Is there really a better alternative to Pearson

[inckley fox]

Who has?

 

To say we are the second youngest side in the division, the fourth youngest in the whole league, is to say we are exceptionally young. That's what 'exceptional' means - for there to be something different or unusual about whatever it is that you're describing. And it has been claimed again and again and again that our side's youthfulness is exceptional; because we are younger than all but three sides in the entire football league. And. in turn, this has repeatedly been put forward as one of the main justifications for progress having been made under Pearson and one of the main reasons for our failure to go up this season.

 

Therefore the fact that, contrary to what you and various others have been saying, this is simply factually incorrect is quite significant.

[indierich06]

You can keep denying it, but he quite simply did sign him. On loan, yes, but it's perfectly clear that this loan led to his permanent transfer in the August. I've not argued that Pearson made the deal permanent (although he did say that he would like to), but he did bring him to the club in the first place, and that was central to his coming to the club in the end. The fee, obviously, was the board's doing. I don't think managers decide how much a club is willing to spend on players anyway.

 

I'm not trying to hang Pearson out to dry for his part in Waghorn being at the club - and whether you like it or not he did have a part in that - I'm just pointing out that when it comes to the usual difficulties that managers have with players that they haven't signed (e.g. 'will they fit in with the set-up I want to introduce?' etc.), this would not have applied to Waghorn. Neither can he be considered the sort of player who Pearson would have wanted to get rid of upon his return, seeing as he brought him to the club in the first place and wanted to complete the signing which - yes, granted - someone else made in his absence.

 

You surely can't deny this?

 

No, I really don't agree with that, there's no way you can say Pearson had anything to do with the permanent signing of Martyn Waghorn. We don't know if he would have wanted to sign him permanently if he'd stayed on, and whether he would have agreed with paying £3 million for him.

 

You say that manager's have no say in how much money the club spends on players, but Pearson has repeatedly stated that he'd only ever look to bring in players for the right money and who would add value to the squad. I personally think he would have baulked at the club spending £3 million on Waghorn and would have been more interested in spending that money elsewhere.

 

But due to the untimely end to his first spell at Leicester, I guess we'll never know. But one thing is for sure - while he was certainly responsible for bringing him in on loan, you can't then say that he was responsible for the permanent signing just because the player had been on loan at the club during his tenure, unless you subscribe to the opinion that he was signed by the board to appease the fans after Pearson left.

[Babylon]

You can keep denying it, but he quite simply did sign him. On loan, yes, but it's perfectly clear that this loan led to his permanent transfer in the August. I've not argued that Pearson made the deal permanent (although he did say that he would like to), but he did bring him to the club in the first place, and that was central to his coming to the club in the end. The fee, obviously, was the board's doing. I don't think managers decide how much a club is willing to spend on players anyway.

 

I'm not trying to hang Pearson out to dry for his part in Waghorn being at the club - and whether you like it or not he did have a part in that - I'm just pointing out that when it comes to the usual difficulties that managers have with players that they haven't signed (e.g. 'will they fit in with the set-up I want to introduce?' etc.), this would not have applied to Waghorn. Neither can he be considered the sort of player who Pearson would have wanted to get rid of upon his return, seeing as he brought him to the club in the first place and wanted to complete the signing which - yes, granted - someone else made in his absence.

 

You surely can't deny this?

The contract Waghorn signed for Pearson finished before Pearson left. It was down to Sousa and the club that Waghorn signed for an inflated fee.

 

Nobody is arguing that they aren't the type of personality he would want, but their quality for the job he is now tasked with compared to when they signed is different, and what they are taking out in wages to what they are capable of providing is rather lop sided.

 

Had Pearson been here previously then these players would not be sat on the contracts they are on, I think it's fairly safe to presume. It would have been easier to shift them now had we wanted, or much cheaper to keep them around as squad players as and when they are needed.

[inckley fox]

No, I really don't agree with that, there's no way you can say Pearson had anything to do with the permanent signing of Martyn Waghorn. We don't know if he would have wanted to sign him permanently if he'd stayed on, and whether he would have agreed with paying £3 million for him.

