If Crouch believed in Pearson....

[Wes Tender]

TBH it probably was done with about 50% of spite because of LM's role (had it been purely LC I think it might have been somewhat different). The rest because of 'the plan'.

 

the last 2-3 years have all been a **** measuring competition to be honest, and I am getting fed up of it.

 

I don't disagree particularly with the first part and agree wholeheartedly with the second part. We really could do with the entire bunch of them selling their shares and going.

[saintjay77]

I don't disagree particularly with the first part and agree wholeheartedly with the second part. We really could do with the entire bunch of them selling their shares and going.

 

now that would be a march/protest I would walk to Southampton for!

[jonah]

You miss the point, Nick. Nobody is disputing that it was Pearson's team that was beaten convincingly by Hull. But if you read back on other posts by Jonah, he clearly implied that Pearson had made loan signings including those of Perry, Lucketti, Wright and Pericard and yet had been thrashed by Hull despite having those two defenders and the goallie on the books. Where Jonah has egg all over his face is the fact that of all those players, only Pericard was at the club at the time of the Hull match. Undoubtedly the Hull match showed clearly that there were defensive frailties and Pearson addressed them immediately

 

You're such a drama queen Wes. I could try to become all hysterical over your mistake above but there's not much point - for a start, NP had already signed Ian Pearce at this stage but you don't even mention him. You're also implying that NP could only address frailties in defence by buying a whole new one - bugger me that would mean buying a whole new squad every time we lost a game! Failed to score? Let's buy 3 new strikers Mr Chairman! How about coaching and tactics? This was the same team, bar one "improvement", that had kept a clean sheet 4 days earlier so are you saying the entire defence was useless? And after the Hull game we only played 3 more away games - no wins, no clean sheets. In fact in 3 home games, with a Prem quality keeper, we still only kept 1 clean sheet in 3 games. You are in absolutely no position to determine that NP had addressed anything, and there is no evidence of the hottest young manager in Britain addressing defensive frailties in one fell swoop is there? Hence why, returning to the subject of this thread, it's clear Crouch had no idea back then either despite his claims now to try to disrupt the club.

[um pahars]

Alpine seems determined that I make some claim that I support Lowe for some strange reason' date=' I would if it were true, but I cant support the failure of the current system anymore than I could welcome Crouch and his pandering sychophantic claims. [/quote']

 

Considering you're getting all pssy for being accused of supporting Lowe, then I have to say it's a bit rich when you then try to accuse me of supporting Crouch, when I have made it clear on a number of occasions that I would not want him back in the hot seat.

 

And considering your reply last night insinuating I was ar5e licking him, then I do find your posts somewhat hypocritical.

 

You support Crouch and argue your case to anyone who will listen and thats your right.

 

I may agree with his view that having Lowe in charge is not taking us forward, but that's a huge leap from that position to "supporting" Crouch.

[Wes Tender]

You're such a drama queen Wes. I could try to become all hysterical over your mistake above but there's not much point - for a start, NP had already signed Ian Pearce at this stage but you don't even mention him. You're also implying that NP could only address frailties in defence by buying a whole new one - bugger me that would mean buying a whole new squad every time we lost a game! Failed to score? Let's buy 3 new strikers Mr Chairman! How about coaching and tactics? This was the same team, bar one "improvement", that had kept a clean sheet 4 days earlier so are you saying the entire defence was useless? And after the Hull game we only played 3 more away games - no wins, no clean sheets. In fact in 3 home games, with a Prem quality keeper, we still only kept 1 clean sheet in 3 games. You are in absolutely no position to determine that NP had addressed anything, and there is no evidence of the hottest young manager in Britain addressing defensive frailties in one fell swoop is there? Hence why, returning to the subject of this thread, it's clear Crouch had no idea back then either despite his claims now to try to disrupt the club.

 

As usual and showing the traits that Lowe does, you are totally incapable of admitting that you made an error in your original post, so instead of admitting it, you bluster and backtrack, attempt to cloud the issue by introducing other facets.

 

I didn't mention Ian Pearce because he didn't play against Hull either. In fact, he arrived a few days after the Plymouth match and was only on a 30 day loan, playing only one match against S****horpe and nothing further because of injury. So in the example that you used, the Hull 5-0 defeat, the only player signed by Pearson as a loanee that featured in that game was Pericard.

 

The rest of your tirade is you proving what a drama queen you can be when anybody has the temerity to pull the rug from under your feet.

[um pahars]

Just because I am arguing back against people like alpine who think he was "Britain's hottest young manager" (I hope you mean that in a footballing way alpine), is more a question of showing up the trite stupidity of those claims than trying to say NP was a disaster

 

I think you're being a bit of a drama queen here, as I don't think anyone is really suggesting Pearson is the best thing since sliced bread.

