Nigel Pearson

[daveyboy66]

1 minute ago, bigthinrob said:

Are you absolutely serious when you say "Someone needs to take the shackles off" when referring to Nigel Pearson.

 

I read the Derby forum when Pearson was first appointed there, and they were fairly unanimous that it would take Pearson at least a season to dismantle the fluid footballing style they played, to replace it with his pragmatic, no nonsense style that was his trademark. 

 

I don't mind people advocating potential managers who are 'results over style', but don't call for change because of the 'style of play' and then suggest someone who has built their reputation on being dour, solid and boring.

 

That was the reason, when we were on an unbeaten run people were calling for CCs head. 

 

Have people on here no recall of fairly recent events or are their heads so firmly stuck up their ars*s they can't see any daylight.

 

 

PS Just to clarify.  This isn't a call to arms in defence of CC. It's just a call for a bit of consistency when debating potential replacements and 'the style of play' that person would bring.  Considering the number of people on here that have condemned CC for his 'style' this year, to suggest Pearson as a replacement to "take the shackles off" is a bit like suggesting Karl Marx to expand private enterprise.  

Not if you don't have a clue about football

[Athelwulf]

1 hour ago, bigthinrob said:

Are you absolutely serious when you say "Someone needs to take the shackles off" when referring to Nigel Pearson.

 

I read the Derby forum when Pearson was first appointed there, and they were fairly unanimous that it would take Pearson at least a season to dismantle the fluid footballing style they played, to replace it with his pragmatic, no nonsense style that was his trademark. 

 

I don't mind people advocating potential managers who are 'results over style', but don't call for change because of the 'style of play' and then suggest someone who has built their reputation on being dour, solid and boring.

 

That was the reason, when we were on an unbeaten run people were calling for CCs head. 

 

Have people on here no recall of fairly recent events or are their heads so firmly stuck up their ars*s they can't see any daylight.

 

 

PS Just to clarify.  This isn't a call to arms in defence of CC. It's just a call for a bit of consistency when debating potential replacements and 'the style of play' that person would bring.  Considering the number of people on here that have condemned CC for his 'style' this year, to suggest Pearson as a replacement to "take the shackles off" is a bit like suggesting Karl Marx to expand private enterprise.  

 

Getting out of this league, unless you've Newcastle's resources, probably does involve dour, pragmatic football. Only the very richest clubs can afford the all-rounders needed to play good football and gain promotion. As many of our players were brought in to entertain in that first season, we've got a problem no matter who the new dour manager is. Pearson and Karanka would get us up, but there'd be no place for Baz in their setup, for example.

 

I think Carlos should go firstly because I don't think he's good enough at dourness (it's not his natural game), and secondly because he's lost two play-offs consecutively. As far as I'm concerned the style of play  is an irrelevance. I want us to get our thieving hands on that £150 million prize money. Points make prizes.

[bigthinrob]

1 hour ago, Brando17 said:

no chance of automatic this year....fact .....unless either the manager goes or we spend

 

But it's not ....'fact'.... is it?

 

It is your opinion.

 

I would have also thought that a change of manager, even if you argue the benefits over the longer term (if you believe that), could have a detrimental effect on promotion prospects this season.

 

Change works immediately on fairly rare occasions but normally takes time.

 

 

 

 

[bigthinrob]

4 minutes ago, Athelwulf said:

 

Getting out of this league, unless you've Newcastle's resources, probably does involve dour, pragmatic football. Only the very richest clubs can afford the all-rounders needed to play good football and gain promotion. As many of our players were brought in to entertain in that first season, we've got a problem no matter who the new dour manager is. Pearson and Karanka would get us up, but there'd be no place for Baz in their setup, for example.

 

I think Carlos should go firstly because I don't think he's good enough at dourness (it's not his natural game), and secondly because he's lost two play-offs consecutively. As far as I'm concerned the style of play  is an irrelevance. I want us to get our thieving hands on that £150 million prize money. Points make prizes.

 

This is the very same argument i have used when people were slagging Carlos off for his 'style' even when we were on a 6 or 7 match unbeaten run. :-  "Results over style".

 

I can dig the posts out if you want, where people were saying they would rather stay in the Championship playing free flowing football than get promoted using the pragmatic style that most promoted teams tend to use.

 

This is what i can't quite get my head around. Do people want promotion, or do people want promotion ONLY playing free flowing football, or do people want free flowing football and f**k promotion, because every thread you read is a total contradiction.

 

I sort of agree with you, in that you need to go with one thing or another with regard to 'style', but the 'experts' on here wouldn't have that, it was Barca style or nothing.

 

Some absolute classics. Get CC out, his style is boring, get Warnock in, get Pearson in, get Rowett in, get Big Sam in.

 

Seriously think there are some serious candidates for sectioning on here!

[Athelwulf]

1 hour ago, bigthinrob said:

 

This is the very same argument i have used when people were slagging Carlos off for his 'style' even when we were on a 6 or 7 match unbeaten run. :-  "Results over style".

 

I can dig the posts out if you want, where people were saying they would rather stay in the Championship playing free flowing football than get promoted using the pragmatic style that most promoted teams tend to use.

 

This is what i can't quite get my head around. Do people want promotion, or do people want promotion ONLY playing free flowing football, or do people want free flowing football and f**k promotion, because every thread you read is a total contradiction.

 

I sort of agree with you, in that you need to go with one thing or another with regard to 'style', but the 'experts' on here wouldn't have that, it was Barca style or nothing.

 

Some absolute classics. Get CC out, his style is boring, get Warnock in, get Pearson in, get Rowett in, get Big Sam in.

 

Seriously think there are some serious candidates for sectioning on here!

 

Yes, it's always been the same, in all sports. You didn't beat Liverpool back in the day by trying to play like them. You don't beat New Zealand by trying to play like them either. You just end up being a second-rate New Zealand. That's unless you've got players of their quality, which we don't possess. You play to your strengths, or in the specific case of ourselves, to our resources.

[the monk]

So who are the New Zealands / Liverpool's of this league?

 

Why do we struggle against teams such as Preston , Burton , Brentford ,even against Rotherham it took a last minute pen to secure a streaky win