Pearson slams 'negative' critics

[Thracian]

He's starting to sound as cloudy as Milliband.

[MC Prussian]

The only thing that's surprising me at the moment isn't the critics or Pearson having a go at them - which is all a bit redundant, really.

 

I wonder why we're not using the diamond formation to our best strengths.

I'm a big fan of the 4-1-2-1-2, so why can't we play a variation of it and deploy a LM and RM (Mahrez and Knockaert spring to mind) on the flanks?

 

The dilemma here is that we're then left with a couple of proper CMs (Drinkwater and James at least; King could possibly play CAM) on the bench.

[foxinsocks]

that's not true there are plenty of people of revel in negativity both on this forum and in life in general.

As a broad brush they tend to be self delusion non achievers with a chip on their shoulders

You're right there are some negative critics... but that doesn't mean nigel can dismiss everyone who challenges what he is doing. I want to know he is not in denial and that he will sort things out. I want him to succeed.

[muzzy1981]

I actually reckon Nige could make a great premier league manager if he can just keep us up this season. It took him a couple of seasons to figure out the championship problem is we don't have that luxury this year. I'm not convinced king is the man to play at the top of the diamond

[inckley fox]

The only thing that's surprising me at the moment isn't the critics or Pearson having a go at them - which is all a bit redundant, really.

 

I wonder why we're not using the diamond formation to our best strengths.

I'm a big fan of the 4-1-2-1-2, so why can't we play a variation of it and deploy a LM and RM (Mahrez and Knockaert spring to mind) on the flanks?

 

The dilemma here is that we're then left with a couple of proper CMs (Drinkwater and James at least; King could possibly play CAM) on the bench.

 

What's the difference between that and a 4-4-2, with one CM slightly more advanced than the other?

 

I thought the diamond tended to accommodate four CMs, or three CMs and an attacker 'in the hole'.

[Kitchandro]

How does he expect us to keep the ball when we play so deep? To keep the ball and make use of it you have to have forward options. You have to be prepared to attack otherwise there will come a point where you've got nowhere to go.

 

I think it's extremely naive, almost juvenile for him to equate wide players and attacking football with conceding possession.

 

Besides, as I've said plenty of times, we won the battle in the middle against West Brom, and it got us absolutely nowhere. 'Winning the midfield battle' is the most overrated notion in football.

 

What's so baffling and also so worrying is he seemed to know all this stuff 6 weeks or so ago. It's like he decided we were doing too well and it wasn't exciting enough without a good old relegation battle. How has he unlearned this?

 

Managers these days seem to have developed a complex about conceding goals. Clean sheets are now the most important thing in football. They'd rather win 1-0 than 5-3. They'd rather draw 3 matches 0-0 than lose 2 and win 1. Pearson has become so terrified of conceding goals that he's forgotten about winning football matches.

[Merging Cultures]

Four midfielders are four midfielders. In my opinion the best teams play wide men who get back and defend, and can get tight in the centre when needed.

Knocky and Mahrez are professional players. Surely all it takes is them being given instructions on what they need to do. Perhaps he tried and they haven't done it, and that is why they are not in the starting 11.

We should be playing 4-4-2 with one CM playing slightly in advance of the other. The wingers should be putting in a shift and getting back to pack the midfield when needed.

[MC Prussian]

What's the difference between that and a 4-4-2, with one CM slightly more advanced than the other?

 

I thought the diamond tended to accommodate four CMs, or three CMs and an attacker 'in the hole'.

The "classic" diamond is a 4-1-2-1-2 (please correct me if I'm wrong), with a proper CDM in front of the back four, a LM and a RM and an attacking midfielder linking up with the two strikers.

A great formation for counterattacks.

 

A variation of it can be played with two CMs instead of the outside midfielders, the middle becomes a bit more narrow and crowded then, though.

Problem is that your left and right side are more prone to attacks and that both sides can be overrun more easily because of the lack of width.

[Captain...]

How does he expect us to keep the ball when we play so deep? To keep the ball and make use of it you have to have forward options. You have to be prepared to attack otherwise there will come a point where you've got nowhere to go.

