Monk Posted 16 February 2015 Posted 16 February 2015 Yes but doubt they could organise the inside of an empty paper bag.
inckley fox Posted 16 February 2015 Posted 16 February 2015 I'd suggest a few of the managers on the list should check out the hate-filled Pearson out threads (there's now about 11 different ones) before coming here. They'll get the same 12 games that O'Neill got before people are turning on them too. I actually thought that last season had finally brought the club together and that we'd all learnt a lesson about fighting amongst ourselves and calling for the manager's head. Our fans just don't learn. Turned on Bloomfield despite him giving us our most entertaining side, spat at Little (3 play off finals and a promotion) Turned on O'Neill after 12 games (took us up and gave us 4 years of silverware and success) Fell head over heels with joy when we took on Eriksson and Holloway and then went quiet when bothed fvcked our club up good and proper. We have ONE bad season with our most successful post-war manager and here you all are again. The posters demanding the most action have about 300 posts between them or haven't been on here for more than a year. Welcome back. I'm not resorting to abuse, you're beyond it but when we're sitting mid-table in the championship like Forest with our 5th manager in 2 years, I hope you all be just as vocal as you are now. They'd probably focus on the fact that a manager who is rock bottom of the top flight and likely to become statistically the worst ever manager we've had at this level, despite having spent nearly half of our history in this division is (a) still in a job and (b) enjoying the support of the bulk of the crowd. Or they'd focus on the fact that he publicly insulted the club's most famous ever player (also our most famous fan, whose money and campaign rescued our club), made us a laughing stock with a series of farcical shows of machismo and turned to a section of the crowd and said 'f*** off and die' but still enjoyed the backing of his fans. The fact that you consider him to be our most successful post-war manager, ahead of people who won trophies and kept us in this league for years, says it all. And it's not 'just one bad season'. Did he meet expectations, however unfair they might have been, in 2011-12? Or 2012-13? And we want to be an established top flight club, not a 'decent second tier club'. If we have a manager who is incapable of dealing with the pressures of football at this level - unlike all of those far more successful post-war managers - then that fundamentally means he's not up to the job. And all of this avoids one obvious truth. If we'd sacked Pearson in November - when I was calling for him to stay but plenty of others weren't - then we could have appointed somebody else, and done what the bulk of other clubs who come up and stay up do (and remember that most clubs do stay up for at least one season) in changing a manager who doesn't look up to scratch. Who knows, we might even have brought in one of those other mid-season appointments who are currently better than Pearson is. Loyalty to Pearson is far from beyond question now. In fact, it looks a little silly. And the notion that our fans have in some way treated him more poorly than other fans would treat their manager (support for him was still at 60-85% last time I looked, depending on where I looked) is clearly well wide of the mark.
NotTheMarketLeader Posted 16 February 2015 Posted 16 February 2015 please buy the ladyboys out and go back to 10 managers is 8 years. please please please I'm not suggesting that. Only get a manager that can not get us relegated with no valid excuse.
inckley fox Posted 16 February 2015 Posted 16 February 2015 There are quite a few posters who seem to assume that if Pearson goes, we'll automatically have a revolving door to the manager's office. I understand this concern, but equally really don't understand what this is based on. Most of the changes we're harking back to were under Milan or prior to him buying the club. The current owners have shown considerable patience and backing for Pearson - I see no reason to assume that they wouldn't do so again. One further reflection. I think the idea that there's no credible alternatives to Pearson is a really poor reason for not releasing him. Did anyone honestly spot him as the best candidate prior to his initial appointment? A few - but not many - called for his return following Sven, but he was by no means top of everyone's list. If we trust the owners showed prudence and good judgement in backing him long enough for us to get promoted, we should also give them the benefit of the doubt in selecting a suitable replacement. Even if we go down, we're a big enough club, with enough potential and a high enough profile to be confident of attracting a high quality replacement. I agree with you here. Lots of other clubs made perfectly sensible and successful appointments in that ten year period, and for much of it we were a very poorly-resourced club with different owners. The likes of Bassett, Adams, Kelly and Levein had restrictions which we can't compare to the current era.
Kitchandro Posted 16 February 2015 Posted 16 February 2015 People's arguments for not sacking Pearson are becoming really pathetic. The main one now is that we'll probably end up chopping and changing managers non-stop. If this is the only argument in his defence, then he really doesn't have one. There is nothing about that 'reasoning' that should be taken seriously. I'm glad we didn't listen to that point of view when we fired Holloway and hired Pearson, or when we fired Sven and hired Pearson. Or even when we fired Sousa and hired Sven.
