artursteppe Posted 21 January 2015 Posted 21 January 2015 Theres plenty of posts that would suggest the reasoning behind his train of thought. The Doctor has summarised what myself and others have been saying the last couple of days. What i dont get is everyone moaning 'Why didnt we start with Ulloa and Kramaric' and questioning Pearson for it. Did anyone see how we performed when they replaced Nuge and Vardy? We were bad with Nuge and Vards but even worse when Ulloa and Kramaric came on. Ulloa was ineffective and Kramaric was obviously not match fit, he huffed and puffed but ultimately he was quiet because Stoke marked Ulloa so well he was feeding off scraps and having to make his own chances. So Pearson picked his team based on the opposition. It was a close game, both teams were poor and one bit of quality decided the game. Close fought game, you win some and you lose some and thats it. Really is no need for the criticism Pearson is getting. The fact that we were worse when the subs were made shows he started the game with the right personnel.on this occassion You may of course be right, my 'truck' has never been (on this occasion ) with team selection. The common denominator when playing against 'weaker or bottom half teams' is and always has been Pearson's obvious ineptitude with motivation for such matches. Nine points from eleven matches against such teams this season, plus Pearson's track record in lower leagues, which everyone knows is similar, is more than just a little disconcerting. For example the odd magnificent point against top teams is all very lovely but less than one point per weaker team per game is proving to be disastrous. This is very much relegation form and people are justifiably annoyed with the performance against Stoke. The big difference with Pulis and Pardew compared with Pearson is more to do with their ability to get their teams to beat lower table teams, and that is how you manage survival. Pearson deserves criticism, he must change, he must improve the team's performances against weak opposition. Anyone who denies this is 'a fluttering cuckoo in the clouds'.
nettle Posted 21 January 2015 Posted 21 January 2015 Just because we won at Villa doesnt mean we will beat Stoke who are a completely different outfit. From what i could see we did play to our strengths. That strength being the pace of nuge and vardy being the most likely tactic to be able to beat Stoke considering our lack of CM's which was what won us the game at there place. Pearson needs to be diverse with his team selection. We pick the same team week in week out in the prem the opposition will piss themselves laughing. The only reason we won so comfortably with an unchanged team last season was simply down to our players clearly being too good for the poor division. The prem is a completely different ball game. Again i draw to the fact that Ulloa who started against Villa was piss poor when he came on against Stoke. Does this not tell you that playing Ulloa over Vardy would have more than likely made us play even worse than what we did? Does this not show that in fact Pearson knew exactly what he was doing when choosing his personnel? When i first saw the team sheet i was surprised that Ulloa wasnt in the starting line up. But when he came on he showed everyone why Pearson went with Nuge and Vardy. So clearly he knows alot more about football than me and alot of other fans who constantly question him. Its getting really sad that everyone moans when we lose to the point that after a run of games where we played well and kept clean sheets that ONE narrow defeat and everyone jumps on Pearsons back to the point they want him sacked. So i say get a f****** grip and accept that you win some and you lose some, take it on the chin and move onto the next game and support the team through thick and thin. Football's about opinions mate and as a fan I can question what Pearson does as a manager. If I don't agree with what he's done i.e Team selections, formations etc surely that's what this forum is all about healthy debate not everybody thinks Pearson is a God and he does make mistakes.
