Nigel Pearson - Were we going down?

[GerryDaly]

11 hours 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?

It's a myth I've seen beaten to death on these pages .. ... just to give SAINT STEVIE MAC extra lustre to his halo...

We as a club were going down under Nigel Pearson... 

 

Doesn't matter the season was only weeks old ect ... 

 

 

 

[Wayne1306]

I'm not sure if we would be in the bottom 3, but it would mighty close.

I didn't want him in the first place, and his summer transfer activity was absurd.

I obviously don't know him but he comes across as arrogant and stubborn, so did he let Martin go because he didn't want him or because he thought I'll show them whose boss? And anybody who thinks Vydra is worth 8.5 mill and Anya 4 mill, doesn't deserve to manage any club.

No comments about inflated transfers please. ?

[G STAR RAM]

11 hours ago, GerryDaly said:

It's a myth I've seen beaten to death on these pages .. ... just to give SAINT STEVIE MAC extra lustre to his halo...

We as a club were going down under Nigel Pearson... 

 

Doesn't matter the season was only weeks old ect ... 

It was a quarter of a season.

About the same amount of time that we have been poor under McClaren but that doesn't stop you calling for his head numerous times on each and every thread?

Irony?

[Van der MoodHoover]

20 hours ago, Animal is a Ram said:

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.

I seem to recall Mel saying precisely that when pearsons appointment was announced. Ie his was the best articulated vision and plan.

[RoyMac5]

47 minutes ago, HantsRam said:

I seem to recall Mel saying precisely that when pearsons appointment was announced. Ie his was the best articulated vision and plan.

I seem to remember something about Pearson questioning Mel about what it was from his vision for Derby that he wanted to achieve. That is why do it in a particular way?

[Van der MoodHoover]

Just now, RoyMac5 said:

I seem to remember something about Pearson questioning Mel about what it was from his vision for Derby that he wanted to achieve. That is why do it in a particular way?

Interesting.  I don't recall that myself but that would fit the actual Pearson experience. 

[RoyMac5]

5 minutes ago, HantsRam said:

Interesting.  I don't recall that myself but that would fit the actual Pearson experience. 

I remember thinking at the time that it would explain Mel's 'mindshift' in going for Pearson. Although Pearson was a large percentage of fans favourite it was also obvious he wasn't gonna go the Derby Way.

So I thought that it sounded like Pearson had questioned where it was Mel wanted to get to from the path he'd chosen and then suggested I can get you there via another path (my paraphrasing obvs).

[Van der MoodHoover]

Just now, RoyMac5 said:

I remember thinking at the time that it would explain Mel's 'mindshift' in going for Pearson. Although Pearson was a large percentage of fans favourite it was also obvious he wasn't gonna go the Derby Way.

So I thought that it sounded like Pearson had questioned where it was Mel wanted to get to from the path he'd chosen and then suggested I can get you there via another path (my paraphrasing obvs).

Entirely credible. 

Mel looks like he's flip -flopped around what the priorities are. That's dangerous and capable of being interpreted as weakness. 

He either has to be clear on OUTCOMES, or METHODS/PROCESSES and communicate those down accordingly. 

I've done a bit of business strategy work in my time and it's the same sort of stuff - people will get on board, or equally important be identifiable as NOT being on board if there's clarity and unity of purpose. 

[RoyMac5]

1 minute ago, HantsRam said:

Entirely credible. 

Mel looks like he's flip -flopped around what the priorities are. That's dangerous and capable of being interpreted as weakness. 

He either has to be clear on OUTCOMES, or METHODS/PROCESSES and communicate those down accordingly. 

I've done a bit of business strategy work in my time and it's the same sort of stuff - people will get on board, or equally important be identifiable as NOT being on board if there's clarity and unity of purpose. 

I think Mel got swept along with our priority being the outcome ie the Prem, rather than sticking with the methods/processes being paramount and allowing the outcome to develop from them. IMO anyway. Seems to me Pearson spotted Mel's 'weakness' and used it to his own end.

[rynny]

56 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

I remember thinking at the time that it would explain Mel's 'mindshift' in going for Pearson. Although Pearson was a large percentage of fans favourite it was also obvious he wasn't gonna go the Derby Way.

So I thought that it sounded like Pearson had questioned where it was Mel wanted to get to from the path he'd chosen and then suggested I can get you there via another path (my paraphrasing obvs).

I don't think he was. It was always around 30-odd% with each poll. So many choices offered in the summer, but none of the realistic coices were really an ideal fit that they stood out.

http://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/nigel-pearson-leads-way-derby-county-fans-cast/story-29314419-detail/story.html

 

[GerryDaly]

2 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

It was a quarter of a season.

About the same amount of time that we have been poor under McClaren but that doesn't stop you calling for his head numerous times on each and every thread?

Irony?

Ok sure NP was here longer than I remember, but my point is still valid. There was still loads of ocean left in this division for us to sail across , loads of time for NP to get things right. I'm not saying he would've, but it's ridiculous to suggest as some folk on here are that the season was effectively dead back then.

You could argue that awful start held SM back, but we still got ourselves into an incredibly promising position last December, ripe for exploiting ... Steve has failed to do this,and that's my biggest concern with him.

[Van der MoodHoover]

Just now, GerryDaly said:

Ok sure NP was here longer than I remember, but my point is still valid. There was still loads of ocean left in this division for us to sail across , loads of time for NP to get things right. I'm not saying he would've, but it's ridiculous to suggest as some folk on here are that the season was effectively dead back then.

