Why no Pearson interview on radio Leicester

[Manwell Pablo]

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. 

 

You miss the point I feel.

 

People may not be able to say their way is 100% certain to work. 

 

I say with some confidence I am 100% sure he could of got a better performance out of those players with a different combination of players and a different formation. It was one of our worst home performances of the season and a over all bad result. Unless, as I've said elsewhere, you think that's the best performance we could of mustered, in which case we may as well give up now. 

 

To throw your own argument back at you it shouldn't be down to the fans to come up with working formations it should be Pearson, with his video analysis, and his apparent knowledge of Stoke's week points, to come up with a game plan team and formation that works and no matter how you dress it up he got it wrong, we were garbage. 

[Dickov22]

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.

 

 

I agree with this. We would have most probably lost to Stoke whoever we played up front, and probably whoever we played on the wings. We lost the game in central mid because we were lightweight and outnumbered. There wasnt much Pearson could do about that, such is the injury list we have.

 

Listening to the phone in last night, so many people were annoyed by him leaving Albrighton out, saying he was great against Villa. They clearly didnt see the performance I did. Albrighton did ok, he has bags of effort and endeavor (sometimes means he commits silly fouls which he did in that game), but was he better on the day than Knockaert? Not in my opinion. If Schlupp is fit, he plays everytime ahead of Albrighton on current form. So really, it was a quite reasonable decision to pick Schlupp ahead of him.

[Bettsj2]

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.

1) Phew....I'M not the ONLY one who noticed it.

2) If you disagree before the game and then you lose that game, it doesnt justify your opinion? Most on here are very happy to praise Nigel when he does something well (or even when he doesnt!) so critisisms surely provide the balance in the forum? Some are over the top but I would say the defence of NP is equally so.

3) Cant say i've read any over the top comments claiming lunacy. Just people pointing out that the tactics didnt work and offering opinions on alternatives (just as you have). All are perfectly valid.

4) Fair enough. I believe he'd have made the difference if we'd have played to his strengths. It may not have been the case, but at home in a game we really could have done with winning, in my opinion, playing your top scorer is a must.

[Bettsj2]

I agree with this. We would have most probably lost to Stoke whoever we played up front, and probably whoever we played on the wings. We lost the game in central mid because we were lightweight and outnumbered. There wasnt much Pearson could do about that, such is the injury list we have.

Listening to the phone in last night, so many people were annoyed by him leaving Albrighton out, saying he was great against Villa. They clearly didnt see the performance I did. Albrighton did ok, he has bags of effort and endeavor (sometimes means he commits silly fouls which he did in that game), but was he better on the day than Knockaert? Not in my opinion. If Schlupp is fit, he plays everytime ahead of Albrighton on current form. So really, it was a quite reasonable decision to pick Schlupp ahead of him.

Completely agree about being muscled out of the middle which is why getting it wide and away from the middle would perhaps of served us better.

I thought Albrighton was very good against Villa?

[Manwell Pablo]

Completely agree about being muscled out of the middle which is why getting it wide and away from the middle would perhaps of served us better.

I thought Albrighton was very good against Villa?

 

I think most people do ("ok" is a massive disservice) it's just the argument the other two have been better is a reasonable one even though he'd of got the nod from me it's not hard to see the train of thought that lead to his choices on the wings.

 

It is the substitution that was just out and out strange. 

 

He doesn't like Albrighton, it's been made abundantly clear. I've no idea why we signed him.

[Babylon]

1) Phew....I'M not the ONLY one who noticed it.

2) If you disagree before the game and then you lose that game, it doesnt justify your opinion? Most on here are very happy to praise Nigel when he does something well (or even when he doesnt!) so critisisms surely provide the balance in the forum? Some are over the top but I would say the defence of NP is equally so.

3) Cant say i've read any over the top comments claiming lunacy. Just people pointing out that the tactics didnt work and offering opinions on alternatives (just as you have). All are perfectly valid.

4) Fair enough. I believe he'd have made the difference if we'd have played to his strengths. It may not have been the case, but at home in a game we really could have done with winning, in my opinion, playing your top scorer is a must.

