Honestly..who can defend Pearson now

[Ollie93]

Try telling that a 34-year old defensive midfielder who knows his body inside out and who's never been the quickest in the first place!

 

Cambiasso was clearly knackered and any coach will tell you that it's wiser to take off an exhausted player when needed instead of risking injury troubles that could keep the player out of business longer than necessary.

 

I think the point is we should not have to be in position to tell him to stay on, we should have enough depth in our squad to be able to substitute one player for an equally good other player. Yes its Cambiasso, yes he's the most decorated Argentinian, but he is 34

 

DD is pretty much 10 years his younger, why can't he come off the bench with a pair of fresh legs and offer something different. Tbh I think it shows how much we are struggling having to reply so heavily on a 34 year old. 

[Babylon]

If we'd held on against Burnley, HELD ON ??????????????????? Burnley were absolute rubbish that day and we 'swanned' through the match like it was 'easy on Sunday Morning'. We should have hammered them. I was fuming all through the match. The performance was an absolute disgrace. That was the day our demise started. Where were you? Didn't you go to the match????????????// The manager and our players are supposed to be professional. If a manager does not understand how important games like that are for a newly promoted side he should never be in a position to manage any professional side. We should have sacked him after that match.

 

Why do you continue to excuse the inexcusable FFS?

Come back when you actually bother reading peoples posts.

[Guest MarshallForEngland]

If we'd held on against Burnley, HELD ON ??????????????????? Burnley were absolute rubbish that day and we 'swanned' through the match like it was 'easy on Sunday Morning'. We should have hammered them. I was fuming all through the match. The performance was an absolute disgrace. That was the day our demise started. Where were you? Didn't you go to the match????????????// The manager and our players are supposed to be professional. If a manager does not understand how important games like that are for a newly promoted side he should never be in a position to manage any professional side. We should have sacked him after that match.

 

Why do you continue to excuse the inexcusable FFS?

 

I don't think you used enough question marks here. Even when the question is written in caps, 19 question marks is just not enough to sufficiently express incredulity.

[MC Prussian]

Come back when you actually bother reading peoples posts.

A course in anger management would also do nicely.

[artursteppe]

I just love the way so many of the Pearson Defence Corp like to keep telling us the gap between the Championship and Premiership quality is vast, and it is really difficult making the transition.

Why didn't Pearson know that? He should have known that. It was his job to know that. He was paid to know that. He didn't know that. He got it wrong.

Sack him!

[MC Prussian]

I just love the way so many of the Pearson Defence Corp like to keep telling us the gap between the Championship and Premiership quality is vast, and it is really difficult making the transition.

Why didn't Pearson know that? He should have known that. It was his job to know that. He was paid to know that. He didn't know that. He got it wrong.

Sack him!

 

On a serious note, you do realize Pearson has never fully managed at Premier League level before this season started, don't you?

So how could he know in the first place?

[Fox Ulike]

Try telling that a 34-year old defensive midfielder who knows his body inside out and who's never been the quickest in the first place!

 

Cambiasso was clearly knackered and any coach will tell you that it's wiser to take off an exhausted player when needed instead of risking injury troubles that could keep the player out of business longer than necessary.

 

So he's 'exhausted' now is he? At risk of injury if he carries on?! I find that hard to believe. Cambi did the right thing in telling the Manager that he was knackered. But it's up to the Manager to decide if subbing him is best for the team. With 3 strikers on the pitch, and 3 minutes away from a crucial away inw, I really fail to see that it was the right decision..

 

 

I think the point is we should not have to be in position to tell him to stay on, we should have enough depth in our squad to be able to substitute one player for an equally good other player. Yes its Cambiasso, yes he's the most decorated Argentinian, but he is 34

 

DD is pretty much 10 years his younger, why can't he come off the bench with a pair of fresh legs and offer something different. Tbh I think it shows how much we are struggling having to reply so heavily on a 34 year old. 

 

Exactly.

 

We lined up with five defenders against a below par Everton side. We therefore had to waste two substitutions just to get a decent formation after going a goal down.

