That has to be it. Pearson needs to go.

[Itsthejoeker]

Fair enough, just as I said very disappointed with some of the silly shit he has come out with this year and his lack of acknowledgement of his mistakes

 

How many other managers admit to their mistakes to the national media?

[LCFCCKEANO]

How many other managers admit to their mistakes to the national media?

Not admitting, but amending like dropping Vardy after spurs and picking Albrighton, dropping King or Drinkwater, stuff like that. It is only small stuff, but still could make a large difference. Still think he is the guy to keep us up, but in an ideal world he would be a tad less stubborn

[Dr The Singh]

Missing out on Sol Bamba, and not signing Danny NGuessen......do we need any other reason to sack Peeson

[Guest Col city fan]

That was just one of my points anyway, just saying some of the time I have been disappointed with him is all, surely you will admit he has made a large amount of mistakes this season...

Of course he has mate. Don't be swayed by all the blue tinted brigade who will argue that black is white. You'll get caught up in their little world. Pearson has been, so far, highly disappointing at this level. That's why we are bottom of the table and why we played two in midfield with a striker on the right wing against Man Utd. The blue rinse lads will suggest some sort of tactical set up, but you and I know it was nothing short of weird.

Pearson has his plus points. He also has his weaknesses. Look at both to get the real picture.

[Itsthejoeker]

Not admitting, but amending like dropping Vardy after spurs and picking Albrighton, dropping King or Drinkwater, stuff like that. It is only small stuff, but still could make a large difference. Still think he is the guy to keep us up, but in an ideal world he would be a tad less stubborn

 

Dropping King or Drinkwater for the recently injured Cambiasso or Hammond? or the suspended Matty James?

[LCFCCKEANO]

Dropping King or Drinkwater for the recently injured Cambiasso or Hammond? or the suspended Matty James?

Even recently injured Id rather we played them, now is not the time to play safely, we need to take risks to win games, it's like people saying Upson shouldn't play as he hasn't in ages, he has to have a first game back at some stage, fit enough to be on the bench the. I would assume fit enough to play

[Babylon]

Of course he has mate. Don't be swayed by all the blue tinted brigade who will argue that black is white. You'll get caught up in their little world. Pearson has been, so far, highly disappointing at this level. That's why we are bottom of the table and why we played two in midfield with a striker on the right wing against Man Utd. The blue rinse lads will suggest some sort of tactical set up, but you and I know it was nothing short of weird.

Pearson has his plus points. He also has his weaknesses. Look at both to get the real picture.

Has literally anyone said they agreed with him about Vardy?

 

The only defending I've seen about the two in the middle has to do with the fitness, availability and risk associated of the others options and not that they thought he was right to go with two in the middle.

[Itsthejoeker]

Even recently injured Id rather we played them, now is not the time to play safely, we need to take risks to win games, it's like people saying Upson shouldn't play as he hasn't in ages, he has to have a first game back at some stage, fit enough to be on the bench the. I would assume fit enough to play

 

Would you risk injury against Man Utd who aren't going to be in our relegation scrap? I'd much rather rest and make sure they're fully fit prior to a potential six pointer this weekend.

[Corky]

The turnaround on Hammond has been astonishing given the belief and hope he'd bugger off as soon as Cambiasso joined as he's too slow. So maybe the inept manager got something right by keeping him and playing him?

[Itsthejoeker]

The turnaround on Hammond has been astonishing given the belief and hope he'd bugger off as soon as Cambiasso joined as he's too slow. So maybe the inept manager got something right by keeping him and playing him?

 

A positive comment about Pearsons team selection? **** off.

[LCFCCKEANO]

Would you risk injury against Man Utd who aren't going to be in our relegation scrap? I'd much rather rest and make sure they're fully fit prior to a potential six pointer this weekend.

Yes I would, and I would also have a fourth cm capable of prem football at the club just in case, but I guess that's just me, Hammond should start every game he physically can, and we should have back up for James, if James an Hammond don't start this weekend I won't be all too happy

[LCFCCKEANO]

A positive comment about Pearsons team selection? **** off.

