Why did we appoint Nigel Pearson?

[Gritstone Ram]

I think Pearson has to get the best out of the players. If you a Director at BT and a water company offers you the chief job do you turn it down because you're only good at BT. No you don't you use your skills at man management and knowledge about how to inspire people to perform at their highest level. Then add to that putting people in positions you know you can trust them in and bobs your uncle. The people on the ground may only be able to do one job like a goal keeper or defender but when you are the manager that is what you do manage the team. 

[Sexydadbod]

Just now, Bris Vegas said:

Where have I said we've apppointed the wrong man? I've questioned WHY we have appointed him...

Nigel Pearson could be the right man, but if he is, why haven't we backed him and allowed him to bring in the necessary players to help him succeed using the system which he clearly prefers?

This team can't play, with any great success, a 442. We all know this!

How do we know this when it hasn't been given a chance for a long enough period? 

[DCFCArmy]

4 wins 1 draw 1 defeat, 3 or 4 clean sheets, a point against a good side that finished 3rd and could have won it late on as well

But he's useless, we don't win 6-0 every game playing one touch slick passing football and winning it in style like on Fifa with amateur setting on... 

 

[Derbados]

17 minutes ago, CastletonRam said:

It's almost like Mel appointed Pearson with the intent not to back him, but to nonetheless allow him to proceed with a change in the system, then when it didn't work with the players we've already got to sack him to prove a point that 4-3-3 is the best formation because it's 'the Derby way'. 

 

Keep in mind if this isn't true, why isn't Mel backing NP with signings to realise the system?

I don't want to live on this planet anymore. . . Seriously 

[Bris Vegas]

4 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Absolute rubbish in my opinion, you have players that can play football and you build a system around it.

No player is brought up learning to play a certain system.

We're not talking lower level football here, this is top-end stuff. To suggest that systems mean very little is simply wrong and naive. Why didn't Brighton play 433?

Why didn't Leicester last season? Why don't Barcelona play 442? Why do Spurs play 4231 and Harry Kane as a long striker and not 352 or any other variation with two strikers? Why do Arsenal play with Giroud upfront on his own and not alongside another CF?

 

 

 

[cymru]

16 minutes ago, Rammeister said:

Pearson says Derby have bids in for players- source DET. I am sure Mel will back him- but as Nigel has said, we should only buy people who improve the team.

 

Don't think it will be hard after today

[G STAR RAM]

2 minutes ago, Bris Vegas said:

We're not talking lower level football here, this is top-end stuff. To suggest that systems mean very little is simply wrong and naive. Why didn't Brighton play 433?

Why didn't Leicester last season? Why don't Barcelona play 442? Why do Spurs play 4231 and Harry Kane as a long striker and not 352 or any other variation with two strikers? Why do Arsenal play with Giroud upfront on his own and not alongside another CF?

 

 

 

So when all of our players were coming through their relative systems did they all play 4-3-3?

[Bris Vegas]

3 minutes ago, McLovin said:

How do we know this when it hasn't been given a chance for a long enough period? 

Are you really asking this? Have you not taken notice or learned of the the strengths and weaknesses of our players from the past few seasons?

Suggesting they are footballers and should be equally apt at playing in any sort of system or role is ridiculous (I'm not aiming this at you McLovin). 

 

[Kernow]

5 minutes ago, Bris Vegas said:

Where have I said we've apppointed the wrong man? I've questioned WHY we have appointed him...

Nigel Pearson could be the right man, but if he is, why haven't we backed him and allowed him to bring in the necessary players to help him succeed using the system which he clearly prefers?

This team can't play, with any great success, a 442. We all know this!

That's assuming he's asked to sign players and we've told him no. In your opinion, what players can play 4-4-2 and which can't? Maybe Pearson wanted time to suss that out himself, and with just under a month until the window shuts, he still has plenty of time to bring in anybody he thinks we need. He says we've already got bids in (note that it's plural) so it does look as though we will see a couple new players who are likely to be better suited to this formation.

