Pearson has to go!

[sylofox]

Speaking this way about Leicester and Pearson in particular just shows what you truly are. Sugarcoating an insult doesn't go past my eyes. Sia tbh

Yes I give up I am  tree Thats why I paid for this.

 

http://www.foxestalk.co.uk/forums/topic/95093-what-do-you-all-think/

[Harry - LCFC]

Went down to the concourse yesterday & the first thing I saw (on the screens) was a shot of Pearson slouched in the dug out having a massive yawn.

 

I felt like grabbing the ****er by the shoulders & giving him a shake. 

 

We look like a Championship side in the wrong division. Hesitant  / lightweight / no bite & limited ability…and bizarrely with a manager that looked to be unconcerned by it all. 

 

You think a very brief snapshot of the man gives you all the information you need to know about his thoughts?

 

Let's be serious now, you know that isn't true, so why say it? I know you're keen on negativity but that's quite a stretch to say you know the manager "doesn't care" because he yawned once.

[Mike the Metal Ed]

If we lose to QPR and Villa we're doomed. Not enough games left to escape the bottom three.

If we beat QPR and Villa we're safe. Not enough games left for us to get sucked back in.

You're aware we play each team twice, right?

[Harry - LCFC]

If we lose to QPR and Villa we're doomed. Not enough games left to escape the bottom three.

 

If we beat QPR and Villa we're safe. Not enough games left for us to get sucked back in.

 

Is that a genuine statement or are you just trolling?

[eastendfox]

Best comparison for me is Cardiff last season. I really don't think they would have gone down with Mackay in charge, changed managers, not just about football though, and in the end went down by a fair way. Unless you think Pearon is more like Hollway than Mackay, and that's quite an insult, I'd say we're better off sticking to what we have, it's going to be tight but I think /hope we'll just about survive, and be a lot better next season for it if we do.

[Col city fan]

I just don't get all this 'consistency' stuff. It seems, to me, to be a very basic argument that deflects from the reality of the moment.

I'm not a statistician and don't have all the facts and figures around which teams have done best when they've retained their managers, and which haven't. Some bright spark will put a table up, no doubt.

But what is 'consistency'? What does it mean? How long does any team give a manager to produce the goods? 6 mths? 1 year? 10 years?

As far as I can see, there have been many clubs who have changed managers when they felt they needed to, to good effect.

We did it with Sven. Was Sven sacked too soon? And if so, how long would we have kept him?

Bolton are a good current example. They stuck with Freedman for far too long, and looked to be genuine relegation contenders under him. Now they have Lennon and are bouncing back. How long should Freedman have had? Would any of you have given him any longer?

Wenger is another good example. He's built a strong and capable squad..but has won one, single FA cup in over ten years. This season, they are further off winning the title than they have been for ages. Wenger out? Well, many of the Arsenal fans would say so.

Look at Chelsea..they've chopped and changed for years and now they again look to have it absolutely right. Would you rather be a Chelsea fan at present, or an Arsenal fan?

I think this whole consistency theory, in football, appears flawed. Even City...however well we did under Nige last season, there is literally no way of knowing whether we could have replicated last season with another man at the helm. Who knows? Possibly a person who both took us up AND signed the right players to make us already look good at this level.

No, I don't want to keep Pearson due to any tenuous link to 'consistency'. I want to keep him because I think, fundamentally, he's a good manager, a genuine one and I don't want disruption again, at this point.

However, I don't get the whole consistency for consistency's sake argument.

And never really have.

[Raj]

i wanna know why some posters need to write a whole fooking story!!!

[sylofox]

I just don't get all this 'consistency' stuff. It seems, to me, to be a very basic argument that deflects from the reality of the moment.

I'm not a statistician and don't have all the facts and figures around which teams have done best when they've retained their managers, and which haven't. Some bright spark will put a table up, no doubt.

But what is 'consistency'? What does it mean? How long does any team give a manager to produce the goods? 6 mths? 1 year? 10 years?

As far as I can see, there have been many clubs who have changed managers when they felt they needed to, to good effect.

We did it with Sven. Was Sven sacked too soon? And if so, how long would we have kept him?

Bolton are a good current example. They stuck with Freedman for far too long, and looked to be genuine relegation contenders under him. Now they have Lennon and are bouncing back. How long should Freedman have had? Would any of you have given him any longer?

