Pearson has to go!

[Fox Ulike]

Okay, but last year Palace sacked their manager and stayed up. Norwich didn't until March and went down.

 

The year before, Reading didn't sack their manager until March and went down. Sunderland stayed up by the same measure. Southampton changed their manager earlier and stayed up. Wigan didn't change and went down.

 

In the same year as Wolves sacked McCarthy in February, Blackburn didn't change their manager and went down, the same goes for Bolton. Meanwhile Sunderland changed before Christmas and stayed up.

 

The year before that West Ham stuck with their manager and went down, as did Blackpool and Birmingham. Blackburn may have gone down a year later, but they didn't go down when they sacked their manager that year, and neither did West Brom when they sacked Di Matteo, although that was post-January.

 

You are right to say that it goes wrong for plenty of clubs who change their managers, but I don't think it's anything like a majority. I used that stat before, that over the past five years ten clubs who have been in the bottom six at this stage in November have changed managers before the end of January. Seven have stayed up.

 

It doesn't really provide a clear picture though. Stats can serve any purpose you want them to and we aren't Bolton, or Blackpool, or Palace, or Southampton. In my view you judge each case separately and, in ours, I don't see the sense in changing at the moment. But it's not a clear-cut issue at all.

 

No it's not clear cut. But I think you're missing the key point from my post. Only 3 clubs go down. So if 8 clubs sack their managers you can't really say that it's worked for five of them as five would have stayed up anyway.

 

That's not statistical manipulation it's just common sense. The fact is that a much higher than average % of clubs who are relegated change their manager early in the season.

 

The fact that Palace is such an over-used example just shows what an anomaly it was. Norwich, as a newly-promoted club had a good chance of going down anyway. So it's fairly naïve to suggest that sacking Hughton would have done any different.

 

Yes each individual case is different but stats don't often tell lies.

 

Let's look at it another way: The key point is that most teams' league position at the end of the season is worse than it was on the day that they sacked their manager. Did West Brom improve when they sacked Di Matteo? Have Blackburn or, Wolves improved since they parted company with Allydyce or McCarthey?

 

Even Southampton were on a roll when they got rid of Adkins. Four games unbeaten or something.

 

That leaves Palace. Sunderland under Martin O'Neill, and OK possibly Southampton. (I'll give you that one as your numbers are looking pitiful!)

 

That's 3 that have been successful in four years. Out of what, about 30 odd?

 

It would give about a 10% chance of success when you change your manager mid-season. i'd say that sounds about right.

[srbfox]

Get rid but replace with who, let's surely offer a solution to the 'problem'

[Dan LCFC]

After 10 years of waiting, fans would rather get relegated and spend however long trying to get promoted than sack one manager, who may (or not) be the cause of current form. I'm strugglng with this a little...how do we know the next manager won't be here for the next 10 years. Doesn't make us a sacking club...

 

Because if we're sacking managers who've achieved a lot here based on 6 games (an indefensible run for what it's worth) then no manager in the world will last ten years at Leicester.

[Dan LCFC]

Here we are- a breakdown of Stoke's transfer dealings: http://www.transferleague.co.uk/premiership-transfers/stoke-city-transfers.html

 

They have seriously squandered some money there. Jesus Christ.

 

Their 12/13 business excluding N'Zonzi (who I rate a lot) is absolutely embarrassing.

[inckley fox]

No it's not clear cut. But I think you're missing the key point from my post. Only 3 clubs go down. So if 8 clubs sack their managers you can't really say that it's worked for five of them as five would have stayed up anyway.

 

That's not statistical manipulation it's just common sense. The fact is that a much higher than average % of clubs who are relegated change their manager early in the season.

 

The fact that Palace is such an over-used example just shows what an anomaly it was. Norwich, as a newly-promoted club had a good chance of going down anyway. So it's fairly naïve to suggest that sacking Hughton would have done any different.

 

Yes each individual case is different but stats don't often tell lies.

 

Let's look at it another way: The key point is that most teams' league position at the end of the season is worse than it was on the day that they sacked their manager. Did West Brom improve when they sacked Di Matteo? Have Blackburn or, Wolves improved since they parted company with Allydyce or McCarthey?

 

Even Southampton were on a roll when they got rid of Adkins. Four games unbeaten or something.

 

That leaves Palace. Sunderland under Martin O'Neill, and OK possibly Southampton. (I'll give you that one as your numbers are looking pitiful!)