 

I think it's extremely naive, almost juvenile for him to equate wide players and attacking football with conceding possession.

 

Besides, as I've said plenty of times, we won the battle in the middle against West Brom, and it got us absolutely nowhere. 'Winning the midfield battle' is the most overrated notion in football.

 

What's so baffling and also so worrying is he seemed to know all this stuff 6 weeks or so ago. It's like he decided we were doing too well and it wasn't exciting enough without a good old relegation battle. How has he unlearned this?

 

Managers these days seem to have developed a complex about conceding goals. Clean sheets are now the most important thing in football. They'd rather win 1-0 than 5-3. They'd rather draw 3 matches 0-0 than lose 2 and win 1. Pearson has become so terrified of conceding goals that he's forgotten about winning football matches.

 

Do you not remember all the comments on here about how many we were conceding, it was a worry, and still is, he tried to rectify that problem by having more presence in midfield against Newcastle, it sort of worked as we limited them to very few chances, but we weren't creating enough so he brought 2 forwards on and went on the attack and we got hit on the counter.

 

Against Swansea he went for a more attack/defence split, with Mahrez Ulloa Vardy and Nugent going forwards and Hammond and Drinkwater screening the defence, but it was a disaster and we never got on the ball and despite our forward options didn't look like scoring.

 

Against West Brom he went for a centre midfield diamond, we restricted them to very few chances, and carved out some good ones of our own, but not enough and one piece of bad luck did for us.

 

He persisted with this formation (remember the comments on here about using too many players, too much chopping and changing, we need a settled side) to restrict Southampton (2nd in the league) which worked for 70 odd minutes, despite their pressure and possession, Kasper only made one or 2 saves until Long came on and terrorized our tired defence.

 

I'm not saying I agree with this formation (I don't) but I can see the thought processes and logic, and I'm not going to call NP an idiot or juvenile for trying to address what were clearly problems at the back. I don't think we will see the diamond against Sunderland as they are a team of the level of West Brom, and we need to be more creative and attacking at home against teams that will see a safe point as a good reward, rather than risking going for the win. Or if we do play a diamond it will be with Nugent at the tip, I guess it depends on Mahrez and Schlupp and their fitness after the internationals, as I would like to see both of them play.

[shailen]

i do believe we have started playing negatively especially after the Burnley game, but I dont think thats a bad thing. Being hard to beat is more important than trying to score goals. We have been fairly solid in all games bar Swansea and defended well. Pearson seems to have gone back to basics, which is what they say we should do after a bad streak. No nonsense football, centre forward holds up ball and brings others into play. Players like Mahrez and Knockeart would add more creative flair but it would cost our defensive play. Especially away from home we cannot afford to go all out attack. 

[artursteppe]

4-3-1-2. Three midfielders, Mahrez, free role ( both wings, and middle ) behind two attackers. Full backs overlapping, midfield covering full backs when necessary.

This should give good defensive cover and increased opportunities to create chances.

[suffolk fox]

i do believe we have started playing negatively especially after the Burnley game, but I dont think thats a bad thing. Being hard to beat is more important than trying to score goals. We have been fairly solid in all games bar Swansea and defended well. Pearson seems to have gone back to basics, which is what they say we should do after a bad streak. No nonsense football, centre forward holds up ball and brings others into play. Players like Mahrez and Knockeart would add more creative flair but it would cost our defensive play. Especially away from home we cannot afford to go all out attack.

But surely the point is scoring goals will win you football matches? Being hard to beat wont.

[shailen]

But surely the point is scoring goals will win you football matches? Being hard to beat wont.

 

Yes but we are not good enough to just attack, other teams will rip our defence to shreads. Although it's not to say we shouldn't attack, as you mentioned we won't win unless we do, but it's picking the right moments to attack. Palace and Hull are good examples of teams that stayed solid defensively and both comfortably stayed up. We have to follow this model

[Captain...]

But surely the point is scoring goals will win you football matches? Being hard to beat wont.

