Jump to content

The Price of Pearson


sage

Recommended Posts

If you extrapolate our Non-Pearson points ratio across all 41 games we would be 3rd.

So for all the talk of last minute goals costing points, the real penalty has been the appointment of Pearson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply
21 minutes ago, sage said:

If you extrapolate our Non-Pearson points ratio across all 41 games we would be 3rd.

So for all the talk of last minute goals costing points, the real penalty has been the appointment of Pearson.

I said when Pearson was sacked that we would have to maintain automatic promotion form to make the play offs. I never thought that was possible and we've even done slightly better than I expected. Pearson aside, we've had a good season. A good season costs you your job under the current regime at Derby. I hope (forlornly) that Rowett will be given the time not afforded to his predecessors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, i-Ram said:

I blame the players. Didn't want to do it for Pearson, and then didn't want to do it for Mac. They have under-performed this year, and l hope a shake out occurs come season end.

Couldn't disagree more to be honest.

Manager's job to lead, inspire and organize the players. If the players "don't want" to play for a certain manager, that says more about the manager than the players to me. I blame Pearson significantly more than any single or collection of players. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, wixman1884 said:

Couldn't disagree more to be honest.

Manager's job to lead, inspire and organize the players. If the players "don't want" to play for a certain manager, that says more about the manager than the players to me. I blame Pearson significantly more than any single or collection of players. 

Agree. Watching the team play the way Pearson wanted them to as an absolute travesty!! Wasted talent and woeful football. The players by and large were following his plan, just a shame his plan was useless. And I wanted him here!! 

 

Mac seemed more reluctant to change a system ( again) and get the player doing the basics right. Then had no clue how to resolve poor form or practice. That's his job!! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

I can't wait for, if we fluke our way into the play offs and somehow go up, the revisionist history that Nigel Pearson laid the foundations and we should all be grateful to him....

Oi! He set Ranieri up with an open goal!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you could look at numerous factors.

points dropped v burton

goals conceded from corners

the bad run under McClaren - particularly the easy three homes games where we drew 3-3 and then lost 3-4

etc

the simple fact is that we're not good enough. We can't sustain the necessary challenge over 46 games.

whether that is somebodies 'fault' is another matter.

personally i don't think that the players have a bad attitude. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

I can't wait for, if we fluke our way into the play offs and somehow go up, the revisionist history that Nigel Pearson laid the foundations and we should all be grateful to him....

FFS, we would need a whole new team of players if we went up, do you remember 2008?

We currently no more than an average championship side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, wixman1884 said:

Couldn't disagree more to be honest.

Manager's job to lead, inspire and organize the players. If the players "don't want" to play for a certain manager, that says more about the manager than the players to me. I blame Pearson significantly more than any single or collection of players. 

But they clearly didn't want to play for McClaren by the end either. At what point do we start thinking the problem might not actually be the numerous managers who have all had issues with the same squad of players?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you do the same calculation purely based on McClaren's reign this season, we would be a point off 6th.

As someone said on another thread, if his wins had been more evenly spread out during his tenure, would he still be in the job?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RamNut said:

you could look at numerous factors.

points dropped v burton

goals conceded from corners

the bad run under McClaren - particularly the easy three homes games where we drew 3-3 and then lost 3-4

etc

the simple fact is that we're not good enough. We can't sustain the necessary challenge over 46 games.

whether that is somebodies 'fault' is another matter.

personally i don't think that the players have a bad attitude. 

No, but there is a mental frailty which makes them nervous at the start and end of games - and at set pieces.

The team doesn't impose itself on the opposition like the top teams do. Each player should have that 'I'm better than you' mentality.

We're a bit timid and need to recruit those who are mentally strong as well as physically adept. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Anag Ram said:

No, but there is a mental frailty which makes them nervous at the start and end of games - and at set pieces.

The team doesn't impose itself on the opposition like the top teams do. Each player should have that 'I'm better than you' mentality.

We're a bit timid and need to recruit those who are mentally strong as well as physically adept. 

To a great extent with set pieces it comes down to not having enough players who are tall, strong or just good in the air. We miss Forsyth, Thorne and Martin in this respect.

That missing physicality is all part of the balance and is also why we lose so many challenges in midfield and pick up so few loose balls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, sage said:

If you do the same calculation purely based on McClaren's reign this season, we would be a point off 6th.

As someone said on another thread, if his wins had been more evenly spread out during his tenure, would he still be in the job?

Raised expectations following November/December won't have helped him but don't think its as simple as that. We'd have wanted steady improvement overall & the performances at home against Cardiff, Burton & Bristol City (plus the surrender at Brighton) were as bad as anything Pearson served up. There didn't seem to be any indication of better times ahead.

Another factor will have been McClaren's managerial style/record. He doesn't build teams & we clearly need a rebuild after 3 years of mixed philosophies & random recruitment. McClaren's successes (Boro, Twente & Derby first time around) have all been at clubs with a stable prior background & a talented squad waiting for a fresh approach to bring success. Pearson & Rowett by contrast build teams..accept the starting approach of both are very different though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, sage said:

That missing physicality is all part of the balance and is also why we lose so many challenges in midfield and pick up so few loose balls.

Yesterday was a bit of an example of that at times, I thought aside from a few crunches from Johnson and Keough throwing himself in, we got a bit bullied at times. Their centre forward was an handfull, Pearce seemed to struggle as much as anyone, which surprised me considering he's hardly lightweight.

The balance still doesn't seem to be right, simply because we didn't seem to impose ourselves on the game 2nd half. But we won and it's early days in the Rowett tenure, so I trust him to put this right given time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we have the likes of Forsyth Shackell and Martin available we would surely defend set pieces better which would save us 6-10 points a season and maybe score a few more goals from our set pieces which are pretty useless despite what mr Zola had told his team

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...