Nick Illingsworth - the voice of SFC speaks

[um pahars]

Is it just my imagination or did the now deified Nigel Pearson get a right old kicking on this site last season? And weren't people less than impressed, even after our get-lucky escape on the last day with him as manager. Just a thought

 

Depends what period you are talkin about.

 

Don't think his appointment was met with universal approval and many had doubts, but by the end of the season I think there were very few who slagging him off.

[Frank's cousin]

Up

 

I can undersatnd that from a results perspective - Pearson defo deserved his chance - afterall I have always advocated that giving the younger managers a go is not such a bad idea. But i cant help feeling that your VERY strong support of him is somehow linked to the fact he was Crouchs appointment and Lowe got rid, rather than being based on Pearsons credentials - afterall at the time he was appointed he as unknown to us, had no experience etc, eg Crouch had done exactly what Lowe has done in the past - appoint an unknown quantity with limited experience that could be considered teh cheap option. The fact we survived on the last day, was aPlus point, but had we been relegated would his standing still ahve been so high with you, or would you have blamed Crouch for making a mistake in chosing an untried and untested and unknown manager?

 

Sure in hindsight, Pearson is starting to look like the real deal, and with every game leicester win, it makes Lowe's Lowes dissmissal look an ever bigger mistake...and yes with that benefit it would be great to have him here, but you have to surely admit had we not survived on that last day, his record would have benn no better than wigley or Gray and if being consistent in our criticism, Crouch would have in effect simply repeated the 'cheap risky' option of Lowe.

 

This does not naturally excuse Lowe from the current situation, but I fail to see how Pearson's initial appointment could be considered as any less risky than Wigley or Gray or JP at the time. The benefit of looking at this through the retrospectoscope is what highlights LOwe's error which you are keen to reinforce which is fair enough... but that does not mean Crouch was somehow gifted in his decison making....merely 'lucky'.

[solentstars]

Up

 

I can undersatnd that from a results perspective - Pearson defo deserved his chance - afterall I have always advocated that giving the younger managers a go is not such a bad idea. But i cant help feeling that your VERY strong support of him is somehow linked to the fact he was Crouchs appointment and Lowe got rid, rather than being based on Pearsons credentials - afterall at the time he was appointed he as unknown to us, had no experience etc, eg Crouch had done exactly what Lowe has done in the past - appoint an unknown quantity with limited experience that could be considered teh cheap option. The fact we survived on the last day, was aPlus point, but had we been relegated would his standing still ahve been so high with you, or would you have blamed Crouch for making a mistake in chosing an untried and untested and unknown manager?

 

Sure in hindsight, Pearson is starting to look like the real deal, and with every game leicester win, it makes Lowe's Lowes dissmissal look an ever bigger mistake...and yes with that benefit it would be great to have him here, but you have to surely admit had we not survived on that last day, his record would have benn no better than wigley or Gray and if being consistent in our criticism, Crouch would have in effect simply repeated the 'cheap risky' option of Lowe.

 

This does not naturally excuse Lowe from the current situation, but I fail to see how Pearson's initial appointment could be considered as any less risky than Wigley or Gray or JP at the time. The benefit of looking at this through the retrospectoscope is what highlights LOwe's error which you are keen to reinforce which is fair enough... but that does not mean Crouch was somehow gifted in his decison making....merely 'lucky'.

good post i remember pearson getting slagged of on here last season with a lot of the same comments that jan is now getting,its amazing now that the same people who slagged pearson of last season have changed their tune.

[alpine_saint]

good post i remember pearson getting slagged of on here last season with a lot of the same comments that jan is now getting,its amazing now that the same people who slagged pearson of last season have changed their tune.

 

What a completely waanky comment, completely without justification or evidence.

[Wes Tender]

Up

 

I can undersatnd that from a results perspective - Pearson defo deserved his chance - afterall I have always advocated that giving the younger managers a go is not such a bad idea. But i cant help feeling that your VERY strong support of him is somehow linked to the fact he was Crouchs appointment and Lowe got rid, rather than being based on Pearsons credentials - afterall at the time he was appointed he as unknown to us, had no experience etc, eg Crouch had done exactly what Lowe has done in the past - appoint an unknown quantity with limited experience that could be considered teh cheap option. The fact we survived on the last day, was aPlus point, but had we been relegated would his standing still ahve been so high with you, or would you have blamed Crouch for making a mistake in chosing an untried and untested and unknown manager?