 

I think what psses alot of people off is when they compare Pearson to the fcking disaster that followed him.

 

Using Poortvliet as a comparison, then all of a sudden Pearson starts to look outstanding;)!!!!!!!!

 

IMHO, that's most supporter's gripe, not that Pearson was a fantastic manager, not that his period here was brilliant, but with him we had something that looked promising, had the supporter's support and was starting to find his feet.

 

Which brings us on neatly to:

 

Yes, I'm sure the 2nd largest shareholder telling him that we should have an English manager (FFS, welcome to deepest darkest 'ampshire) steeled his resolve!

 

You must be about the only one on here advocating we kept Poortvliet on.

 

He didn't need his steel resolved, he needed a one way ticket back to Arnemuiden!!!!!!!!!

 

Even though I don't believe it one bit (as I think Wilde and Lowe had already called time on Poortvliet), then if Crouch did unsettle Poortvleit and played a part in him walking, then fair play to Crouch.

 

I think we should have been doing everything possible to run Poortvliet out of town.

[saintjay77]

I think you're being a bit of a drama queen here, as I don't think anyone is really suggesting Pearson is the best thing since sliced bread.

 

I think what psses alot of people off is when they compare Pearson to the fcking disaster that followed him.

 

Using Poortvliet as a comparison, then all of a sudden Pearson starts to look outstanding;)!!!!!!!!

 

IMHO, that's most supporter's gripe, not that Pearson was a fantastic manager, not that his period here was brilliant, but with him we had something that looked promising, had the supporter's support and was starting to find his feet.

 

Which brings us on neatly to:

 

 

 

You must be about the only one on here advocating we kept Poortvliet on.

 

He didn't need his steel resolved, he needed a one way ticket back to Arnemuiden!!!!!!!!!

 

Even though I don't believe it one bit (as I think Wilde and Lowe had already called time on Poortvliet), then if Crouch did unsettle Poortvleit and played a part in him walking, then fair play to Crouch.

 

I think we should have been doing everything possible to run Poortvliet out of town.

 

TBF someone did try to suggest that Pearson was supposed to be the next biggest thing to come out of lower leagues and thats where that argument came from.

 

I agree with you that he shouldnt be compared to JP. If he is going to be compared to anyone or have anyone compared to him then surly it should be Wotte or Redcrap? As both of them have taken the job on in similar situations.

 

As in all 3 took a failing team on and there job is to avoid relegation. Redcrap and Pearson had plenty of time to do it and 1 only did it due to other teams results. Wotte is now in the hot seat and is doing no better or worse than Pearson did in the same amount of games.

 

I dont expect him to do it but then I didnt expect Pearson to do it at the same stage.

[um pahars]

Hence why, returning to the subject of this thread, it's clear Crouch had no idea back then either

 

I agree that Crouch had no idea back then when Pearson was first taken on, which makes his idea of having a review period come the end of the season eminently sensible.

 

It appeared to be an arrangement that suited both sides, and an arrangment that both Crouch and Pearson would have been happy to carry on with, had Lowe & co. not returned.

 

But come the end of the season, there was a point where we did have an idea of how good/bad Pearson was. And it was at that point that Lowe decided to call time on his tenure.

[Dark Munster]

I have to agree Wes' date=' I dont think /believe (as I dont know any facts - and nor does anyone it seems by the inconsistency of what we have been told) money really ahd anything to do with it - nor do I think Lowe made this decison based on some ingrained desire to rid the club of Crouch's choice - thats just daft. I think it was Lowe's longer term desire to see a youth policy in action - his vision of Saints as a mini Ajax with Dutch systems and dutch style. He finally got the opportunity because he probably thought there was nothing to lose, and it woudl fit within the budget at this time... I think Pearson was just unfornuate to be stuck in the middle. This does not excuse Lowe's handling of it - if what has been said is TRUE, nor am I supporting his decision - as its easy to see its well and truely failing - BUt I am honest enough to admit[b'] that in THEORY at least I liked the idea before the season started[/b] and after a couple of games despite teh initial results, it still looked promising, easy to fall into the trap of forgetting that this is a tough league for naive kids when you have a couple of games of neet pasing and attractive style....

 

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.

[Dark Munster]

Firstly, if you believe he had no money then blame the chairman at the time who shipped out Rasiak and Skacel on loan and then tied the purse-strings.

 

But of course in fact we did get 5 loan players in - Wright (thanks to Webster), and then Pearce, Pericard, Lucketti and Perry. Not a hugely succesful set of old-timers there really - 4 new defenders and we still got tonked 5-0 at Hull - clearly NP still struggled despite changing half the team. Maybe that's why Leicester fans' response to his appointment was "muted" rather than "alpinesque"?

 

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.