Isnt it time Pearson comes back to dugout?

[Collymore]

I'm trying to figure out the frequency that Pearson's headset uses. I'd need some time to scan all the possible bands and quite frankly I'd prefer to watch the game. 

[Dr The Singh]

I'm trying to figure out the frequency that Pearson's headset uses. I'd need some time to scan all the possible bands and quite frankly I'd prefer to watch the game. 

97.3 FM Kohinoor Radio, he listens Bhaga's Desi Hits show!!!

[Corky]

I make the point again...literally NO Prem managers watched their respective teams from the stands over the weekend.

Are they all wrong? Or do they all consider they actually should be directing their players from the touchline.

Thats an awful lot of managers, employed at a higher level than Pearson, all doing the same thing.

Yet, our fans 'dont mind' what Pearson does?

The lengths people will go to argue that their beloved Pearson is right gets worse with this very thread.

 

No one is saying there is a right way of managing in games, it doesn't really matter. Pearson could stand on the touchline and bark instructions, clapping away and fist pumping to satisfy those who want to visually see something, or he could watch the game from higher up, see more of the play and send down instructions. You make it sound like he's a fan, just sitting there waiting to be entertained.

 

I'd imagine he's in constant contact with Shakespeare.

[ealingfox]

I make the point again...literally NO Prem managers watched their respective teams from the stands over the weekend.

Are they all wrong? Or do they all consider they actually should be directing their players from the touchline.

Thats an awful lot of managers, employed at a higher level than Pearson, all doing the same thing.

Yet, our fans 'dont mind' what Pearson does?

The lengths people will go to argue that their beloved Pearson is right gets worse with this very thread.

 

 

Were you moaning about this a few weeks ago?

[Dr The Singh]

No one is saying there is a right way of managing in games, it doesn't really matter. Pearson could stand on the touchline and bark instructions, clapping away and fist pumping to satisfy those who want to visually see something, or he could watch the game from higher up, see more of the play and send down instructions. You make it sound like he's a fan, just sitting there waiting to be entertained.

 

I'd imagine he's in constant contact with Shakespeare.

I can confirm he is in contact with Bhaga from KR FM 97.3 for the Bhangra Desi SHow

Were you moaning about this a few weeks ago?

He moans at everything, it's old age!!

[crisp monster]

Funny how nobody was mentioning it a few games ago.

I did mate - back in October

[Babylon]

I make the point again...literally NO Prem managers watched their respective teams from the stands over the weekend.

Are they all wrong? Or do they all consider they actually should be directing their players from the touchline.

Thats an awful lot of managers, employed at a higher level than Pearson, all doing the same thing.

Yet, our fans 'dont mind' what Pearson does?

The lengths people will go to argue that their beloved Pearson is right gets worse with this very thread.

Results matter, not where the manager sits. If he believes it gives him a better overview of the game to make decisions then fine.

It's not about defending Pearson for the sake of defending Pearson, no matter how much you once again try and win an argument by aiming at other people then the argument itself.

We were 3rd this time last year, we are third this year... But with three more points on the board. Is there ANY evidence it is a detriment to our performances?

Or are you basing your argument all on the fact premier managers didn't sit in the stands? Because half if them lost at the weekend, perhaps they should try it?

Not forgetting he has also recently had a second knee replacement, so even if he was on the bench he could very well just be sat on it and not moving as he was last time he had one.

[Guest Col city fan]

Results matter, not where the manager sits. If he believes it gives him a better overview of the game to make decisions then fine.

It's not about defending Pearson for the sake of defending Pearson, no matter how much you once again try and win an argument by aiming at other people then the argument itself.

We were 3rd this time last year, we are third this year... But with three more points on the board. Is there ANY evidence it is a detriment to our performances?

Or are you basing your argument all on the fact premier managers didn't sit in the stands? Because half if them lost at the weekend, perhaps they should try it?

