Jump to content

Nigel Pearson - Were we going down?


Nuwtfly

Recommended Posts

The football under Pearson was the most turgid I've ever watched, and I've been around a while. 

I wanted him in the summer, thought it was a good idea to judge his team before bringing others in, then watched the mess and hopelessness he served up as manager with horror!! 

Glad he went so early, glad he only had a part of a window to spend money. 

Not a massive fan of McLaren and that's more down to the lack of plan B when things are not going well, but he football overall is much more, much more entertaining, even getting beat 4-3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply
1 hour ago, Nuwtfly said:

One thing is for sure: If we keep sacking managers after a run of 7-9 bad games, nothing will change, we won't improve and, worst of all, nobody will want to come and manage us!

I agree but Leeds still managed to get Monk even with their managerial record.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, 1977 Ram Raider said:

The players couldn't get to grip with his tactics/formations, we'd definitely be bottom three if he had stayed.

Do you think they never would have though? 9 games isn't many, is it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Nuwtfly said:

Do you think they never would have though? 9 games isn't many, is it?

I think Pearson would've eventually changed. Even he wouldn't be stubborn enough to stick a relegation on his CV out of principle. There's no way Hughes and Bryson would ever have got to grips with what Pearson was asking them to do because of their physical limitations. No amount of coaching can make players grow six inches taller and alter their bone structure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't get me wrong I'm glad Pearson's gone but I feel the players weren't mentally strong enough to play his kind of football, likewise with Clement's football. There's no way that Pearson would have wanted to play like we did. If they couldn't handle him or his management, the players should be considered a bunch of fairies. That's why they aren't strong enough mentally to play in the prem and why they are here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Certain managers suit certain types of clubs, in respect to the players and chairman. All managers have certain styles and all make mistakes. Some are better at seeing the errors and understanding the players they have to work with than others 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, EnigmaRam said:

Certain managers suit certain types of clubs, in respect to the players and chairman. All managers have certain styles and all make mistakes. Some are better at seeing the errors and understanding the players they have to work with than others 

Very good point, well made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is navel gazing (but then I guess the whole forum is :))

What bothers me is the air of 'that's all folks' - the season's over, roll on August.

I have to say if I was Mel I would be talking to SM about each game and expecting a one-off win effort every time.

Promotion 17/18 starts here, right now. Players not showing any gumption now still won't be any cop in January 2018 when we hit our traditional post-Christmas hick-up, even if we are 15 pts clear at the top.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think Pearson would have relegated us, but it wouldn't have been pretty. But then the same could be said for SM in the last few games. Those lamenting Pearson for hoof ball clearly weren't watching the last two home games.

I don't think Pearson or SM would of/will work because of opposite reasons. 

Pearson wanted to change everything overnight, and lost the players. While I commend the fact he acknowledged our issues, he should have been brighter in the way he dealt with it. 

SM on the other hand, seems content to stick to the 4-3-3 and the trusted personnel that have shown themselves to be inadequate. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Tombo said:

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.

Thanks for the likes everyone but I've just realised that my numbers don't add up on this post. Pearson obviously only had 5 losses. And McClaren has won us 8 points, not 7. So 2 extra points, which as I say makes all the difference with such a small sample size of just 9 games.

Take them all back. I can't handle the shame. I'm a charlatan. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, McLovin said:

Don't get me wrong I'm glad Pearson's gone but I feel the players weren't mentally strong enough to play his kind of football, likewise with Clement's football. There's no way that Pearson would have wanted to play like we did. If they couldn't handle him or his management, the players should be considered a bunch of fairies. That's why they aren't strong enough mentally to play in the prem and why they are here. 

Weren't mentally strong enough?! Not sure how you come to this conclusion, like to explain?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Millenniumram said:

Yes we were, the bloke is the single worst manager I have ever seen sit in that dugout. No way was he sorting that out

It's a close call but for me Paul Jewell is still our worst ever manager. Opinions obviously will differ on this but one things for sure is that statistically Jewell will never be beaten in that department.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I doubt Pearson would have taken us down. It would have been horrible though. He would have systematically stripped out any joy in the club. Sold off talented players and replaced them with players who's primary skill was running and kicking the ball a long way. Nothing about any of it would have been fun and it would have taken a long time to see any kind of return on the strategy, if any at all. I suspect if given more time he'd have got us to stagnate in mid table.

We should have known what kind of manager he was and never recruited him in the first place. Bad selection by the board and totally counter intuitive to the reasons given for sacking Clement who was positively progressive compared to Pearson. I'm never one for getting rid of the manager but in Pearson's case it was the right call. Awful fit for Derby.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PistoldPete2
39 minutes ago, Tombo said:

Thanks for the likes everyone but I've just realised that my numbers don't add up on this post. Pearson obviously only had 5 losses. And McClaren has won us 8 points, not 7. So 2 extra points, which as I say makes all the difference with such a small sample size of just 9 games.

Take them all back. I can't handle the shame. I'm a charlatan. 

We certainly didn't defend well against Cardiff ... Conceded four goals from 4 shots at goal. And Bristol was a shambles we could have conceded six. mind you we could have scored six too. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not read the thread so forgive me if I've gone over any old points. 

Pearson was an idiot of the highest order, whose ineptitude in the transfer market was only outweighed by his tactical ineptitude. Which is why with him in charge we would be comfortably in the bottom three right now, keeping lowly Rotherham company on their journey back down to League One.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...