for what? 8 months? Personally, I think this whole 'stability' thing is nonsense. If you have the correct man in the correct position at the right time it works.. Whether this be over 6 mths or 6 years. McCarthy is proving this to be the case at Ipswich also. He has turned them round, pretty quickly, from a team flirting with relegation, to a safe, mid-table side. Wolves fans are now crying to themselves that they ever let him go. Not because of 'stability' for the club (he'd been there 5/6 years when he got sacked) but because he's simply a good manager and better than any they have had since. 'Stability' in football is a myth. It's the proverbial sacred Cow that many believe must be nurtured before any real success can be achieved' I say it isn't. A good manager is a good manager is a good manager... End of... I'm not relating this thread to Nigel Pearson but to a wider concept which I believe is actually guff.. Discuss.... Stability doesn't guarantee success, just as sacking the manager doesn't. You state Palace and Watford as examples of teams doing well with a new manager. But as we should all know very well that tends to be the exception rather than the rule and these teams and others can often go thorough a dozen managers before striking lucky and getting the one that does work. Sometimes leading to a disaster (thanks Ollie). I have no idea what will bring success, last year we sat here in the same boat discussing Pearson after he made little impact on his return and then after a summer away we found ourselves 2nd in the league come Feb this year after a decent start to the season. Perhaps we will learn from his mistakes, perhaps a summer away will give him the chance to fix a few problems as he did last time. Perhaps he's just too slow to learn and too slow to fix the problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobHawk Posted 14 May 2013 Share Posted 14 May 2013 You could argue that we have been successful with the stability of Nigel over the last 18 months. We have improved our league position, getting to the playoffs under him for the 2nd time, the wage bill has been reduced, some bad eggs have gone, some good young players have come in and at times we have looked unbeatable in this league. Now i understand the disappointment of the 2nd half of this season, but sometimes that is football! For me if Nigel is given another season to get rid of some more players that are sat on the wage bill but not part of his squad (Beckford, Danns, st ledger etc) and bring in some more Pearson players. I think this time next year we will be sitting pretty! For me slow steady success is alot more likely to be maintained than a quick flash in the pan. Look at Swansea, who went up and stayed up! They may have changed managers but the ethos and spine of the team has remained the same! The likes of Ashley Williams, Leon Brittain, Angel Rangel and Nathan dyer who are still regulars were there in their play off season. Change has occured but slowly and the team is constantly improved but on the basis of the solid foundations already there! For me, Nigel has to be given 1 more full season before talk of change should even be considered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Col city fan Posted 14 May 2013 Author Share Posted 14 May 2013 You could argue that we have been successful with the stability of Nigel over the last 18 months. We have improved our league position, getting to the playoffs under him for the 2nd time, the wage bill has been reduced, some bad eggs have gone, some good young players have come in and at times we have looked unbeatable in this league. Now i understand the disappointment of the 2nd half of this season, but sometimes that is football! For me if Nigel is given another season to get rid of some more players that are sat on the wage bill but not part of his squad (Beckford, Danns, st ledger etc) and bring in some more Pearson players. I think this time next year we will be sitting pretty! For me slow steady success is alot more likely to be maintained than a quick flash in the pan. Look at Swansea, who went up and stayed up! They may have changed managers but the ethos and spine of the team has remained the same! The likes of Ashley Williams, Leon Brittain, Angel Rangel and Nathan dyer who are still regulars were there in their play off season. Change has occured but slowly and the team is constantly improved but on the basis of the solid foundations already there! For me, Nigel has to be given 1 more full season before talk of change should even be considered. I agree with the one more season and have said as much. However, as I indicated in my OP this thread wasn't aimed exclusively at Pearson. More a general discussion on myth or reality. Cheers though mate and there have been some really interesting replies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ashfosse Posted 14 May 2013 Share Posted 14 May 2013 What’s more key for me is to have an identity. Arsenal with Wenger, United formerly with Fergie, I’m just fed up with the managerial merry go round. It may not be key as people are saying, but stability is certainly not a bad thing. What the club has been through this season I feel will create more unity and spirit for next season. KEEP PEARSON WYS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 14 May 2013 Share Posted 14 May 2013 Amazed Watford and Palace are being used as positve examples for 'change'. You could argue Watford have the best squad in the division and have underachieved whilst Palace have been in at best mid table form since the change, had they not managed to loan back a 15million pound player they would never have made it either. Out of teh 48 changes this season across the whole division 2 of those changes came in the top six. That's a fairly decent argument for stability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnny the fox Posted 14 May 2013 Share Posted 14 May 2013 Add steve bruce to the equation ,barmby was sacked as manager very quickly after pearson jumped ship.The hull owners realized he was the wrong choice,bruce came in at the start of this season.. and look what happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Floating Fox Posted 14 May 2013 Share Posted 14 May 2013 Some absolute guff in here!!! Ok so people are saying Holloway is a good manager because of what he's done at Palace? Even though Freedman was there for half a season and did a better job?? Yet Holloway was the same man who relegated us? Yeah he's really good manager yeah? The Steve Bruce situation is different, Hull had already lost their manager...they didn't sack NP! He jumped ship so they had no choice but to replace him. How did the Hull owners realise NP was "the wrong man", if he left them? Bristol city got rid of McInnes and brought in Sean O'Driscall, who did nothing to stop the rot their. Brighton have had Poyet for a long period and done very well. There are several managers brought in who failed too. Wolves & Blackburn have had several, QPR another. Be interesting to see what people think of Redknapp? However, I do agree that stability doesn't always equal sucsess. I mean derby have had Clough for years but not done anything special for a while, but then again they haven't had any serious relegation worries either. NP's win percentage is over 40% in his 2nd term with us, not taking into account the 51% before he left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seenitall Posted 14 May 2013 Share Posted 14 May 2013 If Holloway does get Palace up through the play offs that will be twice he has triumphed there....that makes him better than Nige (even with his once so far) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamN Posted 14 May 2013 Share Posted 14 May 2013 Quite frankly, I, and I'm guessing many of fans are sick of seeing managers come and go season after season. I won't be one to say that stability will guarantee us success, but neither will sacking managers every time they do something that's less than perfect. And if you want to look at the cold, hard facts, the man who's led us to our three highest Championship finishes since being relegated from the Premier League is Nigel Pearson. I find that encouraging enough to allow him to continue building (and hopefully improving) the team the way he wants, instead of once again overhauling the entire side and possibly going right back to square one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Floating Fox Posted 14 May 2013 Share Posted 14 May 2013 Wow....someone with some common sense in this thread? GET OUT! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.