Who next after Brendan?

[Smashing-Pumpkin]

25 minutes ago, Raw Dykes said:

I find it very difficult to understand Leicester fans who can't see what Pearson achieved here. Perhaps they don't really know? Or choose to ignore it? Or just have a visceral dislike of the man? Don't know.

 

I may or may not think it's downright disrespectful. I just copy and pasted the OP's last paragraph, but substituted 'Nigel Pearson' for 'the owners.'

Its not so much that they downplay what Pearson achieved, i certainly dont, he was instrumental in the rebuild of the club.

 

What I struggle to understand is why people undervalue the people who actually WIN things, like big prizes.

 

Ranieri WON THE PREMIER LEAGUE. This doesnt happen by accident or because the man before you was doing alright. Yet some people seem to be borderline obsessed with the narrative that Pearson won the league.

 

Now i fully accept it was right to let Ranieri go however. But we should still be celebrating that title win every day. I should be seeing threads about it all the time, statues, banners, everything. It was monumental.

 

Likewise Rodgers who won us an FA Cup and given us two european campaigns. Ok, things arent great at the moment and there are mitigating circumstances for that. Sometimes a club has to go backwards and take stock to move forwards again, just like Man Utd did under Ferguson.

 

But it seems bizarre how the people who actually DO the biggest things in the clubs history are the ones who get put in the bin immediately.

[The Year Of The Fox]

1 hour ago, pmcla26 said:

It's the fans with unrealistic expectations who are creating this division. 

Yes you’re right. 
 

Expecting to beat Forest and Warsaw is unrealistic 

[Raw Dykes]

3 hours ago, Smashing-Pumpkin said:

Its not so much that they downplay what Pearson achieved, i certainly dont, he was instrumental in the rebuild of the club.

 

What I struggle to understand is why people undervalue the people who actually WIN things, like big prizes.

 

Ranieri WON THE PREMIER LEAGUE. This doesnt happen by accident or because the man before you was doing alright. Yet some people seem to be borderline obsessed with the narrative that Pearson won the league.

 

Now i fully accept it was right to let Ranieri go however. But we should still be celebrating that title win every day. I should be seeing threads about it all the time, statues, banners, everything. It was monumental.

 

Likewise Rodgers who won us an FA Cup and given us two european campaigns. Ok, things arent great at the moment and there are mitigating circumstances for that. Sometimes a club has to go backwards and take stock to move forwards again, just like Man Utd did under Ferguson.

 

But it seems bizarre how the people who actually DO the biggest things in the clubs history are the ones who get put in the bin immediately.

I don't really want to get into how much of the title win was down to Ranieri, but I think giving him all the credit is like saying he built a house when all he did was put the last few tiles on the roof. There wasn't one signing of his in that eleven. I know that sounds harsh, but I think it's common knowledge that he didn't really change anything. Saying that, though, he does deserve huge credit for recognising that he didn't need to. He should be applauded for not tinkering when he easily could have. He was fantastic for keeping the pressure off the players and keeping the momentum going. For all he did that season, I'll be eternally grateful.

 

I actually don't believe any other manager would have led us to the title that season - it was a perfect storm - but it just doesn't sit right with me to say it was all his doing. He inherited an awful lot to work with, and we all saw what happened when he did put his stamp on the team in the following season.

 

Saying Pearson won the league is highly contentious. Absolutely. I don't believe he, or anyone other than Ranieri for that matter, would have won us the PL title that season. However, it cannot be denied that NP built the team that did.

Edited 1 March 2022 by Raw Dykes

[sacreblueits442]

40 minutes ago, Smashing-Pumpkin said:

Its not so much that they downplay what Pearson achieved, i certainly dont, he was instrumental in the rebuild of the club.

 

What I struggle to understand is why people undervalue the people who actually WIN things, like big prizes.

 

Ranieri WON THE PREMIER LEAGUE. This doesnt happen by accident or because the man before you was doing alright. Yet some people seem to be borderline obsessed with the narrative that Pearson won the league.

 

Now i fully accept it was right to let Ranieri go however. But we should still be celebrating that title win every day. I should be seeing threads about it all the time, statues, banners, everything. It was monumental.