[MC Prussian]

So he's 'exhausted' now is he? At risk of injury if he carries on?! I find that hard to believe. Cambi did the right thing in telling the Manager that he was knackered. But it's up to the Manager to decide if subbing him is best for the team. With 3 strikers on the pitch, and 3 minutes away from a crucial away inw, I really fail to see that it was the right decision..

Thank you!

 

You may find it hard to believe, but that's what happened.

[Guest MarshallForEngland]

I just love the way so many of the Pearson Defence Corp like to keep telling us the gap between the Championship and Premiership quality is vast, and it is really difficult making the transition.

Why didn't Pearson know that? He should have known that. It was his job to know that. He was paid to know that. He didn't know that. He got it wrong.

Sack him!

 

Here's the thing. Your position can be summarised with a facetious name (equivalent to your 'Pearson Defence Corp') because you are a caricature of a fickle football fan. There's no nuance or proportion to your opinion, you just repeat the same "SACK HIM" phrase after listing some examples of his mistakes and weaknesses, and then act as if all the logical leg-work has been done. "Checkmate Pearson Defence Corp" you say to yourself while patting yourself on the back for being smart enough to notice that we are bottom of the league and have lost lots of games.

 

But nobody is arguing the points you are arguing against. You're attacking a straw man, going on and on about why an argument nobody has made is wrong. Virtually everybody on here recognises where Pearson has made mistakes, but some manage to see the hundreds of other variables involved as well. These are the people who you collectively refer to as the "Pearson Defence Corp". So few people on here are arbitrarily pro-Pearson, they just have a sense of proportion that for some reason people like you find impossible to grasp.

 

And this means you can deliver ridiculous statements like the one above - that Pearson "didn't know" it was going to be difficult stepping up from the Championship to the Premiership - and do so with no irony at all. And if anybody questions the truth of that statement, you'll say "BUT WE LOST AGAINST [insert team here]" or "HE BROUGHT LAWRENCE ON HERRR DERR" and say "checkmate" again. You're not just clueless, you're the worst kind of clueless - the kind that makes you totally unaware of how little you know, but inexplicably confident and certain in delivering your daft posts.

[Bob Weasel Fox]

Who called it a good season? Why are you twisting it?

It's been a poor and disappointing season... but a disgrace, do me a favour. If we'd held on against Burnley an Everton and not had a dodgy penno against us at Liverpool would the season suddenly have been that much better. Not for me.

We're struggling, like we were tipped to struggle by many pundits and other fans and bookies etc. So I fail to see how it's a disgrace when you're just about living up to those expectations.

It seems the phrase I used had been seized up and as usual played over and over. Disgrace may be harsh but it certainly hasn't been a good season or even a slightly dissapointing season it has been awful

Was and am still willing and able to give my all as a fan, I haven't booed yet or shouted for the manager to go (not helpful) but there does come a point when we might well need an alternative?

Like you have already said his subs against Hull were just baffling and that's being very very very kind

[stingray]

I think someone said it on another post, but he's displaying all the signs that he's having a nervous breakdown. 

[Mark 'expert' Lawrenson]

I think someone said it on another post, but he's displaying all the signs that he's having a nervous breakdown.

I work in a sporting environment, people handle stress and pressure in different ways, some good some bad, Pearson looks like he is struggling to cope.

[cc_star]

Here's the thing. Your position can be summarised with a facetious name (equivalent to your 'Pearson Defence Corp') because you are a caricature of a fickle football fan. There's no nuance or proportion to your opinion, you just repeat the same "SACK HIM" phrase after listing some examples of his mistakes and weaknesses, and then act as if all the logical leg-work has been done. "Checkmate Pearson Defence Corp" you say to yourself while patting yourself on the back for being smart enough to notice that we are bottom of the league and have lost lots of games.

 

But nobody is arguing the points you are arguing against. You're attacking a straw man, going on and on about why an argument nobody has made is wrong. Virtually everybody on here recognises where Pearson has made mistakes, but some manage to see the hundreds of other variables involved as well. These are the people who you collectively refer to as the "Pearson Defence Corp". So few people on here are arbitrarily pro-Pearson, they just have a sense of proportion that for some reason people like you find impossible to grasp.