1) How many people have actually pointed out what he was trying to do? You can probably count them on one hand, most of it has been why did he do this, why did he do that.

 

2) No it doesn't justify your opinion. We could have a lost playing the way you wanted us to as well. Some times you will lose games no matter who you play, that's the nature of the league.

 

3) I would say it's been more than that personally.

 

[Babylon]

You miss the point I feel.

 

People may not be able to say their way is 100% certain to work. 

 

1) I say with some confidence I am 100% sure he could of got a better performance out of those players with a different combination of players and a different formation. It was one of our worst home performances of the season and a over all bad result. Unless, as I've said elsewhere, you think that's the best performance we could of mustered, in which case we may as well give up now. 

 

2) To throw your own argument back at you it shouldn't be down to the fans to come up with working formations it should be Pearson, with his video analysis, and his apparent knowledge of Stoke's week points, to come up with a game plan team and formation that works and no matter how you dress it up he got it wrong, we were garbage. 

 

1) What happened was pretty much what I expected with only two fit CM's coming back from injury. Going on how the away game went we were utter shit with Ulloa up front and Mahrez on the wing (a better player than Albrighton) playing in a 4-4-2. That's why I'm unsure why people are so insistent Ulloa and Albrighton would have done any better than what we had out there.

 

As I said to you the other day, my biggest critisism is that we didn't try another formation when it was clear it wasn't working. But how we were actually able to change the formation was hampered by what players were available. To get three in the middle would have meant someone playing out of position and there was no obvious answer to the problem.

 

2) Of course it's his job to come up with working formations. But the bloke was without 4 midfielders and we had a problem in midfield during the game that was entirely predictable, but not easily sorted.

[Bettsj2]

1) How many people have actually pointed out what he was trying to do? You can probably count them on one hand, most of it has been why did he do this, why did he do that.

2) No it doesn't justify your opinion. We could have a lost playing the way you wanted us to as well. Some times you will lose games no matter who you play, that's the nature of the league.

3) I would say it's been more than that personally.

1) Fair enough

2) We could have but thats speculative. We didnt win so I dont really see how you can say the opinion isnt justified. Especially when we're talking about keeping a balance.

3) Fair enough

4) When you're smiling, when you're smiling......

[nettle]

I think most people do ("ok" is a massive disservice) it's just the argument the other two have been better is a reasonable one even though he'd of got the nod from me it's not hard to see the train of thought that lead to his choices on the wings.

It is the substitution that was just out and out strange.

He doesn't like Albrighton, it's been made abundantly clear. I've no idea why we signed him.

Terry Robinson signing Pearson never wanted him in my opinion.

[MC Prussian]

I think most people do ("ok" is a massive disservice) it's just the argument the other two have been better is a reasonable one even though he'd of got the nod from me it's not hard to see the train of thought that lead to his choices on the wings.

 

It is the substitution that was just out and out strange. 

 

He doesn't like Albrighton, it's been made abundantly clear. I've no idea why we signed him.

I've got no idea how you can come to that conclusion. During the Stoke home game, we set out to keep the ball on the ground, passing it nicely until we got to the Stoke box.

 

Deploying Albrighton makes sense when paired with a tall, lanky striker up front such as Ulloa who is a welcome target for long balls. Pearson decided against him for tactical reasons more than anything.

[5waller5]

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

 

 

Since Sky changed the game.

[Manwell Pablo]

I've got no idea how you can come to that conclusion. During the Stoke home game, we set out to keep the ball on the ground, passing it nicely until we got to the Stoke box.

 

Deploying Albrighton makes sense when paired with a tall, lanky striker up front such as Ulloa who is a welcome target for long balls. Pearson decided against him for tactical reasons more than anything.

 

Pearson seems totally reluctant to play him for the entire season perhaps. His given Tom Lawrence the nod over him twice. 

We do not need a big man to play him, actually the two best chances he created against Villa weren't even for Ulloa. 

[UpTheLeagueFox]

If NP cannot handle the media questioning in times of dire performances/team selection/tactics then he's in the wrong job.