 

You say that manager's have no say in how much money the club spends on players, but Pearson has repeatedly stated that he'd only ever look to bring in players for the right money and who would add value to the squad. I personally think he would have baulked at the club spending £3 million on Waghorn and would have been more interested in spending that money elsewhere.

 

But due to the untimely end to his first spell at Leicester, I guess we'll never know. But one thing is for sure - while he was certainly responsible for bringing him in on loan, you can't then say that he was responsible for the permanent signing just because the player had been on loan at the club during his tenure, unless you subscribe to the opinion that he was signed by the board to appease the fans after Pearson left.

 

I haven't said that he was responsible for the permanent signing. In fact I said that he wasn't. And we DO know that he would have liked to sign him permanently if he had stayed on, because he said so at the time. Would he have spent 3m? I don't know. Let's not get carried away thinking Pearson is too prudent for that; after all he spent a million on Vardy.

 

But to say that Pearson isn't partly responsible for Waghorn being at the club is straightforwardly wrong. If he had turned out to be a world beater then we'd be perfectly happy to credit Pearson with having uncovered a magnificent talent, but he didn't and as a consequence people want to deny that Pearson had anything to do with it at all.

 

All of which makes it seem as if I'm blaming Pearson for Waghorn, Wellens and Gallagher being here. No, I'm not, although they were his signings (with, as I said in my initial post (!), the 'partial exception' of Waghorn) in the beginning and whether or not they do well is a reflection on his transfer policy, just as Cleverley doing well for Manchester United is repeatedly used by fans as evidence of NP's prowess in the market.

 

My original point was, and is, that if players were signed by Pearson in the first place, then it will be easier for him to incorporate them into his plans than most players who were brought in as part of someone else's team-building. He had already established a working relationship with them. They were his signings and had played a season under his leadership. These things inevitably help to smooth the transition. So it's misleading to suggest that these players were necessarily a burden on him when he took charge.

 

Surely we can agree on this? Surely it's stating the obvious.

 

And yes, Pearson has said he's looking to bring players in for the right money. But that's a consequence of the funds made available by the board. A manager will look for players he suspects to be within his price and wage range, but the board will negotiate the details. If a club holds out for more money then it's down to a financier to decide whether the money is there or not. Yes the manager has a say, but it's rarely the final say.

[Bob Weasel Fox]

A better alternative is only one that does better, so yes there are always potentially better alternatives... but potentially there are also some disasters waiting to happen.

This

If we do make a change it has to be the right change

[Babylon]

So it's misleading to suggest that these players were necessarily a burden on him when he took charge.

 

A financial burden they are and were, along with several others.

[hackneyfox]

, unless you subscribe to the opinion that he was signed by the board to appease the fans after Pearson left.

I was told that the owners asked who the best player to sign at the time was to get the fans onside.

Always believed it to be true as he clearly wasn't going to fit in to a Sousa side so he wasn't responsible.

[inckley fox]

The contract Waghorn signed for Pearson finished before Pearson left. It was down to Sousa and the club that Waghorn signed for an inflated fee.

 

Nobody is arguing that they aren't the type of personality he would want, but their quality for the job he is now tasked with compared to when they signed is different, and what they are taking out in wages to what they are capable of providing is rather lop sided.

 

Had Pearson been here previously then these players would not be sat on the contracts they are on, I think it's fairly safe to presume. It would have been easier to shift them now had we wanted, or much cheaper to keep them around as squad players as and when they are needed.

 

Yes, no one is arguing with this. But equally he would never have signed a permanent deal without having been on loan under Pearson. Mandaric described the deal, if I recall his words correctly, as 'bringing Waggy home'. Now there's no doubt that if he had gone on to be a world beater for us, many people on here would be crediting Pearson with having brought him in in the first place; uncovering a magnificent talent etc. I doubt the bulk of the credit would be going to Sousa. As such when it doesn't work out this should also be a reflection, to some small extent, on the manager. You can't have the best of both worlds.

