Honestly..who can defend Pearson now

[Corky]

I wish the bloke would have just stuck to what he always believed in (4-4-2) and gone like that for the whole season. Rather than fecking about every other week with a new formation and new team. You signed these players to play a certain way, the squad was assembled for that so just bloody stick to it.

 

I think he was thrown by the first few games. King and Hammond were most likely to be back-ups but performed well as a partnership and we had a good balance between defence and attack. When King struggled at Stoke, Cambiasso and Drinkwater linked well and with Hammond sitting that seemed the way to go. Then the Man United game happened and the supposed diamond worked there with Cambiasso eventually nullifying Rooney and Nugent stopped Blind playing.

 

After that we've tried different varities, different systems and personnel and it hasn't worked at all. Throw in other things such as James being sent off against Villa when he and Hammond had performed as a pair to then lose him for three games upset the rhythm as we were hitting some form around that time.

 

At the start of the season Pearson would've wanted Drinkwater and James as the midfield two. Circumstances dictated otherwise and we played well without them. Since then we haven't settled on a formation or partnership and it's become more desperate as time has gone on. Now it seems Cambiasso and James are the preferred two but we've gone to five at the back, again switching wing-backs regularly.

 

Ulloa had a fine start but we've used him more and more as a target man for long balls instead of crosses as we did early on. We've performed best with a 4-4-2 or a variety of that, just not the diamond with four CM's which was such a bad move and we haven't recovered from it.

[RonnieTodger]

Earlier in the season, I was of the opinion that we should keep him even if we’re relegated. I was one of his most ardent supporters but now I won’t complain if he is sacked. It’s nothing more than a hunch, but I just can’t see him getting us back up. It looks broken to me. It’s a shame, I really want him to prove everyone wrong and at least oversee us go down with some pride but we’re so far off it’s embarrassing and pretty much unforgivable. After Saturdays draw he said he might need a “change in personnel” and I can’t remember him openly criticising his players like that before. I can’t even be arsed with his interviews anymore, it’s pretty obvious he’ll just give a blunt and sarcastic response to any question or suggestion he won’t agree with.

 

The biggest shame is that he’s completely tarnishing his reputation with the club this year. I don’t care about what he says in interviews but it’s just the same every week and Nige isn’t doing himself any favours whatsoever. He’s still comfortably the best manager since O’Neill, but there’s no argument to keep him now unless we miraculously improve and make a fight of it. 

 

On a sidenote, we haven’t scored in any of our last 3 home games. Sounds pretty bad, but when you notice the sides we played were Stoke, Palace and Hull it’s horrendous.

[MrSpaM]

I'm getting the impression that Pearson really isnt happy with how Kramaric has played since we signed him, wouldnt be surprised if he's dropped to the bench now. It's getting to the point where i'd rather we just played Nugent from the start instead. Never thought i'd be saying that.

[foxfanazer]

I think we totally abandoned what we are as a club. The good start to the season was down to hard work and pestering the opposition every time

they had the ball. We're never going to match these teams for quality but we can outfight them.

I don't what was the turning point for us ditching this approach?

[Babylon]

I think he was thrown by the first few games. King and Hammond were most likely to be back-ups but performed well as a partnership and we had a good balance between defence and attack. When King struggled at Stoke, Cambiasso and Drinkwater linked well and with Hammond sitting that seemed the way to go. Then the Man United game happened and the supposed diamond worked there with Cambiasso eventually nullifying Rooney and Nugent stopped Blind playing.

 

After that we've tried different varities, different systems and personnel and it hasn't worked at all. Throw in other things such as James being sent off against Villa when he and Hammond had performed as a pair to then lose him for three games upset the rhythm as we were hitting some form around that time.

 

At the start of the season Pearson would've wanted Drinkwater and James as the midfield two. Circumstances dictated otherwise and we played well without them. Since then we haven't settled on a formation or partnership and it's become more desperate as time has gone on. Now it seems Cambiasso and James are the preferred two but we've gone to five at the back, again switching wing-backs regularly.