 

That's 3 that have been successful in four years. Out of what, about 30 odd?

 

It would give about a 10% chance of success when you change your manager mid-season. i'd say that sounds about right.

 

10?! How on earth do you come to that number?

 

I hate to correct you, but McCarthy left post-January (and we are referring to pre-end-of-window managerial changes) and Norwich weren't newly promoted last season.

 

But as for 10% - only 4 out of the 15 sides who have gone down in the past five years have been teams who sacked their managers before the end of January - Meulenstein, Solskjaer, Grant and Redknapp were the appointments. In the meantime, ten of the thirty sides who found themselves in the bottom six in early November have changed managers. Only three of those ten incoming managers have gone on to be relegated. 

 

I take your point about looking at the bottom six. Of those thirty sides in the bottom six in November each year, a minimum of 50% of them will stay up anyway. But 70% of the sides who have changed manager have stayed up. So how you arrive at a 10% success rate I don't know. Even Mark_w came up with a figure of 5/9 improving on their league position upon assuming control, and deemed the stats inconclusive.

 

There are no guarantees where changing manager is concerned. But the notion that it is more likely than not to fail is wrong. If our arguments for keeping Pearson - which we should, by the way - depend on such easily challenged standpoints then he should end up being fired.

 

After all, which sides - promoted in the past seven or eight years - still have the same manager in charge, and remain in the PL? West Ham and Hull, plus this year's three? I suppose we could talk about Stoke, who established themselves with the manager who brought them up.

 

Which sides have sacked their manager and established themselves? Newcastle, Southampton, Sunderland, West Brom (who learnt from their error with Mowbray), Palace.

 

And then there are the sides who changed manager involuntarily and went down (Burnley, Norwich), those who changed involuntarily and stayed up (Swansea), those who stayed up after changing manager and were later relegated (QPR) and those who didn't change their manager and got relegated (Blackpool, Sheffield United), those who changed and still got relegated (Reading and Wolves, who made the change post-January; and Cardiff).

 

I may be missing a few on one side or other of the argument here, but the point is clear. There's no clear indication that newly promoted sides fare better by persisting.

 

As I keep saying, there are plenty of reasons not to get rid. But if his staunchest defenders keep getting stuck on 'you're more likely than not to go down if you change managers', or 'he proved in the second tier that he was good enough' (so did Boothroyd, Robson, Mowbray, Adams, Megson, Dowie, Davies, Worthington, Keane, Adkins, Hughton, Holloway, Warnock, Brown and McCarthy, among others) then the argument is lost before you even begin.

 

He should be our manager, but if people want to argue this then their arguments need to be stronger than this.

[inckley fox]

Same logic that got us Dave Bassett and not David Moyes in 2001.

 

No, not really.

 

Dave Bassett was never a survival specialist. He'd already been relegated twice with Sheffield United and once with Forest, and I seem to recall he was well on his way before being sacked by Watford. Whatever, his reputation as 'Harry Houdini' was supposedly based on United's survival in 1991 (I think).

 

Either way, it wasn't deserved, even at the point at which he came to City. He was to survival specialists what Rob Kelly was to promotion challengers.

[inckley fox]

I don't believe in specialists, winning games is what matters and he's proven over many seasons he can build teams that win games.

 

See my response to Fox Ulike for a list of other managers who had proven that they could build sides in the second tier who could win games, but weren't so good at it in the Premier League. How many of them would you have in charge?

 

Like I keep saying, we should keep Pearson, and there are plenty of valid reasons for keeping him, but we've got to stop confusing his record at the top end of lower divisions, in charge of relatively well-resourced sides, with his capacity for management in the top division, in charge of a relatively poorly-resourced side. I believe he has it within him to adapt, but it's understandable that a huge number of managers in the English game don't.

[5waller5]

10?! How on earth do you come to that number?

 

I hate to correct you, but McCarthy left post-January (and we are referring to pre-end-of-window managerial changes) and Norwich weren't newly promoted last season.

 

But as for 10% - only 4 out of the 15 sides who have gone down in the past five years have been teams who sacked their managers before the end of January - Meulenstein, Solskjaer, Grant and Redknapp were the appointments. In the meantime, ten of the thirty sides who found themselves in the bottom six in early November have changed managers. Only three of those ten incoming managers have gone on to be relegated. 

