Inside story on Nigel Pearson's sacking

[Crewton]

1 hour ago, cannable said:

He didn’t lose the dressing room though. 

Yes, the football under Clement became very predictable and "safety first", but they certainly weren't busting a gut for him. Fulham away particularly springs to mind. You never hear players from that time mention him. They got fed up with hearing about Ronaldo, among other things. 

[May Contain Nuts]

1 hour ago, duncanjwitham said:

The first McClaren sacking felt like the sort of "he won't commit his entire future to Derby, so let's sack him now" stuff that was being heard from those corners.  The second one always felt like someone (probably Sam Rush) talked Morris into appointing McClaren again, Morris was never happy about it (for the same reasons as sacking number 1, probably), and as soon as we had a slight dip in form he got rid so he could have who he had wanted as manager in the first place.

Was it a slight dip in form or a bit more than that?

I remember him doing a good job of galvanising a dispirited team in a false position, but doing so by deploying a system (somewhat forced by the lack of Martin) that was unlikely to provide long term results.

First 12 games of Mac 2 - 8 wins, 3 draws, 1 defeat, 27/36 points
Next 13 games of Mac 2 - 3 wins, 3 draws, 7 defeats - 12/39 points

Once a McClaren team starts on a bad run of results it seems very rare that he ever turns it back around, but maybe that's because he also rarely gets the chance to.

Edited April 27, 2022 by Coconut's Beard

[JfR]

4 minutes ago, Coconut's Beard said:

Was it a slight dip in form or a bit more than that?

I remember him doing a good job of galvanising a dispirited team in a false position, but doing so by deploying a system (somewhat forced by the lack of Martin) that was unlikely to provide long term results.

First 12 games of Mac 2 - 8 wins, 3 draws, 1 defeat, 27/36 points
Next 13 games of Mac 2 - 3 wins, 3 draws, 7 defeats - 12/39 points

Once a McClaren team starts on a bad run of results it seems very rare that he ever turns it back around, but maybe that's because he also rarely gets the chance to.

Funnily enough, McClaren's run of results in his last 9 games was actually the same as Pearson's 9 games in charge: 1 win, 3 draws, 5 losses. I can understand the argument that because he'd got the team going again, and went on a very good run, that he deserved more time to turn that form back around, but judging solely on the team's recent results, there was as much reason to get rid of him at that time as there was Pearson.

[duncanjwitham]

1 minute ago, Coconut's Beard said:

Was it a slight dip in form or a bit more than that?

I remember him doing a good job of galvanising a dispirited team in a false position, but doing so by deploying a system (somewhat forced by the lack of Martin) that was unlikely to provide long term results.

First 12 games of Mac 2 - 8 wins, 3 draws, 1 defeat, 27/36 points
Next 13 games of Mac 2 - 3 wins, 3 draws, 7 defeats - 12/39 points

From what I remember, when he first came back we played in a much more defensive, counter-attacking way (kind of forced because of the squad he had available, with no focal point up front and no fit holding midfielders) and we ground out some good results.  In January, he tried to get back to playing his preferred 433 pass-and-move football - having failed to get Martin back we got Nugent, and got DeSart in as a holding midfielder.  But neither of those signings really worked and we ended up looking like we did post-January in McClaren's last season with us (which again, was us basically having no fit focal point or holding midfielders).   

So yeah, it was a definite drop in form, but it was also obvious why it was happening - the missing forward and holding midfielder. We already know that the striker was fixed for next season, because we'd got Martin coming back on a new contract. And on paper at least, the holding midfielder was fixed too - Thorne should have been back from his broken leg by then (obviously hindsight etc etc).  It made no sense to sack McClaren at this point, unless there was some other issue going on.

[TomTom92]

We’ll never know whether sticking with Pearson or Mac2 would’ve correlated to a better present. However I remember during both runs I was happy to see the back of them. 
 
I think the bigger issue is that the players most of us have a good word for had a serious mentality issue that either allowed themselves to get to big for the club or not have the capacity to stop the rot. 
 
In hindsight we probably should’ve allowed Bryson to go Burnley and recruit from there a la Brentford style.

[therealhantsram]

1 hour ago, cannable said:

He didn’t lose the dressing room though. 

Teams had worked us out.