 

And this means you can deliver ridiculous statements like the one above - that Pearson "didn't know" it was going to be difficult stepping up from the Championship to the Premiership - and do so with no irony at all. And if anybody questions the truth of that statement, you'll say "BUT WE LOST AGAINST [insert team here]" or "HE BROUGHT LAWRENCE ON HERRR DERR" and say "checkmate" again. You're not just clueless, you're the worst kind of clueless - the kind that makes you totally unaware of how little you know, but inexplicably confident and certain in delivering your daft posts.

 

This post wants pinning to the front page

[inckley fox]

I work in a sporting environment, people handle stress and pressure in different ways, some good some bad, Pearson looks like he is struggling to cope.

 

I think he is struggling, yes. It's apparent in his work, in that he's failed to settle on a clear idea of the way forward, and obviously apparent in some of the incidents we've seen. It's understandable, of course, and he may well pull himself together, come back and cope much better in the future. But I've never seen such an unsettled side, formation, so many unused signings, so many 'incidents' with media and fans, such poor form, so much blaming of his own players under Pearson as I have this season.

 

Part of my reason for wanting him to go now is that, in spite of the chance that he'll pull himself together, there are certainly no guarantees he'll be able to extricate himself from the situation enough to do that. He has established relationships with a lot of players, some of which have failed badly to do a job for him this year, and it will be hard to change these relationships - e.g. by stripping Morgan of the captaincy (if we did come up again, we wouldn't want to have to either change captain or play a 32/33 year old Morgan again all season long, switching formations to accommodate him), letting Konchesky go, finding a different vice captain and so on.

 

In the past he has been able to make difficult decisions like these, but it's also tended to hugely unsettle us. For instance in the 11/12 season. I think there will be an element of 'starting over' if we build again with one eye on what happens when/if we win promotion, and the decisions this time will be with squad members who he took a long time to gel into a cohesive unit.

 

All of this is quite apart from the fact that he failed to get it right last time, with a clear, steady approach and two-and-a-half years to build. Of course I'll back him fully if he's the man we choose, and of course he has shown he can improve as a manager as well (though not during the course of this season). I just feel that a manager at his lowest ebb, who didn't manage to 'finish the job' last time, and who tends to be a slow learner, might not be the right guy to freshen up our approach.

[Babylon]

It seems the phrase I used had been seized up and as usual played over and over. Disgrace may be harsh but it certainly hasn't been a good season or even a slightly dissapointing season it has been awful

Was and am still willing and able to give my all as a fan, I haven't booed yet or shouted for the manager to go (not helpful) but there does come a point when we might well need an alternative?

Like you have already said his subs against Hull were just baffling and that's being very very very kind

 

Fair enough, it was only seized upon because you said it though and people think it's very harsh. It's been a shitty disappointing season most definitely.

[inckley fox]

Here's the thing. Your position can be summarised with a facetious name (equivalent to your 'Pearson Defence Corp') because you are a caricature of a fickle football fan. There's no nuance or proportion to your opinion, you just repeat the same "SACK HIM" phrase after listing some examples of his mistakes and weaknesses, and then act as if all the logical leg-work has been done. "Checkmate Pearson Defence Corp" you say to yourself while patting yourself on the back for being smart enough to notice that we are bottom of the league and have lost lots of games.

 

But nobody is arguing the points you are arguing against. You're attacking a straw man, going on and on about why an argument nobody has made is wrong. Virtually everybody on here recognises where Pearson has made mistakes, but some manage to see the hundreds of other variables involved as well. These are the people who you collectively refer to as the "Pearson Defence Corp". So few people on here are arbitrarily pro-Pearson, they just have a sense of proportion that for some reason people like you find impossible to grasp.

 

And this means you can deliver ridiculous statements like the one above - that Pearson "didn't know" it was going to be difficult stepping up from the Championship to the Premiership - and do so with no irony at all. And if anybody questions the truth of that statement, you'll say "BUT WE LOST AGAINST [insert team here]" or "HE BROUGHT LAWRENCE ON HERRR DERR" and say "checkmate" again. You're not just clueless, you're the worst kind of clueless - the kind that makes you totally unaware of how little you know, but inexplicably confident and certain in delivering your daft posts.

 

I suppose he has one uncompromising slab of evidence in his favour, though, which is our league position and form.

