Pearson has to go!

[inckley fox]

You've basically dropped trou, done a big stinky one right in the middle of this thread and said "wow, imagine if somebody shat in here?!"

 

This might mean something but I don't know what it is.

 

I've been making the same point consistently: The argument that there is no viable alternative is clearly nonsense. But that doesn't mean we should fire our manager. I am at a loss as to why you're so confused by this.

 

But there's no animosity at all. Your posts are good posts (apart from right now, of course!).

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

The final sentence does no-one any good, which is a shame cos the rest of the post has some substance to it. Those who go to extremes to slate people who are critical, upset or worried ('Pearson-hating, whining pansies'), do as much damage as those who call for the managers' head far too soon. As well as being well, just rude, it generally strengthens the resolve of those wanting to criticise, those wanting him sacked. It doesn't make people think hmmm.Iancognito has called me a such and such, so I'll stop thinking what I'm thinking. If anything, it makes them think the opposite.

I've seen this many times on this forum..having been completely mullered for criticising Sven, Beckford and suggesting Cambiasso may now not be the saviour many thought he would be. Time after time, I've been faced with a comment like your last one and do you think it has made me change my mind? ....of course not.

No, the reality appears to be that Pearson has not bought particularly well in the summer. We have strengthened in numbers, but not sufficiently in quality. Look at the forthcoming game against QPR... Redknapp and QPR were again slated over the summer for 'spending', filling the team with 'journeymen' etc.. But who, hand on heart, thinks we'll get a result on Saturday? Who is genuinely confident that we will go to Loftus Road and come away with even a draw?

We might...but that's not the point..IF people were so confident with Pearson and IF people really thought QPR were dross, then they'd also think we have a great chance on Saturday..well not many do..?

Pearson needs to show us that he can perform much better with the squad he has assembled at this level. This must start next weekend. Anything else is a smokescreen to avoid the reality that he and we, are starting to fail. I don't want him gone, I want him to do well for us in the Prem. But don't label people Pearson hating whining pansies when they just don't see where our next win is coming from.

Fine post Col. Well said. 

[ScouseFox]

i'm incredibly confused but that might just be me 

[inckley fox]

i'm incredibly confused but that might just be me 

 

You're not the only one, so I wouldn't worry. I'll try to rephrase my point.

 

If we found ourselves without a manager, then there would be at least one very highly qualified candidate for this type of job.

 

But just because Tony Pulis exists, doesn't mean we should sack our manager and hire him.

[Mark_w]

The final sentence does no-one any good, which is a shame cos the rest of the post has some substance to it. Those who go to extremes to slate people who are critical, upset or worried ('Pearson-hating, whining pansies'), do as much damage as those who call for the managers' head far too soon. As well as being well, just rude, it generally strengthens the resolve of those wanting to criticise, those wanting him sacked. It doesn't make people think hmmm.Iancognito has called me a such and such, so I'll stop thinking what I'm thinking. If anything, it makes them think the opposite.

I've seen this many times on this forum..having been completely mullered for criticising Sven, Beckford and suggesting Cambiasso may now not be the saviour many thought he would be. Time after time, I've been faced with a comment like your last one and do you think it has made me change my mind? ....of course not.

No, the reality appears to be that Pearson has not bought particularly well in the summer. We have strengthened in numbers, but not sufficiently in quality. Look at the forthcoming game against QPR... Redknapp and QPR were again slated over the summer for 'spending', filling the team with 'journeymen' etc.. But who, hand on heart, thinks we'll get a result on Saturday? Who is genuinely confident that we will go to Loftus Road and come away with even a draw?

We might...but that's not the point..IF people were so confident with Pearson and IF people really thought QPR were dross, then they'd also think we have a great chance on Saturday..well not many do..?

Pearson needs to show us that he can perform much better with the squad he has assembled at this level. This must start next weekend. Anything else is a smokescreen to avoid the reality that he and we, are starting to fail. I don't want him gone, I want him to do well for us in the Prem. But don't label people Pearson hating whining pansies when they just don't see where our next win is coming from.

 

It's fine to label anyone defending Nigel Pearson, 'Happy Clappers' though guys.