Monk Posted 16 February 2015 Posted 16 February 2015 Don't know what you've been reading but that's not the main reason. First off, most of us doubt that we could get the right manager in this late on to take on the job. Seriously, who in their right mind would take on the club in its position? Second I don't think there's many who seriously believe that this elusive saviour waiting in the wings is going to save us this late in the day. For me it has zip to do with blind loyalty I just think the owners missed their chance to do it a long time ago and now are sticking it out.
Monk Posted 16 February 2015 Posted 16 February 2015 Oh and third - does it make sense to pay off Nigel when the odds are stacked against us? I doubt it would be cheap and theirs almost certainly some business logic in letting it run.
inckley fox Posted 16 February 2015 Posted 16 February 2015 People's arguments for not sacking Pearson are becoming really pathetic. The main one now is that we'll probably end up chopping and changing managers non-stop. If this is the only argument in his defence, then he really doesn't have one. There is nothing about that 'reasoning' that should be taken seriously. I'm glad we didn't listen to that point of view when we fired Holloway and hired Pearson, or when we fired Sven and hired Pearson. Or even when we fired Sousa and hired Sven. I think the arguments grew daft a long time ago. A week ago I quietly switched from the Pearson In camp to the sort of outer edges of the Pearson Out camp, but it was largely because I found myself arguing more with those I was supposed to agree with than those I wasn't. This was largely because there were some, and there are still - to a lesser extent - some remaining sensible arguments for keeping Pearson, albeit on very definite terms. and on the proviso that he can clearly identify where he went wrong this year. But people never seem to want to explore these arguments, it's all about us owing Pearson a huge debt, or some previous owner sacking x number of managers, or people wanting us to be unsuccessful with Pearson rather than successful without him, or fine margins, or the man's a hero and anyone who questions him is just downright ungrateful. The argument was so determinedly emotional and irrational that I just gave up on it.
Guest Posted 16 February 2015 Posted 16 February 2015 I'm getting tired of the constant arguments and fighting now. Think everything would calm right down if he got the bullet.
stingray Posted 17 February 2015 Posted 17 February 2015 We have ONE bad season with our most successful post-war manager and here you all are again. The posters demanding the most action have about 300 posts between them or haven't been on here for more than a year. I think you need an editor, a shrink or some heavy medication. Pearson is not our most "successful post-war manager" he's Coco the clown
The Doctor Posted 17 February 2015 Posted 17 February 2015 I think you need an editor, a shrink or some heavy medication. Pearson is not our most "successful post-war manager" he's Coco the clown Best win ratio of any city manager in post war times, more titles in 5 years than he won in the previous 30... In terms of trophies and wins, he is our most successful. Don't argue with reality, you'll just look like more of a prat
ronnup Posted 17 February 2015 Posted 17 February 2015 I think you need an editor, a shrink or some heavy medication. Pearson is not our most "successful post-war manager" he's Coco the clown Hugely disrespectful to a man that provided us some pride for the first time in years. Saddens me what has happened to support in football.
Jabbaranks Posted 17 February 2015 Posted 17 February 2015 I'm staggered that anyone could state with any sense of credibility that Pearson is our most successful post war manager. Rather than look at win % figures, surely some context should be wrapped round his and previous managers' time in the hotseat. Massively in Pearson's favour as opposed to previous incumbents are the facts he had our only season in Division 3 and has presided over the last 3 years when money has been as plentiful here for transfers as ever in our history. Agreed, Sven left a motley crew for him to tidy up, but it was still an expensively assembled squad, something far removed from the situation facing say Brian Little, Jock Wallace or Gordon Milne when they arrived at the club. It's absolute nonsense to suggest that anyone other than Martin O'Neill is our most successful post war manager. What Pearson achieved last season was special, but that was last season. His remit as our manager was to make us as competitive as possible in the top flight and he's been given a transfer kitty that probably equals the transfer budget LCFC have spent between1991 - 2009 to achieve that. As a bare minimum, we should be comfortably above Burnley and QPR. We're not, and we're unlikely to be so at any point this season. We're two thirds of the season through and the same mistakes are being made week in, week out by the same people. It is his job as manager to eradicate those mistakes, or remove those people who make those mistakes and replace them with players who won't replicate these errors. He hasn't done this. And his abiding legacy will be that he was the only LCFC manager to have sufficient financial clout to make us competitive with the big boys, and yet we're limping pathetically towards the finishing line like a Swindon or a Derby. His behaviour has become massively erratic to the point of embarrassment. Absolutely nothing in the results or performances this season suggests that he has the makings of a Premier League manager, so it renders the whole argument that he'll bring us back up (debateable....and that's being kind) redundant. The season is over, let's part company now and consider carefully who the next manager should be.