 

My problem with the Pearson-In group, if that's what we're going to call them, is that the bulk of them have failed to formulate a strong argument for him to stay. It's focused too much on how he's the most likely man to bring us back, when he's had one promotion in over five Championship seasons with well-funded sides. It's focused on how he tends to learn when there's been little evidence for that this season. Or how he's been unlucky, had the refs against him, shouldn't be blamed when the players are clearly responsible. Or how fans have short memories for wanting him gone. How there's been nothing wrong whatsoever with his conduct over the past few months. How we shouldn't have expected much better. People argue that the squad is young when it isn't, that he's sorted out our finances when our staff costs went up, that there were no alternatives when Sherwood and Pulis were still available, and when most of our best managers have been unproven at the level they've come into, 

 

But there is a more convincing argument in there for him, if we accept that some of the aforementioned arguments make little sense.

 

It's that it may be more expensive for our board to sack Pearson now than it will be once we're relegated, that in that time he could yet show those signs of improvement this season which indicate that he'll be a better manager in the future. That he has been a very competent second tier manager and, if he were willing to make difficult changes and approach the coming season with a clear head, he could salvage the backbone of a very good second tier team. That some managers - not many, but some - do come back brighter after suffering a blow, and the fact that he's been the best manager of a very dark era for our club suggests that he can be such an exception to the rule. That he knows the strengths and weaknesses of the squad better than anyone else, and will be well aware of the demands of leading in the Championship, and a lot more aware (whether he can deal with them or not) of the demands of leading in the PL. That he's a lot, lot brighter than some of these inarticulate interviews suggest, more loyal than the 'FOAD' outburst suggests and has rarely failed at the level we'll be playing at next year, whereas the alternative appointment may well be someone with next to no, or no track record at that level.

 

He can identify good young talent, will play them when they're good enough, has shown he can make difficult decisions when they're required, even if he hasn't done that this year. And, of course, we can change without firing the manager. The board can insist on him bringing in a more experienced assistant who knows the PL, can help him build for it, can teach him how to coach those set pieces, can smooth the step up next time around. 

 

There's a lot of 'ifs' there for me, a lot of hopefulness, but it's still a sensible, balanced argument for our manager to stay, as opposed to one which is too often rooted in our loyalty to Pearson, rather than a reasoned assessment of how he can lead us to something which he's not managed to lead us to this time.

[inckley fox]

Fair enough, it was only seized upon because you said it though and people think it's very harsh. It's been a shitty disappointing season most definitely.

 

It's a bit of a 'how long's a piece of string' debate, isn't it? Has the season been 'very disappointing' or 'a disgrace'...? I don't think it really matters. I get far more annoyed by people claiming that, on the one hand, Pearson has been a liability all along and nothing ever changes with him (well, we are debating whether he's a competent PL manager now as opposed to a competent FLC manager, so that's a change) or alternatively people arguing that he's done next to nothing wrong and been damn unlucky.

 

The question really boils down to whether we want to go into a FLC campaign with a manager we know we may need to replace within a short time if it's successful, or take a risk on someone who hasn't shown that he is out of his depth at PL level, but has done little/nothing to show he's any good at it (or, perhaps, even FLC level) either. I'd argue that most managers who do succeed where we need to succeed next season, and most good managers in our history, have come when the board have taken the latter viewpoint. But I can see why people would argue for the former too.

[Fox Ulike]

Here's the thing. Your position can be summarised with a facetious name (equivalent to your 'Pearson Defence Corp') because you are a caricature of a fickle football fan. There's no nuance or proportion to your opinion, you just repeat the same "SACK HIM" phrase after listing some examples of his mistakes and weaknesses, and then act as if all the logical leg-work has been done. "Checkmate Pearson Defence Corp" you say to yourself while patting yourself on the back for being smart enough to notice that we are bottom of the league and have lost lots of games.

 

But nobody is arguing the points you are arguing against. You're attacking a straw man, going on and on about why an argument nobody has made is wrong. Virtually everybody on here recognises where Pearson has made mistakes, but some manage to see the hundreds of other variables involved as well. These are the people who you collectively refer to as the "Pearson Defence Corp". So few people on here are arbitrarily pro-Pearson, they just have a sense of proportion that for some reason people like you find impossible to grasp.