kingcarr21 Posted 21 January 2015 Posted 21 January 2015 You may of course be right, my 'truck' has never been (on this occasion ) with team selection. The common denominator when playing against 'weaker or bottom half teams' is and always has been Pearson's obvious ineptitude with motivation for such matches. Nine points from eleven matches against such teams this season, plus Pearson's track record in lower leagues, which everyone knows is similar, is more than just a little disconcerting. For example the odd magnificent point against top teams is all very lovely but less than one point per weaker team per game is proving to be disastrous. This is very much relegation form and people are justifiably annoyed with the performance against Stoke. The big difference with Pulis and Pardew compared with Pearson is more to do with their ability to get their teams to beat lower table teams, and that is how you manage survival. Pearson deserves criticism, he must change, he must improve the team's performances against weak opposition. Anyone who denies this is 'a fluttering cuckoo in the clouds'. I agree that its certainly a worry that we seem to do better against the 'better' teams and we've lost points to the sides around us. But lets look at the results. Burnley (H) Draw Sunderland (H) Draw Palace (A) Loss Newcastle (A) (at the time were around us) Loss West Brom (H) Loss QPR (A) Loss Villa (A) Loss (H) Win Hull (A) Win The home games most certainly should have got a better return, but we werent completely outplayed in any game bar palace away (even then i think outplayed is being generous) which is a hard ground for anyone to go to, just look at Liverpool last season. Now if we had been humiliated in them games and lost heavily i would understand the criticism Pearson would be getting. What i would say is we have generally played ok in those games mentioned. It wouldnt surprise me if the return fixtures go our way and we win most of them. Weve already beat Villa in the return fixture. IMO Pearson being so heavily criticised over such narrow defeats and fine margins (i hate using the term fine margins but its true) is abit unfair. Like i said if they were heavy defeats id be in the camp of him having lost the plot and not good enough but for me i say be patient and lets hope that Kramaric and Ulloa can be the ones to put the fine margins into our favour. I dont think anyone is denying that he needs to improve the teams performances against the lower teams. My gripe is that people wanting him sacked when the games have been a pretty close contest i think is harsh. But thats my opinion.
kingcarr21 Posted 21 January 2015 Posted 21 January 2015 Football's about opinions mate and as a fan I can question what Pearson does as a manager. If I don't agree with what he's done i.e Team selections, formations etc surely that's what this forum is all about healthy debate not everybody thinks Pearson is a God and he does make mistakes. I agree 100%. People should ask questions when things dont go our way and this forum is for healthy debate. If you think what im writing is suggesting that i think Pearson can do no wrong and hes some sort of God then you are mistaken. I would question his decision on bringing on Lawrence instead of Albrighton but for me that would be the only question i would ask. Too many people when we lose go along the lines that everything in our set up was wrong and should come into question. Which i would agree if we had been humiliated. If you dont mind me asking. What would your team selection have been? Before the game i would have liked to have seen the same team that beat Villa. I questioned his team selection to my mate, But after the game and after the way Stoke kept Ulloa quiet with ease i understood Pearsons thought process. IMO people need to be a little more lenient with the manager when the defeats are narrow defeats, but again thats just my opinion.
filbertway Posted 21 January 2015 Posted 21 January 2015 People having opinions is all well and fine, there seem to be very few who back them up with reason though. If you're just going to voice an opinion that's not really providing any worth to anyone. Also if I see a post with a Pearson cliche I tend to pay no attention. I wish there was some kind of a ban on the phrases "Pearson is arrogant/Pearson's arrogance".
nettle Posted 21 January 2015 Posted 21 January 2015 Pearson is not arrogant he is a football managing GOD!
ElusiveEd Posted 21 January 2015 Posted 21 January 2015 Pearson is not arrogant he is a football managing GOD! Can you not be both?
indierich06 Posted 21 January 2015 Posted 21 January 2015 Can you not be both? Or neither, as is actually the case.
MC Prussian Posted 21 January 2015 Posted 21 January 2015 Pearson is not arrogant he is a football managing GOD! You'll have to dig deep on here to find such a statement somewhere in the archive. But keep on making yourself look like an evasive master with a tendency of jumping left, right and centre.
nettle Posted 22 January 2015 Posted 22 January 2015 You'll have to dig deep on here to find such a statement somewhere in the archive. But keep on making yourself look like an evasive master with a tendency of jumping left, right and centre. Sorry mate I was meant to say he is arrogant and a crap manager!
