Jump to content

Nigel Pearson - Were we going down?


Nuwtfly
 Share

Recommended Posts

*Puts tin hat on*

Been thinking about this a lot recently, especially considering our recent slump, and when looking at the progress Brighton have made over the last few years.

We start pretty bloody awfully under Pearson. No question of that. The football was dull and the players looked lost. This wasn't much of a surprise, considering he was trying to force a group who were all used to one formation (bar one or two like Vydra) to play a rigid 4-4-2.

But had he have been given time, would we have started getting it right under Pearson? I personally thought, and still think, that we wouldn't have been relegated, and probably would of ended up finishing around mid-table at best, considering the transition the club needed to go through to get used to the new regime.

And would that have been such a bad thing? Brighton finished nearer the relegation zone than the play-offs in Hughton's first season. They've progressed year after year and have set an example to everyone on the football league, over how patience can pay off. Mel Morris, take note.

So was it all bad under Pearson? Were we really going down? Or should he, in retrospect, been given at least a season?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Nuwtfly said:

*Puts tin hat on*

Been thinking about this a lot recently, especially considering our recent slump, and when looking at the progress Brighton have made over the last few years.

We start pretty bloody awfully under Pearson. No question of that. The football was dull and the players looked lost. This wasn't much of a surprise, considering he was trying to force a group who were all used to one formation (bar one or two like Vydra) to play a rigid 4-4-2.

But had he have been given time, would we have started getting it right under Pearson? I personally thought, and still think, that we wouldn't have been relegated, and probably would of ended up finishing around mid-table at best, considering the transition the club needed to go through to get used to the new regime.

And would that have been such a bad thing? Brighton finished nearer the relegation zone than the play-offs in Hughton's first season. They've progressed year after year and have set an example to everyone on the football league, over how patience can pay off. Mel Morris, take note.

So was it all bad under Pearson? Were we really going down? Or should he, in retrospect, been given at least a season?

I've banged on about Brighton being an example to follow for ages here. 

I think if Pearson hadn't been at the centre of shenanigans he'd still be here. I don't think we'd have been relegated either, but I do think it would have come too close for comfort had he still been in charge. As others have said, he dallied all pre-season before deciding last minute he needed players in (which goes someway I think to explain the prices we paid for them), and it would have been interesting to see what he would have done in January. 

I think he tried too hard and too fast to make it his way or the highway, I don't want the thread to be hijacked by the same old debates, but to move on our best striker in a ludicrous loan deal, and somehow make Hughes and Ince look like poor footballers, takes some doing. Bringing in Chris Weale as well, when we have a wealth of goalkeeping cover, said a lot about his judgement to me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Too aggressive. Lost the players. Poor transfer strategy. Hoofball. 

Not a lot to admire tbh.

we are in a much better place now despite the poor run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pearson problems were like Mac at Forest - tried to change too much too soon.

Whether you like him on a personal basis has no bearing on Pearson's playing experience and managerial experience so for me I don't think we would have been relegated, more somewhere where we currently are mid table.

As for his Derby record he only had 9 games [and remember was not sacked/left because of what went on the pitch] although pts and overall performance were awful, no different to Mac's last 9 or 10 games games?

Every manager needs time, Mac needs time to offload those that do not perform and bring in players that he wants, roll on August!

COYR

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, toddy said:

Pearson problems were like Mac at Forest - tried to change too much too soon.

Whether you like him on a personal basis has no bearing on Pearson's playing experience and managerial experience so for me I don't think we would have been relegated, more somewhere where we currently are mid table.

As for his Derby record he only had 9 games [and remember was not sacked/left because of what went on the pitch] although pts and overall performance were awful, no different to Mac's last 9 or 10 games games?

Every manager needs time, Mac needs time to offload those that do not perform and bring in players that he wants, roll on August!

COYR

 

I agree with most of this Toddy, except I think our performances under Mac were better overall (save one or two), even if the results went against us. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Nuwtfly said:

*Puts tin hat on*

Been thinking about this a lot recently, especially considering our recent slump, and when looking at the progress Brighton have made over the last few years.