stingray Posted 17 February 2015 Posted 17 February 2015 Best win ratio of any city manager in post war times, more titles in 5 years than he won in the previous 30... In terms of trophies and wins, he is our most successful. Don't argue with reality, you'll just look like more of a prat winning Div 3 is not a "title", winning div 2 is not a "title" or something to be proud of if you go straight back down again. A win ratio in Div 3 is not an achievement. Do you know our history? Winning a cup is an achievement. Retaining Premier League status would be an decent achievement. It's LCFC not Coco Pearson FC. I'm staggered that anyone could state with any sense of credibility that Pearson is our most successful post war manager. Rather than look at win % figures, surely some context should be wrapped round his and previous managers' time in the hotseat. Massively in Pearson's favour as opposed to previous incumbents are the facts he had our only season in Division 3 and has presided over the last 3 years when money has been as plentiful here for transfers as ever in our history. Agreed, Sven left a motley crew for him to tidy up, but it was still an expensively assembled squad, something far removed from the situation facing say Brian Little, Jock Wallace or Gordon Milne when they arrived at the club. It's absolute nonsense to suggest that anyone other than Martin O'Neill is our most successful post war manager. What Pearson achieved last season was special, but that was last season. His remit as our manager was to make us as competitive as possible in the top flight and he's been given a transfer kitty that probably equals the transfer budget LCFC have spent between1991 - 2009 to achieve that. As a bare minimum, we should be comfortably above Burnley and QPR. We're not, and we're unlikely to be so at any point this season. We're two thirds of the season through and the same mistakes are being made week in, week out by the same people. It is his job as manager to eradicate those mistakes, or remove those people who make those mistakes and replace them with players who won't replicate these errors. He hasn't done this. And his abiding legacy will be that he was the only LCFC manager to have sufficient financial clout to make us competitive with the big boys, and yet we're limping pathetically towards the finishing line like a Swindon or a Derby. His behaviour has become massively erratic to the point of embarrassment. Absolutely nothing in the results or performances this season suggests that he has the makings of a Premier League manager, so it renders the whole argument that he'll bring us back up (debateable....and that's being kind) redundant. The season is over, let's part company now and consider carefully who the next manager should be. spot on
Guest MattP Posted 17 February 2015 Posted 17 February 2015 Neil Lennon? If he hadn't played for us we wouldn't consider it, the bloke played Matt Mills up front the other week. Reading the list of alternatives being offered up I'm even more sure we should stick with him.
MC Prussian Posted 17 February 2015 Posted 17 February 2015 I'm staggered that anyone could state with any sense of credibility that Pearson is our most successful post war manager. Rather than look at win % figures, surely some context should be wrapped round his and previous managers' time in the hotseat. Massively in Pearson's favour as opposed to previous incumbents are the facts he had our only season in Division 3 and has presided over the last 3 years when money has been as plentiful here for transfers as ever in our history. Agreed, Sven left a motley crew for him to tidy up, but it was still an expensively assembled squad, something far removed from the situation facing say Brian Little, Jock Wallace or Gordon Milne when they arrived at the club. It's absolute nonsense to suggest that anyone other than Martin O'Neill is our most successful post war manager. What Pearson achieved last season was special, but that was last season. His remit as our manager was to make us as competitive as possible in the top flight and he's been given a transfer kitty that probably equals the transfer budget LCFC have spent between1991 - 2009 to achieve that. As a bare minimum, we should be comfortably above Burnley and QPR. We're not, and we're unlikely to be so at any point this season. We're two thirds of the season through and the same mistakes are being made week in, week out by the same people. It is his job as manager to eradicate those mistakes, or remove those people who make those mistakes and replace them with players who won't replicate these errors. He hasn't done this. And his abiding legacy will be that he was the only LCFC manager to have sufficient financial clout to make us competitive with the big boys, and yet we're limping pathetically towards the finishing line like a Swindon or a Derby. His behaviour has become massively erratic to the point of embarrassment. Absolutely nothing in the results or performances this season suggests that he has the makings of a Premier League manager, so it renders the whole argument that he'll bring us back up (debateable....and that's being kind) redundant. The season is over, let's part company now and consider carefully who the next manager should be. Well, the season isn't over until May - so I don't really know what you're trying to get at. Also, parting ways with the manager at this point in time is normally hugely uncommon when you look back at previous sackings in the top division. And it's also hugely speculative that we'd find a suitable replacement in time and a suitable replacement that can actually deliver better than what we already have. The "transfer kitty" myth is just one of these things I have to laugh at. Maybe the overall amount spent on players so far is staggering - relatively speaking. But when you look at the bigger picture, it's peanuts compared to what's usually splashed out on the transfer market or the sums paid for foreign or domestic players over the course of the past 10+ years. Purchasing power is also a component to be considered. Prices tended to be lower a couple of years back, now we have this hyperinflation and the actual sum has increased gradually in the meantime. Again, you're misled by the amount spent on players and thus falsely conclude "more money=more success". Which, looking at teams like QPR, should teach everyone a valuable lesson. Heck, have you completely forgotten the Eriksson Era?