 

Likewise Rodgers who won us an FA Cup and given us two european campaigns. Ok, things arent great at the moment and there are mitigating circumstances for that. Sometimes a club has to go backwards and take stock to move forwards again, just like Man Utd did under Ferguson.

 

But it seems bizarre how the people who actually DO the biggest things in the clubs history are the ones who get put in the bin immediately.

...I  think Claudio's reception says differently!!!

[DoveValleyFox]

On 26/02/2022 at 02:17, winteriscoming said:

I wouldn’t. Not even in my top 4. 

This is a real point. If there were a manager's statue at the Leicester City Stadium, it would be Ranieri,  Rodgers, O'Neil or Gillies. These are the trophy winners and like it or not, pots count above anything. Countless Leicester City fans through the generations would have given anything to have English champions or FA Cup winners after their name before any manager who helped with the foundations.  

 

Nigel Pearson, Willie Orr and even the likes of Jock Wallace all laid fabulous foundations for what came after but their names will not be remembered around the world or in football History books. 

[Smashing-Pumpkin]

Just now, Raw Dykes said:

I don't really want to get into how much of the title win was down to Ranieri, but I think giving him all the credit is like saying he built a house when all he did was put the last few tiles on the roof. There wasn't one signing of his in that eleven. I know that sounds harsh, but I think it's common knowledge that he didn't really change anything. Saying that, though, he does deserve huge credit for recognising that fact. He should be applauded for not tinkering when he easily could have. He was fantastic for keeping the pressure off the players and keeping the momentum going. For all he did that season, I'll be eternally grateful.

 

I actually don't believe any other manager would have led us to the title that season - it was a perfect storm - but it just doesn't sit right with me to say it was all his doing. He inherited an awful lot to work with, and we all saw what happened when he did put his stamp on the team in the following season.

 

Saying Pearson won the league is highly contentious. Absolutely. I don't believe he, or anyone other than Ranieri for that matter, would have won us the PL title that season. However, it cannot be denied that NP built the team that did.

Im not saying Ranieri should take ALL the credit for winning the Premier League, but just in the same way you are trying to suggest thats what Im doing, youre doing the same by suggesting Ranieri "put a few tiles on the roof" (in your words).

 

The idea that he didnt change anything for example has been invented from somewhere. He might not have changed the backroom infastructure very much, and fair play for recognising that fact. He MASSIVELY changed the clubs demeanour off the field in terms of its outside perception, the media, won the hearts and minds of many and managed expectations perfectly. And ON the field, he totally changed tactics to make us one of the most effective counter attacking units in Europe at that time, got the absolute best out of players who hadnt previously shown that form, etc etc.

 

Of course, there is a middle ground here, where we recognise a) Pearson built a decent team and got us to the Premier League b) Ranieri was the man in charge when we won the league, so naturally MOST, (not all) of the credit goes his way, because he actually WON the trophy.

 

Pearson clearly didnt win the league. Thats a narrative people have invented because they like Pearson more than Ranieri, Rodgers, anyone else before him etc.

 

That doesnt mean to say we cannot RECOGNISE that Pearson had a significant effect in moving the club into a position where it was MORE CAPABLE of winning things. And we must also understand that its HIGHLY UNLIKELY that without Pearson implementing many aspects of the club, we would not have found lasting success.

 

So there is a middle ground where everyone is correct.

 

Discussing Pearson is like discussing brexit, its impossible to have a rational discussion from both angles on a subject like this. The whole discussion ends up being clouded by cult like behaviour on both sides.

 

It gets silly. Who's responsible for West Ham's good previous 2 seasons? Its Manuel Pellegrini, Sullivan and Gold, right? because between them, they put together almost the entire squad at West Ham and Moyes took it over. So why would anyone credit Moyes? Moyes has bought hardly anyone, the two czechs being the exception.

 

No one would try and make that argument, yet its exactly what we are trying to do here.

 

 

[foxfanazer]

7 minutes ago, DoveValleyFox said:

This is a real point. If there were a manager's statue at the Leicester City Stadium, it would be Ranieri,  Rodgers, O'Neil or Gillies. These are the trophy winners and like it or not, pots count above anything. Countless Leicester City fans through the generations would have given anything to have English champions or FA Cup winners after their name before any manager who helped with the foundations.  