Wenger is another good example. He's built a strong and capable squad..but has won one, single FA cup in over ten years. This season, they are further off winning the title than they have been for ages. Wenger out? Well, many of the Arsenal fans would say so.

Look at Chelsea..they've chopped and changed for years and now they again look to have it absolutely right. Would you rather be a Chelsea fan at present, or an Arsenal fan?

I think this whole consistency theory, in football, appears flawed. Even City...however well we did under Nige last season, there is literally no way of knowing whether we could have replicated last season with another man at the helm. Who knows? Possibly a person who both took us up AND signed the right players to make us already look good at this level.

No, I don't want to keep Pearson due to any tenuous link to 'consistency'. I want to keep him because I think, fundamentally, he's a good manager, a genuine one and I don't want disruption again, at this point.

However, I don't get the whole consistency for consistency's sake argument.

And never really have.

Well you consistently used one word Col lol

[Harry - LCFC]

I just don't get all this 'consistency' stuff. It seems, to me, to be a very basic argument that deflects from the reality of the moment.

I'm not a statistician and don't have all the facts and figures around which teams have done best when they've retained their managers, and which haven't. Some bright spark will put a table up, no doubt.

But what is 'consistency'? What does it mean? How long does any team give a manager to produce the goods? 6 mths? 1 year? 10 years?

As far as I can see, there have been many clubs who have changed managers when they felt they needed to, to good effect.

We did it with Sven. Was Sven sacked too soon? And if so, how long would we have kept him?

Bolton are a good current example. They stuck with Freedman for far too long, and looked to be genuine relegation contenders under him. Now they have Lennon and are bouncing back. How long should Freedman have had? Would any of you have given him any longer?

Wenger is another good example. He's built a strong and capable squad..but has won one, single FA cup in over ten years. This season, they are further off winning the title than they have been for ages. Wenger out? Well, many of the Arsenal fans would say so.

Look at Chelsea..they've chopped and changed for years and now they again look to have it absolutely right. Would you rather be a Chelsea fan at present, or an Arsenal fan?

I think this whole consistency theory, in football, appears flawed. Even City...however well we did under Nige last season, there is literally no way of knowing whether we could have replicated last season with another man at the helm. Who knows? Possibly a person who both took us up AND signed the right players to make us already look good at this level.

No, I don't want to keep Pearson due to any tenuous link to 'consistency'. I want to keep him because I think, fundamentally, he's a good manager, a genuine one and I don't want disruption again, at this point.

However, I don't get the whole consistency for consistency's sake argument.

And never really have.

 

So, really, what we ought to do is get a new manager every season since there are so many examples of that working.

 

The basic argument for keeping one manager for a long period of time is that when you have a good one he can, over time, help the club to build and strengthen whereas it's much harder to do that if you keep changing your approach. In short, consistency is thought to be better in the long term whereas chopping and changing is short term and risky. I don't know why you've felt the need to act as if it's some mysterious, complex idea because it's really rather simple.

[MC Prussian]

I just don't get all this 'consistency' stuff. It seems, to me, to be a very basic argument that deflects from the reality of the moment.

I'm not a statistician and don't have all the facts and figures around which teams have done best when they've retained their managers, and which haven't. Some bright spark will put a table up, no doubt.

But what is 'consistency'? What does it mean? How long does any team give a manager to produce the goods? 6 mths? 1 year? 10 years?

As far as I can see, there have been many clubs who have changed managers when they felt they needed to, to good effect.

We did it with Sven. Was Sven sacked too soon? And if so, how long would we have kept him?

Bolton are a good current example. They stuck with Freedman for far too long, and looked to be genuine relegation contenders under him. Now they have Lennon and are bouncing back. How long should Freedman have had? Would any of you have given him any longer?

Wenger is another good example. He's built a strong and capable squad..but has won one, single FA cup in over ten years. This season, they are further off winning the title than they have been for ages. Wenger out? Well, many of the Arsenal fans would say so.

Look at Chelsea..they've chopped and changed for years and now they again look to have it absolutely right. Would you rather be a Chelsea fan at present, or an Arsenal fan?

I think this whole consistency theory, in football, appears flawed. Even City...however well we did under Nige last season, there is literally no way of knowing whether we could have replicated last season with another man at the helm. Who knows? Possibly a person who both took us up AND signed the right players to make us already look good at this level.

