I really like new Nigel Pearson

[mwram1973]

1 hour ago, PodgeyRam said:

I can't put my finger on it. I've gone back through the post match interviews and can't find anything that immediately leaps out, so I can only surmise I'm wrong on that I'm completely wrong on that count. I don't think that invalidates the rest of my post though.

Reason I questioned it is because it's known that players love playing for him, he's a proper man manager and even when Leicester were having their rough patch he was deflecting the blame from them onto himself.

 

[Howard Canitbé]

On 8/10/2016 at 11:36, Kennington Ram said:

I'll always remember Pearson's complete demolition of us in 2013/14, when we actually stood a chance of overhauling them and winning automatic promotion at the time.

We tried hard that night to play the pass heavy and exciting 4-3-3, and had some limited success, but Pearson's side just soaked it up and smashed us time and time again.

At the end of last season, as much as I enjoyed the swashbuckling stuff we have tried mostly to play, it's just not going to get us promoted and can lead to some real misery (see Hull at home).

So I'm glad Pearson has the backbone and experience to see through the changes we need to take the next step. He seems a resolute man with a realistic outlook, and expects players to perform consistently to their best in a range of formations designed to win games. It may take more than a season, but I'll back that.

 

This puts in mind a quote that may or may not have been made by Albert Einstein.

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results."

3 years now we've played the same style, and 3 years we've failed to get promoted and (I'd argue for the latter two) flattered to deceive. Time to change tact. The swashbuckling football gets us mixed results against the teams that ultimately end up promoted, i.e. Leicester under Pearson, Burnley under Dyche and Hull last season in the play-offs. It works, but seems easy to deal with for an experienced manager with a bit of nous and a good game plan.

[cannable]

6 minutes ago, Howard Canitbé said:

 

This puts in mind a quote that may or may not have been made by Albert Einstein.

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results."

3 years now we've played the same style, and 3 years we've failed to get promoted and (I'd argue for the latter two) flattered to deceive. Time to change tact. The swashbuckling football gets us mixed results against the teams that ultimately end up promoted, i.e. Leicester under Pearson, Burnley under Dyche and Hull last season in the play-offs. It works, but seems easy to deal with for an experienced manager with a bit of nous and a good game plan.

It wasn't the same style last season under Clement…

[May Contain Nuts]

It wasn't the same style at home against Hull in the playoffs either. That night our tactic was the already known to be abysmal long ball to the wings for Bradley Johnson to head it infield. We certainly didn't try to play any good football that day.

[cannable]

3 minutes ago, Coconut said:

It wasn't the same style at home against Hull in the playoffs either. That night our tactic was the already known to be abysmal long ball to the wings for Bradley Johnson to head it infield. We certainly didn't try to play any good football that day.

We'd already shown that we could impose our game on them and outplay them so I have no idea why we tried to beat them at their own game. Whoever came up with that idea wants retiring… and considering there was an article with Redknapp the shortly before that game in which he stated that he suggested we went more direct… 

[Howard Canitbé]

10 minutes ago, cannable said:

It wasn't the same style last season under Clement…

For 3 years our main strategy has been 4-3-3, control the ball if possible, press high and play off the centre forward (Chris Martin). Pearson's style is the first time we've had a departure from that system with the current squad. 

[DeanYatesFarPost]

2 hours ago, Jimmy Skitz said:

 

all this about when we played you, I work with a Derby season ticket holder and 3 years in a row in the build up to our game at the KP, we always seemed to play there first, he'd be talking about how you'd rip us apart if we let you play how you pass people off the park every week you were destroying everyone and each time I would look him in the eye and say "derby we'll stick 3 or 4 past you" he'd get all upset telling me how deluded I was and then after the game he'd come in all quiet and trying to hide after we had done just that, for all your great passing play you were mentally weak and could easily be bullied and each time after our game you nosedived down the league and never got back to your previous form, after 1 bad defeat, Pearson knew that then and knows it now, that will be what he is trying to fix.