Not forgetting he has also recently had a second knee replacement, so even if he was on the bench he could very well just be sat on it and not moving as he was last time he had one.

I think it comes down to this... if you see the role of a manager, during the game, as a person who can make spot decisions, motivate, discipline and dictate from 30 ft away, doing this through another person then ok.

I dont. Nor presently do any managers in the Premiership and I doubt many (any?) in the Championship.

HOWEVER, if its for health reasons, that I get.

[Babylon]

I think it comes down to this... if you see the role of a manager, during the game, as a person who can make spot decisions, motivate, discipline and dictate from 30 ft away, doing this through another person then ok.

I dont. Nor presently do any managers in the Premiership and I doubt many (any?) in the Championship.

HOWEVER, if its for health reasons, that I get.

The role of a manager is to win games, Pearson was stomping around throwing bottles during our poor run last year, it did little to improve us.

The biggest influence the manager has is in his prep work, half time team talks and subs. The jumping and waving on the touch line for me does little, as the info you can get across to the pitch during the game is minimal. And even when on the touch line CS was usually the one passing it on.

It doesn't matter what others are doing, 14 Premier league managers failed to win their games at the weekend. The win matters, and there is nothing to suggest (so far) him being in the stands is currently detrimental to us.

Had he not had his knee operation we may well have seen him come down to the touch line during some of our poorer performances recently.

If you prefer a manager on the touch line that's absolutely fine, personally i don't care if performances are right. But don't make out anyone saying it doesn't seem to make a blind bit of difference are only doing so to back Pearson, when the evidence at this moment seems to suggest it doesn't, as that's unfair. Clearly we'll never know either way though.

[Guest]

It's an antiquated idea that the manager should sit in the dugout. As any fan knows the real view is better up in the stands. We only choose to be next to the pitch for the atmosphere but to see the game as a whole better it is ideal to be higher and better positioned.

 

Pearson ought to go further and have a team of analysts working on video and computers during every game and reporting back to him.

 

Look at the use of video Inside American Football games and analytics Inside NBA games

[indierich06]

I make the point again...literally NO Prem managers watched their respective teams from the stands over the weekend.

Are they all wrong? Or do they all consider they actually should be directing their players from the touchline.

Thats an awful lot of managers, employed at a higher level than Pearson, all doing the same thing.

Yet, our fans 'dont mind' what Pearson does?

The lengths people will go to argue that their beloved Pearson is right gets worse with this very thread.

If he likes it, or prefers it, seriously what's the problem? I don't care if it's Pearson or if we were just talking about some other random manager. It literally couldn't matter less.

Dyche was on the touchline screaming for 90 minutes, encouraging his team, trying to motivate them and it did **** all.

Funny how this never seemed to come up when we had Sven here, who barely stirred for 90 minutes.

[Guest Col city fan]

If he likes it, or prefers it, seriously what's the problem? I don't care if it's Pearson or if we were just talking about some other random manager. It literally couldn't matter less.

Dyche was on the touchline screaming for 90 minutes, encouraging his team, trying to motivate them and it did **** all.

Funny how this never seemed to come up when we had Sven here, who barely stirred for 90 minutes.

I said the same thing about Sven.

Im of the 'antiquated' school that having the boss (not the deputy) on the touchline and animated when neccessary makes a difference. Most managers seem to still share this view.

[indierich06]

I said the same thing about Sven.

Im of the 'antiquated' school that having the boss (not the deputy) on the touchline and animated when neccessary makes a difference. Most managers seem to still share this view.

 

If managers made a difference by ranting and raving on the touchline, then Paolo Di Canio would still be in a job. If you have to rant and rave on the touchline for 90 minutes, it means you haven't set up or motivated your team correctly before the match and you've failed to rectify any problems, or gee the team up in the dressing room at half time.

