Pearson gone

[Curtains]

57 minutes ago, Alpha said:

No, don't blame them for those incidents. 

Blame Wassall for asking us to go too direct in the 1st leg. For trying the same attack over and over for 90 mins even though it never looked like working. Blame him for the team playing so nervously. Blame him for the overall performance in the 90mins.

Then praise him for the overall performance in the excellent 2nd leg. 

Nobody expects a manager to control individual errors. But we can expect them to have influences on the flow of a match. The general planning in how we defend, transition and attack. 

By picking out goals you're ignoring almost the whole entire match. For the 1st leg Derby were 2nd best for the entire match so it's not surprising we conceded. In the 2nd leg we were the better team. Not surprising we forced mistakes out of Hull and put ourselves in better positions for individual uncontrollable moments to go in our favour. 

If Derby beat Leeds 1-0 in the 90th minute then that doesn't make 89 minutes irrelevant does it? However the goal comes you will still look upon the game and ask if Powell gave Derby the best possible chance of going out there and finding that goal

Big moments in games are vital for getting results  .

Take Derbys defeat to Leicester at Wembley and John Harkes missing a sitter or Paul Williams letting the ball through his legs on the goal line  resulting in Derby not getting promoted and the Foxes joy at going up . 

Players have to take responsibility when they cross that white line  

We have no leaders at Derby apart from Shackell but he isn't a fans favorite .

As regards Pearson here  is a good article m8 by sports reporter Steve Nicholson who is always a good read and it puts it in perspective. 

Didn't realize that Morris and Pearson went to dinner after PSV U23 game ! 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Derby County talking point: Steve Nicholson on Nigel Pearson's ill-fated reign as Rams boss

By Derbysport  |  Posted: October 10, 2016

By Steve Nicholson

   

   

 

Derby County are looking for another manager less than five months after appointing their last.

Chris Powell is likely to become the fourth man placed in permanent charge of the Rams in 2016 and Nigel Pearson is already another statistic in a year to forget.

 

And yet Pearson was seen as the man to take the club forward, the man to inject the extra ingredient missing in the previous three seasons.

 

Rams chairman Mel Morris described Pearson as an "uncannily" good fit when appointing him manager at the end of May.

 

The former Leicester City boss arrived with promotions on his CV and was viewed as the right man at the right time by many, including myself.

Derby parted company with Pearson on Saturday when his contract was terminated by mutual consent. He had been suspended pending an internal investigation following what is believed to have been a heated disagreement with Morris.

The "right man, right time", the "uncannily" good fit, the strong, experienced boss many fans wanted back in February following Paul Clement's dismissal lasted only 135 days. Little wonder there is confusion and concern.

 

 

So, where did it all go wrong?

No-one could have anticipated the extent of the poor results and performances from the start of the season, and this did not help Pearson. One win in his nine league games, five defeats, six points from 27 and only three goals scored is an awful record.

Did Pearson try to change too much too soon?

That is one argument although change was needed.

TIMELINE: Pearson's 135 days at Rams manager

Many players within the squad suit a 4-3-3 but Pearson had every right to try a different approach after the team had fallen short of the promotion finish line in three consecutive seasons. Derby had been criticised for having no Plan B and for being something of a "one-trick pony" when it comes to formations, especially over an arduous 46-match Championship campaign.

A tighter shape when not in possession was needed, and still is needed moving forward, otherwise there is likely to be disappointment again at the business end of seasons.

Players need systems in which they can feel comfortable and in which they can express themselves but they must also be flexible, able to adapt to other ways.

 

 

Style over substance can be a trap because football is about winning, and knowing how to win. Successful teams are able to win games in all sorts of ways, not just in one way.

Managers carry the can for results, of course they do, and I have seen enough managers come and go to understand that, but they cannot be solely to blame.

 

On his appointment, Pearson said: "I, as a manager, take responsibility for what we produce on the field of play but I cannot do my job without the support of people around me. It is very important we stay very focused on what we are trying to achieve. To do that, we have got to work together."