 

I take your point about looking at the bottom six. Of those thirty sides in the bottom six in November each year, a minimum of 50% of them will stay up anyway. But 70% of the sides who have changed manager have stayed up. So how you arrive at a 10% success rate I don't know. Even Mark_w came up with a figure of 5/9 improving on their league position upon assuming control, and deemed the stats inconclusive.

 

There are no guarantees where changing manager is concerned. But the notion that it is more likely than not to fail is wrong. If our arguments for keeping Pearson - which we should, by the way - depend on such easily challenged standpoints then he should end up being fired.

 

After all, which sides - promoted in the past seven or eight years - still have the same manager in charge, and remain in the PL? West Ham and Hull, plus this year's three? I suppose we could talk about Stoke, who established themselves with the manager who brought them up.

 

Which sides have sacked their manager and established themselves? Newcastle, Southampton, Sunderland, West Brom (who learnt from their error with Mowbray), Palace.

 

And then there are the sides who changed manager involuntarily and went down (Burnley, Norwich), those who changed involuntarily and stayed up (Swansea), those who stayed up after changing manager and were later relegated (QPR) and those who didn't change their manager and got relegated (Blackpool, Sheffield United), those who changed and still got relegated (Reading and Wolves, who made the change post-January; and Cardiff).

 

I may be missing a few on one side or other of the argument here, but the point is clear. There's no clear indication that newly promoted sides fare better by persisting.

 

As I keep saying, there are plenty of reasons not to get rid. But if his staunchest defenders keep getting stuck on 'you're more likely than not to go down if you change managers', or 'he proved in the second tier that he was good enough' (so did Boothroyd, Robson, Mowbray, Adams, Megson, Dowie, Davies, Worthington, Keane, Adkins, Hughton, Holloway, Warnock, Brown and McCarthy, among others) then the argument is lost before you even begin.

 

He should be our manager, but if people want to argue this then their arguments need to be stronger than this.

 

Good post .... I Agree that statistically a club is more likely to stay up if they replace their manager with enough time to make a difference.

 

The bit that the stats don't tell though is that there must be a stronger manager available at the time, and those times where the clubs have been successful my money is on them having seen a manager they fancy before sacking their own.

 

I just don't see that right now .... NP is the strongest candidate for the job.

[inckley fox]

Good post .... I Agree that statistically a club is more likely to stay up if they replace their manager with enough time to make a difference.

 

The bit that the stats don't tell though is that there must be a stronger manager available at the time, and those times where the clubs have been successful my money is on them having seen a manager they fancy before sacking their own.

 

I just don't see that right now .... NP is the strongest candidate for the job.

 

I agree completely. We need to show patience and, if this goes wrong, review the situation. But that doesn't necessarily mean we have to fire him if we lose a few more matches!

[ealingfox]

The fact that remains is that the appointment would have to be a very good one to ensure we stay up with any kind of comfort.

 

We cannot trust the people at the top of the Club to make a very good appointment, in all likelihood they'd make a crap one. If Pulis wasn't available at the time or said no then we'd be fvcked. Can you seriously see Terry Robinson and Susan Whelan pulling a Pochettino out of the bag?

 

Does anyone really think they'd have appointed Pearson if he hadn't been here already?

[Fox Ulike]

10?! How on earth do you come to that number?

 

I hate to correct you, but McCarthy left post-January (and we are referring to pre-end-of-window managerial changes) and Norwich weren't newly promoted last season.

 

But as for 10% - only 4 out of the 15 sides who have gone down in the past five years have been teams who sacked their managers before the end of January - Meulenstein, Solskjaer, Grant and Redknapp were the appointments. In the meantime, ten of the thirty sides who found themselves in the bottom six in early November have changed managers. Only three of those ten incoming managers have gone on to be relegated. 

 

I take your point about looking at the bottom six. Of those thirty sides in the bottom six in November each year, a minimum of 50% of them will stay up anyway. But 70% of the sides who have changed manager have stayed up. So how you arrive at a 10% success rate I don't know. Even Mark_w came up with a figure of 5/9 improving on their league position upon assuming control, and deemed the stats inconclusive.

 

There are no guarantees where changing manager is concerned. But the notion that it is more likely than not to fail is wrong. If our arguments for keeping Pearson - which we should, by the way - depend on such easily challenged standpoints then he should end up being fired.

 

After all, which sides - promoted in the past seven or eight years - still have the same manager in charge, and remain in the PL? West Ham and Hull, plus this year's three? I suppose we could talk about Stoke, who established themselves with the manager who brought them up.

