Why no Pearson interview on radio Leicester

[Babylon]

Thing is, LCFC do not own RL and cannot and should not be allowed to dictate who should and should not do the interviews. If NP cannot handle the media questioning in times of dire performances/team selection/tactics then he's in the wrong job.

 

The huge support, air time and coverage RL gave to LCFC when we got promoted last year was lapped up by the club.That came from Stringer and was very much welcomed. Apparently, this seasons listening figured for everything from the games to the Phone-In and the Boot Room are at an all time high, so Ian et-al are obviously doing something right.

 

They cannot dictate how the BBC/RL run their company and policies. Yes, I think there is room to give on both side but I see it as NP and his arrogance as the sticking point that is not allowing this stalemate to be broken. At best or worst this is a clash of personalities that has surfaced and, as much as the Stringer haters on here are yet again using this to batter him, this is more of NP's doing IMHO than it is Ian's

 

 It's all well and good people Like Mr Random Silly calling for other RL employees doing the interviews but look back at how NP treated Mike McCarthy when he did the post match one earlier in the season (Think it was the game where Ian was in Japan raising thousands of pounds for the Leicester Royal Infirmary still born unit). How NP treated MMc was disgraceful. It was his first ever post match interview with NP and completely uncalled for.

 

 People bashing Ian Stringer saying it's all his fault are very much wide of the mark IMO. NP needs to grow up and realise that it isn't just on the pitch where you are scrutinised and answerable more in the Prem than you are in the Championship, it's all other aspects of being a manager and club. If he can't handle the heat without throwing his toys out of the pram when things ain't going his way, then, like I said, he's in the wrong job.

Actually Leicester have every right to choose who they speak to. To make out he's dodging Stringer because of poor results is ridiculous, previously if there was a bad result he would front up to it. Just as he does with numerous other media outlets still, he'd often hand the reigns over the Craig Shakespeare after good performances.

 

You have Ian Stinger stood there apparently doing cut throat gestures (something that hasn't been refuted... and I can tell you now he reads the forum), the club have every right to say I'm sorry you are not professional in what you are doing and we don't want to speak to you. Especially considering it's not the first time he's acted unprofessionally, if it was a one off then I'm sure bridges could have been mended.

 

As Geoff said above, people like Bourne have sadly been drawn seemingly into Stingers way of commentating and reporting. Whether this is dictated from above or what I don't know, but there has definitely been in shift in style on twitter for both of them in my eyes and I'm sure that style also translates onto the radio.

[Reg Vardy]

May have been said before but RL are better positioned to ask questions fans want answering....why was Ulloa on the bench, why didn't Albrighton start? Why bring Lawrence on over Albrighton? Mainstream Radio 5 will never get down to that detail, I can appreciate it might be considered awkward by Nigel, but I certainly would like his thoughts on those decisions.......

[Babylon]

May have been said before but RL are better positioned to ask questions fans want answering....why was Ulloa on the bench

Funnily enough I didn't see people moaning after the Liverpool performance and Ulloa getting dropped. Why weren't you moaning about it then?

[whitlock]

Radio leicester post match is absolutely horrific to listen to. They struggle to fill the time up. I don't blame Nige or the players for not wanting to speak to Stringer - he is a class A bellend.

Mid way through calls from fans after the Stoke game (that's all they do now) Bourne goes after a call.. Right we can no hear from Jason Puncheon after their win at Burnley.. What? Why? This is Leicester radio - absolutely shocking.

[kingcarr21]

Pearson clearly thought the pace of Nuge and Vardy would do the job over Stoke instead of Albrightons crosses into there monster defenders to easily clear. Its not difficult to see in his team selection what he was thinking. When Ulloa came on and our pace was taken out the team we were REALLY poor. This would also suggest why Lawrence came on instead of Albrighton as from what ive seen of him he likes to run and cut inside rather than cross. I for one would have liked to see Albrighton come on but again you can see what Pearson was trying to do. You shouldnt need him to ring up RL to tell you what he was trying to do.

 

Ian Stringer whilst i quite like him as a commentator, clearly has alot of passion for the club, he really is a MASSIVE **** in the way he does his interviews. Not surprised one bit that Pearson doesnt want to waste his time talking to him.

[Babylon]

Pearson clearly thought the pace of Nuge and Vardy would do the job over Stoke instead of Albrightons crosses into there monster defenders to easily clear. Its not difficult to see in his team selection what he was thinking. When Ulloa came on and our pace was taken out the team we were REALLY poor. This would also suggest why Lawrence came on instead of Albrighton as from what ive seen of him he likes to run and cut inside rather than cross. I for one would have liked to see Albrighton come on but again you can see what Pearson was trying to do. You shouldnt need him to ring up RL to tell you what he was trying to do.

Phew... at least I'm not the only one who thought it.