 

Sure in hindsight, Pearson is starting to look like the real deal, and with every game leicester win, it makes Lowe's Lowes dissmissal look an ever bigger mistake...and yes with that benefit it would be great to have him here, but you have to surely admit had we not survived on that last day, his record would have benn no better than wigley or Gray and if being consistent in our criticism, Crouch would have in effect simply repeated the 'cheap risky' option of Lowe.

 

This does not naturally excuse Lowe from the current situation, but I fail to see how Pearson's initial appointment could be considered as any less risky than Wigley or Gray or JP at the time. The benefit of looking at this through the retrospectoscope is what highlights LOwe's error which you are keen to reinforce which is fair enough... but that does not mean Crouch was somehow gifted in his decison making....merely 'lucky'.

 

There is one important consideration when drawing comparisons between the appointments of Wigley, Gray, Pearson and JP. The appointments of Wigley and Gray should be seen as being during a time when revenues received from being in the Premiership with all the attendant SKY money washing around. As such, it was a gamble taking on inexperienced managers that we were not forced into by financial restraints. Also, having proven to be a bad decision both times, Lowe might well have been expected to go for a manager with a proven and experienced track record in this division having been unsucessful going down that route twice. Also, having seen that Pearson had kept the team up, that he was respected by the players and popular with the vast majority of the fans, he would have been on a win/win situation keeping him on, as he could have blamed Crouch and fired him if he didn't produce results this season.

 

Whilst making comparisons between Pearson and JP, no way is that a level playing field. Pearson showed through some very astute loans that he was capable of bringing in some good solid players, the very type that are needed in this very situation. Most of JPs signings are a complete load of dross, a couple of them having hardly kicked a ball since they have been here. Pearson had a long and distinguished career playing in this country at this level and above and knew the game inside out. Although JP had played at a higher level, his managerial experience and knowledge of the British game was zero when he arrived and he has been shown to be completely out of his depth.

[Frank's cousin]

I appreciate what you are saying, but it is unfair to compare JP v Pearson, because we can only make assumptions about what restrictions Peasron would have had to work with - the same? etc...

 

Also, sure when in the prem, we had less financial restrictions, but the actual risk of appointment is nonetheless the same if i may be pedantic - Look I know some have suggested that Lowe wanted YES men - but why then appoint STrachan who was hardly a shrinking violet yet their relationship was very good according to Strachan

 

And Hoddle was on close to a mil a year so hardly a cheap option - I suggest its more to do with 'Lowe's vision + financial restrictions. He has very strong views on the management system based on control of finance eg. not happy to let managers get hold of the purse strings - If we forget his personality that many have issues with, forget the very small minority that have issues with his background whatever they may deny, the issue is quite simple, we disagree with Lowe on his decisions from a footballing perspective - Its that simple.

 

I just wish Lowe was open and happy to debate this, explain strategies and decisons and respect how fans disagree - or be more open to the debate. Sadly wishful thinking...

[hypochondriac]

The problem with Lowe's strategy is by promoting the youth policy we are really restricting ourselves in the transfer market, something we can't afford to do under our financial situation.

[um pahars]

If we forget his personality that many have issues with' date=' forget the very small minority that have issues with his background whatever they may deny, the issue is quite simple, we disagree with Lowe on his decisions from a footballing perspective - Its that simple.....[/quote']

 

Absoultely Frank.

 

For the vast majority of people it has nothing to do with his background, personality or other issues, they simply judge him by results, results which are so transparent in this business i.e. What happens on the pitch.

 

The premise of football isn't rocket science.

 

Employ a good manager, get good players, score goals and win games will mean crowds will rise and supporters will be happy.

 

Do the opposite and you're in trouble.

 

Although the premise is simple, it's execution is sometimes more problematic!!!

 

I'm sure people mention his background, his findness for hockey etc when giving him some stick, but they are just handles to attach their frustration and anger on.

[Snowballs2]

Lowe hanged himself years ago by saying "football is a results driven business"

Based on ours he should have gone and stayed gone eons ago. He always finds someone else to blame, its never down to him, or his many crap managerial appointments