 

For me, you should set your players up with a clear idea of how to approach the match, instruct them on how to counter specific threats that arise in the game during breaks in play, then re-evaluate during half time and set them up for the second half. Pearson can relay any instructions to Shakespeare, who can relay them to the players. If you're having to constantly motivate them or shout instructions from the touchline, then you're not doing your job properly in my opinion. It just seems like a lot of fans want managers to be constantly prowling the touchline because it shows 'passion', but its the fans who are supposed to provide the passion. Managers need to be the calm, level-headed ones who make the tough calls and tacticial decisions which can help us win a game. If the crowd are getting behind the team properly, that's more of a motivator than having one bloke shouting from the touchline. 

 

Look at Saturday's game - a stalemate which we probably edged, despite a Burnley fightback in the second half. One manager sits in the stands, one manager stands on the touchline shouting for the whole match. Did it help Burnley? Not that I could see. Did we suffer for not having Pearson on the touchline? Not that I could see.

 

People point to Alex Ferguson and say, well he did it and won plenty of games with late goals etc - well that's because he's one of the best English managers of all time and he's had some of the best players in the world to manage. And there are many, many examples of managers who prowl the touchline and are complete failures as managers.

 

To be honest, some managers - like Di Canio - who seem to think that passion and a bit of shouting on the touchline for 90 minutes makes up for tactics and gameplan come off looking like those pathetic, embarrassing parents at u11 kids matches. But that's just me.

[indierich06]

I make the point again...literally NO Prem managers watched their respective teams from the stands over the weekend.

Are they all wrong? Or do they all consider they actually should be directing their players from the touchline.

Thats an awful lot of managers, employed at a higher level than Pearson, all doing the same thing.

Yet, our fans 'dont mind' what Pearson does?

The lengths people will go to argue that their beloved Pearson is right gets worse with this very thread.

 

There are plenty of managers in the Premier League who watch their team from the dugout for 90 minutes, what's wrong with doing that but with a better view? How is that different from sitting for 90 minutes in the dugout? And yeah, while we're in contention for automatic promotion, I don't particularly mind what Pearson does. Perhaps if we were circling the drain, I'd feel differently if Pearson was hiding in the stands. But we're not. We've had a bit of a blip recently, but on the whole we're having a great season.

 

Tbh Col, what strikes me about this thread isn't the lengths people will go to to defend Pearson, it's the lengths people will go to to find something to criticise about the man.

[Dan]

Dyche was roaring his team on, jumping up and down and living the game.

 

Looking at our great leader sitting their swigging a water bottle while his team bottled it, yet again, says it all really.

 

[Dan]

I make the point again...literally NO Prem managers watched their respective teams from the stands over the weekend.

Are they all wrong? Or do they all consider they actually should be directing their players from the touchline.

Thats an awful lot of managers, employed at a higher level than Pearson, all doing the same thing.

Yet, our fans 'dont mind' what Pearson does?

The lengths people will go to argue that their beloved Pearson is right gets worse with this very thread.

 

The lengths some people will go to to criticise him is far more embarrassing.

 

I am convinced we have some of the most fickle fans in England.

 

A few games ago people were completely understanding why this was being done, now you get people saying he's doing it through arrogance?

 

It really is unbelievable some of the crap I read on this site at times.

[Guest MattP]

Tbh Col, what strikes me about this thread isn't the lengths people will go to to defend Pearson, it's the lengths people will go to to find something to criticise about the man.

 

Spot on.

 

The fact this has only been brought up after a couple of games where we haven't won says it all.

 

As for people wanting a manager who behaves like a retarded ape on the touchline, you need to come out of the 80's, the days of Barry Fry holding the blueprint to football management have long gone.

[Guest Col city fan]

If managers made a difference by ranting and raving on the touchline, then Paolo Di Canio would still be in a job. If you have to rant and rave on the touchline for 90 minutes, it means you haven't set up or motivated your team correctly before the match and you've failed to rectify any problems, or gee the team up in the dressing room at half time.