[yorkie1999]

Latest radio Leicester tactic seems to be to play the opposition manager's thoughts post match, is this to attempt to force NP to give his perspective and thereby force him to start doing interviews with stringer again?? Sneaky..

[walkerleeds]

Really liked him at first- his passion, excitement etc was brilliant to listen to and genuinely came across well on the radio. But this year the shocking questioning and Monday Night Forum crusades against Pearson has led to his downfall i'm afraid. Wasn't one of his programmes this season spearheaded by the question 'how long has Pearson got?' or something to that effect?

 

To me, and correct me if i'm wrong here Ian, it seems he'd rather get a few extra listeners to phone in and moan about NP or whoever as opposed to preserving a relationship with the club he actually supports 

[Stadt]

Since when did media handling become such an integral part of being a manager?

[Bettsj2]

Funnily enough I didn't see people moaning after the Liverpool performance and Ulloa getting dropped. Why weren't you moaning about it then?

Why just quote that question? The other two about Albrighton and the sub of TL form the validity of the point. Realise you're doing your usual thing of trying to appear balanced but censoring the post to suit your argument isnt the best way about it.

For what its worth, NP wouldnt answer those questions with the detail anybody wants anyway. He never did. We know this by now that he plays all team matters close to his chest.

I find it interesting the point someone made about Mike McCarthy. What happened there?

[Bettsj2]

Pearson clearly thought the pace of Nuge and Vardy would do the job over Stoke instead of Albrightons crosses into there monster defenders to easily clear. Its not difficult to see in his team selection what he was thinking. When Ulloa came on and our pace was taken out the team we were REALLY poor. This would also suggest why Lawrence came on instead of Albrighton as from what ive seen of him he likes to run and cut inside rather than cross. I for one would have liked to see Albrighton come on but again you can see what Pearson was trying to do. You shouldnt need him to ring up RL to tell you what he was trying to do.

Ian Stringer whilst i quite like him as a commentator, clearly has alot of passion for the club, he really is a MASSIVE **** in the way he does his interviews. Not surprised one bit that Pearson doesnt want to waste his time talking to him.

If Pearson clearly though the tactic of the ball over the top for Vardy and Nugent to run onto was the best way, that's absolutely fine. We can all see thats how he set up but that isnt really what people need confirming. When that team was announced, there was a large swell of opinion that it wouldnt work and it didnt.

Shawcross was out so they were weakened in the centre. Ulloa being fed by an in form Albrighton, with a record signing picking up the scraps from clearences could have paid dividend. It also could have failed, but hearing the manager tell us why he thought it would fail would have been good for supporters.

[The Doctor]

Silly post

And yet completely true... Go figure.

[deep blue]

Pearson clearly thought the pace of Nuge and Vardy would do the job over Stoke instead of Albrightons crosses into there monster defenders to easily clear. Its not difficult to see in his team selection what he was thinking. When Ulloa came on and our pace was taken out the team we were REALLY poor. This would also suggest why Lawrence came on instead of Albrighton as from what ive seen of him he likes to run and cut inside rather than cross. I for one would have liked to see Albrighton come on but again you can see what Pearson was trying to do. You shouldnt need him to ring up RL to tell you what he was trying to do.

 

Ian Stringer whilst i quite like him as a commentator, clearly has alot of passion for the club, he really is a MASSIVE **** in the way he does his interviews. Not surprised one bit that Pearson doesnt want to waste his time talking to him.

Great post - totally let down by the final paragraph. How you can consider Stringer to be a good commentator when he is far too arrogant to think of the needs of the listener, I don't know.

Crap commentator, naive interviewer - not a good start for a radio presenter. It is in RL's court to have a word with him, and very unprofessional of them that they haven't tackled the problem.

For those who think Pearson's stance is wrong, don't forget that the whole playing staff have also decided not to talk to Stringer either.

[Monsell1976]

It's about time both sides grew up, gone on to long now.

The local fans are missing out on the interviews, they need to arrange a meeting, and have their issues out once and for all, and then both act like professionals and get on with it.

[kingcarr21]

If Pearson clearly though the tactic of the ball over the top for Vardy and Nugent to run onto was the best way, that's absolutely fine. We can all see thats how he set up but that isnt really what people need confirming. When that team was announced, there was a large swell of opinion that it wouldnt work and it didnt.

Shawcross was out so they were weakened in the centre. Ulloa being fed by an in form Albrighton, with a record signing picking up the scraps from clearences could have paid dividend. It also could have failed, but hearing the manager tell us why he thought it would fail would have been good for supporters.

Hingsight is a wonderful thing. If the fans opinions were in the field of Ulloa and Albrighton being the best tactic would they have still questioned Pearsons choice of personnel if we won the game?

 

Clearly he thought it would fail because Stokes defense were still strong enough to deal with crosses without Shawcross.

