Dark Munster

Not to mention that Crouch doesn't sack perfectly good managers and replace them with incompetent buffoons.

Don't worry, nobody's going to laugh ...... ........until we know how many you bought. :smt004

You conveniently omit that the first and second choice goalies were out injured, and the only one left (Poke) had to play with an injury.

You were wrong, Lowe was wrong, but most of us who condemned this hare-brained scheme from the very beginning as being foolhardy and almost destined to failure, were right.

That's what Lowe would like you to believe. But most of us can see through that nonsense, and know Lowe got rid of Pearson because he (NP) was a Crouch appointee. And most of us knew that this was a disastrous decision the moment Lowe got rid of NP.

Great post 1965. But you forgot these gems: - We couldn't afford him. - He was asking for ridiculous wages. - His contract expired in June. - He's going to leave Leicester for the Premiership, so if he'd stayed at Saints he would do the same and leave us in the lurch. - Leicester are only doing well (currently top with 2.27 points per game) because they are rich, and/or L1 is shîte. - Saints are skint so any manager would also be averaging less than a point per game. - Pearson had a much stronger squad to play with than the Dutch duo. Good question. It's because when relegation becomes a reality Lowe will almost certainly blame Crouch, whereas the primary reason was Lowe (for egotistical reasons ) getting rid of, and replacing, a competent manager with a couple of clowns.

Great post, as usual UP. One comment though regarding "inserting a get out clause if things went pear shaped": but "pear shaped" seems to be missing in Pearson's contract. Crouch should've made the June bi-party break clause exerciseable by either party contingent upon relegation. i.e. no relegation, no June break in contract. Spot on. Choice 1: Get rid of Pearson, replace him with a couple of Dutch amateurs, get relegated; at the same time NP does a great job at Leicester, then leaves them for a Premiership team. Choice 2: Keep Pearson, he then does a great job at Saints (mid table or higher), then leaves us "in the lurch" for a Premiership team. Hmm, tough choice that.

Speak for yourself.

Exactly what I've been predicting. And he'll add that there is no evidence that Pearson would've done a better job than his "revolutionary coaching set up".

Yes he is. It's the usual trick from those trying to downplay Pearson's achievements. Pearson with Saints: 1.23 points per game. Pearson with Leicester: 2.31 points per game. Lowe's revolutionary coaching set-up: 0.9 points per game.

did he feck.... he got 4 draws and one win from his first 5 matches. The 5-0 thumping at Hull that happened later was with the first and second choice goalies both out injured, and the third choice playing with an injury. And he ended up with 1.23 points per match, despite inheriting the Dodd/Gormless mess. And please stop counting the Plymouth match. Everyone knows NP was just a spectator.

...and not a donkey.

We need someone with 4 legs.

Wotte he said. Pearson took Saints to 54 points (averaging 1.23 points per game while in charge). Leicester got relegated with a ridiculously high total of 52 points. The bar was set very high that season. Compare that to WBA who stayed up in THAT season in the premiership with a record low number of points, just because there were 3 even worse teams (sadly one of them being Saints). They got relegated and their crap manager (Robson) got sacked a year or so later. If Wotte can average 1.23 points per game, or more, then he probably doesn't deserve the sack, regardless of where Saints finish. Let's see what happens, eh?

No, he means the one who achieved 1.23 points per game with a demoralised squad (and in one game with 2 goalies out injured, and the 3rd choice playing with an injury). The one who got Saints to 54 points (no team anywhere in the world has been relegated even on 53 points). The one who got the respect of both players and fans. The one who is taking Leicester up as L1 champions.

That's rather unfair on Luggy. It should be... Pearson = Sturrock Poortvliet = Wigley Wotte = Saggy Chops Relegation = Relegation

Indeed. Didn't some of our Dutch friends warn us before the season started that Wotte was even worse than Jan? If so, out of the frying pan and into the fire.....

Saints got 3 points from their two matches against p**p*y that year, more than they got from most other teams. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. :smt019

Exactly my sentiments too, Shroppie. And it's just ahead of his second most disgraceful act: getting rid of Sturrock (who had a decent record at Saints despite many games with more than half the first team out injured), and replacing him with another incompetent pawn. And we know what happened that year. A leopard doesn't change his spots. And for the Lowe defenders, yes I know neither were technically sackings, but both were Lowe's decisions (and in NP's case cheaper than sacking because NP didn't even get compensation, despite him wanting to stay on).

You mean his paltry 1.23 points per game? Which would put us 8 places higher than now, with 34 points? Yes, I think that would unite us. And please stop repeating that lie that Pearson was let go because Saints couldn't afford him. Listen to Um Pahars:

Yes, that Lowe should never have got rid of a perfectly capable manager (Sturrock) in the first place and replace him with an incompetent amateur. At least Lowe learned from that monumental mistake. Not.

I think you've answered your own question there.