 

And this means you can deliver ridiculous statements like the one above - that Pearson "didn't know" it was going to be difficult stepping up from the Championship to the Premiership - and do so with no irony at all. And if anybody questions the truth of that statement, you'll say "BUT WE LOST AGAINST [insert team here]" or "HE BROUGHT LAWRENCE ON HERRR DERR" and say "checkmate" again. You're not just clueless, you're the worst kind of clueless - the kind that makes you totally unaware of how little you know, but inexplicably confident and certain in delivering your daft posts.

 

Wow.

 

Wish I'd written this.

[Fox Ulike]

I suppose he has one uncompromising slab of evidence in his favour, though, which is our league position and form.

 

My problem with the Pearson-In group, if that's what we're going to call them, is that the bulk of them have failed to formulate a strong argument for him to stay. It's focused too much on how he's the most likely man to bring us back, when he's had one promotion in over five Championship seasons with well-funded sides. It's focused on how he tends to learn when there's been little evidence for that this season. Or how he's been unlucky, had the refs against him, shouldn't be blamed when the players are clearly responsible. Or how fans have short memories for wanting him gone. How there's been nothing wrong whatsoever with his conduct over the past few months. How we shouldn't have expected much better. People argue that the squad is young when it isn't, that he's sorted out our finances when our staff costs went up, that there were no alternatives when Sherwood and Pulis were still available, and when most of our best managers have been unproven at the level they've come into, 

 

But there is a more convincing argument in there for him, if we accept that some of the aforementioned arguments make little sense.

 

It's that it may be more expensive for our board to sack Pearson now than it will be once we're relegated, that in that time he could yet show those signs of improvement this season which indicate that he'll be a better manager in the future. That he has been a very competent second tier manager and, if he were willing to make difficult changes and approach the coming season with a clear head, he could salvage the backbone of a very good second tier team. That some managers - not many, but some - do come back brighter after suffering a blow, and the fact that he's been the best manager of a very dark era for our club suggests that he can be such an exception to the rule. That he knows the strengths and weaknesses of the squad better than anyone else, and will be well aware of the demands of leading in the Championship, and a lot more aware (whether he can deal with them or not) of the demands of leading in the PL. That he's a lot, lot brighter than some of these inarticulate interviews suggest, more loyal than the 'FOAD' outburst suggests and has rarely failed at the level we'll be playing at next year, whereas the alternative appointment may well be someone with next to no, or no track record at that level.

 

He can identify good young talent, will play them when they're good enough, has shown he can make difficult decisions when they're required, even if he hasn't done that this year. And, of course, we can change without firing the manager. The board can insist on him bringing in a more experienced assistant who knows the PL, can help him build for it, can teach him how to coach those set pieces, can smooth the step up next time around. 

 

There's a lot of 'ifs' there for me, a lot of hopefulness, but it's still a sensible, balanced argument for our manager to stay, as opposed to one which is too often rooted in our loyalty to Pearson, rather than a reasoned assessment of how he can lead us to something which he's not managed to lead us to this time.

 

Groan! Fallen at the first hurdle.

 

Go back and read marshallforEngland's post until you understand it.

[Babylon]

Groan! Fallen at the first hurdle.

 

Go back and read marshallforEngland's post until you understand it.

I guarantee the reply will be at least 47 lines long.

[Guest MarshallForEngland]

I guarantee the reply will be at least 47 lines long.

 

Challenge accepted...

[Babylon]

Challenge accepted...

I meant his to Fox Ulike... but I look forward to yours if it was as good as the last one.

[Guest MarshallForEngland]

I meant his to Fox Ulike... but I look forward to yours if it was as good as the last one.

 

Unfortunately as usual I think I used all my best lines too soon.

[Fox Ulike]

Thank you!

 

You may find it hard to believe, but that's what happened.

 

Totally walked straight into that one...

[Webbo]

Groan! Fallen at the first hurdle.

 

Go back and read marshallforEngland's post until you understand it.

There are a group of fans that want Pearson to remain no matter what, surely you don't want him to name everyone individually? A little shorthand is no bad thing. Plus it was a very fair and balanced post.