[Bris Vegas]

1 minute ago, G STAR RAM said:

So when all of our players were coming through their relative systems did they all play 4-3-3?

Did they all perform to their best in other systems? There is a reason why McClaren played 433 here, he identified the strengths and weaknesses of each player and played in a way to enhance our team's ability to win games. That's what a good coach does.

You cannot tell me that playing 442 with our current crop of players enhances our team's ability to win. It doesn't, there is no debate to be had on that, it simply doesn't!

[Gritstone Ram]

I think he'll do ok. No need to panic. Has anyone else noticed how different he sounds after a game I reckon there's some real emotion there.

[archied]

We play 4 3 3 so last summer people bemoaned the fact that according to them our hap hazard recruitment brought in players that did nt fit that system but now they bemoan our players are only really suited to that formation , would like someone to list our first team players that can only really be effective in 4 3 3 and those who can fit into most formations , saw the post earlier bemoaning persons preferred 442 and stating we should not be going with him but rather the clubs who play something different and have reached the prem and stayed up ,, pearsons liecester built by him as the 4 4 2 man actually won the prem ,, it's all about players producing consistantly ,, the ones we have in the main hav nt and don't in any formation ,,, Pearson won't accept that and will ship out and replace those that can't or won't ,,, have patience and let the man do his job 

[valleyram]

Because he will take us up , quite simple really 

[ariotofmyown]

36 minutes ago, Bris Vegas said:

I'm not knocking the manager as I believe he's a top coach despite clearly being a bit loose upstairs, but I don't understand why we have appointed him taking everything in to consideration.

Nigel Pearson plays a variation of 4-4-2, be it 4-4-1-1 or something of that ilk. He did it at Southampton, Leicester City, Hull City and later at Leicester again - and each time he enjoyed some success or other.

But we don't have the personnel to play this formation. That is so evident, and Mel Morris spoke before about creating an identity or system at the club whereby managers can come and go but the style will remain.

Southampton and Swansea City have both followed this route, and done so with great success.

Why have we appointed a 4-4-2 man when we have pretty much built a squad for 4-3-3 over the past few years? You can't argue it doesn't work, only injuries and a lack of application has prevented us.

If we are going to move away from the 4-3-3 and work towards Pearson's preferred system, then why haven't we made a single move in the transfer market which would at least give the guy a better chance?

Pearson's starting eleven today suggested he has tried to work best with what he has, but it was poor. I'm sorry but if Bent, Blackman and Johnson is the best we have in a 4-4-2 then we're going to struggle to make the top six this year!

I was struggling to see what the hell we tried to do 12 months ago and openly criticised our recruitment team, but this summer it has arguably been even more baffling. Who has been behind these decisions? They're nonsensical IMO.

A new low.

What does 'clearly a bit loose upstairs' actually mean.

'Only' injuires prevented 4-3-3 working. Unfortunately, the 4-3-3 we play is massively reliant on both Martin and Thorne been fully fit and on top of their game. The only backups you can get for these positions are players who are prepared hardly to play unless of injuries, but then need to come in and be our best players.

You could just as argue that 4-3-3 is the reason we didn't go up last 2 years. We had one great season of it, thanks to Nige Mk 1 leaving us with a great squad both in termz of ability and desire. We were unlucky not to go up, then we go worked out/slash the injuries started. 

[G STAR RAM]

Just now, Bris Vegas said:

Did they all perform to their best in other systems? There is a reason why McClaren played 433 here, he identified the strengths and weaknesses of each player and played in a way to enhance our team's ability to win games. That's what a good coach does.

You cannot tell me that playing 442 with our current crop of players enhances our team's ability to win. It doesn't, there is no debate to be had on that, it simply doesn't!

So if Pearson is a good coach he will also identify strengths and weaknesses.

The fact that Clough signed most of the players that McLaren played show that players can, and should, be adaptable to different systems.

[Bris Vegas]

Just now, ariotofmyown said:

A new low.

What does 'clearly a bit loose upstairs' actually mean.