 

Nigel Pearson, Willie Orr and even the likes of Jock Wallace all laid fabulous foundations for what came after but their names will not be remembered around the world or in football History books. 

Who cares about if their names will be remembered in the history books? As fans of the club we can still appreciate the work Pearson did for us and recognise the part it played in what came after. 

 

Pearson wouldn't have won the league with us in 15/16 and Ranieri wouldn't have done the job that Pearson did. It was a perfect storm and each part of the journey should be applauded.

[ajthefox]

2 minutes ago, foxfanazer said:

It was a perfect storm and each part of the journey should be applauded.

This is all that matters.

 

Why do people still need to argue about all this? This conversation is so tiresome. 

 

(not a dig at you @foxfanazer)

[foxfanazer]

3 minutes ago, ajthefox said:

This is all that matters.

 

Why do people still need to argue about all this? This conversation is so tiresome. 

 

(not a dig at you @foxfanazer)

No I totally agree. I do find myself getting really defensive about Pearson

 

I just can't believe his tenure and the work he did here needs defending to some Leicester fans. Maybe I look at it all with rose tinted glasses but for me it was a magical time to support us. After years of absolutely dross he (and the owners) gave us pride in our club back

Edited 1 March 2022 by foxfanazer

[Fox92]

20 minutes ago, DoveValleyFox said:

This is a real point. If there were a manager's statue at the Leicester City Stadium, it would be Ranieri,  Rodgers, O'Neil or Gillies. These are the trophy winners and like it or not, pots count above anything. Countless Leicester City fans through the generations would have given anything to have English champions or FA Cup winners after their name before any manager who helped with the foundations.  

 

Nigel Pearson, Willie Orr and even the likes of Jock Wallace all laid fabulous foundations for what came after but their names will not be remembered around the world or in football History books. 

You can't say Gillies will be remembered around the World but Pearson won't be  

 

Gillies was wonderful here, should have won more, but who knows that now aside from City fans?

 

The only name that will be in a history book is Ranieri. O'Neill to a lesser extent because of the league cups domination. The rest are specific to us as we are fans.

[Smashing-Pumpkin]

Just now, foxfanazer said:

No I totally agree. I do find myself getting really defensive about Pearson

 

I just can't believe his tenure and the work he did here needs defending to some Leicester fans 

It doesnt need to be defended, his record speaks for itself.

 

The discussion gets tired because for one its a subject that as youve identified makes everyone go defensive anyway, but its equally boring because its plainly just a rewriting history and gaslighting project anyway.

 

The manager at the time wins the trophy. It is his trophy, he won it.

 

The previous manager has helped/hindered him from being successful. Clearly in the case of Pearson, he helped Ranieri, thats obvious to anyone.

 

No one would sit and make an argument that Claude Puel was instrumental in us winning the FA cup would they, despite him signing Madison, Ricardo, Tielemans, Soyuncu, Evans and giving a debut to Barnes would they? because no one likes Claude Puel, so the whole discussion just becomes a popularity contest than sticking to the discussion.

 

Does any of what ive wrote mean Pearson wasnt influential in our success? of course not.

 

[foxfanazer]

1 minute ago, Smashing-Pumpkin said:

It doesnt need to be defended, his record speaks for itself.

 

The discussion gets tired because for one its a subject that as youve identified makes everyone go defensive anyway, but its equally boring because its plainly just a rewriting history and gaslighting project anyway.

 

The manager at the time wins the trophy. It is his trophy, he won it.

 

The previous manager has helped/hindered him from being successful. Clearly in the case of Pearson, he helped Ranieri, thats obvious to anyone.

 

No one would sit and make an argument that Claude Puel was instrumental in us winning the FA cup would they, despite him signing Madison, Ricardo, Tielemans, Soyuncu, Evans and giving a debut to Barnes would they? because no one likes Claude Puel, so the whole discussion just becomes a popularity contest than sticking to the discussion.

 

Does any of what ive wrote mean Pearson wasnt influential in our success? of course not.