That said I did laugh when I heard he had fallen out with his captain again, he did it twice in 2 seasons here with Matt Mills and Neil Danns (the latter he made captain), its what he does, players who fall foul of him will vanish, he sold Max Gradel to Leeds for about £100k because they fell out at a time when we were crying out for a creative winger. 

I agree with you we have the skill and talent but not the mentality -we are a team with a soft underbelly. Need to fix that and we will progress. Watch this space in terms of which players will adapt to the Pearson way and who will move on  and who will be brought in. The end result needed is to achieve promotion , which both Derby and Pearson have done previously, just not together.

[cannable]

7 minutes ago, Howard Canitbé said:

For 3 years our main strategy has been 4-3-3, control the ball if possible, press high and play off the centre forward (Chris Martin). Pearson's style is the first time we've had a departure from that system with the current squad. 

We certainly didn't press high under Clement! We sat deep with two banks of four and the third midfielder pushed up front! 

[Pearl Ram]

21 minutes ago, Howard Canitbé said:

 

The swashbuckling football gets us mixed results against the teams that ultimately end up promoted, i.e. Leicester under Pearson, Burnley under Dyche and Hull last season in the play-offs. It works, but seems easy to deal with for an experienced manager with a bit of nous and a good game plan.

Ay up Howard, now this is where I'd argue the point that against the top sides, we appeared to abandon our usual approach and have gone out more cautious, particularly against Boro, it really did seem to me we stopped swashing buckles and worried too much about them as opposed to having a "you worry about us" approach.

Now bear in mind I don't get to games currently and only see us via Sky, so I am happy to be corrected on that but I feel we changed our tactics to let's not lose from let's get the win and we weren't comfortable with it because it went against our usual philosophy. 

[Alph]

Under McClaren he had the idea that you need 6 passes to gain proper possession. He challenged the players to make 6 passes after winning the ball. 

Then it was to burst into life. Martin to drop deep. Defender follows? Bryson goes past. Backline pushes high to stop us playing? Then he spoke about it becoming a "full back match". Opposition sits off? Here was obviously the most difficult because we used to waste early chances for an early goal. But again we used to often find a way through.

That was nothing like Clement. @cannable has obviously spoke about the defensive differences but in terms of in possession.

Shackell, Warnock, Johnson and Russell all on the left side? There's no chance of good possession or a burst of play there. 

The midfield 3? Under McClaren they were staggered. Clement had them flat. Maybe again that was more down to Bryson being our but still.

6 pass rule? More like "keep the ball so we don't concede." 

If teams squashed Martin it never became a full back game because the left flank was negative. We were hopelessly one handed. 

I'm not slating Clement's ideas. It just wasn't the same as McClaren's. And all these lads have played the best stuff of their entire careers in that small period. 

As for it failing. Let's pretend we weren't hot favourites for the play offs and the following year we weren't in the top 3 all the time until our injuries and subsequent failure to cope with them.

Let's just say we weren't quite good enough for arguments sake. You don't chuck it in the bin. You upgrade players. You provide depth for the injuries. You learn not to tinker like crazy with defenders. 

It's not like we didn't have the money.

We sold wingers and didn't replace then. We didn't buy anyone to back Thorne up last summer. It's been madness. 

So its not fair to say we've been trying something for 3 years. We haven't.  We tried it from September 13 until May 14 and it worked

We tried it from August 14 until May 15 and it worked until February where we lost

Our second and third choice DM.

Our first and second choice strikers. 

And played musical chairs with defenders. 

 

[King Kevin]

23 hours ago, Inglorius said:

Personally I can track our demise to the day we sacked Nigel Clough 

Personally I can track our demise to the day we sacked Brian Clough.

[Curtains]

1 minute ago, King Kevin said:

Personally I can track our demise to the day we sacked Brian Clough.

Personally I can track it to the day we sacked Dave Mackay. 

 

No sorry Jim Smith. 