 

Which sides have sacked their manager and established themselves? Newcastle, Southampton, Sunderland, West Brom (who learnt from their error with Mowbray), Palace.

 

And then there are the sides who changed manager involuntarily and went down (Burnley, Norwich), those who changed involuntarily and stayed up (Swansea), those who stayed up after changing manager and were later relegated (QPR) and those who didn't change their manager and got relegated (Blackpool, Sheffield United), those who changed and still got relegated (Reading and Wolves, who made the change post-January; and Cardiff).

 

I may be missing a few on one side or other of the argument here, but the point is clear. There's no clear indication that newly promoted sides fare better by persisting.

 

As I keep saying, there are plenty of reasons not to get rid. But if his staunchest defenders keep getting stuck on 'you're more likely than not to go down if you change managers', or 'he proved in the second tier that he was good enough' (so did Boothroyd, Robson, Mowbray, Adams, Megson, Dowie, Davies, Worthington, Keane, Adkins, Hughton, Holloway, Warnock, Brown and McCarthy, among others) then the argument is lost before you even begin.

 

He should be our manager, but if people want to argue this then their arguments need to be stronger than this.

 

This stat is pretty meaningless unless you provide the total number of clubs who sacked their managers in the same period. It’s 16. And, bear in mind that this includes Chelsea, Liverpool, Manchester City and Tottenham sacking their managers.  I would hope you’d agree that these sides were in no danger of relegation anyway, and therefore don't count. So that leaves 12 sackings in the period that you have defined. Four got relegated. That’s 33%.

 

As I keep saying, only 3 clubs can get relegated. 15%. But, in the interests of fairness,  if we ignore the big clubs (say top 7?) that’s a 3 from 13 chance of being relegated: 23%.

 

For clubs who sack their managers before the end of Winter, this increases to 33%.

 

Conclusion: Clubs who sack their managers before the end of January increase their chances of being relegated by 10%

 

Boom!  

 

[Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot]

As for the 'next to be sacked' markets, they are a farce, don't read in to them. I once took a bet of £200 on a manager and we cut him from 8/1 to 2/1, the markets are concrete.

[Corky]

Same logic that got us Dave Bassett and not David Moyes in 2001.

 

Harry Redknapp was first choice wasn't he?

[Col city fan]

Harry Redknapp was first choice wasn't he?

Yes...and didn't want to come 'up norf'...

[J.Lisemore]

As for the 'next to be sacked' markets, they are a farce, don't read in to them. I once took a bet of £200 on a manager and we cut him from 8/1 to 2/1, the markets are concrete.

 

Just common sense to be honest, unless you have inside info or a trusted source then its pointless.

 

I've noticed SkyBet do an awful lot of rubbish like - 'Who will Messi sign for before the end of the transfer window?' etc...

 

And some idiots will actually have a punt on it.

[Fox92]

Harry Redknapp was first choice wasn't he?

 

Redknapp came for a look around but it took him like three hours to get home which put him off.

[Fox Ulike]

Just common sense to be honest, unless you have inside info or a trusted source then its pointless.

 

I've noticed SkyBet do an awful lot of rubbish like - 'Who will Messi sign for before the end of the transfer window?' etc...

 

And some idiots will actually have a punt on it.

 

Louis Van Gaal is 50/1 to be 'Fifa Coach of the Year 2014'...

 

Might as well be 5million to 1!

 

Let's have another look at this picture to cheer us all up:

 

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

I do enjoy that picture.

[sylofox]

Louis Van Gaal is 50/1 to be 'Fifa Coach of the Year 2014'...

 

Might as well be 5million to 1!

 

Let's have another look at this picture to cheer us all up:

 

Thinking back to that day makes you wish we could have played them in the last 6 games.

[LanguedocFox]

I've been offline for a few days and only just come across this thread. I did wonder how long it would take the wankers to come out of the woodwork: I thought it would be around the end of October, so I wasn't far out. The same dumb cvnts (or clones thereof) were calling for Pearson to go at the end of the 2012-2013 season when we finished higher in the second tier than we had in any of the previous ten seasons (apart from the season in the Championship when Pearson was our manager first time round). Or the same fvcking no-nothing morons who were calling for his head at the start of last season, when he started the Middlesbrough game with Drinkwater and Vardy. Sure, everyone has a right to their opinion. And sure, everyone has the right to be a complete twat. But there's no need to abuse the privilege.