 

A manager's transfer policy is partly dictated by how players do after they have parted company. People look to where Cleverley is now as evidence of Pearson's eye for a player. In the same way, how Wellens, Gallagher, Waghorn and anyone else he's ever signed are doing, wherever they are doing it, must therefore be some sort of a reflection on his ability to spot a player.

 

In the case of these three with - as I've said all along - the partial exception of Waghorn, he brought these players to Leicester. So how they do here, now, is rather more important - and a more vivid representation of his skill in the market - than players who are now doing a job elsewhere. Now that's not to say he is entirely responsible for them being here, not to say that I'm criticising him for having signed them in the first place. Above all, it's not the point I was making in the first place (which is that inheriting these players could hardly be considered a major burden on him, because he'd signed them in the first place). But it is a fact that a manager is partly judged by how his players perform long after the day he signs them.

[indierich06]

I haven't said that he was responsible for the permanent signing. In fact I said that he wasn't. And we DO know that he would have liked to sign him permanently if he had stayed on, because he said so at the time. Would he have spent 3m? I don't know. Let's not get carried away thinking Pearson is too prudent for that; after all he spent a million on Vardy.

 

But to say that Pearson isn't partly responsible for Waghorn being at the club is straightforwardly wrong. If he had turned out to be a world beater then we'd be perfectly happy to credit Pearson with having uncovered a magnificent talent, but he didn't and as a consequence people want to deny that Pearson had anything to do with it at all.

 

All of which makes it seem as if I'm blaming Pearson for Waghorn, Wellens and Gallagher being here. No, I'm not, although they were his signings (with, as I said in my initial post (!), the 'partial exception' of Waghorn) in the beginning and whether or not they do well is a reflection on his transfer policy, just as Cleverley doing well for Manchester United is repeatedly used by fans as evidence of NP's prowess in the market.

 

My original point was, and is, that if players were signed by Pearson in the first place, then it will be easier for him to incorporate them into his plans than most players who were brought in as part of someone else's team-building. He had already established a working relationship with them. They were his signings and had played a season under his leadership. These things inevitably help to smooth the transition. So it's misleading to suggest that these players were necessarily a burden on him when he took charge.

 

Surely we can agree on this? Surely it's stating the obvious.

 

And yes, Pearson has said he's looking to bring players in for the right money. But that's a consequence of the funds made available by the board. A manager will look for players he suspects to be within his price and wage range, but the board will negotiate the details. If a club holds out for more money then it's down to a financier to decide whether the money is there or not. Yes the manager has a say, but it's rarely the final say.

 

I see what you're saying, and this would be all well and good if they were still a part of his plans, but they're clearly not. Gallagher and Wellens have barely featured this season and Waghorn has only featured intermittently. Expectation has sky rocketed since these players signed and now anything other than automatic promotion is greted with absolute fury by our fans - when these players were brought in, it was our first season in the Championship and we did extremely well to finish in the top 6. These players aren't good enough for a team whose bare minimum appears to be automatic promotion now.

 

Besides, my point is that it's not necessarily the players themselves that are the burden on the manager, it's the financial constraints we find ourselves in because of the contracts they're on. An enormous proportion of our wage budget is now being taken up by players that are not good enough or do not feature in the manager's first team plans and that is obviously going to hamper the manager when he tries to bring in quality players for the side. I don't think it's any coincidence at all that the majority of the players we've signed under Pearson's second spell here have been mostly young lads who won't command high wages.

[Babylon]

Yes, no one is arguing with this. But equally he would never have signed a permanent deal without having been on loan under Pearson. Mandaric described the deal, if I recall his words correctly, as 'bringing Waggy home'. Now there's no doubt that if he had gone on to be a world beater for us, many people on here would be crediting Pearson with having brought him in in the first place; uncovering a magnificent talent etc. I doubt the bulk of the credit would be going to Sousa. As such when it doesn't work out this should also be a reflection, to some small extent, on the manager. You can't have the best of both worlds.

Your point is so hypothetical. You don't know if Pearson would have signed him, or whether he would have paid that much for him if he had, or whether he'd have been a different player had he not spent the best part of three years either on the wing, on the bench or injured.