 

Correct me if im wrong but im sure i heard that Shawcross was injured in the warm up. If that was the case then Pearson is not going to change his tactics and personnel at the last minute.

[kingcarr21]

Great post - totally let down by the final paragraph. How you can consider Stringer to be a good commentator when he is far too arrogant to think of the needs of the listener, I don't know.

Crap commentator, naive interviewer - not a good start for a radio presenter. It is in RL's court to have a word with him, and very unprofessional of them that they haven't tackled the problem.

For those who think Pearson's stance is wrong, don't forget that the whole playing staff have also decided not to talk to Stringer either.

The only reason i like Stringer as a commentator is the passion he shows. His actual commentating isnt great ill admit but you cant fault him on his passion. Would much rather listen to him commentate on the game than some dull monotone bloke who sounds like hes watching paint dry

[Jimmy]

wish the caller would have asked Ian why he doesn't get his ego out of the way and tell Jason to go interview him.

 

as for why JB is going down the Stringer mould he probably looks up to him for some stupid reason

[Bettsj2]

Hingsight is a wonderful thing. If the fans opinions were in the field of Ulloa and Albrighton being the best tactic would they have still questioned Pearsons choice of personnel if we won the game?

 

Clearly he thought it would fail because Stokes defense were still strong enough to deal with crosses without Shawcross.

 

Correct me if im wrong but im sure i heard that Shawcross was injured in the warm up. If that was the case then Pearson is not going to change his tactics and personnel at the last minute.

 

Why not? 

 

Also, I dont see how NP would form the opinion that Stoke's defence would be too strong to play the crossing game to Ulloa.  We beat them at their place with a cross and a goal from Ulloa.

[Babylon]

Why just quote that question? The other two about Albrighton and the sub of TL form the validity of the point. Realise you're doing your usual thing of trying to appear balanced but censoring the post to suit your argument isnt the best way about it.

For what its worth, NP wouldnt answer those questions with the detail anybody wants anyway. He never did. We know this by now that he plays all team matters close to his chest.

I find it interesting the point someone made about Mike McCarthy. What happened there?

Censoring the post... you do realise the post is still there free for anyone to read. The point is clear that I'm making whether I've quoted the whole thing or not.

 

The manager dropped Ulloa against Liverpool because he thought it was the best thing to do for that game, it worked. He thought the same for this game, but it didn't work and now everyone is suggesting it's some kind of moronic thing to do and he was bang out of order to make that decision. Were all these people on here after the Liverpool game praising him for that decision, highly unlikely.

 

It takes a modicum of thought to come to a reasoning on why he did what he did. Nicely written out by kingcarr21 above, it didn't work fair enough. But sometimes you are going to lose games no matter what players and formation you put out in this league. Would I have picked that team and formation, with those subs? Probably not, but I don't spend all week watching videos of Stoke and seeing what they are good and bad at, what each individual players weaknesses are etc. So I would find it very hard to come on here and make Pearson out to be some kind of fool for doing what he did, like some people are.

[Babylon]

If Pearson clearly though the tactic of the ball over the top for Vardy and Nugent to run onto was the best way, that's absolutely fine. We can all see thats how he set up but that isnt really what people need confirming. When that team was announced, there was a large swell of opinion that it wouldnt work and it didnt.

There is a large swell of opinion against his selections in every single game, you can't please everyone. Just as there was before Liverpool where we made a lot of people on here look very very stupid. They were wrong then, perhaps they are wrong again and their fag packet formations without the benefit of statistics or video analysis would have been equally as wrong as Pearson's.

 

Who knows, perhaps they will be right. Having the opinion we'd have been better off playing another way is one thing, acting like it's an 100% certainty and Pearson is an idiot is another. 

[MC Prussian]

I did listen to the Phone-In again yesterday and it was an atrocious experience. The specific type of callers is astonishing - it does indeed show that it caters to a specific audience.

No one with only a slight sense of intelligence would let himself or herself go in such manner and come out with ludicrous statements on air like that. Some of those callers even make a regular, desperate appearance (Dave (?) from Mansfield, for instance).

 

There was even one (Keith, I think) who completely missed out on the whole RL boycott by the first team (and subsequently, the manager) - even though it has been going on for weeks now.

[dbtcity]

I hope all the staff and players hold out till stringer gets the chop, I really used to enjoy listening to radio Leicester before and after the game, when I couldn't make it I thought his commentary was also decent, but this season his whole "unbiased" view which he claims he's giving and the asking Pearson the questions the fans want to hear has totally gone against him.... If I wanted a completely neutral commentary I'd listen to talk sport or sky sports, And as far as the questions the fans want to hear I don't want to hear some half sharp commentator hounding the manager every week asking a stupid question about him being sacked!!!!! Ok I understand asking it once but every bloody week! He just seems to have found another level of arrogance this season and needs to realise the fans couldn't give a toss about him and listen to the station to hear content from our club

[Bettsj2]

Censoring the post... you do realise the post is still there free for anyone to read. The point is clear that I'm making whether I've quoted the whole thing or not.

