Why did we appoint Nigel Pearson?

[Bris Vegas]

18 hours ago, McRamFan said:

Yes players have preferred systems and roles, however with the modern game I expect them to adapt to some degree, especially being paid what they are.

Most people need to have the skill to adapt, I expect a professional athlete, in a team game to be as well.

When people are suggesting that the notion of players performing better in certain systems than others is nonsense. 

This idea that anybody can play to their best ability in any system or role is ridiculous. 

If it was easy to adapt to any system or any role than teams would just buy the best XI players available and expect them to do the job - I don't think you need me telling you that football doesn't work like that.

There is a reason the word 'balance' is so heavily used in football. 

Nobody in the world can say Leicester had the best eleven players in the PL last season, But maximising their ability via a system which got the best out of them subsequently won them the title.

[Alph]

4 hours ago, trevor1946 said:

Good thinking.Johnson-Blackman,10,million spent,and not good enough,Bent a top earner at the club,not good enough,

And you ask why Mel brought in Pearson,The recruitment was a shambles,,And in one game,you expect,Pearson to justify the poor signings of the past two and a half years,with millions spent,Or to squander more of Mels money.

The team will evolve over a period of time,,and please reflect the fees we paid for the failures,on the pitch

You have a right to be mad the progress made from the 2009 season,means with the millions spent,we should be in the , Premiership.But Pearson is not to blame---Seems Rush is not to blame or is he

We've made progress since 2009.

Nigel got sacked. Move on, man. Every post you do alludes to how much better off we were under Nigel. There's no evidence at all.

Let it go.

[Comrade 86]

17 hours ago, Nuwtfly said:

As much as that true, you're also ruling out the possibility that players can adapt to new positions under different manager's systems. Some of the best players of all time had their positions changed.

Schweinsteiger was a winger, Henry was a winger, there are many examples of this. 

Spot on Nuwtfly, was going to post something similar but I think my version would have resulted in a ban, so thank you for saving me from that dire fate

[Sith Happens]

47 minutes ago, Alpha said:

We've made progress since 2009.

Nigel got sacked. Move on, man. Every post you do alludes to how much better off we were under Nigel. There's no evidence at all.

Let it go.

Goddamnit man, do you not long for mid to low table football? The heady days when connor sammon was our marquee signing? whats wrong with you? 

[Sith Happens]

3 minutes ago, cannable said:

That's not fair. Perhaps if he were questioning Pearson's credentials than to label him an idiot would be fair, but the points being raised are fair. The title of the thread can be broken down into two questions;

- Why have we hired a manager who from his past jobs, pre-season/Brighton and from things he's said in interviews appears to have an approach to management which contradicts the vision that was explained to us when we sacked Clement?

- If we have abandoned this model to how we were going to be run then why have we not given Pearson the funds to shape the squad in the way in which he wants it?

Now, a perfectly reasonable explanation would be that he's abandoned this model and is giving Pearson a few years to re-build the squad in his image and thus no signings as of yet because he wants to give this current crop of players a chance. Which would be disappointing as it is a model which has taken smaller clubs than ourselves from League One to respected Premier League teams.

In hindsight, I'm sure Bris wishes he would have entitled this thread 'Why have we seemingly changed our approach?'.

 

All of that is fair and everyone is entltled to their opinion, however you do get a sense of people jumping up and down and whooping when Derby played poorly so they can have a good old moan about something. In fact it makes me wonder if this is footage of one of these derby fans when derby were flying under steve the season we made the play offs.

 

[cannable]

7 minutes ago, Paul71 said:

All of that is fair and everyone is entltled to their opinion, however you do get a sense of people jumping up and down and whooping when Derby played poorly so they can have a good old moan about something. In fact it makes me wonder if this is footage of one of these derby fans when derby were flying under steve the season we made the play offs.

 

Similar themes from this thread were being discussed last week in the System and Philosophy thread. I'd imagine that thread was bore out of pure frustration. To be fair the title generated a fair amount of debate!

[toddy]

18 hours ago, Bris Vegas said:

Any player can play in any position and in any formation. Will Hughes at LB anyone?

Bris,

I never said any player can play in any position, you have made that statement up!

I never did take you for a ploncker but we live and learn......but here we go, a midfielder can play in any midfield position whether we play 4-4-2 or 4-3-2-1 or whatever formation.

Like wise a CB can play in any formation and a left back and right back can also play in any formation and a forward can play in any formation.

Why do you get hung up about formations, but I will say it again -  a quality player can play their position in any formation and a quality manager can organize his team in any formation to suit the opponents

FFS did you ever play the game!

[DCFCArmy]

I hope Mel doesn't share some of our fans views tbh.. otherwise we'll be sacking managers based of 1 game.. we'll end up a Leeds or Forest. 

He needs time.. Nigel Clough got 5 years and ended up building a team that should have gone up.. NP will do the same.. but as one poster said,, he's been given one half of the first match before getting the "was he right" treatment.

 

[jono]

38 minutes ago, cannable said:

That's not fair. Perhaps if he were questioning Pearson's credentials than to label him an idiot would be fair, but the points being raised are fair. The title of the thread can be broken down into two questions;

- Why have we hired a manager who from his past jobs, pre-season/Brighton and from things he's said in interviews appears to have an approach to management which contradicts the vision that was explained to us when we sacked Clement?

- If we have abandoned this model to how we were going to be run then why have we not given Pearson the funds to shape the squad in the way in which he wants it?