 

There is a responsibility on all shoulders.

The stats and position in the table show that Derby's players have not delivered on a consistent basis. They need to take a look at themselves and they now need to step up to the plate. There have been signs of them doing so in the past two matches but more is required.

Did Derby, and Pearson, wait too long to make their moves in the transfer window?

That is another argument, although it was always likely that players would have to move out before others came in, as we saw within the space of a few days late in the window when Matej Vydra and Ikechi Anya arrived and Jeff Hendrick (below) and Chris Martin departed.

 

Pearson was right to take time to assess at close quarters the squad he inherited. That made sense, and the performances and results probably told him a lot.

And what of the relationship between Morris and Pearson?

There were no signs of such a speedy parting in the days leading up to the defeat by Blackburn Rovers, Pearson's final game.

The pair watched the under-23s beat PSV Eindhoven at St George's Park on the Thursday night and had dinner afterwards, I understand.

 

Morris made it clear the following day that Pearson was the man to take Derby forward but the team's limp performance against Blackburn sent Rams into the bottom three.

There was a meeting between the two at the training ground on the Monday. If the relationship deteriorated at that meeting, then how quickly, by how much and why? They are questions to which only the two of them will know the answers.

Rewind the clock to May, and to the press conference when Pearson was introduced to the media. At that conference, Morris was asked how he saw his relationship with Pearson working, and he answered: "In terms of him (Pearson) being a strong guy, I like that. It means you can have a discussion if you need to have a discussion. You don't have to dance around things."

 

Football is a game of opinions.

Some will believe Pearson had long enough, others will not. For me, four months, two of which were pre-season in Pearson's case, is not a long enough adjustment period for a manager.

Nine league games is certainly not long enough but this is no time to look back because we have to move on, again.

Read more at http://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/derby-county-talking-point-steve-nicholson-on-nigel-pearson-s-ill-fated-reign-as-rams-boss/story-29793784-detail/story.html#ciS5LMRalcgKuhwR.99

[Malagaram]

On 08/10/2016 at 18:22, Anag Ram said:

Mutual consent is where one person gets f@@ked but it's okay because they were asking for it.

Surely you have missed an a out Anag Ram

[duncanjwitham]

49 minutes ago, curtains said:

A tighter shape when not in possession was needed, and still is needed moving forward, otherwise there is likely to be disappointment again at the business end of seasons.

The thing is though, that is the exact opposite of what Pearson did.  More often than not, we had 3 or 4 out and out attackers pushed right up, the back 4 sitting very deep and 2 or 3 midfielders trying to sit deep in front of them, and also get forward to support the attackers.  So we actually ended up with less men behind the ball and the team being strung out over the length of the pitch (deep defenders, high attackers), which simultaneously made it difficult for us to keep the ball (due to the big spaces between our lines) and left it wide open for the opponents to run through us when we did lose the ball.

[Wolfie]

That's the DET banned from post-match interviews....

[Curtains]

8 minutes ago, Wolfie said:

That's the DET banned from post-match interviews....

Nothing wrong with the DET article  

Interesting that Morris and Pearson went for dinner after the PSV U23 game on the Thursday before the Blackburn game and then met on the Monday after the Saturday Blackburn defeat .

http://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/derby-county-talking-point-steve-nicholson-on-nigel-pearson-s-ill-fated-reign-as-rams-boss/story-29793784-detail/story.html

[Curtains]

14 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

The thing is though, that is the exact opposite of what Pearson did.  More often than not, we had 3 or 4 out and out attackers pushed right up, the back 4 sitting very deep and 2 or 3 midfielders trying to sit deep in front of them, and also get forward to support the attackers.  So we actually ended up with less men behind the ball and the team being strung out over the length of the pitch (deep defenders, high attackers), which simultaneously made it difficult for us to keep the ball (due to the big spaces between our lines) and left it wide open for the opponents to run through us when we did lose the ball.

You have quoted me for  part of the Steve Nicholson DET article which puts the situation at Derby into perspective.