 

The trick is finding the balance, we didn't have the balance right at the start but were getting away with it as we were converting most of our chances, but we were conceding a lot of possession and a lot of chances to the opposition and running ourselves ragged in doing so. We don't have the balance right now either. We all have our thoughts on what would be our best team and the best formation, but none of us really know. The problem now is we don't look like scoring and there must be a psychological element to it, which we need to address, if Wood and Cambiasso had converted their sitters, then we wouldn't be talking about not scoring for 4 games and we would also be above Palace on goal difference.

 

The problem before is that it felt like we could very easily end up on the wrong end of a thumping defeat, and NP tried to correct that before it happened, but it hasn't worked out well. Maybe if we had continued as we were we would have got hammered by Swansea or Newcastle, or we could have won, but we will never know.

 

I can't believe the lack of patience on here, we are playing in the top flight of English football for the first time in 10 years, it isn't going to be perfect, but there is no benefit in turning on the manager.

[Babylon]

Do you not remember all the comments on here about how many we were conceding, it was a worry, and still is, he tried to rectify that problem by having more presence in midfield against Newcastle, it sort of worked as we limited them to very few chances, but we weren't creating enough so he brought 2 forwards on and went on the attack and we got hit on the counter.

 

Against Swansea he went for a more attack/defence split, with Mahrez Ulloa Vardy and Nugent going forwards and Hammond and Drinkwater screening the defence, but it was a disaster and we never got on the ball and despite our forward options didn't look like scoring.

 

Against West Brom he went for a centre midfield diamond, we restricted them to very few chances, and carved out some good ones of our own, but not enough and one piece of bad luck did for us.

 

He persisted with this formation (remember the comments on here about using too many players, too much chopping and changing, we need a settled side) to restrict Southampton (2nd in the league) which worked for 70 odd minutes, despite their pressure and possession, Kasper only made one or 2 saves until Long came on and terrorized our tired defence.

 

I'm not saying I agree with this formation (I don't) but I can see the thought processes and logic, and I'm not going to call NP an idiot or juvenile for trying to address what were clearly problems at the back. I don't think we will see the diamond against Sunderland as they are a team of the level of West Brom, and we need to be more creative and attacking at home against teams that will see a safe point as a good reward, rather than risking going for the win. Or if we do play a diamond it will be with Nugent at the tip, I guess it depends on Mahrez and Schlupp and their fitness after the internationals, as I would like to see both of them play.

 

I think I might retire from here and just let you do the posting for me.

[ImBlue]

Do you not remember all the comments on here about how many we were conceding, it was a worry, and still is, he tried to rectify that problem by having more presence in midfield against Newcastle, it sort of worked as we limited them to very few chances, but we weren't creating enough so he brought 2 forwards on and went on the attack and we got hit on the counter.

Against Swansea he went for a more attack/defence split, with Mahrez Ulloa Vardy and Nugent going forwards and Hammond and Drinkwater screening the defence, but it was a disaster and we never got on the ball and despite our forward options didn't look like scoring.

Against West Brom he went for a centre midfield diamond, we restricted them to very few chances, and carved out some good ones of our own, but not enough and one piece of bad luck did for us.

He persisted with this formation (remember the comments on here about using too many players, too much chopping and changing, we need a settled side) to restrict Southampton (2nd in the league) which worked for 70 odd minutes, despite their pressure and possession, Kasper only made one or 2 saves until Long came on and terrorized our tired defence.

I'm not saying I agree with this formation (I don't) but I can see the thought processes and logic, and I'm not going to call NP an idiot or juvenile for trying to address what were clearly problems at the back. I don't think we will see the diamond against Sunderland as they are a team of the level of West Brom, and we need to be more creative and attacking at home against teams that will see a safe point as a good reward, rather than risking going for the win. Or if we do play a diamond it will be with Nugent at the tip, I guess it depends on Mahrez and Schlupp and their fitness after the internationals, as I would like to see both of them play.

You say he tried to address the fact we are conceding too many goals.. I remember a lot of posters on here saying adding just Upson wasn't enough in the summer. What do we know? Now he's playing 4 centre midfielders to try and protect them.

It's Nigel's fault and nobody else's no matter which way you look at it. Obviously though he didn't care what we thought then, and doesn't now.