 

You make a fair point although in regards to the Puel comparison you've picked the wrong poster as I'm one of the people that appreciates the job he did here

 

Yes the football was dreadful but I think he did an admirable job under difficult circumstances 

 

 

[Smashing-Pumpkin]

Just now, foxfanazer said:

You make a fair point although in regards to the Puel comparison you've picked the wrong poster as I'm one of the people that appreciates the job he did here

 

Yes the football was dreadful but I think he did an admirable job under difficult circumstances 

 

 

I agree with you, what he did shouldnt be dismissed. But it will readily be dismissed by many because those people dont like HIM, rather than the job he did.

[Raw Dykes]

8 minutes ago, Smashing-Pumpkin said:

Im not saying Ranieri should take ALL the credit for winning the Premier League, but just in the same way you are trying to suggest thats what Im doing, youre doing the same by suggesting Ranieri "put a few tiles on the roof" (in your words).

 

The idea that he didnt change anything for example has been invented from somewhere. He might not have changed the backroom infastructure very much, and fair play for recognising that fact. He MASSIVELY changed the clubs demeanour off the field in terms of its outside perception, the media, won the hearts and minds of many and managed expectations perfectly. And ON the field, he totally changed tactics to make us one of the most effective counter attacking units in Europe at that time, got the absolute best out of players who hadnt previously shown that form, etc etc.

 

Of course, there is a middle ground here, where we recognise a) Pearson built a decent team and got us to the Premier League b) Ranieri was the man in charge when we won the league, so naturally MOST, (not all) of the credit goes his way, because he actually WON the trophy.

 

Pearson clearly didnt win the league. Thats a narrative people have invented because they like Pearson more than Ranieri, Rodgers, anyone else before him etc.

 

That doesnt mean to say we cannot RECOGNISE that Pearson had a significant effect in moving the club into a position where it was MORE CAPABLE of winning things. And we must also understand that its HIGHLY UNLIKELY that without Pearson implementing many aspects of the club, we would not have found lasting success.

 

So there is a middle ground where everyone is correct.

 

Discussing Pearson is like discussing brexit, its impossible to have a rational discussion from both angles on a subject like this. The whole discussion ends up being clouded by cult like behaviour on both sides.

 

It gets silly. Who's responsible for West Ham's good previous 2 seasons? Its Manuel Pellegrini, Sullivan and Gold, right? because between them, they put together almost the entire squad at West Ham and Moyes took it over. So why would anyone credit Moyes? Moyes has bought hardly anyone, the two czechs being the exception.

 

No one would try and make that argument, yet its exactly what we are trying to do here.

I think we're largely in agreement. The few tiles on the roof bit is perhaps a bit harsh, but you get the idea.

 

I'm not sure where the idea that Ranieri didn't change anything came from, but we don't know it's invented, do we? Jordan Blackwell has been quoted with saying it. Based on what we know, I can believe it, anyway. We know he didn't change the playing squad that was left for him. I can agree that he massively changed the perception of the club from the outside, as you say, but I fail to see how that had any bearing on our performances or results. I wouldn't have cared a jot if we'd won the league and everyone hated us. Might have even enjoyed it a bit more if anything! On the field, I believe we'd already demonstrated ourselves to be a very effective counter-attacking unit at the end of the previous season, so I can't really give him that, either.

 

Re: middle ground. I agree to a point. I really don't know how much credit Ranieri deserves. If he was pretty hands-off, as I believe he was, then I can't go as far as giving him most of the credit. He had a big hand in delivering the trophy, I don't doubt, but I think the groundwork was done, the foundations were laid, and I think a lot more work went into that than Ranieri ever did here.

 

No - Pearson didn't win the league. I said that myself.

 

It is a bit like discussing Brexit.

 

I'm sorry - I'm not really clued up on West Ham. The two Czechs have been highly influential, though, have they not? I believe our title winning team owed a lot to the 3 world class players it had in Vardy, Mahrez and Kante. If they had been Ranieri signings, I'd certainly be giving him a ton more credit.

 

Anyway, I didn't want to get into this, as it feels a bit like insulting my grandad, so I'll leave it there (probably!).

 

Love you, Claudio!

[Smashing-Pumpkin]

2 minutes ago, Raw Dykes said:

I think we're largely in agreement. The few tiles on the roof bit is perhaps a bit harsh, but you get the idea.