 

He speaks to all other media outlets and never dodges a question. The manager (and his staff) plus the players (their own decision, nothing to do with the manager) have all boycotted one person. The ban is nothing to do with being 'scared' to answer questions. There is so much which has gone on, some public, some not public, it's like a cumulative thing in the eyes of manager/players.

 

Pearson is willing to being interviewed by RL to answer the "tough" questions but RL choose not to exercise this. Yes it's RL's right to "not be dictated to" in terms of who asks the questions but given the fractured relationship they could help themselves by going some way to repair the problem. The ball is in RL's court as far as I see it.

 

I hope it gets sorted.

[Stadt]

Since Sky changed the game.

I'm really not bothered with how a manager acts with the media, unless he's acting like Holloway/Redknapp.

[Unabomber]

He speaks to all other media outlets and never dodges a question. The manager (and his staff) plus the players (their own decision, nothing to do with the manager) have all boycotted one person. The ban is nothing to do with being 'scared' to answer questions. There is so much which has gone on, some public, some not public, it's like a cumulative thing in the eyes of manager/players.

 

Pearson is willing to being interviewed by RL to answer the "tough" questions but RL choose not to exercise this. Yes it's RL's right to "not be dictated to" in terms of who asks the questions but given the fractured relationship they could help themselves by going some way to repair the problem. The ball is in RL's court as far as I see it.

 

I hope it gets sorted.

This, why can't some people understand!

[Tommy G]

RL need to sort it by the end of season or Stringer will be sacked along with the Bourne Identity

[Mjeb]

Is there an update on this ???

In this thread , nothing is confirmed

[Spicer]

I did love Stringers line last match when they were speaking about which player they had on the back of their city shirts when they were kids. "I had no.9 Stringer on my shirt because I love myself."

Ian's problem for me is he doesn't say what is happening in the match. So you have little idea what is happening.

Matt Elliot needs to listen to Steve Johnson, the radio Leicester Tigers co commentator,  on how to be the co commentator.

The Rugby commentary has been a lot better than the football and they need to take a leaf out of their book.

However I do think speaking and dealing with all types of media is part of the job of being a manager, I think Pearson should just do the interviews and get over the petty dislike between the two.

[yorkie1999]

Do Radio Leicester actually realise that they are part of the bbc and therefore are paid by the license payer. Surely they should be interviewing NP because it's news that the Leicester public want to hear about. If NP or the players refuse to talk to one person, the radio station should be employing someone else that they will talk to.

 

Taken from the bbc's capability policy

 

Individuals are expected to be capable of carrying out the work they are

engaged to do at the required standard. 

 

In this case, certain bbc employees are incapable of carrying out the work they are engaged to do.

[Freeman's Wharfer]

A question for all the "I do think Pearson should get over it and do the interviews" people...

 

So, Nigel decides to start giving interviews to a guy that the players have boycotted in support of him, what message does that give to the players?

[UpTheLeagueFox]

Is there an update on this ???

In this thread , nothing is confirmed

 

 I think it's been fully explained.

[Buce]

Personally, I think there is no way back for Stringer; his 'relationship' with NP is irretrievably broken, and if RL want to normalize relations with the club, they need to recognize this.

Geoff is spot on: the ball is firmly in their court.

[prayforsnow]

 I think it's been fully explained.

 

Out of interest Geoff you appeared on the forum a while back, am I to assume that bridge has probably been well and truly burned by some of your comments on here? (Interview style, not picking up on how to ask questions etc.)

[Vlad the Fox]

Another problem was that stringer was trying to be too pally with the players, particularly last season having digs at players during interviews trying to be funny. He should maintain a professional relationship after all he is a reporter paid to report on the team, he's not one of the team.

[Reg Vardy]

I made the observation about RL asking about Ulloa,Albrighton etc, not to be critical of Nigel, I think he has been fantastic for the club, and should stay until at least this time next year, this is his squad that romped the Championship last year......as a season ticket holder, I only wanted his take on the team selection......Albrighton against Villa created all sorts of problems, so did Knockaert, one plays one doesn't the following week. In the same match Vardy couldn't control the ball to save his life, and he plays and Ulloa is dropped.

I accept he is the manager and has to make decisions, I am purely interested in the thought process....Stringer would ask him, Radio 5 live wouldn't