We start pretty bloody awfully under Pearson. No question of that. The football was dull and the players looked lost. This wasn't much of a surprise, considering he was trying to force a group who were all used to one formation (bar one or two like Vydra) to play a rigid 4-4-2.

But had he have been given time, would we have started getting it right under Pearson? I personally thought, and still think, that we wouldn't have been relegated, and probably would of ended up finishing around mid-table at best, considering the transition the club needed to go through to get used to the new regime.

And would that have been such a bad thing? Brighton finished nearer the relegation zone than the play-offs in Hughton's first season. They've progressed year after year and have set an example to everyone on the football league, over how patience can pay off. Mel Morris, take note.

So was it all bad under Pearson? Were we really going down? Or should he, in retrospect, been given at least a season?

We probably would have been ok overall but he still deserved his sacking. His summer business ended up being awful and it was near on showing contempt for the club. You can be forgiven for a poor window, but not when it's due to poor planning and attitude. He had no clear plan and when you are a club with expectations (which seems daft all considering, but fans still expected this season) you just can't do that.

In a weird way though, we are probably about where he'd want us to be. Expectations will be lowered for next season (that's with fans and opposition) and we are starting to work a new style of playing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, toddy said:

Pearson problems were like Mac at Forest - tried to change too much too soon.

Whether you like him on a personal basis has no bearing on Pearson's playing experience and managerial experience so for me I don't think we would have been relegated, more somewhere where we currently are mid table.

As for his Derby record he only had 9 games [and remember was not sacked/left because of what went on the pitch] although pts and overall performance were awful, no different to Mac's last 9 or 10 games games?

Every manager needs time, Mac needs time to offload those that do not perform and bring in players that he wants, roll on August!

COYR

 

I think it's a bit different tbh

McClaren, 12 goals for and 13 against. -1 GD

7 points, 2 wins, 2 draws, 5 losses

Pearson: 3 goals for and 9 against. -6GD

6 points, 1 win, 3 draws, 6 losses

 

I think that extra win, which matters a lot over the short sample size of only 9 games, and the much better goal-scoring rate, says we have a bit more about us down on our luck with McClaren than we did with Pearson. I can't think of a single half of football I watched under Pearson that I felt we were better than the opposition whereas with McClaren we have some horrorshows like Bristol 3-3 and Cardiff 3-4 but at least we actually had some ability about us. At times in those games we defended well, even though the scoreline might suggest otherwise. We got ourselves some goals at least.

There was literally no saving grace with Pearson. Zero. Nothing. I know this because I thought I would never celebrate a manager being sacked after just 9 games but it was the right decision, football reasons or not. He wasn't compatible with the club.

We're starting to see the shoots of a turnaround now under Mac in the last 4 games. Why? Because he understands man-management, he gets the players and how to get the best out of them. That doesn't necessarily mean being gentle with them as he has warned them at times that he's planning for next season and poor performances now could mean losing their spot come August. But Pearson just laid into them constantly. Made excuses. He often did something I cannot stand and he said "they" a lot in interviews. "They let us down today", "THEY didn't keep the ball well", "THEY got it all wrong today", "THE PLAYERS didn't rise to the occasion". McClaren, and most decent managers out there, say "We". Win as a team, lose as a team. "We were poor" (i.e. The players were, and so was our preparation. WE must do better).

He just had a horrible mentality. He obviously didn't want to manage this team but you've got to pay the bills and we were the best option. Decent team, good pay... You can always tell when a Derby manager has the sleepy, unshaven bearded homeless man look that they're on there way. Clement had the famous "looks like he slept on a park bench last night" Ramsplayer interview around January time. Pearson had his two games in. Wasn't enjoying the experience. Had to go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trouble is obviously something needs to change with the whole mentality at the club and Pearson was allegedly the man to sort that, he may well have given time

i look back to Clement and think what would of been, still a strange dismissal however the board wanted the comfy slipper back on and SM came back.....

look at us now...................

