Worst ever top flight Leicester City team?

[Oasisedup]

I know people on here are liable to spout some foaming-at-the-mouth nonsense but I think saying Pearson is worse (never mind as bad as) Peter Taylor is a new low.

 

Pearson is a very, very good Championship manager who is out of his depth in his first season in the Premier League. Bizarrely for a defender, Nigel seems incapable of fixing our glaring defensive weaknesses. What he is not, and will never be, is utterly incompetent. I will always be grateful to Nigel for last season, I will always be grateful to Nigel for League One and I will always be grateful to Nigel for sorting out the mess post-Sven.

 

Taylor is a very, very mediocre League Two manager.  He took the legacy of Martin O'Neill and turned it all to sh*t, and did it all with arrogance because he was the media's darling after he managed England (for one game). Oh, and he also wasted £24m (when £24m was a lot of money) and alienated some of the club's heroes (Lennon, Walsh, Savage etc.) along the way.

 

So, criticise Pearson all you want, but please, please never, ever forget just how much Taylor ruined us.

 

Thanks. x

 

 

[Silverdaz]

Have to agree with this. Can't understand the spell Pearson has got so many people under. Any other potential manager for this club gets slated for his results and deemed unworthy, yet Mr. Pearson isn't judged by the same criteria. Very curious!  

Thats because of what Pearson has achieved here, Taylor achieved naff all

[l444ry]

I know people on here are liable to spout some foaming-at-the-mouth nonsense but I think saying Pearson is worse (never mind as bad as) Peter Taylor is a new low.

 

Pearson is a very, very good Championship manager who is out of his depth in his first season in the Premier League. Bizarrely for a defender, Nigel seems incapable of fixing our glaring defensive weaknesses. What he is not, and will never be, is utterly incompetent. I will always be grateful to Nigel for last season, I will always be grateful to Nigel for League One and I will always be grateful to Nigel for sorting out the mess post-Sven.

 

Taylor is a very, very mediocre League Two manager.  He took the legacy of Martin O'Neill and turned it all to sh*t, and did it all with arrogance because he was the media's darling after he managed England (for one game). Oh, and he also wasted £24m (when £24m was a lot of money) and alienated some of the club's heroes (Lennon, Walsh, Savage etc.) along the way.

 

So, criticise Pearson all you want, but please, please never, ever forget just how much Taylor ruined us.

 

Thanks. x

 

Thats because of what Pearson has achieved here, Taylor achieved naff all

 

Taylor won more games in the Premiership than Pearson. Useless prat that he was, his record of 5 promotions with 4 different teams is better than Pearson's as well. This Pearson hero worship needs to stop. 

[Guest MattP]

Taylor won more games in the Premiership than Pearson. Useless prat that he was, his record of 5 promotions with 4 different teams is better than Pearson's as well. This Pearson hero worship needs to stop. 

 

I should hope so as well given he inherited a top ten Premier League team instead of a lower half Championship one.

[Dan LCFC]

Pearson pushes Taylor for worst manager.

 

OK, we are crap, but give me a break

[Stan]

I should hope so as well given he inherited a top ten Premier League team instead of a lower half Championship one.

 

A fact that l444ry simply fails to grasp. Quite staggering, really.

[Fox92]

Taylor won more games in the Premiership than Pearson. Useless prat that he was, his record of 5 promotions with 4 different teams is better than Pearson's as well. This Pearson hero worship needs to stop. 

 

Pearson sorted this club out twice. Once when we had just been relegated, he took over a very poor squad and turned us into Champions (albeit League One but tell that to Nottingham Forest, Leeds, Sheffield Wednesday, Southampton etc...) with limited resources. The second time was when he took over from that idiot Sven who left the squad with overpaid players ie Mills, Danns, Beckford. 

 

I don't care how many promotions Peter Taylor has. He's hated by everyone, including club legends like Steve Walsh for a reason. It's also strange how we can't go back and say "Pearson did this" because you turn around and say "that was then, this is now" but you've just gone back and spoken about five Taylor promotions. Taylor inherited a strong squad with a decent financial backing, Pearson inherited a recently relegated squad with next to nothing financially.

 

Pearson is a hero for what he's achieved at the club. Is he regarded as high as O'Neill, Gillies, Bloomfield? No. But credit the guy for turning this club around, twice. And leading us to the top flight for the first time in ten years.