[Guest ttfn]

The trick is finding the balance, we didn't have the balance right at the start but were getting away with it as we were converting most of our chances, but we were conceding a lot of possession and a lot of chances to the opposition and running ourselves ragged in doing so. We don't have the balance right now either. We all have our thoughts on what would be our best team and the best formation, but none of us really know. The problem now is we don't look like scoring and there must be a psychological element to it, which we need to address, if Wood and Cambiasso had converted their sitters, then we wouldn't be talking about not scoring for 4 games and we would also be above Palace on goal difference.

The problem before is that it felt like we could very easily end up on the wrong end of a thumping defeat, and NP tried to correct that before it happened, but it hasn't worked out well. Maybe if we had continued as we were we would have got hammered by Swansea or Newcastle, or we could have won, but we will never know.

I can't believe the lack of patience on here, we are playing in the top flight of English football for the first time in 10 years, it isn't going to be perfect, but there is no benefit in turning on the manager.

Good post, and I agree entirely about the lack of patience, but playing for draws does not make logical sense in almost any fixture in the age if 3 points for a win.

I struggle to believe that carrying the attacking mentality from the first 6 games (because to be fair I think we did at least try to attack Palace, we just didn't play very well) into the next 5, that we wouldn't have got more than 1 point. Obviously we will never know that for sure, and we may well have got gubbed 5-0 by Swansea and Southampton, but even 2 points with a -12 goal difference is better than 1 point with a -6 goal difference (from our last 5).

We've made ourselves hostages of fortune when it comes to even getting a point, whereas at the start of the season we were positive enough that we had a couple of presentable chances at Stamford Bridge and could easily have beaten Arsenal. Frankly I couldn't care less if we lost 5-0 15 times this season, so long as we stayed up. At the moment I don't think the tactics we're employing are giving us a proper shot at it, but I'm certain NP will see sense in the medium term.

[Guest Col city fan]

I think I might retire from here and just let you do the posting for me.

Oh go on...go on...

[Captain...]

You say he tried to address the fact we are conceding too many goals.. I remember a lot of posters on here saying adding just Upson wasn't enough in the summer. What do we know? Now he's playing 4 centre midfielders to try and protect them.

It's Nigel's fault and nobody else's no matter which way you look at it. Obviously though he didn't care what we thought then, and doesn't now.

 

At what point did I say it wasn't Nigel's fault, he tried to address the fact we were conceding too many goals and too much possession, it swung too far the other way and limited our attacking threat, as I said it is about balance, we haven't found it yet, but we didn't have it at the start of the season either.

 

Our signings in the Summer are done now, and well done you and everyone else, if you said something then that is proving true now, but only signing Upson at CB isn't the cause of our problems. Wes, Was and Moore have all been very reliable this season and not looked out of depth, the problem is one of balance, either we are being too attacking and leaving ourselves exposed, not keeping possession, sitting too deep and inviting pressure on ourselves, and even the best centre backs in the world will concede under pressure.

 

What we are failing to do in most games is control them for sustained periods, we aren't doing that as we aren't keeping the ball, something NP is trying to address, we aren't going to dominate teams from start to finish, but we need periods of the game when we are in charge, when we aren't chasing shadows, and start exerting pressure and conserving energy. We did that against Burnley and West Brom, we just blew it with moments of madness.

[Babylon]

Oh go on...go on...

I will if you will... give everyone a rest then

[Captain...]

Good post, and I agree entirely about the lack of patience, but playing for draws does not make logical sense in almost any fixture in the age if 3 points for a win.

I struggle to believe that carrying the attacking mentality from the first 6 games (because to be fair I think we did at least try to attack Palace, we just didn't play very well) into the next 5, that we wouldn't have got more than 1 point. Obviously we will never know that for sure, and we may well have got gubbed 5-0 by Swansea and Southampton, but even 2 points with a -12 goal difference is better than 1 point with a -6 goal difference (from our last 5).

We've made ourselves hostages of fortune when it comes to even getting a point, whereas at the start of the season we were positive enough that we had a couple of presentable chances at Stamford Bridge and could easily have beaten Arsenal. Frankly I couldn't care less if we lost 5-0 15 times this season, so long as we stayed up. At the moment I don't think the tactics we're employing are giving us a proper shot at it, but I'm certain NP will see sense in the medium term.