 

Ulloa had a fine start but we've used him more and more as a target man for long balls instead of crosses as we did early on. We've performed best with a 4-4-2 or a variety of that, just not the diamond with four CM's which was such a bad move and we haven't recovered from it.

Yeah agree completely, I've said as much elsewhere before.

[Guest Col city fan]

Genuine question. .

Does anyone really understand why Nigel Pearson HASN'T been sacked?

Let's face it. We are bloody awful.

There's been numerous off - field incidents too which have been quite bizarre.

If getting rid of the manager has been good enough for West Brom, Palace, Villa and now it would seem Sunderland...why not for us?

Are these other clubs all wrong to have done what they've done? In the example of the first three, it looks as though it was absolutely the right thing to do.

Why have we retained a manager who looks like taking us down?

I'm a little bewildered actually. How bad do we have to be?

[inckley fox]

Yeah agree completely, I've said as much elsewhere before.

 

I can't find Corky's original post (I'm clearly doing something daft) but it's a very fair assessment. He was thrown by early successes by a slightly makeshift side and never managed to settle his best team early on. It's interesting to see so many people still think that Hammond is the answer for us, when in truth he was just a reserve who did a steady job when called upon. These contributions ended up serving as distractions. Had we bombed in those first few games Pearson may well have got much closer, much sooner to his best starting eleven.

[SecretPro]

He still here?

[inckley fox]

He still here?

 

Doesn't he normally have a 2pm press call on Monday? Maybe I'm wrong, but if he turns up for it then I suppose he's still here.

[Hirsty The Blue 94]

Genuine question. .

Does anyone really understand why Nigel Pearson HASN'T been sacked?

Let's face it. We are bloody awful.

There's been numerous off - field incidents too which have been quite bizarre.

If getting rid of the manager has been good enough for West Brom, Palace, Villa and now it would seem Sunderland...why not for us?

Are these other clubs all wrong to have done what they've done? In the example of the first three, it looks as though it was absolutely the right thing to do.

Why have we retained a manager who looks like taking us down?

I'm a little bewildered actually. How bad do we have to be?

Our situation is much more comparable to QPR than to the other 3. Those 3 were all above the drop zone (with the exception of Villa who were only in on goal difference) so didn't require a massive change in fortunes to survive. Us and QPR were both adrift when the sacking (and reinstating) took place. Would you say sacking 'Arry has gave QPR a better chance of survival? Do you think as a club they are in a better position than us for getting rid. I would suggest the answer to that is no.

Just because a club gets relegated doesn't mean a sacking should just be automatic. If Burnley go down do you think Dyche should be sacked for failing to keep them up? Look at the bigger picture for once Col instead of changing your opinion on a weekly basis.  

[WardyisPukka]

I think he's almost finally lost me after Saturday. There just seems to be almost no joined up thinking with what he's trying to do, I'm not sure what he believes in any more. You obviously sign Ulloa and then Kramaric because you want to play a certain way, if that's the case then have the conviction to follow it through. Did he really envisage Ulloa on the bench and Kramaric out wide of a front three when he signed them? As it stands we'd have been better off spending £8m on a CB and £8m on a CM rather than two strikers who you don't play or play out of position.

 

Then we have the substitutions, people were moaning about keeping 3 at the back to start with during the subs, I didn't mind that. What pissed me off was we brought Lawrence on to play the wide midfield position instead of De Laet. Then 5/10 minutes later we switch to a four and them shove him at right back... that just didn't make sense to me. If you wanted to switch to a four then do it with the first round of substitutions. As it was it ended up being a wasted sub as he then got shoved at right back. Utterly pointless.

 

I wish the bloke would have just stuck to what he always believed in (4-4-2) and gone like that for the whole season. Rather than fecking about every other week with a new formation and new team. You signed these players to play a certain way, the squad was assembled for that so just bloody stick to it.