For me, you should set your players up with a clear idea of how to approach the match, instruct them on how to counter specific threats that arise in the game during breaks in play, then re-evaluate during half time and set them up for the second half. Pearson can relay any instructions to Shakespeare, who can relay them to the players. If you're having to constantly motivate them or shout instructions from the touchline, then you're not doing your job properly in my opinion. It just seems like a lot of fans want managers to be constantly prowling the touchline because it shows 'passion', but its the fans who are supposed to provide the passion. Managers need to be the calm, level-headed ones who make the tough calls and tacticial decisions which can help us win a game. If the crowd are getting behind the team properly, that's more of a motivator than having one bloke shouting from the touchline.

Look at Saturday's game - a stalemate which we probably edged, despite a Burnley fightback in the second half. One manager sits in the stands, one manager stands on the touchline shouting for the whole match. Did it help Burnley? Not that I could see. Did we suffer for not having Pearson on the touchline? Not that I could see.

People point to Alex Ferguson and say, well he did it and won plenty of games with late goals etc - well that's because he's one of the best English managers of all time and he's had some of the best players in the world to manage. And there are many, many examples of managers who prowl the touchline and are complete failures as managers.

To be honest, some managers - like Di Canio - who seem to think that passion and a bit of shouting on the touchline for 90 minutes makes up for tactics and gameplan come off looking like those pathetic, embarrassing parents at u11 kids matches. But that's just me.

Dont get me wrong Rich, you always make some good points.

But being on the touchline controlling things by your presence and your demeanour is not the same as 'ranting and raving' on the touchline is it?

You can be stood there assertively issuing your instructions without the need for the sideshow and using Di Canio as an example is an extreme.

Im not being flippant but personally do see this as quite a big issue.

I think 'the boss' needs to be visible and hands on, especially during a game.

Finally, there must be something in this? If not, 99.9% of managers wouldnt do it.

Its all opinions buddy and yours remain ones I enjoy reading.

[Guest MattP]

I think 'the boss' needs to be visible and hands on, especially during a game.

Finally, there must be something in this? If not, 99.9% of managers wouldnt do it.

Its all opinions buddy and yours remain ones I enjoy reading.

 

Why are footballers such a special case though?

 

In virtually every other sport its the norm to be in the stands, are they thicker than rugby players and unable to go out and stick to a gameplan without seeing the man who it designed standing in his coat next to the pitch?

 

I find the fact this is up for discussion a bit bizarre, some great managers sit in the dugout, some great ones sit in the stand. I dont think there is a right or wrong way to approach it.

[cityfanlee23]

None of us are managers, or even qualified to manage at that level.

 

So leave him too it, 

If he wins, good.

If he loses, He will go,

simple.

 

People are talking about the subject as if they have prior experience or something..

I don't know why he does, it.

and more to the point, only he does.

 

He may give you a story that he sees the game better, But other managers would aswell..

 

If thats the way he manages then fine, ultimately if it works then good for him, if it  doesn't  then he needs to get his finger out and solve the issues. 

[Babylon]

Its all opinions buddy and yours remain ones I enjoy reading.

Although anyone saying the opposite to you is cearly going to great lengths to defend Pearson, and should rightly be ignored... the fools.

[cityfanlee23]

Although anyone saying the opposite to you is cearly going to great lengths to defend Pearson, and should rightly be ignored... the fools.

 

Which is  exactly  the same stance you take babs?

 

I don't really care as long as it works haha!

[Babylon]

In virtually every other sport its the norm to be in the stands, are they thicker than rugby players and unable to go out and stick to a gameplan without seeing the man who it designed standing in his coat next to the pitch?

You ever seen footballers and Rugby players interviewed? It's a resounding yes, they are thicker. 

[Dan]

"Leicester City have today parted company with manager Nigel Pearson after a run of 6 straight wins that saw him sitting in the stand"

[Babylon]

Which is  exactly  the same stance you take babs?

Such as? There are opinions and facts, you can have your own opinion but you cannot have your own facts.