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The mistake was appointing Pearson in the first place. The whole point of the maligned 'Derby Way' was to build a style and recruit to fit. Surely Morris et al knew what Pearson was about - his philosophies both on and off the pitch? Is that not the point of an interview? Or did Pearson just say what they wanted to hear? Either way, it was a change in direction from Clement's style, and further still from McClaren's.

But that's not what you're asking.

If you're going to stick to such a change in tack, there needed to be changes in the playing staff. Pearson had a full pre-season with the players, and for whatever reason, was either of the mind that there was the correct mix of players to play how he wanted, or he was told from above that he had to use what he had in front of him.

How many of this crop had played in a 4-4-2 (or variant of)? From the first few league performances, none of them, save for the back four. So at least there was a platform. Leave Carson and the defence alone. However, the front six just looked lost for ideas, with everyone looking like they'd been pinned to their 5 yard square of pitch. Fine defensively, naff all going forward.

Only then did we start buying, panic buying at that, leaving it to the end of the transfer window and seemingly having our pants pulled down with Vydra and Anya, and the frankly mystifying and unnecessary addition of Chris Weale. Ally in the dressing room, perhaps? Then to let the top, proven scorer leave to a rival on loan.. beyond words. In the interest of this scenario, though, Martin was bound to go anyway. Slight upside to that deal, was that, in combination with the £10m headline from Hendrick's sale, means we probably evened out the spend this season.

But why did it take that long to understand that the playing staff needed a shake up? What was so encouraging from the training and preseason, from what Pearson et al see that the fans didn't? Because it certainly didn't translate to the pitch.

The difference between Clement and Pearson was that I could see signs that the players were beginning to 'get it' under Clement, while still staying solid. No such indications under Pearson. Maybe the players didn't want to, but I don't want to fall into that cliche.

His suspension though was a clear indication that there was a very big problem off the pitch. If its one or two players he's falling out with, then fair enough. That's the player's problem, you can't get along with everyone. But if its a lot of them, that's Pearson's problem. You have to learn how to deal with different types of people, in any area of leadership. I'd soon have nobody wanting to join my Scout troop if I wasn't flexible enough to understand how Timmy reacts differently to Dave when being told off.

Something had to give - so it had to be Pearson, because its easy. Powell said after the Cardiff game, that team was Pearson's team. I didn't believe it at the time, and I don't believe it now. Would have been interesting if it was.

 

TL;DR - in my opinion, Pearson was doomed to fail after the summer transfer window closed. He either needed to use the players better with a system they knew, or more needed to be done, by all concerned, to bring in players to fit the system. In the end though, nobody comes out of that sorry affair with any credit.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Under Pearson we were playing shnotverygood, not getting wins and at the wrong end of the table. I knew under him the football wasn't going to be Barcalona'esq but it was dyer, if you are getting wins and near the top you can kind of live with it. Likewise if you are at the wrong end and playing some decent football, at least there are signs. There was nothing that gave me the slightest glimpse of hope under him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Ilsonram12 said:

Trouble is obviously something needs to change with the whole mentality at the club and Pearson was allegedly the man to sort that, he may well have given time

i look back to Clement and think what would of been, still a strange dismissal however the board wanted the comfy slipper back on and SM came back.....

look at us now...................

I think the concerning question would be "how was he going to sort it"? We have had a similar manager who came to sort it, who also expected 100% loyalty and seen as a taskmaster. That was Billy Davies, but he ended it in a bigger mess that took years to sort. Under Pearson's 'rip it up and start again' felt like a similar trail. 

Clement...he should have seen the season out but once again his transfer policy seemed very scattergun, also the squad was so so unfit under him. We really struggled with Saturday, Tuesday, Saturday to keep up to speed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ilsonram12 said:

Trouble is obviously something needs to change with the whole mentality at the club and Pearson was allegedly the man to sort that, he may well have given time.

More likely that he'd have been another Paul Jewell. Everything about him was clueless. I mean the way he used our better footballers, ffs. A close shave there that should make us appreciate Mac, but...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account.

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.