Exactly - fecking about has made NP look weak and not sure of what his best team/formation is.

 

Which then leads to players losing confidence in their own play/style.

 

Pretty sure Burnley have stuck to their guns formation wise and style - look where they are (yes there in the bottom three but their putting a bloody good fight up

)

[Bob Weasel Fox]

Genuine question. .

Does anyone really understand why Nigel Pearson HASN'T been sacked?

Let's face it. We are bloody awful.

There's been numerous off - field incidents too which have been quite bizarre.

If getting rid of the manager has been good enough for West Brom, Palace, Villa and now it would seem Sunderland...why not for us?

Are these other clubs all wrong to have done what they've done? In the example of the first three, it looks as though it was absolutely the right thing to do.

Why have we retained a manager who looks like taking us down?

I'm a little bewildered actually. How bad do we have to be?

Not sure Col

Doesn't seem like as a club we could be bothered with even fighting for our prem status

Going down without even a whimper

Criminal

[st albans fox]

He should only be sacked if we have a viable replacement who will be good for the club in the longer term. The time for a short term fix to keep us up has passed.

If we can't find a replacement for him in the longer term then it's going to be a long season next campaign.

[Guest Col city fan]

Our situation is much more comparable to QPR than to the other 3. Those 3 were all above the drop zone (with the exception of Villa who were only in on goal difference) so didn't require a massive change in fortunes to survive. Us and QPR were both adrift when the sacking (and reinstating) took place. Would you say sacking 'Arry has gave QPR a better chance of survival? Do you think as a club they are in a better position than us for getting rid. I would suggest the answer to that is no.

Just because a club gets relegated doesn't mean a sacking should just be automatic. If Burnley go down do you think Dyche should be sacked for failing to keep them up? Look at the bigger picture for once Col instead of changing your opinion on a weekly basis.

Who is changing their mind?

I posted on the night of Pearson gate that it was a bloody shame but I felt finally relieved that he was going. Then he didn't and sundry posters exclaimed their joy at him staying, with spaff everywhere..

Nothing has changed since has it?

[hackneyfox]

You mean the Cardiff playoff where we matched them and were denied a couple of obvious penalties when Cardiff decided to play basketball in the box, and lost thanks to Whittingham moving a freekick several yards forward?

The awful run was awful but was little more than a blip compared to the rest of his tenure. Prior to this season, he's clearly been good for the club - anyone who wanted him gone before this season is little more than wanting to cut off your nose to spite your face. Now, ttfn has summed it up perfectly in the other thread, but it's impossible not to be bemused by people who have wanted him sacked while he was turning us into a good championship side rather than the dross served up under Levein, Kelly, Allen, Megson, Hollowhead, Sousa and Sven.

He didn't set us up to win the first leg.

It wasn't just one bad run that season there had been one earlier which everyone then forgot about.

[hackneyfox]

Your critisism over the years has been over the top and mostly unwarranted. We all know that, just look at your list.

Spineless team in first play off - no mention I suppose of being a newly promoted team actually making the play offs against an expensively assembled Cardiff team, with the unfortunate timing of the Wayne Brown incident days prior.

Awful run prior to Watford - How about the brilliant run prior to the bad run that had us in the top two come Feb.

Some of the team selections and the vast majority of his substitutions? - The team selections and substitutions that got us to promotions and two play off finishes.

What happens when you ignore anything positive, you tend to only see the negative. He might be making a pigs ear of it this season, but the rest of his time here we've had noting but decent seasons. Other than the months after Sven went and he returned.

My criticism over the years as been no more over the top than those who have made excuses for him week after week.

It's strange that what a few of us have been telling you about him is now being seen by all.

Perhaps we read him correctly from the start.

I have always wanted him to succeed as he's the manger of my team, but with the exception of the 2 promotion seasons I've always thought he fell short of being a good manger.

Too many players in the wrong positions, too many baffling substitutions, an inability to turn round awful runs.