I do agree with the business end of the season bit though 

I agree with his article in entirety 

 

http://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/derby-county-talking-point-steve-nicholson-on-nigel-pearson-s-ill-fated-reign-as-rams-boss/story-29793784-detail/story.html

[duncanjwitham]

1 minute ago, curtains said:

You have quoted me for  part of the Steve Nicholson DET article which puts the situation at Derby into perspective.

 

http://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/derby-county-talking-point-steve-nicholson-on-nigel-pearson-s-ill-fated-reign-as-rams-boss/story-29793784-detail/story.html

Yeah, sorry I should have made it clear that I wasn't quoting you, but Steve.

[Curtains]

5 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

Yeah, sorry I should have made it clear that I wasn't quoting you, but Steve.

That's fine. 

Yes your right the 4-4-2  as opposed to the 4-3-3 does leave you more vulnerable on the counter attack but the idea is to have players like Bryson,Hughes ,Anya and Ince tracking back. 

The 4-4-2 is a much more counter attacking system. 

It can be classed as a bit outdated in modern football theorists terms. 

You need good defenders when using any system though. 

[TelTheRam]

Some good points in that article but it completely ignores the fact that the reason Pearson was suspended was nothing to do with results or performances.

[PodgeyRam]

It also ignores the fact that managers should be able to adapt to the players they have. There is nothing inherently wrong with playing 442 - Leicester won the league playing it. What do they have that we don't? Players that suit the system.

If you want to play 442, that's fine but don't drop players in it when it clearly doesn't suit their strengths. Introduce it slowly. Continue with 433 until you have the players to make 442 work properly.

He was stubborn, too stubborn and that is not a good trait to have as a manager. I'm sure he wanted to do his best, just like players were doing their best. But he was foolish in the way he went about things.

Didn't want him. Was willing to give him a chance. Would've given him a bit longer, but it seems he couldn't control himself around his boss. What an idiot - both in footballing terms and people skills.

[brady1993]

2 minutes ago, PodgeyRam said:

It also ignores the fact that managers should be able to adapt to the players they have. There is nothing inherently wrong with playing 442 - Leicester won the league playing it. What do they have that we don't? Players that suit the system.

If you want to play 442, that's fine but don't drop players in it when it clearly doesn't suit their strengths. Introduce it slowly. Continue with 433 until you have the players to make 442 work properly.

He was stubborn, too stubborn and that is not a good trait to have as a manager. I'm sure he wanted to do his best, just like players were doing their best. But he was foolish in the way he went about things.

Didn't want him. Was willing to give him a chance. Would've given him a bit longer, but it seems he couldn't control himself around his boss. What an idiot - both in footballing terms and people skills.

Heck he could have changed from a 433 whilst still having a formation and system that played to our strengths, we could have easily transitioned to 4231, 41212 (Diamond), 532 or 5311 in the summer and played high pressing attacking football.

[PodgeyRam]

2 minutes ago, brady1993 said:

Heck he could have changed from a 433 whilst still having a formation and system that played to our strengths, we could have easily transitioned to 4231, 41212 (Diamond), 532 or 5311 in the summer and played high pressing attacking football.

Precisely. A complete lack of imagination, understanding and basic footballing knowledge on his part. I would also assume a complete lack of homework on his part given he had plenty of time to watch the tapes of last season and come to an understanding of why we played well in some matches (Hull home, Hull away playoffs) and not so well in others (Hull away playoffs).

As I said before - what an idiot.

[brady1993]

11 minutes ago, PodgeyRam said:

Precisely. A complete lack of imagination, understanding and basic footballing knowledge on his part. I would also assume a complete lack of homework on his part given he had plenty of time to watch the tapes of last season and come to an understanding of why we played well in some matches (Hull home, Hull away playoffs) and not so well in others (Hull away playoffs).

As I said before - what an idiot.