 

I think both things are true. Teams worked us out, and Clement had nothing else to offer. No solution for the team. And so he lost the dressing room. Players no longer believed in him or followed him.

Interviews with former players suggest he didn't follow-through on his own principles, flip-flopped from one week to the next and players were no longer sure of what they were supposed to be doing.

 

[DarkFruitsRam7]

33 minutes ago, Coconut's Beard said:

Was it a slight dip in form or a bit more than that?

I remember him doing a good job of galvanising a dispirited team in a false position, but doing so by deploying a system (somewhat forced by the lack of Martin) that was unlikely to provide long term results.

First 12 games of Mac 2 - 8 wins, 3 draws, 1 defeat, 27/36 points
Next 13 games of Mac 2 - 3 wins, 3 draws, 7 defeats - 12/39 points

Once a McClaren team starts on a bad run of results it seems very rare that he ever turns it back around, but maybe that's because he also rarely gets the chance to.

 

26 minutes ago, JfR said:

Funnily enough, McClaren's run of results in his last 9 games was actually the same as Pearson's 9 games in charge: 1 win, 3 draws, 5 losses. I can understand the argument that because he'd got the team going again, and went on a very good run, that he deserved more time to turn that form back around, but judging solely on the team's recent results, there was as much reason to get rid of him at that time as there was Pearson.

I suspect part of the reason for sacking McClaren was to snap up Gary Rowett.

[Anon]

45 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

From what I remember, when he first came back we played in a much more defensive, counter-attacking way (kind of forced because of the squad he had available, with no focal point up front and no fit holding midfielders) and we ground out some good results.  In January, he tried to get back to playing his preferred 433 pass-and-move football - having failed to get Martin back we got Nugent, and got DeSart in as a holding midfielder.  But neither of those signings really worked and we ended up looking like we did post-January in McClaren's last season with us (which again, was us basically having no fit focal point or holding midfielders).   

So yeah, it was a definite drop in form, but it was also obvious why it was happening - the missing forward and holding midfielder. We already know that the striker was fixed for next season, because we'd got Martin coming back on a new contract. And on paper at least, the holding midfielder was fixed too - Thorne should have been back from his broken leg by then (obviously hindsight etc etc).  It made no sense to sack McClaren at this point, unless there was some other issue going on.

God, the Nugent signing was so deflating. I was delighted to have McClaren back, but that transfer window just solidified the fact that McClaren is a great coach, but a poor manager who should have absolutely nothing to do with signings. He goes for names rather than looking for a player who is the correct fit. It was obvious to everyone other than McClaren that a player like Nugent would be useless in his preferred system. How such an experienced manager could still be so naïve at that point in his career is astonishing.

[CornwallRam]

25 minutes ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

 

I suspect part of the reason for sacking McClaren was to snap up Gary Rowett.

I heard from a friend of a friend in the game that Mel and Rowett had become very close. Rowett was almost functioning as Mel's footballing advisor- I believe they lived near each other.

Mel had wanted to appoint Rowett for a while, but our vacancies and his availability hadn't matched up. 

Rowett was available at the end of that season, but was attracting attention from other clubs. Mel didn't really want to sack McClaren, but he thought that it could be his only chance to appoint Rowett.

[IslandExile]

22 minutes ago, CornwallRam said:

I heard from a friend of a friend in the game that Mel and Rowett had become very close. Rowett was almost functioning as Mel's footballing advisor- I believe they lived near each other.

Mel had wanted to appoint Rowett for a while, but our vacancies and his availability hadn't matched up. 

Rowett was available at the end of that season, but was attracting attention from other clubs. Mel didn't really want to sack McClaren, but he thought that it could be his only chance to appoint Rowett.

That worked out well.

Even then, Rowett wasn't a good fit for the "Derby way" - if that means bringing youngsters through the academy and playing attacking, entertaining football.

[DarkFruitsRam7]

2 hours ago, CornwallRam said:

I heard from a friend of a friend in the game that Mel and Rowett had become very close. Rowett was almost functioning as Mel's footballing advisor- I believe they lived near each other.

Mel had wanted to appoint Rowett for a while, but our vacancies and his availability hadn't matched up. 

Rowett was available at the end of that season, but was attracting attention from other clubs. Mel didn't really want to sack McClaren, but he thought that it could be his only chance to appoint Rowett.

Long story short, Dark Fruits is right yet again!