[Corky]

The final sentence does no-one any good, which is a shame cos the rest of the post has some substance to it. Those who go to extremes to slate people who are critical, upset or worried ('Pearson-hating, whining pansies'), do as much damage as those who call for the managers' head far too soon. As well as being well, just rude, it generally strengthens the resolve of those wanting to criticise, those wanting him sacked. It doesn't make people think hmmm.Iancognito has called me a such and such, so I'll stop thinking what I'm thinking. If anything, it makes them think the opposite.

I've seen this many times on this forum..having been completely mullered for criticising Sven, Beckford and suggesting Cambiasso may now not be the saviour many thought he would be. Time after time, I've been faced with a comment like your last one and do you think it has made me change my mind? ....of course not.

 

 

What about those who criticised posters for sticking by the manager 18 months ago, calling them "Pearsonites", "Happy Clappers" and labelling them a dangerous bunch?

[inckley fox]

It's fine to label anyone defending Nigel Pearson, 'Happy Clappers' though guys.

 

I'd take more offence at 'whining pansy' than 'happy clapper'. But just because dismissing people as 'happy clappers' was wrong, if indeed they were being dismissed (and I'm not sure they were, looking at that post), doesn't make dismissing people as 'whining pansies' right.

[Mark_w]

I'd take more offence at 'whining pansy' than 'happy clapper'. But just because dismissing people as 'happy clappers' was wrong, if indeed they were being dismissed (and I'm not sure they were, looking at that post), doesn't make dismissing people as 'whining pansies' right.

 

They were.

[Jace]

[inckley fox]

They were.

 

And here we have the problem.

[Mark_w]

And here we have the problem.

 

The problem being that it's one rule for those criticizing Pearson and a different rule for people defending him?

[inckley fox]

The problem being that it's one rule for those criticizing Pearson and a different rule for people defending him?

 

Which means one of two things. Either you have no problem being called a 'happy clapper' or you have a big problem with him being called a 'whining pansy'.

[Corky]

Which means one of two things. Either you have no problem being called a 'happy clapper' or you have a big problem with him being called a 'whining pansy'.

 

No one has called Col a whining pansy

[Guest ttfn]

This might mean something but I don't know what it is.

I've been making the same point consistently: The argument that there is no viable alternative is clearly nonsense. But that doesn't mean we should fire our manager. I am at a loss as to why you're so confused by this.

But there's no animosity at all. Your posts are good posts (apart from right now, of course!).

Basically you keep saying "we could hire Tony Pulis and he'd be good" and then saying "but actually I want Nigel Pearson to stay".

I don't disagree with you, I'm just confused as to what this is adding to the discussion.

In any event I'd rather we gamble on Pearson re-finding his mojo than head up the predictable route one passage that Pulis management would follow.

At least if we get relegated with Pearson we know we've got a manager who knows how to get out of that division without having two 8 foot strikers.

[Mark_w]

Which means one of two things. Either you have no problem being called a 'happy clapper' or you have a big problem with him being called a 'whining pansy'.

 

I'm fine with being called a happy clapper, though I don't see how it's a particularly useful tool in an argument, it's the hypocrisy I don't like.

[inckley fox]

I'm fine with being called a happy clapper, though I don't see how it's a particularly useful tool in an argument, it's the hypocrisy I don't like.

 

Okay, fair enough.

 

For what it's worth I don't place much value on being either unconditionally positive or constantly negative. But each to their own.

[Monsell1976]

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.

We need to stop making comparisons to other teams, every situation is different.

Nobody knows, we could sack Pearson, bring in someone new and move into the best years in the clubs history.

We could sack Pearson and still get relegated.

We could keep Pearson and get relegated, we could keep Pearson and he could take us into the best years of the clubs history.

The manager should be judged on how he's got us playing and results, over a period of time in the season, not that he's won x/y and z in the past.

Pearson has no doubt last season had us playing some of the best football we have seen in years,but also some of the worst in his time here.

He doesn't help himself, when we the going gets tough and comes out with some of his comments.

Either way it's been talked to death, the owners will either back him or sacked him, if the results are not good enough.

It's now mid November, if we are still not scoring and playing as we have prior to the Sunderland game, and that wasn't convincing, he needs to be given till the end of December and then look at it, hopefully in that time he can get the early season performances back.

[Mark_w]

The manager should be judged on how he's got us playing and results, over a period of time in the season, not that he's won x/y and z in the past.