[Wasyls Pec Deck]

It's not even up for debate - Tater Peeler for sure.

[l444ry]

A fact that l444ry simply fails to grasp. Quite staggering, really.

Haha. I'm not failing to grasp anything and certainly not defending Taylor. This topic is about Premiership records only and the facts clearly show that Taylor has a better record than Pearson, however hard that is for you and others to accept. Pearson's record at lower level doesn't come into it. They are both not up to Premier League standard in my view.

 

I can only suspect you have fallen for MattP and his usual half a quote tactic to belittle a poster by making an obvious point that any five year old knew. Incidentally, the other part stated that Taylor has a better record of promoting teams. The point I'm making is that Taylor was bloody awful at Premier level despite a decent record when at lower levels. My view is that Pearson is close behind on all known Premiership evidence.   

[Guest MattP]

How on earth have I used a 'half a quote' tactic there? I was making a point to something you said.

 

Your view is so simplistic it's not even worth debating tbh, as Stan says, it's incredible how you fail to grasp such simple things time and time again.

[l444ry]

How on earth have I used a 'half a quote' tactic there? I was making a point to something you said.

 

Your view is so simplistic it's not even worth debating tbh, as Stan says, it's incredible how you fail to grasp such simple things time and time again.

 

[Stan]

Haha. I'm not failing to grasp anything and certainly not defending Taylor. This topic is about Premiership records only and the facts clearly show that Taylor has a better record than Pearson, however hard that is for you and others to accept. Pearson's record at lower level doesn't come into it. They are both not up to Premier League standard in my view.

 

I can only suspect you have fallen for MattP and his usual half a quote tactic to belittle a poster by making an obvious point that any five year old knew. Incidentally, the other part stated that Taylor has a better record of promoting teams. The point I'm making is that Taylor was bloody awful at Premier level despite a decent record when at lower levels. My view is that Pearson is close behind on all known Premiership evidence.   

 

But that is still rubbish.

 

Pearson did not inherit a solid, top-ten Premier League team.

[l444ry]

But that is still rubbish.

 

Pearson did not inherit a solid, top-ten Premier League team.

Best leave it there then Stan. I'm obviously not getting through to you.

[Stan]

And so the straw man falls over....

[l444ry]

And so the straw man falls over....

Trying to be polite to you has obviously failed. OK then....It's bloody pointless trying to debate with a muppet who doesn't have the intelligence to understand what the other person is actually saying, not once but twice!

[Stan]

Trying to be polite to you has obviously failed. OK then....It's bloody pointless trying to debate with a muppet who doesn't have the intelligence to understand what the other person is actually saying, not once but twice!

 

Jesus wept. Absolutely no reason for that.

 

I understood exactly what you were saying. If you cannot see that your point regarding Premier League records was misleading, then there's not a lot I can do about that.

[inckley fox]

We've never been an "established Premier League team" since the league's inception twenty-three years ago, because we spent the majority of that period outside of the top flight (roughly 65% of it).

Again, you fail to see the picture that I've painted or the point I'm trying to make. I was talking about the bigger historical context (which is a given). Six straight years in the best league of the country pales in comparison to the league's history.

 

The club has spent more time outside of the top flight than being a part of it.

 

And it is getting harder to establish yourself in the Premier League.

 

To round this off, please tell me what "our realistic aims" are supposed to be according to your gospel?

 

I've already said what our 'realistic' aims are. The same ones Top and Pearson talked about in the summer - to establish ourself in the Premier League. 

 

And you are, again, wrong to say 'we've never been an established Premier League team'. When Taylor arrived in 2000 we were one of six sides who had finished in the top half of the table for four years running, you really didn't get much more established.

 

As for it being much harder to establish yourself in the Premier League, and it being more difficult than in 1996 and 2003, there are some interesting stat breakdowns to be found on the net about when, exactly, the gap was widest in the PL:

 

Before our promotion in 1996 5 out of the previous 10 sides to go up had been relegated. In 96-96 there was a 1.2 points per game average difference between the Champions and the side above the relegation zone. The average final position for the newly promoted sides, for the previous four seasons was 14th in 92-93, 13th the next season, then 14th and 16th. Over the next three seasons, our first three back in the PL, 6/10 newly promoted sides were instantly relegated and those average finishes were 13th (skewed by our own success), 19th and 15th.