inckley fox Posted 22 January 2015 Posted 22 January 2015 The problem is that Stringer just isn't very good. That last question he asked Pearson, the straw that broke the camel's back, came because he had run out of things to say. He should have been asking for Pearson's expert analysis on where our consistent failings lay at the back, or the logic behind Konchesky getting the nod over Schlupp at LB, or how he could seriously argue that our main problem was a failure to convert chances, when we'd had less than half the number of shots on goal over recent games as our opposition, but instead he asked him for the hundredth time whether he was worried about his job. This was because he hadn't prepared properly for the interview. He didn't have the questions ready to ask the manager. He is the man who should be able to extract the sorts of details which a national pundit can't, simply because the national media reporter won't have the knowledge of our team needed to ask those questions. Stringer should have that knowledge. But he didn't. Pearson has, of course, also been childish. At a time when he talks a lot about negativity from the fans, he's cut off a means of relating his viewpoint to them. He's been seen by some to reject them. It seems to me that this isn't his intention. He's far more intent on exacting revenge on Stringer for querying his job by doing his level best, in return, to cost Stringer his own. But at a time when fans' most justified criticism of the manager is that he seems oblivious to our clear shortcomings, it hardly helps that he's so keen to focus on those of outsiders. But I have no idea why RL haven't moved mountains to resolve this conflict which is, after all, largely a consequence of their own incompetence.
MC Prussian Posted 22 January 2015 Posted 22 January 2015 Sorry mate I was meant to say he is arrogant and a crap manager! Ever heard of the term "middle ground"?
UpTheLeagueFox Posted 22 January 2015 Posted 22 January 2015 Ever heard of the term "middle ground"? It's either amazing (Happy Clappers supporting everything the club does without challenging anything they do - ie PSI/BAMs) or abysmal (The Negative Neanderthals complaining about everything the club does without any reasoned perspective ie The Bentleys Roof disease). There is very little middle ground when you combine football fans and the internet.
ousefox Posted 22 January 2015 Posted 22 January 2015 Anyone see NP mention a journalist trying to stir things up re. Schlupp and Ghana in his press conference? A dig at Stringer?
ADK Posted 22 January 2015 Posted 22 January 2015 Pearson ought to go to the Dyche school of media handling. It's something Sean Dyche handles well. He's able to use the media to manage expectations and garner support. Pearson may well be a good leader but he lacks charisma. On the other hand Ian Stringer isn't very good at the interviews, it should be done by one of our ex players imo. I would actually tune in to listen to the post match interview if it was any good.
UpTheLeagueFox Posted 22 January 2015 Posted 22 January 2015 Anyone see NP mention a journalist trying to stir things up re. Schlupp and Ghana in his press conference? A dig at Stringer? He was asked about it in his post match press conference on Saturday so I don't think it's him.
RedSoxUK Posted 22 January 2015 Posted 22 January 2015 Pearson doesn't have to talk to RL, nor wants to talk to RL. RL won't apologise for Stringers line of questioning, but until they accept NP won't talk to Stringer, RL will lose listeners, and lose the audiences respect. Saturday afternoon is Radio Leicester's most listened to program, and it would be silly not to arrange interviews with NP with a different interviewer, or at least suggest to NP/LCFC a way of resolving the issue on their terms.
Bagworthblue Posted 22 January 2015 Posted 22 January 2015 I like Mr S as a commentator as he brings excitement to the home if a little cringy at times. Interviewing though - hmm. Most of the time, it's not the question posed, its the wording and tone used. Unfortunately, Mr S has a habit of using a tone that carries through his own emotions as a LCFC fan. As a journalist he needs to suppress any anger or disappointment, and try to engage Pearson in a manner which shows support for his / our /their cause.We are all in it together after all. He also needs to phrase his questions in a way that doesn't challenge Pearson's decisions but draws a response that gets the response you need without going for the jugular. We need to remember that Pearson will be as p!ssed off or disappointed as the rest of us at the time a microphone is stuffed under his nose and challenging questions posed. The Stringer style of journalism is more consistent with those whose job it is to scrutinise politicians and pressure them to admit the truth, something we all know they think but are never going to admit. It's as if he thinks he's a hard hitting top jounalist for the New York Times. This is only radio Leicester chatting about footy
Grewks Posted 22 January 2015 Posted 22 January 2015 I like Mr S as a commentator as he brings excitement to the home if a little cringy at times. Interviewing though - hmm. Most of the time, it's not the question posed, its the wording and tone used. Unfortunately, Mr S has a habit of using a tone that carries through his own emotions as a LCFC fan. As a journalist he needs to suppress any anger or disappointment, and try to engage Pearson in a manner which shows support for his / our /their cause.We are all in it together after all. He also needs to phrase his questions in a way that doesn't challenge Pearson's decisions but draws a response that gets the response you need without going for the jugular. We need to remember that Pearson will be as p!ssed off or disappointed as the rest of us at the time a microphone is stuffed under his nose and challenging questions posed. The Stringer style of journalism is more consistent with those whose job it is to scrutinise politicians and pressure them to admit the truth, something we all know they think but are never going to admit. It's as if he thinks he's a hard hitting top jounalist for the New York Times. This is only radio Leicester chatting about footy He isn't a leicester fan at all.