 

I'm not trying to have the best of both worlds, I'm having the best of what actually happened.

 

 

Above all, it's not the point I was making in the first place (which is that inheriting these players could hardly be considered a major burden on him,

He said the players were a bruden, and are you sure they were not talking about the stupid contracts they sit on?

[inckley fox]

A financial burden they are and were, along with several others.

 

Every player is a financial burden, to some extent. It's whether that is counterbalanced by them not being burdens on the pitch. And Pearson put Gallagher and Wellens at the heart of his plans when he left and when he returned to the club, so at that moment he continued to see value in the pair of them. He couldn't build his team around Waghorn because, quite apart from being injured, he'd just signed him on loan at Hull.

 

Put simply, these players were not always burdens. Not even to Pearson.

 

All of which brings us back round to my first point, which is that we now have lots of financial burdens on our hands which offer us little in return: Those for which Sven is responsible (Beckford, Danns, St Ledger), those for which Pearson is responsible (Vardy, Whitbread, Futacs) and those for which a combination of managers are responsible (Wellens, Gallagher, Waghorn).

 

To say that they have always been useless when Pearson picked many of them week-in-week-out for all of last season and some of this season, and when many other sides in this league would love to have them at their disposal, is over the top. Just like it's over the top to ignore the burdens which Pearson has created for himself, or the benefits we've enjoyed from rather better leftovers such as Schmeichel, Konchesky and Nugent. Indeed, if we're going to blame Sven for renewing Wellens' and Gallagher's contracts, then should we be crediting him for having Dyer, King and Schlupp on the books?

[inckley fox]

Your point is so hypothetical. You don't know if Pearson would have signed him, or whether he would have paid that much for him if he had, or whether he'd have been a different player had he not spent the best part of three years either on the wing, on the bench or injured.

 

I'm not trying to have the best of both worlds, I'm having the best of what actually happened.

 

So Pearson didn't sign him on loan and say he would like to sign him permanently? His signing had nothing to do with the season-long loan that preceded it? What, exactly, is hypothetical about that? As far as I remember that's precisely what happened.

 

And obviously, had he turned out to do a great job for us, fans would have credited Pearson for bringing him in in the first place. They consider Cleverley to be evidence of Pearson's eye for a player, based on what he's done since then at another club, so why wouldn't they credit him for spotting a player that went on to do well here? My point is, that if you want to credit a manager for something going well, then it should in turn be a reflection on him when it doesn't.

 

Now I'd agree that it's the permanent signing, not the loan signing, which worked out badly for the club and we can't lay that on Pearson because he wasn't here. But my principal point, as I keep saying, has always been that Pearson signed him at first, said he wanted to sign him permanently and signed him on loan at Hull - so it's fair to say that he wouldn't have seen Waghorn as a burden when he turned up to manage Leicester in November 2011. In fact it's fair to say that he thought him to be quite a player.

[peach0000]

what i don't get is a couple of weeks ago it seemed most people wanted pearson to go and now 2 wins and a loss later everything is good again.

[foxaholic]

I see what you're saying, and this would be all well and good if they were still a part of his plans, but they're clearly not. Gallagher and Wellens have barely featured this season and Waghorn has only featured intermittently. Expectation has sky rocketed since these players signed and now anything other than automatic promotion is greted with absolute fury by our fans - when these players were brought in, it was our first season in the Championship and we did extremely well to finish in the top 6. These players aren't good enough for a team whose bare minimum appears to be automatic promotion now.

 

Besides, my point is that it's not necessarily the players themselves that are the burden on the manager, it's the financial constraints we find ourselves in because of the contracts they're on. An enormous proportion of our wage budget is now being taken up by players that are not good enough or do not feature in the manager's first team plans and that is obviously going to hamper the manager when he tries to bring in quality players for the side. I don't think it's any coincidence at all that the majority of the players we've signed under Pearson's second spell here have been mostly young lads who won't command high wages.