 

Well that's not a great method either, because we'd have most likely sacked Pearson towards the end of the 2012/13 season if we'd done that, and we most likely wouldn't have gone on to storm the league in 2013/14.

 

There's no perfect way of judging whether a manager should stay or go, but I'd say that the progress we've made under Pearson since he took over has surely earned him the season to adapt to the Premier League and to see if he can keep us progressing. Anyone who expected us to be much higher than this, or winning more than we're losing, this soon after promotion, surely had unreasonable expectations? Especially when you consider that our squad is the 19th most expensive in the division.

[Col city fan]

I'm pretty sure I put up a post near the back end of last season, saying 'Well done Nigel' and that the club was right to keep him.

I'm pretty sure I did?

Then I said Nigel still has my full support and that I'd take the season one game at a time. Which I have, and he has.

Now (surprise surprise), it appears that the old 'happy clapper' thing has come back again..possibly a year later.

From Corky (there's a shock)..

My arguments above on the theory of the benefits of 'consistency' would be made whatever manager we had at the helm. So, all those blubbing that I'm having a go at you, or Nigel..don't worry..I'm not..I'm merely making an argument.

[Mark_w]

I'm pretty sure I put up a post near the back end of last season, saying 'Well done Nigel' and that the club was right to keep him.

I'm pretty sure I did?

Then I said Nigel still has my full support and that I'd take the season one game at a time. Which I have, and he has.

Now (surprise surprise), it appears that the old 'happy clapper' thing has come back again..possibly a year later.

From Corky (there's a shock)..

My arguments above on the theory of the benefits of 'consistency' would be made whatever manager we had at the helm. So, all those blubbing that I'm having a go at you, or Nigel..don't worry..I'm not..I'm merely making an argument.

 

I think you've entirely missed the point there (and it was me - there's a shock).

 

The problem is that you're having a go at people insulting those who are anti-Pearson, when you have a track record of insulting people for being pro-Pearson.

[Raj]

in A word...who actually wants him sacked now?

This is very idiot now!

[Corky]

I'm pretty sure I put up a post near the back end of last season, saying 'Well done Nigel' and that the club was right to keep him.

I'm pretty sure I did?

Then I said Nigel still has my full support and that I'd take the season one game at a time. Which I have, and he has.

Now (surprise surprise), it appears that the old 'happy clapper' thing has come back again..possibly a year later.

From Corky (there's a shock)..

My arguments above on the theory of the benefits of 'consistency' would be made whatever manager we had at the helm. So, all those blubbing that I'm having a go at you, or Nigel..don't worry..I'm not..I'm merely making an argument.

 

Maybe you did, just found it odd that you wouldn't want to be labelled as something when you decided to label a group who thought differently as something.

 

Pearson may well have your full support, so I'm not sure why you are concerned with being accused of hating Pearson as you say you don't.

[Col city fan]

I think you've entirely missed the point there (and it was me - there's a shock).

The problem is that you're having a go at people insulting those who are anti-Pearson, when you have a track record of insulting people for being pro-Pearson.

The point I've always tried to get across Mark, wasted on you as always, is try to get some balance!!

But, as always on here, it gets lost in the etha. It always does. I'm convinced..

[Mark_w]

The point I've always tried to get across Mark, wasted on you as always, is try to get some balance!!

But, as always on here, it gets lost in the etha. It always does. I'm convinced..

 

Why are you trying to avoid the complaint people are making?

I've not said I have a problem with your calls for 'balance', I'm saying it's wrong for you to complain about people being 'insulting', when you yourself regularly insult people. Stop being such a hypocrite and maybe your more sensible points won't get lost in the ether.

[Col city fan]

Why are you trying to avoid the complaint people are making?

I've not said I have a problem with your calls for 'balance', I'm saying it's wrong for you to complain about people being 'insulting', when you yourself regularly insult people. Stop being such a hypocrite and maybe your more sensible points won't get lost in the ether.

You've often slyly knocked my calls for balance, essentially because you seem to have none yourself. And seem to clamour for people to have the same level of adoration for Pearson as you appear to have. You must accept that not all of us do. Some of us like the man, but see the weaknesses in him too. I wouldn't be shocked, genuinely, if you were a little happy that people are once more questioning him. It kinda gives you something to argue with and to bring up old posts over. Which is a little sad.