DB11 Posted 22 January 2015 Posted 22 January 2015 He isn't a leicester fan at all. Source? Because I've heard him say numerous times on the radio that "just because I'm a fan doesn't mean I have to think they're going to win" And to contradict your post, the first Google result returns http://www.leicestertillidie.com/ian-stringer-interview.html- which would suggest otherwise.
chapero82 Posted 22 January 2015 Posted 22 January 2015 I can't take stringer seriously, look at Monday night he said he would have info on Okazaki but nothing was said about until a few hours later in a tweet
UpTheLeagueFox Posted 22 January 2015 Posted 22 January 2015 Interviewing though - hmm. Most of the time, it's not the question posed, its the wording and tone used. Unfortunately, Mr S has a habit of using a tone that carries through his own emotions as a LCFC fan. As a journalist he needs to suppress any anger or disappointment, and try to engage Pearson in a manner which shows support for his / our /their cause.We are all in it together after all. The trick with interviewing most managers - and Pearson is a case in point - is to stay "in the middle" ie don't get too carried away with questions regardless of result. I was bursting with joy after the ManU game but had to reign it in and be professional. The tone of the questions is, as you say, always something to bear in mind as a reporter. He also needs to phrase his questions in a way that doesn't challenge Pearson's decisions but draws a response that gets the response you need without going for the jugular. We need to remember that Pearson will be as p!ssed off or disappointed as the rest of us at the time a microphone is stuffed under his nose and challenging questions posed. Correct. There are ways and means of getting the right response from an interviewee. Pearson is very much not a fan of reporters putting their own opinions into questions. A reporter's job is to ask questions - who, what, why, where, when etc - not make statements. The Stringer style of journalism is more consistent with those whose job it is to scrutinise politicians and pressure them to admit the truth, something we all know they think but are never going to admit. It's as if he thinks he's a hard hitting top jounalist for the New York Times. This is only radio Leicester chatting about footy Again, correct. Some football reporters think they're auditioning for Newsnight or Panorama. They're not. Football is very different to political interviews. The trick is to be polite and respectful (and, crucially, learning from previous interviews with the person) while posing the right questions. If you come across as being amateurish, Pearson will sniff it out straight away and won't stand for it. I know the phrase "I'm just doing my job" often gets bandied about but a key thing is to do the job properly. And if the relationship is difficult, take a step back and find a way to make it better.
Soup Posted 22 January 2015 Posted 22 January 2015 Listening to what players or managers say after a game is so dull,I'd rather eat dog shit.
Corky Posted 22 January 2015 Posted 22 January 2015 I don't like the way he brings the "fans opinions" into the questioning. "We've had fans saying this and that, what do you say to them?" Firstly, it's not particularly relevant what the fans think, and if it is he should balance it, saying the fans praised a decision if it went well. It always seems to be included in a negative aspect of the game. Also, ask your own questions, ask what YOU saw at the game, not Dave from Coalville.
UpTheLeagueFox Posted 22 January 2015 Posted 22 January 2015 I don't like the way he brings the "fans opinions" into the questioning. "We've had fans saying this and that, what do you say to them?" Firstly, it's not particularly relevant what the fans think, and if it is he should balance it, saying the fans praised a decision if it went well. It always seems to be included in a negative aspect of the game. Also, ask your own questions, ask what YOU saw at the game, not Dave from Coalville. Pearson can't stand it. You ask proper questions that fans will be interested in, just not directly on their behalf. It's not a fans forum. PS - at referencing the 'Dave from Coalville' loon.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.