 

Anyone who thought we were going to p!ss all over this division, having spent ten years out of it, needs their head examining. It was always going to be tough, but we've not made a bad fist of it. We've played badly in maybe two games, but we've fought to the end in all of them, and we have no been outclassed. I am convinced that we will stay up, but even if we don't, Pearson is definitely the man to bring us straight back up. Nigel Pearson is, quite simply, the best manager this club has had since O'Neill - and he might even be better than O'Neill. Anyone who doesn't believe that should look at the statistics.

[BRADBURY.JEFF]

To be fair to Pulis, he was incredibly successful with limited resources at Stoke and then pulled Palace out of a nailed-on relegation.

 

Who knows what he would do with a bit of money and a decent side?

Limited resourses, pulis spent a fortune on players he didn't even use and bored the fans shitless playing square pegs in round holes.    

[roblcfc84]

I've been offline for a few days and only just come across this thread. I did wonder how long it would take the wankers to come out of the woodwork: I thought it would be around the end of October, so I wasn't far out. The same dumb cvnts (or clones thereof) were calling for Pearson to go at the end of the 2012-2013 season when we finished higher in the second tier than we had in any of the previous ten seasons (apart from the season in the Championship when Pearson was our manager first time round). Or the same fvcking no-nothing morons who were calling for his head at the start of last season, when he started the Middlesbrough game with Drinkwater and Vardy. Sure, everyone has a right to their opinion. And sure, everyone has the right to be a complete twat. But there's no need to abuse the privilege.

Anyone who thought we were going to p!ss all over this division, having spent ten years out of it, needs their head examining. It was always going to be tough, but we've not made a bad fist of it. We've played badly in maybe two games, but we've fought to the end in all of them, and we have no been outclassed. I am convinced that we will stay up, but even if we don't, Pearson is definitely the man to bring us straight back up. Nigel Pearson is, quite simply, the best manager this club has had since O'Neill - and he might even be better than O'Neill. Anyone who doesn't believe that should look at the statistics.

I can see both sides of argument, and would love us to win next weekend and we can get behind NP once more.

That said, I can't get my head around this arguement I've seen recently that he's our most successful manager, check the statistics. In one sense I agree.

But There are no statistics at this level to check. There is no evidence, other than the handful of games we have had, to suggest NP is or is no cut out for the PL.

It seems the toughness of PL is used to shield Pearson from criticism but rejected as a valid arguement for why he may not be up to the task.

The facts are he has no PL experience so judging him on League 1 and Championship for what he may do in the PL isn't realistic, it gives him more credibility but if PL is as tough as everyone says then that suggests success isn't guaranteed.

It's the same in life, many people might be decent team leaders or shop managers (insert chosen professional) but couldn't cut it at a higher level. I am afraid that's life.

So whilst we have little evidence to judge NP on, fans are judging him on what evidence there is and currently it suggests he might not be good enough. That doesn't make anyone less of a fan or whatever you want to call other fans, it's factual evidence.

Many people have given names of managers who have done well at lower levels and struggled in the PL.

All that said, stability is important so I hope he gets it right in the next few games.

[Burbo17J2]

All i want, is during training, they sit all the players down, and watch the Man U game. That has surely got to get a reaction

[st albans fox]

All i want, is during training, they sit all the players down, and watch the Man U game. That has surely got to get a reaction

You mean after the first 20 minutes of the first half and missing out the first 15 of the second? we played our best football at times during that game (especially the last 30 mins), but we were outclassed for long periods aswell. We also scored from almost every chance we made but I'll grant you that at least we made some chances!

It can't just be about the opposition playing without care and attention. Something has changed in the mindset of the players. that could be down to tactics. Whatever it is, just playing the same formation against sides that will not commit and leave huge spaces is not going to get us anywhere.

[Burbo17J2]

You mean after the first 20 minutes of the first half and missing out the first 15 of the second? we played our best football at times during that game (especially the last 30 mins), but we were outclassed for long periods aswell. We also scored from almost every chance we made but I'll grant you that at least we made some chances!

It can't just be about the opposition playing without care and attention. Something has changed in the mindset of the players. that could be down to tactics. Whatever it is, just playing the same formation against sides that will not commit and leave huge spaces is not going to get us anywhere.

I think we have big team mentality, and although I loved the feeling of beating United, it may have ruined us... We couldve been out of the bottom three if we didn't think we are so much better than we actually are, THAT is really the problem