 

Compare that to 2003. The average finish of newly promoted sides for the three previous seasons was 11th, 13th, 14th, then 17th in 2004, 18th a year later. The gap in 2003-04 between Champions and 17th was 1.34 points per game, a year later it was a highest ever 1.61. In the decade 2000-2009, 12 out of 30 newly promoted sides went straight back down.

 

The PL was most difficult to get promoted into, or to climb the table in (based on percentage of promoted sides relegated, their average finish, gap between Champions and 17th, gap between Champions and 10th place, gap between 6th place and 17th place) in the 2004-05 season.

 

Since 2010, only 3 out of 12 promoted sides have been relegated. The gap between relegated sides and Champions is a little bigger (hence lower points needed at times to stay up), but the gap between Champions and 17th has been relatively low - between 1.05 and 1.34 points per game. The average finish of newly promoted teams (14th, 13th, 14th, 16th), and whether they survive or not, has been at its best ever over the past four seasons - better than it had been before and after 1996, and 2003.

 

So there really is no basis for you saying that Pearson has a tougher job than O'Neill or Adams. In fact, the stats point to the opposite.  Even if all 3 sides are relegated this season, we will still have been promoted in a climate which is more conducive to smaller, or newly promoted sides, than it was ten years, or nineteen years ago.

[The Doctor]

Trying to be polite to you has obviously failed. OK then....It's bloody pointless trying to debate with a muppet who doesn't have the intelligence to understand what the other person is actually saying, not once but twice!

 

And now you know how everyone feels when they try to teach you something...

 

Taylor was an abysmal manager who took a top 10 side backwards and into the championship, causing years of financial damage, Pearson looks to be out of his depth at this level but took perennial relegation candidates and restored them to a top championship side. He's not had a good season, but anyone suggesting he has been worse for this club than Taylor is a few marbles short.

[l444ry]

And now you know how everyone feels when they try to teach you something...

 

Taylor was an abysmal manager who took a top 10 side backwards and into the championship, causing years of financial damage, Pearson looks to be out of his depth at this level but took perennial relegation candidates and restored them to a top championship side. He's not had a good season, but anyone suggesting he has been worse for this club than Taylor is a few marbles short.

 

Agree with all of your second paragraph except the highlighted bit. Again, this is not what I have said at all.

[MC Prussian]

I've already said what our 'realistic' aims are. The same ones Top and Pearson talked about in the summer - to establish ourself in the Premier League. 

 

And you are, again, wrong to say 'we've never been an established Premier League team'. When Taylor arrived in 2000 we were one of six sides who had finished in the top half of the table for four years running, you really didn't get much more established.

 

As for it being much harder to establish yourself in the Premier League, and it being more difficult than in 1996 and 2003, there are some interesting stat breakdowns to be found on the net about when, exactly, the gap was widest in the PL:

 

Before our promotion in 1996 5 out of the previous 10 sides to go up had been relegated. In 96-96 there was a 1.2 points per game average difference between the Champions and the side above the relegation zone. The average final position for the newly promoted sides, for the previous four seasons was 14th in 92-93, 13th the next season, then 14th and 16th. Over the next three seasons, our first three back in the PL, 6/10 newly promoted sides were instantly relegated and those average finishes were 13th (skewed by our own success), 19th and 15th.

 

Compare that to 2003. The average finish of newly promoted sides for the three previous seasons was 11th, 13th, 14th, then 17th in 2004, 18th a year later. The gap in 2003-04 between Champions and 17th was 1.34 points per game, a year later it was a highest ever 1.61. In the decade 2000-2009, 12 out of 30 newly promoted sides went straight back down.

 

The PL was most difficult to get promoted into, or to climb the table in (based on percentage of promoted sides relegated, their average finish, gap between Champions and 17th, gap between Champions and 10th place, gap between 6th place and 17th place) in the 2004-05 season.

 

Since 2010, only 3 out of 12 promoted sides have been relegated. The gap between relegated sides and Champions is a little bigger (hence lower points needed at times to stay up), but the gap between Champions and 17th has been relatively low - between 1.05 and 1.34 points per game. The average finish of newly promoted teams (14th, 13th, 14th, 16th), and whether they survive or not, has been at its best ever over the past four seasons - better than it had been before and after 1996, and 2003.