What really worries me is this a lot of this was known about him prior to his appointment (albeit maybe not to this extent) and this is the second 'wrong fit' appointment  (excluding Wassell) in a row, with Pearson being much a worse fit than Clement was. I'm starting to think the only way we will get the right manager is by sheer dumb luck.

[archied]

I honestly believe the major problem was not mainly formation ,,the major point for me was he very rigidly from day one put the ethos in place that every / every player was starting with a clean slate and every first team place was to be earnt on merit by 100 percent work rate and commitment in training and matches , managers have given this lip service and not carried it through or backed down when results dipped ,,, for me this was and is the first building block for Pearson whether at Derby or anywhere else for that matter ,,,, when push came to shove he was not 100 percent backed in this ,, Mel blinked first ,, now whether he would have gone on to succeed or not non of us can say for certain , he may well not have been a fit long term but make no mistake that vital first building block/ hurdle / ethos change is going to have to be faced and sorted by any manager if he is going to take Derby forward

[RoyMac5]

54 minutes ago, archied said:

... Mel blinked first ,, now whether he would have gone on to succeed or not non of us can say for certain , he may well not have been a fit long term but make no mistake that vital first building block/ hurdle / ethos change is going to have to be faced and sorted by any manager if he is going to take Derby forward

Why is the way Pearson attempted to fit square pegs in round holes the way to go? Thank goodness Mel blinked first and realised there are other ways to manage a squad of players!

[archied]

Sorry but the old square pegs round holes has been trotted out constantly during the tenure of at least 3 managers prior to Pearson and now also Pearson ,,, it's a cliche and a very tired one in my view now ,,, I'm bored with the unbalanced opinions on Pearson that are based solely on personal dislike of the bloke ,, I personally wanted him as manager but that does not stop me from feeling there's stuff he could have handled a lot smarter and it cost him his job but anybody thinking that our players and chairman are not at least equally to blame for the mess that is our club just now is choosing to be totally blinkered ,, ince is the best example ,, he's been played in various positions and found to be totally inconsistant in them all but it's never him it's just he's not being played in his best and preferred position,,, perhaps we have too many over swollen mishapen pegs that don't quite fit in round or square holes and a chairman who back a manager to knock them into shape

[Ninos]

Pearson was doomed, partly because of the situation he found himself in and partly because of how he dealt with it:

He tries to put in a new formation, he drops players (ince martin russell shackell johnson) and tries new ones (bent blackman russell butterfield pearce). At that point, he needed results, and he got none. The new group fails and the replaced group stews.  Vydra struggles, no forward player can score, the full backs can't cross, none of the forwards can hit the net. He complains throughout we have too many players out of form or not confident - which is really the combination of a hangover from the failures before (fragility) and also the bloated journeymen squad we have where players are yo yoed in and out of the starting 11 and are numb from it, to the point where they must shrug their shoulders and just train to collect a paycheque. Toxic dressing room. Not true for the Hughes, Elsnik, and Lowes of the side who play with a point to prove and to crack the team.

Then he panics because he's hot for points, and he starts doing nutty substitutions or non substitutions (when we had the lead) forgetting how he needs to aggressively manufacture results. The losses, coupled with the boring static hoofball play would then provide fuel for the benched senior players - shacks, russell, bent, martin, johnson, Ince - to make their point that it wasn't them because we still struggled. In the last straw he turns on the players fully (see the post game interview), and there is no one left to defend him; poor play, bad results, and now disgruntled players. and there is no way out. 

What he showed in the end is that he was unable to motivate the group before bad results overwhelmed him and at that point, motivation became impossible because he'd lost faith in most of the players and they knew it based on their game time.

I have no doubt that he regretted not orchestrating a clear out of players before the season started - but he prob began shaping after it was too late.