No, I don't want to keep Pearson due to any tenuous link to 'consistency'. I want to keep him because I think, fundamentally, he's a good manager, a genuine one and I don't want disruption again, at this point.

However, I don't get the whole consistency for consistency's sake argument.

And never really have.

Consistency in our case means not going overboard with criticising the manager alone (most players apparently are excempt from criticism these days), but to remain realistic in our outlook, knowing that we've got one of the weaker squads in this league anyway and that patience over the course of three, four years brought us to the Premier League in the first place.

 

I don't want to be a fan of any other English football club. Chelsea are doing great - right now. Arsenal are worse off - right now. Things can chance so quickly for better or worse, even in our case.

 

You don't buy into the "consistency theory", yet give a very good reason to believe in it with the highlighted bit - contradicting yourself in the process.

[Col city fan]

Consistency in our case means not going overboard with criticising the manager alone (most players apparently are excempt from criticism these days), but to remain realistic in our outlook, knowing that we've got one of the weaker squads in this league anyway and that patience over the course of three, four years brought us to the Premier League in the first place.

I don't want to be a fan of any other English football club. Chelsea are doing great - right now. Arsenal are worse off - right now. Things can chance so quickly for better or worse, even in our case.

You don't buy into the "consistency theory", yet give a very good reason to believe in it with the highlighted bit - contradicting yourself in the process.

Of course not.

I've realised with you, it's pointless but here goes:

I don't want to get rid of Pearson because I think he's fundamentally a good manager. But I have NO IDEA whether doing so would improve our fortunes. The two are completely different. I'd keep him due to his attributes and give him a chance at the higher level, NOT because I aspire to any consistency theory in football. We could just as easily bring in Pulis, who keeps us up, as go down under Pearson. No-one knows?

Even you can get that surely?

[Col city fan]

So, really, what we ought to do is get a new manager every season since there are so many examples of that working.

The basic argument for keeping one manager for a long period of time is that when you have a good one he can, over time, help the club to build and strengthen whereas it's much harder to do that if you keep changing your approach. In short, consistency is thought to be better in the long term whereas chopping and changing is short term and risky. I don't know why you've felt the need to act as if it's some mysterious, complex idea because it's really rather simple.

Who says? Genuine question..and this is my point..there's this general 'consistency must be better'. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. So it's far from simple. You are making it seem such.

i wanna know why some posters need to write a whole fooking story!!!

It's called an education Raj...

[babylad92]

 I'd keep him due to his attributes and give him a chance at the higher level, NOT because I aspire to any consistency theory in football. 

 

I've now made a full 180 degree on my impression that you are a reputable poster. Not only do you not make sense, this post reeks of pretentiousness. 

 

Regards.

[Harry - LCFC]

Who says? Genuine question..and this is my point..there's this general 'consistency must be better'. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. So it's far from simple. You are making it seem such.

 

This is what I was describing as "simple": Having a settled side, a clear approach and a focus on two or three seasons down the line will tend to give clubs a better chance of progressing. You appeared to be suggesting you didn't understand why consistency could ever be a good thing so I responded with the basic line of thinking behind and that I thought it was fairly easy to follow.

 

I was not, however, saying that this is a blanket rule and should be applied no matter what - only when you think you've got a manger who has a good plan for the long term.

[suffolk fox]

All my fears pre season now coming home to roost. Too many mistakes made by a manager not experienced enough at premier league level.

Failing to strenghen in key areas. Combatitive midfielder, decent winger, decent striker. Not championship players, but lack of premier league quality players.

Under estimating the strengh of our squad believing they are good enough for the premier league when clearly they are not.

Being too defense minded not letting players have the licence to play their own game only good if their defensive part of their play is ok in his eyes. Schlupp frightened to cross the halfway line when he does looks like a startled rabbit caught in a cars headlights.

Playing strikers not through the middle but out wide i.e vardy, nugent, ulloa on the wings.

Signing players then not using them ie albrighton, simpson why?

Bringing pointless subs on when it is too late for them to have any effect in the game ie 80 mins. 87mins at home too

Bloody late at home.

Not enough points gained against teams around you 2 points out of 18

No goals scored in five games.

The sooner he goes the better pulis, sherwood, di matteo, lennon anyone has tobe better than this.