 

So there really is no basis for you saying that Pearson has a tougher job than O'Neill or Adams. In fact, the stats point to the opposite.  Even if all 3 sides are relegated this season, we will still have been promoted in a climate which is more conducive to smaller, or newly promoted sides, than it was ten years, or nineteen years ago.

So, again - you do acknowledge that establishing a team in the Premier League takes its time and it's not unrealistic to look at it from a long-term perspective, even taking a relegation into account (trying to bounce back better and stronger in the process)?

 

We've never truly been an established team in this division - we've spent more time outside of the Premier League than being a part of it. And yes, you can actually get more established - by spending more than just six seasons in succession in the top flight!

 

Also, I didn't dwell on what it takes to get promoted to the Premier League, I was referring to the financial gap and how the top five, six clubs are pulling away, essentially becoming non-relegatable. Establishing yourself in the top-flight doesn't mean just spending just two seasons in it! This pretty much renders your whole statistical approach obsolete - average league finishes tell you nothing, they only tell the story about one season in particular, but not how easy/hard it was to maintain your status in the Premier League over a longer period of time! Because that's what "establishing oneself" means! What good does it do to be able to witness two, three, four seasons in the top flight before getting relegated again?

 

I personally think the talent available to the top teams has increased due to their financial prowess and that the remaining teams have to revert to pick up the crumbs, and one level further down, I can make out the same game taking place with mid-table clubs compared to the ones at the bottom. I can't see any of the teams currently sat in 7th to 17th spot challenging for a cup trophy or European success any time soon, if at all. I look at it as some kind of a limbo where, as a Newcastle, Stoke, Swansea or West Ham fan for instance, you've just got to be glad to even be able participate in the Premier League.

[inckley fox]

Cup trophies? I don't know, Wigan won the FA Cup just a couple of years ago, Hull got to the Final a year later. 

 

I appreciate your points, but I'd question your idea of 'established'. If it's achieving success in a league for years on end then we were established, if it's being in no question of your Premier League status and present in the top flight for more years than you're not, regardless of consecutive finishes etc. then there would only be about six or seven established Premier League clubs in total (what? Liverpool, Everton, Spurs, Manchester United, Arsenal, Chelsea... even Manchester City and Villa would be debatable by that measure, and we couldn't call Southampton, Newcastle, West Ham or even Stoke established right now); and by the same logic you couldn't even say we were established in the top flight in the late 1960s, because we hadn't been in the top flight for the bulk of our history then,either. I'd dispute that, but really we're debating the definition of 'established'.

 

But if we take 'being established' as spending more than two or three seasons in the division, and performing respectably, then we've done it before and plenty of others - over half of the division - have done it since. And it doesn't change the fact that most newly promoted sides do a great deal better than we're doing right now. However you look at it, it's a very poor reflection of Pearson.

 

That said, while I'm currently of the view that he might not be our best long-term manager, I'm not for a second saying that he's been a bad manager for us. To the contrary, he's been very good for us on balance, and at the back end of an era in which we've not done well for managers. He may yet learn those vital lessons, get better, do a Curbishley and come back brighter; though he would have to be a rare exception to the rule if that were to happen. And, of course, as lost and bewildered as he seems right now, there's nothing I'd love more than for a guy who's already earned our affection to pull it off. Preferably sooner rather than later!

 

There's a strong argument still for him to stay, but I still feel that argument is undermined by claiming that he's doing well, taking us forward, or at very least performing more or less in line with what you'd expect, or what we should expect of him. Our ambitions should remain lofty, so long as they're realistic, and they shouldn't be adapted to accommodate a manager who looks like he can't achieve them.

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

So, again - you do acknowledge that establishing a team in the Premier League takes its time and it's not unrealistic to look at it from a long-term perspective, even taking a relegation into account (trying to bounce back better and stronger in the process)?

 

We've never truly been an established team in this division - we've spent more time outside of the Premier League than being a part of it. And yes, you can actually get more established - by spending more than just six seasons in succession in the top flight!

 

Also, I didn't dwell on what it takes to get promoted to the Premier League, I was referring to the financial gap and how the top five, six clubs are pulling away, essentially becoming non-relegatable. Establishing yourself in the top-flight doesn't mean just spending just two seasons in it! This pretty much renders your whole statistical approach obsolete - average league finishes tell you nothing, they only tell the story about one season in particular, but not how easy/hard it was to maintain your status in the Premier League over a longer period of time! Because that's what "establishing oneself" means! What good does it do to be able to witness two, three, four seasons in the top flight before getting relegated again?