chapero82 Posted 17 February 2015 Posted 17 February 2015 I'm sorry but to say Pearson is the best manager is crazy talk, MON got us up in the most dramatic way possible, then kept us in the premier league with top 10 finishes. 2 league cups and one final how any of you can say Pearson has done better than that needs to think again
Foxhateram Posted 17 February 2015 Posted 17 February 2015 I wish people would stop claiming Pearson has had money in plentiful. It is all relelvent to the prices in football nowadays. We have spent 25 million maybe rising to 30 million on this young squad. In today's terms that is peanuts, MUFC are looking at paying that and more on one player. With FFP around money is most certainly not plentiful. Other points that grind my gears are the argument his win percentage is based on div 3, you go and ask Leeds how difficult Div 3 is, very physical game. I agree that this season has been tough to take, some of the decisions made by club and manager have been desperate, but in our position are you surprised? Despite my outburst a few days ago. I still respect Pearson for building our club back up from dirt and getting us here. I think he deserves the chance to at least try and keep us up. If not even next year to bring us back up as well. We have a decent young squad that will have benefitted heavily from the experience of this season, we will come back stronger after thrashing the championship again next year. (If we end up there). See the bigger picture folks.
hackneyfox Posted 17 February 2015 Posted 17 February 2015 Best post war manager? Did he mean the Iraq war?
Jabbaranks Posted 17 February 2015 Posted 17 February 2015 Well, the season isn't over until May - so I don't really know what you're trying to get at. Also, parting ways with the manager at this point in time is normally hugely uncommon when you look back at previous sackings in the top division. And it's also hugely speculative that we'd find a suitable replacement in time and a suitable replacement that can actually deliver better than what we already have. The "transfer kitty" myth is just one of these things I have to laugh at. Maybe the overall amount spent on players so far is staggering - relatively speaking. But when you look at the bigger picture, it's peanuts compared to what's usually splashed out on the transfer market or the sums paid for foreign or domestic players over the course of the past 10+ years. Purchasing power is also a component to be considered. Prices tended to be lower a couple of years back, now we have this hyperinflation and the actual sum has increased gradually in the meantime. Again, you're misled by the amount spent on players and thus falsely conclude "more money=more success". Which, looking at teams like QPR, should teach everyone a valuable lesson. Heck, have you completely forgotten the Eriksson Era?
Jabbaranks Posted 17 February 2015 Posted 17 February 2015 I've never once stated that more money equals more success, I was merely pointing out that Pearson has had the opportunity to compete, hugely more so than Little, MON or Adams. I am comparing what we spent now (circa 20 million) in comparison with what MON spent (Keller, Prior, Marshall). In comparison with other clubs of that time, it was mere peanuts. And the season is over. We all know it. 9 points from 60 is not magically going to become 21 from 39. Happy to be proved wrong but in the absence of Pearson addressing persistent inadequacies in the side and blatantly not playing certain players for whatever reason, it isn't going to happen.
Jabbaranks Posted 17 February 2015 Posted 17 February 2015 And the fact remains, as a bare minimum, we should be comfortably above QPR and Burnley. We're not, and only one person bears the responsibility for that.
Babylon Posted 17 February 2015 Posted 17 February 2015 And the fact remains, as a bare minimum, we should be comfortably above QPR and Burnley. We're not, and only one person bears the responsibility for that. We were behind them for half of last season... perhaps we should have sacked him last Christmas.
Jabbaranks Posted 17 February 2015 Posted 17 February 2015 http://www.statto.com/football/stats/england/league-championship/2013-2014/table/2013-12-26 If you're going to make a point at least make it accurate.
Legend_in_blue Posted 17 February 2015 Posted 17 February 2015 I'm sorry but to say Pearson is the best manager is crazy talk, MON got us up in the most dramatic way possible, then kept us in the premier league with top 10 finishes. 2 league cups and one final how any of you can say Pearson has done better than that needs to think again Pearson can't even be considered in the same light as MON. MON is so much more tactically astute than Pearson that is plain for all to see. Pearson has failed miserably in this respect. The worrying thing is, he shows no signs of addressing the issue. The damage is done imo, even if he stays and we are competitive once again next season, at the back of everyone's minds will be the total balls up that he's made of this years opportunity. I doubt many would think it'd be any different second time round with his tactical acumen the following season.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.