[foxaholic]

 

I see what you're saying, and this would be all well and good if they were still a part of his plans, but they're clearly not. Gallagher and Wellens have barely featured this season and Waghorn has only featured intermittently. Expectation has sky rocketed since these players signed and now anything other than automatic promotion is greted with absolute fury by our fans - when these players were brought in, it was our first season in the Championship and we did extremely well to finish in the top 6. These players aren't good enough for a team whose bare minimum appears to be automatic promotion now.

 

Besides, my point is that it's not necessarily the players themselves that are the burden on the manager, it's the financial constraints we find ourselves in because of the contracts they're on. An enormous proportion of our wage budget is now being taken up by players that are not good enough or do not feature in the manager's first team plans and that is obviously going to hamper the manager when he tries to bring in quality players for the side. I don't think it's any coincidence at all that the majority of the players we've signed under Pearson's second spell here have been mostly young lads who won't command high wages.

It  is a pity that Gallagher wasnt on the bench at Watford he could have come on for the penalty  and it was 99% certainty  we would have got to Wembley. Alosswas always going to be by the odd goal  so it was hardly rocket science to  have a penalty expert on hand

[flowwolf]

When all the talking stops and he is on his bike less than a third into the season it will be interesting to hear what all the let's settle for mediocrity brigade on here will have to say. Did the last third of the season tell you nothing ? hoofball and no idea how to stop the rot went on and on. Why the hell does anyone think that is going to change .

[indierich06]

When all the talking stops and he is on his bike less than a third into the season it will be interesting to hear what all the let's settle for mediocrity brigade on here will have to say. Did the last third of the season tell you nothing ? hoofball and no idea how to stop the rot went on and on. Why the hell does anyone think that is going to change .

I prefer to judge the season as a whole, rather than just focus on a shit run towards the end of it. Oh - and the rot did stop. We beat Forest at their place for the first time in about 40 years. But lets focus on the bad eh?

[Vale Blue]

In the posters view it suggests that you think we should stick with him regardless because you don't want another change, but change can be a positive thing, does not have to be a negative one, and while nobody has a crystal ball how can we criticise a change when we don't know how it will work out?

What I am implying is that we actually do know what change will bring. More spending and throwing the last dice. Yes if we go up thats fine but this is the last summer before the penalties come in. Next years manager has to get the best out of this squad, has to get the wage bill down further and has to sell players whilst getting in cheaper alternatives.

 

If the owners policy is different to this, then they are playing with the whole future of our club, IMO.

[Corky]

When all the talking stops and he is on his bike less than a third into the season it will be interesting to hear what all the let's settle for mediocrity brigade on here will have to say. Did the last third of the season tell you nothing ? hoofball and no idea how to stop the rot went on and on. Why the hell does anyone think that is going to change .

 

We played shite hoofball towards the end of 2011/12. For the next few months we played differently, until February.

 

Why couldn't that happen again?

[FantasticMrFox]

reg vardy lol

As long as we're not sold a second hand Focus!

[flowwolf]

We played shite hoofball towards the end of 2011/12. For the next few months we played differently, until February.

 

Why couldn't that happen again?

 

If the season had been the other way round and we had started off as shit as we finished but then got better and started to play football as opposed to hoofball I could have something to look foward to next season. But that is not what happened is it ? the exact opposite happened , we started off playing some great attacking football and sat proudly in second spot with all of us looking forward to the rest of the season confident that this team was going places.

 

Then what happened ? No good asking Nigel because he has no more idea than you and I , so he resorted to type, hoofball and no idea of how to use subs or change a game when things were going wrong. And that is why we are going to get the same negative football as the last third of the season simply because he is out of his depth and will not last beyond the first ten games.

[Leicester_Numan]

This is where these debates get silly. I don't think Sven spent money wisely, but to liken his signings to 'dogsh*t' and suggest that they were of negative value is ridiculous.They were overpriced and didn't work out, but they were still highly respected players.