Quote I dont talk tactics with people who dont understand them? He clearly doesnt.

For the benefit of everyone as Duncan bannaytine would say, for these reasons i am out.

[The Doctor]

 there is a guy out there who could come in and would stand a fair chance of doing a better job,

 

Who?

[Col city fan]

This is what I was describing as "simple": Having a settled side, a clear approach and a focus on two or three seasons down the line will tend to give clubs a better chance of progressing. You appeared to be suggesting you didn't understand why consistency could ever be a good thing so I responded with the basic line of thinking behind and that I thought it was fairly easy to follow.

I was not, however, saying that this is a blanket rule and should be applied no matter what - only when you think you've got a manger who has a good plan for the long term.

I was no more suggesting that 'consistency' is a bad thing as I was suggesting it isn't.

The aim is to avoid relegation.

None of us have any more idea NOW, whether Pearson (with his consistent team and 'way of playing' (surely if anything this has been inconsistent)) has any more chance of achieving this aim than if he was now sacked, somebody like Pulis came in, saw what the problems were and got us playing much better football. No-one knows. It could just as easily be that 'consistent Pearson' is 'consistently poor Pearson' at this level, as he quickly learns the division and sorts it.

'Consistency' may work, or just as easily relegate us. Changing boss may make us worse, or just as easily make us much better.

It's far from simple.

And again, no-one knows. That's why, I suspect, so many chairmen do it. In the hope it works. Sometimes it will, sometimes it won't. There is no hard and fast, only your opinion that its best.

[Raj]

too many words...giving Raj headache....

[AnotherShitSeason]

You think a very brief snapshot of the man gives you all the information you need to know about his thoughts?

 

Let's be serious now, you know that isn't true, so why say it? I know you're keen on negativity but that's quite a stretch to say you know the manager "doesn't care" because he yawned once.

 

I just don't like his attitude Harry. Looked uninterested. It's not what I want to see. This season especially. 

 

He'll have the ****ing Satsumas out again next. 

[Jace]

Speaking this way about Leicester and Pearson in particular just shows what you truly are. Sugarcoating an insult doesn't go past my eyes. Sia tbh

 

 

I've now made a full 180 degree on my impression that you are a reputable poster. Not only do you not make sense, this post reeks of pretentiousness. 

 

Regards.

 

[lgfualol]

I would like to see him on the touchline for a whole game one time. Just to see what happens. 

 

The players probably can't take Craig Shakespeare seriously cus he's chubby.

[inckley fox]

Who?

 

Come on, I'm against the idea of firing Pearson but try for a moment to be objective. We have a manager who is in his first ever post as a full-time Premier League manager. Tony Pulis, on the other hand, kept Stoke in this league for several seasons, and Palace for one season. A Palace side who were, at the point of his taking over, in a worse position than we are now. And, if you want to go further back, his track record of turning relegation strugglers into decent teams at a lower level is pretty astounding too. I'd hope people could see that his CV for struggling sides, especially at this level and for this type of club, is stronger than Pearson's. 

[inckley fox]

It's funny how the acceptance of the manager (or dislike thereof) has had a diametrical effect on the club's fortunes in the league in those two cases.

West Ham lie in 6th position, Newcastle in 5th.

 

Patience seemingly paying off for both managers.

 

On the other hand, when Newcastle were promoted they got off to an excellent start under Chris Hughton, but fired him and replaced him with a guy who they thought was better suited to management at this level. I'm not sure they're the best of examples.

[Guest ttfn]

Come on, I'm against the idea of firing Pearson but try for a moment to be objective. We have a manager who is in his first ever post as a full-time Premier League manager. Tony Pulis, on the other hand, kept Stoke in this league for several seasons, and Palace for one season. A Palace side who were, at the point of his taking over, in a worse position than we are now. And, if you want to go further back, his track record of turning relegation strugglers into decent teams at a lower level is pretty astounding too. I'd hope people could see that his CV for struggling sides, especially at this level and for this type of club, is stronger than Pearson's.

Pearson has been involved in 2 relegation scraps in his career (Carlisle and Southampton) and succeeded against the odds in both cases.

[ScouseFox]

so we're only going to do well if we appoint a manager who has already stayed up in a premier league relegation scrap before 

 

 

PAUL JEWELL COME ON DOWN