Good one, not as if I have said I think he'll keep us up, I'm sorry am I only to complement him, I am happy he brought in Was, how he has got Schlupp going, the way Hammond is being used, and James, I just don't see the point in commenting on how much I love him and why I do, I'd rather discuss an equal argument cheers

[Dr The Singh]

The turnaround on Hammond has been astonishing given the belief and hope he'd bugger off as soon as Cambiasso joined as he's too slow. So maybe the inept manager got something right by keeping him and playing him?

By accident?

[65RosesFox]

Even recently injured Id rather we played them, now is not the time to play safely, we need to take risks to win games, it's like people saying Upson shouldn't play as he hasn't in ages, he has to have a first game back at some stage, fit enough to be on the bench the. I would assume fit enough to play

Yeah let's take risks away at Old Trafford go out there to win the game and potentially get thrashed and put a massive dent in our goal difference which could become a huge factor on the final day of the season.

I can understand if he played that team against one of our relegation rivals, but away at Utd let's be realistic who ever we played we would've had minimal possession and not created much.

If he puts a similar team out against Palace on Saturday then yes the guy has lost it, but against a team fighting for a top three finish I'm not going to lose sleep or pull my hair out like some on this forum.

[Babylon]

Even recently injured Id rather we played them, now is not the time to play safely, we need to take risks to win games, it's like people saying Upson shouldn't play as he hasn't in ages, he has to have a first game back at some stage, fit enough to be on the bench the. I would assume fit enough to play

Would you not rather we played safely in a game we're more than likely going to lose and go into the palace game with a full strength team?

 

Not saying that's what this thinking was, but it really wouldn't shock me if that was the case. King and Drinkwater have not been his preferred two all season, I don't believe he's suddenly had a meltdown and decided they are... so there must be other reasons for it. They got into the team because of injury and suspension, if those problems are still lurking around then he may have been correct in not risking them.

 

We've done without so many of our midfielders all season for one reason or another and we are now getting to the business end of the season. Perhaps we was hoping King and DD would step up to the plate and get through the game ok without the need to bring on one of those coming back from injury too early? Of course there are the arguments of not putting them on the bench if not fit enough, but perhaps they just weren't wanting to risk them.

 

I don't agree with him going with the two, I've said from the start I'd set up against teams like them a different way. But I'm not going to castigate him when I can see some potential reasoning for it.

[Itsthejoeker]

Yes I would, and I would also have a fourth cm capable of prem football at the club just in case, but I guess that's just me, Hammond should start every game he physically can, and we should have back up for James, if James an Hammond don't start this weekend I won't be all too happy

 

But if you read the forum in the summer, many on here thought that we had midfielders that were going to play for England, and that they were going to leave to join bigger clubs. An extra cm would actually make 6 midfielders. Then we end up with "what does King have to do to get a game". No one is happy.

[LCFCCKEANO]

Would you not rather we played safely in a game we're more than likely going to lose and go into the palace game with a full strength team?

Not saying that's what this thinking was, but it really wouldn't shock me if that was the case. King and Drinkwater have not been his preferred two all season, I don't believe he's suddenly had a meltdown and decided they are... so there must be other reasons for it. They got into the team because of injury and suspension, if those problems are still lurking around then he may have been correct in not risking them.

We've done without so many of our midfielders all season for one reason or another and we are now getting to the business end of the season. Perhaps we was hoping King and DD would step up to the plate and get through the game ok without the need to bring on one of those coming back from injury too early? Of course there are the arguments of not putting them on the bench if not fit enough, but perhaps they just weren't wanting to risk them.

I don't agree with him going with the two, I've said from the start I'd set up against teams like them a different way. But I'm not going to castigate him when I can see some potential reasoning for it.

I can too, honestly, and I am not castigating him, I'm just saying it all felt rather French, and I just don't see the point in not going for it as such. We have James back this week, why not start one of the two returnees, and if they get injured, we have the other an James this week?

Would you not rather we played safely in a game we're more than likely going to lose and go into the palace game with a full strength team?

Not saying that's what this thinking was, but it really wouldn't shock me if that was the case. King and Drinkwater have not been his preferred two all season, I don't believe he's suddenly had a meltdown and decided they are... so there must be other reasons for it. They got into the team because of injury and suspension, if those problems are still lurking around then he may have been correct in not risking them.