 

As I said above I don't think Nigel is playing for draws, he is trying to find a team that is capable of controlling a game for sustained periods, not all out attack or desperate defending, but keep control of the game and start imposing ourselves.

[Corky]

Good post, and I agree entirely about the lack of patience, but playing for draws does not make logical sense in almost any fixture in the age if 3 points for a win.

I struggle to believe that carrying the attacking mentality from the first 6 games (because to be fair I think we did at least try to attack Palace, we just didn't play very well) into the next 5, that we wouldn't have got more than 1 point. Obviously we will never know that for sure, and we may well have got gubbed 5-0 by Swansea and Southampton, but even 2 points with a -12 goal difference is better than 1 point with a -6 goal difference (from our last 5).

We've made ourselves hostages of fortune when it comes to even getting a point, whereas at the start of the season we were positive enough that we had a couple of presentable chances at Stamford Bridge and could easily have beaten Arsenal. Frankly I couldn't care less if we lost 5-0 15 times this season, so long as we stayed up. At the moment I don't think the tactics we're employing are giving us a proper shot at it, but I'm certain NP will see sense in the medium term.

 

He's trying to win but I doubt he wants a 5-3 like the Man United game every week. He'd rather have a 2-0 where we defend compactly and get goals on the break. He's trying to frustrate the opposition in the hope they'll make mistakes and we capitalise. 

 

Unfortunately I don't think the four CMs in the diamond work in all ways. If we are to play it I'd rather Mahrez or Knockaert at the top, Cambiasso/ Drinkwater at the base, James on the right and maybe Schlupp on the left so Konchesky gets some cover.

 

Managers who set up not to lose rarely play with two strikers, we do need width to play to Ulloa's strength. Vardy has to play, Nugent is too slow, Ulloa and Wood will not be relentless in pressure like Vardy.

 

Hopefully we'll go back to a four across the midfield, or maybe a three with Mahrez playing off the strikers. The new set-up is restricting opposition chances but we aren't doing enough ourselves to create.

[Guest ttfn]

He's trying to win but I doubt he wants a 5-3 like the Man United game every week. He'd rather have a 2-0 where we defend compactly and get goals on the break. He's trying to frustrate the opposition in the hope they'll make mistakes and we capitalise.

Unfortunately I don't think the four CMs in the diamond work in all ways. If we are to play it I'd rather Mahrez or Knockaert at the top, Cambiasso/ Drinkwater at the base, James on the right and maybe Schlupp on the left so Konchesky gets some cover.

Managers who set up not to lose rarely play with two strikers, we do need width to play to Ulloa's strength. Vardy has to play, Nugent is too slow, Ulloa and Wood will not be relentless in pressure like Vardy.

Hopefully we'll go back to a four across the midfield, or maybe a three with Mahrez playing off the strikers. The new set-up is restricting opposition chances but we aren't doing enough ourselves to create.

Fair enough, perhaps "looking to draw" is unfair, but an impartial observer could certainly be forgiven for thinking that we are setting up not to lose rather than to win.

Look at the Newcastle game, where we did only play 1 up front, for example. Albrighton and Schlupp were virtually on De Laet and Konchesky's toes for most of the time we were lined up 4-5-1.

We then go to the diamond against West Brom and Southampton - two games where it was plainly obvious from the way that the players were lined up that we weren't going to create many opportunities.

You have to create chances to win games. You don't have to control possession to win games, or even create chances, as we showed time and again at the start of this season. In fact, our great strength over the last year has been in transition from defence to attack - winning the ball back in midfield and then springing forward quickly at pace; a sort of championship Dortmund.

We could play with 5 forwards, but as long as we never have any players in space to receive the ball when we win it back it will be a defensive formation. The only "out ball"s in the present formation are a lump up to a target man or a ball over the top for a nippy forward. These are park football tactics and we're paying for it at the moment because opposition defences are gobbling up the long balls, as they did in the championship.