Clubs like Millwall, Barnsley and Huddersfield would take exception to your dismissal of the likes of Danns, Peltier, Beckford, Mills, Schmeichel, Konchesky, Nugent, Bamba and St Ledger. Those players are still playing in this division (with the exception of one who plays for a top flight side in one of the fastest growing leagues in the world) and some of them remain core members of our own squad. Many sides in this league would love to have the resources to attract them.

In fact, in the case of Konchesky, Schmeichel, Danns and Nugent other clubs have spent far more on bringing in those players than we did, while in the case of Beckford he was considered of value by a manager who is now in charge of Manchester United. Nugent and Konchesky were both deemed of value by the English national team. Among those aforementioned players at least four have played in the Premier League.

It's important that you can distinguish between a player who doesn't work out for Leicester City and a player who is worthless. Now Gallagher, Wellens, Waghorn, Whitbread, Vardy and Futacs... they may well fit your description rather better. And Pearson can't blame Sven for that lot.

As for how you determine a player's value, well if that assessment isn't based on how much people spend on a player (in terms of a fee and wages) then it's hard to know what it should be based on. I agree that these players were in many cases over-priced and over-rated, but you'll struggle to find many clubs in this league that - irrespective of the precise value of those aforementioned Sven-era signings - wouldn't fancy them in their squads.

Now, no-one has said Schmeichel, Konchesky, Nugent & St Ledger were bad signings but only Schmeichel and Nugent have increased in value and that's only because we got Nugent for free. Bamba was at least sold for a profit. As for the rest, overpriced, overrated and overpaid. They represented very poor value and you can't really say otherwise with a straight face.

As for Gallagher, Wellens, Waghorn, Whitbread, Vardy and Futacs.

Gallagher has definitely not worked out but at least was value for money till he got an improved contract. Can't blame Pearson for that.

Wellens was a good signing but is now past it, can't blame Pearson for the passage of time.

Waghorn was overpriced but wasn't signed by Pearson, can't blame Pearson for that.

Whitbread & Futacs were free and wouldn't be on high wages so were worth the gamble, Whitbread could still be a decent player if we could ever get him fit enough. But they haven't worked out and we could get a small fee for them so have increased in value.

Vardy was overpriced considering where he came from but at least was properly scouted and not signed from a list handed to Neville. Like Whitbread, could still turn out to be a good player and would benefit from being loaned out. At this point, we'd probably get half our money back but poor value so far.

Most of the signings made under Sven were overpriced and massively overpaid so unless they turned out to be premier league standard, they were always poor value and we were never going to get back what we paid or anywhere near it. As I said, what you pay for someone is not necessarily their value

[tomtom]

We played shite hoofball towards the end of 2011/12. For the next few months we played differently, until February.

Why couldn't that happen again?

It could, quite easily but that doesn't fit in with flowwolfs negative at all costs agenda

[MC Prussian]

If the season had been the other way round and we had started off as shit as we finished but then got better and started to play football as opposed to hoofball I could have something to look foward to next season. But that is not what happened is it ? the exact opposite happened , we started off playing some great attacking football and sat proudly in second spot with all of us looking forward to the rest of the season confident that this team was going places.

 

Then what happened ? No good asking Nigel because he has no more idea than you and I , so he resorted to type, hoofball and no idea of how to use subs or change a game when things were going wrong. And that is why we are going to get the same negative football as the last third of the season simply because he is out of his depth and will not last beyond the first ten games.

If, if, if... But it didn't and we ended up in 6th place. Besides, even with your scenario, it'd have been just another guessing game for the upcoming season. The end of the previous campaign can give you an indication where things are going the following summer, but nobody ever knows for sure.

 

Also, there have been much worse times for Leicester City fans over the past few years.

I'm looking forward to next season.

Because at least I'm giving Pearson some credit, believing he and the team will have learnt tons of things from that lacklustre and somewhat embarrassing period between February and March.

 

They - unlike you and me - are pros.

[Thracian]

Is there really a better alternative to Pearson? 

 

I'd sure hope so...because, tactically and philosophically, little I've seen suggests he has a clue and make no mistake this season was a limp-wristed failure and for no good reason.   

 

But a glance at some of the published alternatives is hardly inspiring.