You could argue that awful start held SM back, but we still got ourselves into an incredibly promising position last December, ripe for exploiting ... Steve has failed to do this,and that's my biggest concern with him.

Have to say that's a reasonable point you've made in the last paragraph 

[G STAR RAM]

9 minutes ago, GerryDaly said:

Ok sure NP was here longer than I remember, but my point is still valid. There was still loads of ocean left in this division for us to sail across , loads of time for NP to get things right. I'm not saying he would've, but it's ridiculous to suggest as some folk on here are that the season was effectively dead back then.

You could argue that awful start held SM back, but we still got ourselves into an incredibly promising position last December, ripe for exploiting ... Steve has failed to do this,and that's my biggest concern with him.

I wouldn't say the season was dead but have a look at the form we would have had to maintain to be in 6th place, I would say if was a mammoth task.

We would basically have had to maintain automatic promotion form and, as we saw last night, we are a long way from that.

McClaren has said throughout how big the task was but unfortunately a lot just seemed to ignore that and think the new manager bounce would continue forever.

[Papahet]

Peeps blame NP, but it's pretty obvious what he was trying to do. His first act to Pick out the "bad eggs", maybe Chris Martin was one? I don't know. Then he comes on local radio and hammers the players commitment to the club - Bryson an exception. Step forward how many months later and here we are: no passion, no fight, no commitment.

Now I doubt he'd have sent us into league one, his tenture was diasterous but I'd have settled with someone who won't take no **** ,  wouldn't have his favourites and would gradually build a solid committed squad than this present day side. if it meant a season of mid- bottom half so be it.

You don't know if he'd have sent us down, nor do I. What I do know is he tried to built a solid dressing room and the players wouldn't have it. Go through the summer pre season videos and you can see he constantly puts his arm around players, high fives etc. Player power got him the sack and it'll likely happen again with Mcclaren.

You wanted a plan b, you want commited players, you wanted quick football - never going to happen overnight. Look how many weeks it took for Smith to get us going. Blaming Pearson is bs, blame these underperformers 

[RoyMac5]

1 minute ago, Papahet said:

Now I doubt he'd have sent us into league one, his tenture was diasterous but I'd have settled with someone who won't take no **** ,  wouldn't have his favourites and would gradually build a solid committed squad ...

Of course Pearson would have his favourites, just not the same ones. What kind of football would we be attempting to play and who else would he have shipped out.

[Brammie Steve]

Was it all bad under Pearson?

Yes

Were we going down under Pearson?

Yes

Any further questions?

Topic dismissed!

[GboroRam]

Can't say I agree with the way of thinking around here. What any manager is trying to do or not; about styles of play; behind the scenes stuff nobody really knows about. It's all supposition and guesswork. All we really know is the performances on the pitch.

Billy Davies: dull but effective at this level.

Clough: turgid and negative.

Phil Brown: horrible hoofball.

Pearson: team looked good of ability. Shocking results and no sign of it turning round.

Burley: entertaining. Good players, decent football. Oh how I miss those days.

Wassall: mostly played a style I liked watching. Wasn't successful but wasn't in charge long. 

Mac: some days like Burley at his best, some days like Pearson.

I'm prepared to get behind mac and give him a couple of full seasons minimum as when it's working, it's great. In recent years I think you have to go back to Burley to rival what performances we've seen. 

People need to back off and allow him time. Look at the list above and say who gave us better, and how long we let managers have before fans start calling for heads to roll.

 

[Andicis]

2 hours ago, GerryDaly said:

Ok sure NP was here longer than I remember, but my point is still valid. There was still loads of ocean left in this division for us to sail across , loads of time for NP to get things right. I'm not saying he would've, but it's ridiculous to suggest as some folk on here are that the season was effectively dead back then.

You could argue that awful start held SM back, but we still got ourselves into an incredibly promising position last December, ripe for exploiting ... Steve has failed to do this,and that's my biggest concern with him.

We didn't have the squad to realistically exploit it though. We would have had to get auto form as said above to even make the playoffs and doing this we an extremely unbalanced squad. We over performed, our fans expectations suddenly turned to 'we're gonna repeat 13/14' and now inevitably when this didn't happen people are blaming McClaren. He couldn't sustain the run because we don't have the playing staff.

[europia]

On 3/10/2017 at 10:36, 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?

In the end it would have come down to a question of, could he clear out those who players who would undermine him, in time to rebuild and establish significant progress. That challenge has eluded better managers including Mourhino and Ranieri, so Pearson may have gone anyway. 

It seems that the chairman and many fans don't want to face up to the pain barrier of dismantling the current under achieving squad and building something more positive & resilient for the future. So we limp on season after season. 

[cannable]

22 minutes ago, europia said:

In the end it would have come down to a question of, could he clear out those who players who would undermine him, in time to rebuild and establish significant progress. That challenge has eluded better managers including Mourhino and Ranieri, so Pearson may have gone anyway. 

It seems that the chairman and many fans don't want to face up to the pain barrier of dismantling the current under achieving squad and building something more positive & resilient for the future. So we limp on season after season. 

I hate comments like this.

The squad has already been dismantled and that's the reason we're in this mess. Who's left from Wembley? Bryson, Will, Keogh, Russell and the injured Thorne and Fozzy. 

Theres little left to dismantle. 

No other team in football could spend forty odd million and get this much worse.