 

I personally think the talent available to the top teams has increased due to their financial prowess and that the remaining teams have to revert to pick up the crumbs, and one level further down, I can make out the same game taking place with mid-table clubs compared to the ones at the bottom. I can't see any of the teams currently sat in 7th to 17th spot challenging for a cup trophy or European success any time soon, if at all. I look at it as some kind of a limbo where, as a Newcastle, Stoke, Swansea or West Ham fan for instance, you've just got to be glad to even be able participate in the Premier League.

I pretty well agree with you.

[inckley fox]

I should add that 'year two' relegations have also been at their lowest over the past five seasons.

 

If you want to establish yourself in the Premier League then you need to survive the first year, which is easier now than ever before, and the second, which is also easier now than ever before. From a statistical point of view, at least!

 

There really is no way of looking at this; in terms of mobility between top six and the rest of the table, or Champions and 17th place, or promoted teams surviving, or promoted teams surviving in their second season which makes Pearson's job any more difficult than O'Neill's in 1996, or Adams' in 2003. Whichever way we look at it, Pearson's Leicester has been promoted in one of the best climates for 20+ years for a club to be promoted in, and still done exceptionally badly.

 

As for the top six becoming increasingly inaccessible, well first it's possible to be established in the top flight without making the Champions League. At least by my measure of 'established' (see previous post), as opposed to the one which would mean that only 5-6 sides in the PL could be classed as 'established'. Second, 4-6 top six sides have retained their positions in the top six every year, without fail, since 1994. Over the past 5 years it's remained at 4-6, and there's no reason to believe that there's been any increase in difficulty, in this regard, over the past ten years.

 

There is literally nothing to back up the idea that the PL has become more difficult for newly promoted, or smaller sides, in the past ten years. In fact, according to recent studies (again, see above), the PL was at its most inaccessible in 2005.

 

As I've said several times, let's not defend Pearson on grounds which are fundamentally unfounded. There are ways of arguing his case, but they require people to stop reinventing the past, or moderating our objectives for the future, and instead accepting that what we've seen this year hasn't been good enough, and needs to get better. If we feel Pearson can do that (and he'd better start doing something pretty quickly to suggest he can) then he's the man. If we don't, then he's not.

 

There's no need to pretend we've always been a second tier side at heart, are deluded to expect more, and that Pearson's tribulations can be put down to the world he's working in, or luck, or referees, or pretty much anything other than Pearson himself. If we can agree that what we've seen from him this year hasn't been good enough, then we can have a serious conversation as to how we amend it, and whether or not he features in it.

[Gerard]

What other teams did we fend off? 

 

http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11712/2206098/taylor-completes-lewis-signing

 

Lewis knew he was rubbish that's why he seen his contract out at Leicester as we're the only ones daft enough to pay him that much.

If you look at his whole career outside of Taylor no one else rated him in professional football.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junior_Lewis

 

He was playing for Hendon at the age of 26 FFS

[Gerard]

I must admit I was glad to see Taylor get the Leicester job as he had done well at England U21 and I thought he would sign some young European talent that he'd seen on his travels as back then we didn't know as much about foreign players as we do nowadays.

 

After managing Gillingham and getting the Leicester job in the summer he signs four strikers all for £1,000,000+ fees (which was a lot of money at the time) :

 

Akinbiyi

Scowcroft

Cresswell

Benjamin

 

Alarm bells started ringing for me as he couldn't have watched the likes of Akinbiyi much because he was never at a club that could buy him. Why did he sign four strikers as he can only play two of them?

 

As it turned out all these players failed in their careers and none of them should have played in the Premier League.

 

For me Peter Taylor was a moron. He was too thick to get a Premier league job and had no concept of value for money. Buying a washed up Denis Wise and putting him on a 3 year contract for £36k a week was insane. He also gave all the youth team squad players a big raise when none of them ever did anything in their careers. Junior Lewis who is one of the worst players to grace the Premier League sat out his contract and you can't blame him. It made him a millionaire when at 26 he was stacking shelves for a living and playing part time for Hendon. Taylor was like a kid in a sweet shop and throwing the money around with no regard to it's value.

 

None of Peter Taylor's signings went on to be value for money. His best buys were average buys like Ian Walker who performed to his wage and transfer fee level.