We've done without so many of our midfielders all season for one reason or another and we are now getting to the business end of the season. Perhaps we was hoping King and DD would step up to the plate and get through the game ok without the need to bring on one of those coming back from injury too early? Of course there are the arguments of not putting them on the bench if not fit enough, but perhaps they just weren't wanting to risk them.

I don't agree with him going with the two, I've said from the start I'd set up against teams like them a different way. But I'm not going to castigate him when I can see some potential reasoning for it.

I can too, honestly, and I am not castigating him, I'm just saying it all felt rather French, and I just don't see the point in not going for it as such. We have James back this week, why not start one of the two returnees, and if they get injured, we have the other an James this week?

[LCFCCKEANO]

But if you read the forum in the summer, many on here thought that we had midfielders that were going to play for England, and that they were going to leave to join bigger clubs. An extra cm would actually make 6 midfielders. Then we end up with "what does King have to do to get a game". No one is happy.

Again, fair point, but at this stage, it is clear him and Drinks FOR NOW are not good enough, leaving us with 3, who I think are good enough right now

[Guest Col city fan]

Has literally anyone said they agreed with him about Vardy?

The only defending I've seen about the two in the middle has to do with the fitness, availability and risk associated of the others options and not that they thought he was right to go with two in the middle.

You were doing it during the game...

'What did people expect against Man Utd anyway' etc...

A dismissal, essentially, of all that was wrong with the set up. You've been doing it for years...

[LCFCCKEANO]

Yeah let's take risks away at Old Trafford go out there to win the game and potentially get thrashed and put a massive dent in our goal difference which could become a huge factor on the final day of the season.

I can understand if he played that team against one of our relegation rivals, but away at Utd let's be realistic who ever we played we would've had minimal possession and not created much.

If he puts a similar team out against Palace on Saturday then yes the guy has lost it, but against a team fighting for a top three finish I'm not going to lose sleep or pull my hair out like some on this forum.

because starting Hammond is taking a risk you utter moron. That probably would've stabilised us, have you seen our stats with an without deano

[Itsthejoeker]

Again, fair point, but at this stage, it is clear him and Drinks FOR NOW are not good enough, leaving us with 3, who I think are good enough right now

 

But they were all that was available for the previous game, we don't know how fit either Cambiasso or Hammond were. Just because they were on the bench it doesn't mean they capable of playing 90 minutes, it means there needed to be some options in the midfield should something happen in the game.

[Dr The Singh]

But if you read the forum in the summer, many on here thought that we had midfielders that were going to play for England, and that they were going to leave to join bigger clubs. An extra cm would actually make 6 midfielders. Then we end up with "what does King have to do to get a game". No one is happy.

So true, the optism was huge, Peeson was smiles all over, a lot of fans were talking mid table. I wasn't one of them

[Dr The Singh]

because starting Hammond is taking a risk you utter moron. That probably would've stabilised us, have you seen our stats with an without deano

Do we know the state of Hammond or are we assuming he is not fit

[LCFCCKEANO]

But they were all that was available for the previous game, we don't know how fit either Cambiasso or Hammond were. Just because they were on the bench it doesn't mean they capable of playing 90 minutes, it means there needed to be some options in the midfield should something happen in the game.

ok imagine Hammond crocks during United game, we still have Cambiasso and James for the next week, and potentially a better result due to his impact, and if 90 isn't possible then 70 then sub

[tickler28]

How do you know that he doesn't in the first place?

The season is still in progress. We can still stay up. Anything is possible. And we won't be able to judge the manager up until a few years following his departure or retirement.

As of right now, I'm in favour of Pearson because he has shown the ability to learn from his mistakes. And because he's brought this club stability and a certain degree of (minor) success. I think we should build on that. With him in charge.

We don't really know the plans or realistic expectations the owners have come up with in cooperation with the management (including Pearson).

The road to success is a rocky one, especially for a team with a history such as Leicester City's.

Learnt from his mistakes?!?! Please tell me Im not the only person on this forum that sees him constantly make the same mistakes. The number of poor team selections is ridiculous, the lack of any type of plan B is a joke and don't even get me started on his lack of understanding of playing players in their best positions!!! Cambiasso in a 2 = NO....Vardy/Nugent on the wing = do me a favour....De Laet at LB = ?!?!