[Hirsty The Blue 94]

Who is changing their mind?

I posted on the night of Pearson gate that it was a bloody shame but I felt finally relieved that he was going. Then he didn't and sundry posters exclaimed their joy at him staying, with spaff everywhere..

Nothing has changed since has it?

Come on Col you are the king of reactionary drivel. I'm fairly sure you started a thread not long back calling for everyone to support Pearson and get behind the team, yet now are calling for his head.

You also managed to avoid answering the substantive point of my response. QPR sacked their manager in almost identical timing to ours, and would you say they are better off for it now and have a better have of not only survival but of getting back up next season. I would suggest the answer is no.

[Guest MattP]

Col are you still standing by your prediction we'll still finish 17th?

[Babylon]

Genuine question. .

Does anyone really understand why Nigel Pearson HASN'T been sacked?

Let's face it. We are bloody awful.

There's been numerous off - field incidents too which have been quite bizarre.

If getting rid of the manager has been good enough for West Brom, Palace, Villa and now it would seem Sunderland...why not for us?

Are these other clubs all wrong to have done what they've done? In the example of the first three, it looks as though it was absolutely the right thing to do.

Why have we retained a manager who looks like taking us down?

I'm a little bewildered actually. How bad do we have to be?

Because we're a newly promoted team... will Burnley sack Dyche if they go down? You can't lump us in with other premier league teams like those mentioned who had already been established. Closest one would Be Palace of that list.

 

I also don't think we've been awful a lot of the time. Not good enough, but not awful. If we'd been awful and getting spanked every week he'd be gone.

 

You also said you'd keep him even if we got relegated at the start of the season... so I'm not sure why you are baffled.

[Babylon]

It's strange that what a few of us have been telling you about him is now being seen by all.

Perhaps we read him correctly from the start.

You said he'd never get us promoted... you were wrong.

[Ollie93]

In my opinion QPR are worse off for sacking their manager. Burnley are where they are because they believe in what they are playing for, the have that desire about them.

 

From what I've witnessed it feels as though sometimes the players have given up, but i guess thats down to the manager instating that confidence in them.

[hackneyfox]

Because we're a newly promoted team... will Burnley sack Dyche if they go down? You can't lump us in with other premier league teams like those mentioned who had already been established. Closest one would Be Palace of that list.

I also don't think we've been awful a lot of the time. Not good enough, but not awful. If we'd been awful and getting spanked every week he'd be gone.

You also said you'd keep him even if we got relegated at the start of the season... so I'm not sure why you are baffled.

We aren't getting spanked because he sets us up to not let in goals, Unfortunately with the defence he gave us we are normally going to concede. Due to the way he's set us up we are hardly ever likely to score enough goals to wins game and we've drawn very few which is why we are were we are.

[Babylon]

We aren't getting spanked because he sets us up to not let in goals, Unfortunately with the defence he gave us we are normally going to concede. Due to the way he's set us up we are hardly ever likely to score enough goals to wins game and we've drawn very few which is why we are were we are.

We aren't getting massively outplayed either, it's not just about getting "spanked" as I put it. The reason he's still here is because we've had plenty of games like Arsenal, Spurs, Liverpool, Palace where we should have got more from it... were we defensive then? No.

[jimmeh]

We aren't getting massively outplayed either, it's not just about getting "spanked" as I put it. The reason he's still here is because we've had plenty of games like Arsenal, Spurs, Liverpool, Palace where we should have got more from it... were we defensive then? No.

Your getting boring now. At what point do you want pearson to go exactly? He spent 8 million on a striker and puts him on the bench. If sven did that there would be uproar

[Ollie93]

We aren't getting massively outplayed either, it's not just about getting "spanked" as I put it. The reason he's still here is because we've had plenty of games like Arsenal, Spurs, Liverpool, Palace where we should have got more from it... were we defensive then? No.

 

That just sums up this season though doesn't, "should" of got more, "Could" of won. We aren't bottom on bad luck.