Edited April 27, 2022 by DarkFruitsRam7

[DarkFruitsRam7]

8 minutes ago, IslandExile said:

That worked out well.

Even then, Rowett wasn't a good fit for the "Derby way" - if that means bringing youngsters through the academy and playing attacking, entertaining football.

I thought Rowett did an alright job on the whole. Regardless, Mel murdered the Derby Way the moment he appointed Pearson.

Edited April 27, 2022 by DarkFruitsRam7

[Curtains]

2 hours ago, winktheram said:

Thanks Curtains hadn't seen that before. Great read. 

Durban and Hector were fantastic signings.   Really great ? memories 

[TomTom92]

1 hour ago, IslandExile said:

That worked out well.

Even then, Rowett wasn't a good fit for the "Derby way" - if that means bringing youngsters through the academy and playing attacking, entertaining football.

At the time of Rowett’s appointment it was hard to tell what his style was. As both of his jobs previously was taking a struggling outfit and getting them near the top end of the league on a small budget.  
  
He may have even told Mel what he wanted to hear to get the job. But ultimately he put his chips on experienced players to poo house us up the league and it backfired. 
 
He had a shocker at Stoke and then to be fair he’s doing a good job at Millwall. But I guess there’s less snobbery about the football played at the Den.

[Boycie]

Well I believe what Colin of Gibsonshire said anyway.

Why would he make it up?  

[Steve How Hard?]

13 minutes ago, TomTom92 said:

At the time of Rowett’s appointment it was hard to tell what his style was. As both of his jobs previously was taking a struggling outfit and getting them near the top end of the league on a small budget.  
  
He may have even told Mel what he wanted to hear to get the job. But ultimately he put his chips on experienced players to poo house us up the league and it backfired. 
 
He had a shocker at Stoke and then to be fair he’s doing a good job at Millwall. But I guess there’s less snobbery about the football played at the Den.

Pretty sure he came in making noises about utilising the young talent at the club but then did the absolute opposite. I lost respect for him when his short-termism left us with a massive rebuild.

The fact he jumped ship when Stoke seduced him just compounded my disrespect for him and his actions. Fair play to him for the job he's done at Millwall but he is and always will be a snake in my eyes. 

Edited April 27, 2022 by Steve How Hard?
Bad spelling

[Crewton]

4 hours ago, Curtains said:

Wonder why Derby replaced Tim Ward !

http://www.derbycountymemories.co.uk/timothy-victor-ward-gentleman-manager-and-kingmaker-by-david-moore

https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/tim-wards-derby-county-spell-1839111.amp

 

Great read.

OT, but I think that Cardiff defeat in Tim Ward's first home game in the 62/63 season might have been the first Rams game that I was taken to. I was 3 years old, so the memories are sketchy, and neither me or my Dad could remember exactly who we played or what season it was, but I remember the oppos played in blue and both sides scored. It makes sense in other ways because I think my Dad would have wanted to see TW's 1st game as he'd been a regular attender during TW's playing days.

I must have done something wrong though because it was another 4 years before he took me again!

[DarkFruitsRam7]

21 minutes ago, TomTom92 said:

At the time of Rowett’s appointment it was hard to tell what his style was. As both of his jobs previously was taking a struggling outfit and getting them near the top end of the league on a small budget.  
  
He may have even told Mel what he wanted to hear to get the job. But ultimately he put his chips on experienced players to poo house us up the league and it backfired. 
 
He had a shocker at Stoke and then to be fair he’s doing a good job at Millwall. But I guess there’s less snobbery about the football played at the Den.

To be fair to Rowett, Nathan Jones had a shocker at Stoke, and I’d say he’s been the best manager in the league this season.

I agree that there was a sense of Rowett perhaps adapting his style to suit our players, which never really happened.

[Boycie]

40 minutes ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

To be fair to Rowett, Nathan Jones had a shocker at Stoke, and I’d say he’s been the best manager in the league this season.

I agree that there was a sense of Rowett perhaps adapting his style to suit our players, which never really happened.

This normally is an indication of a manager not being able to man manage players on big wages.

Bit like Lampard.

[DarkFruitsRam7]

19 minutes ago, Boycie said:

This normally is an indication of a manager not being able to man manage players on big wages.

Bit like Lampard.

Bit of that yeah, but also an indication that the squad was full of tosspots.