Now, a perfectly reasonable explanation would be that he's abandoned this model and is giving Pearson a few years to re-build the squad in his image and thus no signings as of yet because he wants to give this current crop of players a chance. Which would be disappointing as it is a model which has taken smaller clubs than ourselves from League One to respected Premier League teams.

In hindsight, I'm sure Bris wishes he would have entitled this thread 'Why have we seemingly changed our approach?'.

 

I am not going to get all god squad on you .. But blessed are the peace makers ! 

[AndyinLiverpool]

5 minutes ago, jono said:

I am not going to get all god squad on you .. But blessed are the peace makers ! 

Cheese makers surely?

[duncanjwitham]

28 minutes ago, toddy said:

, a midfielder can play in any midfield position whether we play 4-4-2 or 4-3-2-1 or whatever formation.!

So then, we could pick any 3 (or 2, or 4) of Hughes, hendrick, Bryson, Thorne, butterfield, Johnson and get exactly the same results? They're all midfielders, we can just pick 3 and it will just work?  The same with Martin, bent, Russell, Weimann? You can just pick however many you want, chuck them up front and it will be fine?

[archied]

Peas takers I think

[TETRA]

I think it's a question of what direction we are heading right now with the players Pearson has at his disposal. When I watched Sheffield Wednesday yesterday they just looked such a good unit of totally committed players. I just haven't seen that for a fair while now with our players. Not sure what the answer is if I'm honest, I think Pearson may discover over the next month or so that he has a very much bigger job on his hands than he first thought.

[Alph]

If Mel has abandoned his philosophy at the first hurdle then some future tests are really going to rock us.

Fans moan. Even when you're winning. 

You can't let it distract you from the path. 

The philosophy was one that's proven to take clubs on to levels they dream of. 

It's a philosophy that Ferguson built his squads on. And then it was trampled on. Funnily enough clubs that allow managers to come in and overhaul every 18 months tend to struggle long term. Surviving one short fix to the next. 

I'd love Mel to explain this. 

If his answer is that Pearson is trying to build on what's already here then fair enough. Time will tell. 

Nigel Clough tried to build a footballing team. I think he found the system that suited what he had in 4231. The players seemed to thrive. Forget instant results for a minute, each player seemed to fit and compliment. What this enables you to do then with consistency is spot weakness really easy. And upgrade. 

He bottled it. But he still brought in a particular style of player. 

So this isn't something that's been developed in 2 years. 

McClaren came in and found that system again (squad had changed obviously.) 

Clement came and he didn't fail exactly. He just didn't really build on. We just stumbled along a bit.

Wassall came and found it in fits and spurts. 

Now Pearson... is he going to remind us of that time Clough found the sweet spot but left it. Or are we in for a complete overhaul? 

No toddy, I don't agree a midfielder can play anywhere in midfield to his full potential. No. I couldn't play right midfield like I could play in the middle. I wasn't at this level and neither were the opposition. It's all relevant

But it's not just about formations. We're talking systems. And a system and formation are different.

Not every 433 is the same. Because football is about partnerships and understanding. 

Our formation can change. But essentially the key partnerships are what's important. And it was 433 that exploited them. 

What we might be doing now is breaking down partnerships to rebuild again.

Is this going to happen with every new manager? (what's the longest serving manager list?) 

People will cry "But we failed"

We didn't but let's say we did. Why did we fail? 

It's easy to see the faults because we all know how we were supposed to function and what our good system looks like. 

And that's why stable systems are important and why succesful clubs tend to recruit to fit rather than recruit the best. 

That's why the world's best players can go from hero to zero in a year. You think Torres turned into a donkey on the drive from Liverpool to London?

[Animal is a Ram]

1 hour ago, AndyinLiverpool said:

Cheese makers surely?

Well, obviously it's not meant to be taken literally; it refers to any manufacturers of dairy products.

[toddy]

2 hours ago, duncanjwitham said:

So then, we could pick any 3 (or 2, or 4) of Hughes, hendrick, Bryson, Thorne, butterfield, Johnson and get exactly the same results? They're all midfielders, we can just pick 3 and it will just work?  The same with Martin, bent, Russell, Weimann? You can just pick however many you want, chuck them up front and it will be fine?

Players lose games not formations.

The manager will play to a system using the players he thinks will work against his opponents, not really sure why rebody is so hung up about formations?

 

 

[North_Stand_Ram]

There's a difference between football ideology ("the right way to play..."), and entertainment. Burnley are hardly renowned for their free flowing football, but finished top scorers, and also won the league.. I know what I'd prefer to watch. 

[toddy]

3 minutes ago, North_Stand_Ram said:

There's a difference between football ideology ("the right way to play..."), and entertainment. Burnley are hardly renowned for their free flowing football, but finished top scorers, and also won the league.. I know what I'd prefer to watch. 

Neither were boro.

[Alph]

17 minutes ago, toddy said:

Players lose games not formations.

The manager will play to a system using the players he thinks will work against his opponents, not really sure why rebody is so hung up about formations?

 

 

Like I said, system and formations are different. 

I explained my reasons. So that's why I can get hung up. I'd imagine Bris too

[duncanjwitham]

15 minutes ago, North_Stand_Ram said:

There's a difference between football ideology ("the right way to play..."), and entertainment. Burnley are hardly renowned for their free flowing football, but finished top scorers, and also won the league.. I know what I'd prefer to watch. 

It's not about 'playing the right way', it's about playing to your strengths. Burnley had a balanced system that had their best players doing what they're good at.  Andre gray scored a load of goals because they used him correctly. Put chris Martin in that team he'd have scored much less. And likewise, put gray up front in mcclarens Derby team, and he'd have scored less than Martin did.