[archied]

8 hours ago, Ninos said:

Pearson was doomed, partly because of the situation he found himself in and partly because of how he dealt with it:

He tries to put in a new formation, he drops players (ince martin russell shackell johnson) and tries new ones (bent blackman russell butterfield pearce). At that point, he needed results, and he got none. The new group fails and the replaced group stews.  Vydra struggles, no forward player can score, the full backs can't cross, none of the forwards can hit the net. He complains throughout we have too many players out of form or not confident - which is really the combination of a hangover from the failures before (fragility) and also the bloated journeymen squad we have where players are yo yoed in and out of the starting 11 and are numb from it, to the point where they must shrug their shoulders and just train to collect a paycheque. Toxic dressing room. Not true for the Hughes, Elsnik, and Lowes of the side who play with a point to prove and to crack the team.

Then he panics because he's hot for points, and he starts doing nutty substitutions or non substitutions (when we had the lead) forgetting how he needs to aggressively manufacture results. The losses, coupled with the boring static hoofball play would then provide fuel for the benched senior players - shacks, russell, bent, martin, johnson, Ince - to make their point that it wasn't them because we still struggled. In the last straw he turns on the players fully (see the post game interview), and there is no one left to defend him; poor play, bad results, and now disgruntled players. and there is no way out. 

What he showed in the end is that he was unable to motivate the group before bad results overwhelmed him and at that point, motivation became impossible because he'd lost faith in most of the players and they knew it based on their game time.

I have no doubt that he regretted not orchestrating a clear out of players before the season started - but he prob began shaping after it was too late.

Spot on post ,,, I'm willing to bet he had lost confidence in the players by the end of the Blackburn game and had pretty much nowhere left to go with them and no chance to change it up till January and even then there would have probably been a settling in period for new players coming in in Jan so it could very well have been a disasterous relegation season ( probably had to go under those circumstances ) now this is where I take real issue with the players ,,, I can see a manager perhaps not getting it right with formations and a squad like Derby going from challenging to mid table but these players dropping so far that they are relegation candidates ? Hang your head in shame the majority of Derby players and best of luck Mel Morris sorting that mess out ,, one thing is for sure ,we cannot let any new permanent manager venture into the next full season with this core of players because he will be hung out to dry by these players if he does not do things their way ,,,,, the car is steering the driver now ,,, pearsons big mistake was not making enough changes in the summer , he needed a core of players who were his who he could trust ,,,, as I've posted here before this stupid transfer window stuff is the undoing of managers and football and Hands total power to the players who are all to often overpaid over ego 'd primal Donna's with over inflated ideas of their own talent and importance 

[toddy]

Pearson gone, but at least we can revert back to 4-3-3 as our players cannot play any other way.

[61GT]

10 hours ago, Ninos said:

Pearson was doomed, partly because of the situation he found himself in and partly because of how he dealt with it:

He tries to put in a new formation, he drops players (ince martin russell shackell johnson) and tries new ones (bent blackman russell butterfield pearce). At that point, he needed results, and he got none. The new group fails and the replaced group stews.  Vydra struggles, no forward player can score, the full backs can't cross, none of the forwards can hit the net. He complains throughout we have too many players out of form or not confident - which is really the combination of a hangover from the failures before (fragility) and also the bloated journeymen squad we have where players are yo yoed in and out of the starting 11 and are numb from it, to the point where they must shrug their shoulders and just train to collect a paycheque. Toxic dressing room. Not true for the Hughes, Elsnik, and Lowes of the side who play with a point to prove and to crack the team.

Then he panics because he's hot for points, and he starts doing nutty substitutions or non substitutions (when we had the lead) forgetting how he needs to aggressively manufacture results. The losses, coupled with the boring static hoofball play would then provide fuel for the benched senior players - shacks, russell, bent, martin, johnson, Ince - to make their point that it wasn't them because we still struggled. In the last straw he turns on the players fully (see the post game interview), and there is no one left to defend him; poor play, bad results, and now disgruntled players. and there is no way out. 

What he showed in the end is that he was unable to motivate the group before bad results overwhelmed him and at that point, motivation became impossible because he'd lost faith in most of the players and they knew it based on their game time.

I have no doubt that he regretted not orchestrating a clear out of players before the season started - but he prob began shaping after it was too late.

Best post I've read on the recent shambles and one I wholeheartedly agree with.