'Only' injuires prevented 4-3-3 working. Unfortunately, the 4-3-3 we play is massively reliant on both Martin and Thorne been fully fit and on top of their game. The only backups you can get for these positions are players who are prepared hardly to play unless of injuries, but then need to come in and be our best players.

You could just as argue that 4-3-3 is the reason we didn't go up last 2 years. We had one great season of it, thanks to Nige Mk 1 leaving us with a great squad both in termz of ability and desire. We were unlucky not to go up, then we go worked out/slash the injuries started. 

Not true. There have been plenty of players who specialise in either position which we could have had. Kermorgant got injured at Bournemouth and they immediately brought in Kenweyne Jones on a loan as a replacement. They identified a like-for-like player which means a change in system wasn't necessary, and momentum continued.

Our biggest mistake in the 433 was not bringing in the required backup for Thorne/Eustace (incredibly unlicky both were injured at the same time) and Martin where we bought in a competely different player in Bent.

We didn't get worked out at all. We were top the following season two seasons, and only a change in system or loss of key personnel stopped us from completing the job.

This mentality that change was needed is wrong. We've gone backwards, when with the money we have spent we should be a Premier League club now if certain basic, easy decisions had been undertaken.

[Sexydadbod]

13 minutes ago, Bris Vegas said:

Are you really asking this? Have you not taken notice or learned of the the strengths and weaknesses of our players from the past few seasons?

Suggesting they are footballers and should be equally apt at playing in any sort of system or role is ridiculous (I'm not aiming this at you McLovin). 

 

I think the issue is that half the team are used to 4-3-3: Martin,Bryson,Hendrick, Hughes, Russell et all whilst the other half are more comfortable using other formations. This has created an unbalanced team in my opinion and has become a bit of a problem for a manager to try and find a solution. I loved watching us play 4-3-3 under McClaren but I think it has sadly run its course now and it is predictable to use against better teams, as we found against Burnley and Boro last season. Opposition teams know that if you stop the supply to Martin and man mark Thorne(when he is fit), you stop half of the good things about this formation. I hate talking about the play off final but I think it's done more harm than people say. Obviously ,the physiological impact but QPR used tactics that completely negated the formation's useful attacking side and more sides over time have adopted similar approaches to stop us when we have used this formation. Someone like Dawkins, who you and I both apprieciated, would have been extremely useful in this squad because he has the ability to play 4-3-3 and is versatile to play any other formation

[duncanjwitham]

All this talk of systems and formations is a red herring IMO.  It's much more simple than that - players have things that they're good at, and things that they're bad at.  Martin is great with the ball at his feet, and bad with it at his head.  Hendrick is good at getting on the ball and driving forward, and bad at holding his position and snuffing out danger.  And so on for the rest of the squad. This isn't based on one game, we have seen these players for years, and we all know what they're good at and bad at. The system Pearson is using, has almost every player doing what they're bad at, and being actively told to not do what they're good at.  That's just poor, poor management for me.

[archied]

9 minutes ago, Bris Vegas said:

Are you really asking this? Have you not taken notice or learned of the the strengths and weaknesses of our players from the past few seasons?

Suggesting they are footballers and should be equally apt at playing in any sort of system or role is ridiculous (I'm not aiming this at you McLovin). 

 

Do we think that perhaps player power has played a part in them not wanting to play other than 4 3 3 so not producing when playing any other way ,as opposed to not being able or suited to play any other way ,,,, easy enough to do for them with rookies like clement and wassell ,,, not so with Pearson ,,, may well explain mels excursion into dressing room and his apointment of Pearson ? I 100 per cent sure that at the moment Nige is making it very very clear to players who picks the team and system 

[Seth's left foot]

Nigel Pearson got the job because he is a good Manager.

You back seat managers either didn't apply or do well enough in the interview.

Those of you that are reaching for the razorblades please do us all a favour and piss off down the A52 to the half empty council tip, don't confuse opinions with being a negative never happy moaner.