The manager dropped Ulloa against Liverpool because he thought it was the best thing to do for that game, it worked. He thought the same for this game, but it didn't work and now everyone is suggesting it's some kind of moronic thing to do and he was bang out of order to make that decision. Were all these people on here after the Liverpool game praising him for that decision, highly unlikely.

It takes a modicum of thought to come to a reasoning on why he did what he did. Nicely written out by kingcarr21 above, it didn't work fair enough. But sometimes you are going to lose games no matter what players and formation you put out in this league. Would I have picked that team and formation, with those subs? Probably not, but I don't spend all week watching videos of Stoke and seeing what they are good and bad at, what each individual players weaknesses are etc. So I would find it very hard to come on here and make Pearson out to be some kind of fool for doing what he did, like some people are.

You make out that everyone critisising the decision of the lineup didnt realise what Pearson was trying to achieve. Its quite the opposite. It was blatantly obvious what he wanted to achieve with the line up. The complaints before the game were that it wouldnt work and it didnt. Its all very well saying that Nigel and his team know best as its their job etc, so we should discuss nothing?

You mentioned the Liverpool game a couple of times and you're dead right which makes the Stoke game all the more frustrating. We lost to Liverpool weeks earlier by getting swamped in midfield. Pearson recognised it, addressed it and got something out of the game. We beat Stoke earlier in the season with a winning goal that came from a cross and Ulloa finished it. We'd proved that we could do it and a week earlier had won a game in that exact same way so changing it just didnt make sense hence all the frustration.

[Babylon]

1)You make out that everyone critisising the decision of the lineup didnt realise what Pearson was trying to achieve. Its quite the opposite. It was blatantly obvious what he wanted to achieve with the line up. 2) The complaints before the game were that it wouldnt work and it didnt. 3) Its all very well saying that Nigel and his team know best as its their job etc, so we should discuss nothing?

4)You mentioned the Liverpool game a couple of times and you're dead right which makes the Stoke game all the more frustrating. We lost to Liverpool weeks earlier by getting swamped in midfield. Pearson recognised it, addressed it and got something out of the game. We beat Stoke earlier in the season with a winning goal that came from a cross and Ulloa finished it. We'd proved that we could do it and a week earlier had won a game in that exact same way so changing it just didnt make sense hence all the frustration.

1)I'm not making out everyone doesn't realise, but the person I replied to clearly didn't as he was asking for Pearson to explain everything to him.

 

2) Again I refer you to the umpteen threads this season and last season where he was slated for formations or substitutions that have worked. I'm very aware Pearson is not going to get every decision right, the problem is a lot of people on here don't seem to accept that their idea might not actually have been any better and might have yielded the same result. Just because you disagreed before the game doesn't make you right.

 

3) Who said you shouldn't discussed it, I've discussed it, I've said I wouldn't have brought on Lawrence. Difference is I'm not making out it was the actions of some kind of lunatic, I can see what he was trying to do and I'm fully aware my idea may very well have yielded exactly the same result. I'd like to say I'm shocked by how over the top people have gone, but I'm not it happens all the time on here.

 

4) The Stoke game away was changed by going to three in the middle, something we didn't have the luxury of doing this week sadly. If we'd had a load of fit CM's and he'd stuck with 4-4-2 when the problem was clearly the centre of the park I would think everyone would have a good right to be miffed.

 

The first half away we were not in it even with Ulloa up front in a 4-4-2. So I'm not sure why everyone thinks he would have made all the difference in that formation this time. On top of that, lets be honest we were barely in a lot of the away game and only didn't concede a few due to them being awful around the box.

[kingcarr21]

Why not? 

 

Also, I dont see how NP would form the opinion that Stoke's defence would be too strong to play the crossing game to Ulloa.  We beat them at their place with a cross and a goal from Ulloa.

Perhaps Pearson was under the impression that Hughes would have learnt from the first game and if we set up to repeat that Stoke would nullify it? We played on the counter at there place and got a smash and grab win. We certainly didnt outplay them and you could say we got very lucky to come away with 3 points. At home Pearson believed that Nuge and Vardy playing on the front foot were the best chance of 3 points.

 

I highly doubt people would be questioning why Ulloa didnt start if we won. Why would they? If we had won then tactics were obviously right. Like i said Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

 

i could understand people wanting answers if we were completely outplayed and we didnt try to change the set up. But overall it was a poor game from both teams and a draw would have been a fair result i think. It was one piece of quality that settled the game. Disappointing result but it happens.

 

Also people moaning at Pearson because our 9 mill striker Kramaric didnt start are fools. It was clear as day when he came on that he wasnt match fit.