[Kitchandro]

Do you not remember all the comments on here about how many we were conceding, it was a worry, and still is, he tried to rectify that problem by having more presence in midfield against Newcastle, it sort of worked as we limited them to very few chances, but we weren't creating enough so he brought 2 forwards on and went on the attack and we got hit on the counter.

 

Against Swansea he went for a more attack/defence split, with Mahrez Ulloa Vardy and Nugent going forwards and Hammond and Drinkwater screening the defence, but it was a disaster and we never got on the ball and despite our forward options didn't look like scoring.

 

Against West Brom he went for a centre midfield diamond, we restricted them to very few chances, and carved out some good ones of our own, but not enough and one piece of bad luck did for us.

 

He persisted with this formation (remember the comments on here about using too many players, too much chopping and changing, we need a settled side) to restrict Southampton (2nd in the league) which worked for 70 odd minutes, despite their pressure and possession, Kasper only made one or 2 saves until Long came on and terrorized our tired defence.

 

I'm not saying I agree with this formation (I don't) but I can see the thought processes and logic, and I'm not going to call NP an idiot or juvenile for trying to address what were clearly problems at the back. I don't think we will see the diamond against Sunderland as they are a team of the level of West Brom, and we need to be more creative and attacking at home against teams that will see a safe point as a good reward, rather than risking going for the win. Or if we do play a diamond it will be with Nugent at the tip, I guess it depends on Mahrez and Schlupp and their fitness after the internationals, as I would like to see both of them play.

 

I'm not bothered about other people worrying how many we were conceding. It wasn't worrying me. Look, we're going to concede goals. It's the Premier League. We've not got world class defenders, I accept we're going to concede goals to sides like Everton, Man Utd and Arsenal. That's not the point. Points are the point. We were doing well points wise so I couldn't care less how many we were conceding. This is my point, clean sheets are not the be all and end all. 

 

It's certainly not worth negating our attacking threat for, because, as the results have shown, that has not been to our benefit.

 

Swansea was all out defensive, no idea why you think there was a 'split'. Mahrez was in his own half for the whole of the first period. Vardy and Nugent both played in midfield and we had Ulloa up front with no one anywhere near him. Whenever we had possession we tried to slow it down as much as possible, apart from Vardy and Mahrez who barely saw the ball. The tactics in that game were absolutely shambolic.

 

The teams he has picked since the Burnley game have been pitiful and cannot be excused by the idea of trying to stop conceding goals. What's happened is we've become a worse team, a team that loses more. He has been juvenile, he has been idiotic; putting emphasis on playing a defensive formation has in fact made us more vulnerable at the back (let's not forget we have been playing much poorer teams than the sides we were conceding to in the first 5 games, bar Stoke, where we kept a clean sheet).

 

It's all pretty indefensible as far as I'm concerned. He needs to pull his finger out and accept he's made a mistake by trying to address our defensive weaknesses by changing our style so dramatically.

[Kitchandro]

He's trying to win but I doubt he wants a 5-3 like the Man United game every week. He'd rather have a 2-0 where we defend compactly and get goals on the break. He's trying to frustrate the opposition in the hope they'll make mistakes and we capitalise. 

 

Unfortunately I don't think the four CMs in the diamond work in all ways. If we are to play it I'd rather Mahrez or Knockaert at the top, Cambiasso/ Drinkwater at the base, James on the right and maybe Schlupp on the left so Konchesky gets some cover.

 

Managers who set up not to lose rarely play with two strikers, we do need width to play to Ulloa's strength. Vardy has to play, Nugent is too slow, Ulloa and Wood will not be relentless in pressure like Vardy.

 

Hopefully we'll go back to a four across the midfield, or maybe a three with Mahrez playing off the strikers. The new set-up is restricting opposition chances but we aren't doing enough ourselves to create.

 

Yes I think you're right, and this is a hugely naive mistake. Most of the time this way of playing is pretty much the same as trying to play for a draw. You cannot create enough chances playing this way, not if you're us. It also puts us under way too much pressure.

 

We can't hope they make mistakes, we have to force mistakes like we had done for a year previously. Otherwise, it's us being forced into mistakes. 

 

As soon as he realises that a team like us cannot play that way you explain in your first line, the better.