[Rev]

9 minutes ago, Alpha said:

Under McClaren he had the idea that you need 6 passes to gain proper possession. He challenged the players to make 6 passes after winning the ball. 

Then it was to burst into life. Martin to drop deep. Defender follows? Bryson goes past. Backline pushes high to stop us playing? Then he spoke about it becoming a "full back match". Opposition sits off? Here was obviously the most difficult because we used to waste early chances for an early goal. But again we used to often find a way through.

That was nothing like Clement. @cannable has obviously spoke about the defensive differences but in terms of in possession.

Shackell, Warnock, Johnson and Russell all on the left side? There's no chance of good possession or a burst of play there. 

The midfield 3? Under McClaren they were staggered. Clement had them flat. Maybe again that was more down to Bryson being our but still.

6 pass rule? More like "keep the ball so we don't concede." 

If teams squashed Martin it never became a full back game because the left flank was negative. We were hopelessly one handed. 

I'm not slating Clement's ideas. It just wasn't the same as McClaren's. And all these lads have played the best stuff of their entire careers in that small period. 

As for it failing. Let's pretend we weren't hot favourites for the play offs and the following year we weren't in the top 3 all the time until our injuries and subsequent failure to cope with them.

Let's just say we weren't quite good enough for arguments sake. You don't chuck it in the bin. You upgrade players. You provide depth for the injuries. You learn not to tinker like crazy with defenders. 

It's not like we didn't have the money.

We sold wingers and didn't replace then. We didn't buy anyone to back Thorne up last summer. It's been madness. 

So its not fair to say we've been trying something for 3 years. We haven't.  We tried it from September 13 until May 14 and it worked

We tried it from August 14 until May 15 and it worked until February where we lost

Our second and third choice DM.

Our first and second choice strikers. 

And played musical chairs with defenders. 

 

Fgs Mel, I know you read the forum, make this man director of football asap.

[Alph]

1 minute ago, reveldevil said:

Fgs Mel, I know you read the forum, make this man director of football asap.

And what if my well rehearsed theories don't work when you have to work with actual human interaction? I'll have some knob head on a message board making long posts about how clueless I am. They're out there you know?

[Curtains]

3 minutes ago, reveldevil said:

Fgs Mel, I know you read the forum, make this man director of football asap.

What you on about why do you think he's right. 

Its easy on paper lol. 

[Rev]

2 minutes ago, Alpha said:

And what if my well rehearsed theories don't work when you have to work with actual human interaction? I'll have some knob head on a message board making long posts about how clueless I am. They're out there you know?

Surely you'll stop posting when appointed?

[Alph]

1 minute ago, reveldevil said:

Surely you'll stop posting when appointed?

No chance. I'd be posting pictures of my Ferrari. 

From the phone I had in its case in my pocket that was password locked. 

Eh Joleon?  

[Rev]

9 minutes ago, curtains said:

What you on about why do you think he's right. 

Its easy on paper lol. 

It's easy on paper yes, but good managers make it easy on the pitch too, which is what Stevie Mac did, until multiple injury's in the same two positions derailed us.

If we'd have kept him, and funded him the way we did Clement, we'd be looking forward to a Premier League campaign now, not another season in the Championship.

Imo.

Tweaking, better players than Ward and Russell, back up's for Thorne and Martin, and some better luck would have seen us up.

Instead we swallowed the sticking plaster effect both Ince and Bent had, decided we had to have them, then Spunked another £20m on players that didn't suit our established style, Butterfield for Hughes possibly the only exception.

Now Pearson has to undo the damage, as someone else said he's having to break a lot of eggs to make his omelette, let's hope it works.

[RadioactiveWaste]

4 hours ago, reveldevil said:

After benching Martin and Hughes during his first league game in charge, and rumours that Martin is on his way, an early portrait of Pearson has now come to light.

He's a hard man, that's obvious enough.

[DCFCArmy]

i love the fact he benched Hughes... that really did upset a fair few people.. And I get the feeling he doesn't give a f***.. more reason I love the bloke, at last a man that doesn't pander to the loonies.