 

I'm not sure where the idea that Ranieri didn't change anything came from, but we don't know it's invented, do we? Jordan Blackwell has been quoted with saying it. Based on what we know, I can believe it, anyway. We know he didn't change the playing squad that was left for him. I can agree that he massively changed the perception of the club from the outside, as you say, but I fail to see how that had any bearing on our performances or results. I wouldn't have cared a jot if we'd won the league and everyone hated us. Might have even enjoyed it a bit more if anything! On the field, I believe we'd already demonstrated ourselves to be a very effective counter-attacking unit at the end of the previous season, so I can't really give him that, either.

 

Re: middle ground. I agree to a point. I really don't know how much credit Ranieri deserves. If he was pretty hands-off, as I believe he was, then I can't go as far as giving him most of the credit. He had a big hand in delivering the trophy, I don't doubt, but I think the groundwork was done, the foundations were laid, and I think a lot more work went into that than Ranieri ever did here.

 

No - Pearson didn't win the league. I said that myself.

 

It is a bit like discussing Brexit.

 

I'm sorry - I'm not really clued up on West Ham. The two Czechs have been highly influential, though, have they not? I believe our title winning team owed a lot to the 3 world class players it had in Vardy, Mahrez and Kante. If they had been Ranieri signings, I'd certainly be giving him a ton more credit.

 

Anyway, I didn't want to get into this, as it feels a bit like insulting my grandad, so I'll leave it there (probably!).

 

Love you, Claudio!

We are most certainly in agreement, its just the words you choose to use that i find bizarre, because we definitely agree on most aspects.

 

First of all, changing the perception of the club from the outside would have definitely helped the players. Who doesnt want to see positive social media and positive reporting to give you a feel good factor each day going into your job? I get that creating a siege type mentality in some respects works in some scenarios like a relegation battle, but then youre half way to being someone like Billy Davies who every single person without fail would say is an enormous nob.

 

Its not a long term strategy.

 

Lets also take the example of the three world class players as you put it. Every single one of them BECAME world class under SOMEONE ELSES management. Thats exactly the point im making by illustrating it by using David Moyes at West Ham except im flipping it on its head.

 

No one would possibly say "wow.... what an incredible visionary Manuel Pellegrini was for giving Declan Rice his debut, signing Fornals, Yarmolenko, Cresswell etc etc insert bang average players name" would they? they say look how much David Moyes has improved said players, not thank the lord Pellegrini bought all these players so everything we do from now on owes a debt of gratitude to him.

 

Its exactly the same argument and im using it to show how this endless Pearson discussion ends up diverting its way into a gaslighting popularity contest.

 

The whole thing cam be summed up as:

 

1) Pearson built a solid team that re-established us into the Premier League

2) We have since had a succession of managers two of which have won the two biggest domestic prizes there are to win

3) We are thankful to each person for what they did at the time

4) The people who won what they won, won what they won, oddly enough

5) Things dont happen in a vacuum and the previous manager's tenure affects the following managers tenure.

 

Its as simple as that, and theres no rewriting history there in any of that.

[Corky]

The closest connection I've felt to the club was when Pearson was in charge. I was too young to really appreciate O'Neill despite going to the matches, the title win was wonderful and would never take anything away from Ranieri, the last three years haven't been helped by being away from the ground for 18 months and the overall state of football ruining some enjoyment.

 

Always felt with Pearson that the club was in good hands and it was all about us trying to progress. He wasn't faultless, other managers have statistically done better jobs but when we were good under Pearson it was sensational.

[Smashing-Pumpkin]

2 minutes ago, Corky said:

The closest connection I've felt to the club was when Pearson was in charge. I was too young to really appreciate O'Neill despite going to the matches, the title win was wonderful and would never take anything away from Ranieri, the last three years haven't been helped by being away from the ground for 18 months and the overall state of football ruining some enjoyment.

 

Always felt with Pearson that the club was in good hands and it was all about us trying to progress. He wasn't faultless, other managers have statistically done better jobs but when we were good under Pearson it was sensational.

What does "closest connection ive felt to the club" mean to you, if its ok asking?

[Blodge96]

Jewelly. Paul Jewell

[Sankey93]

This topic will be hot tonight. We’re losing again tonight aswell. BR can’t turn this round! 

[Corky]

2 minutes ago, Smashing-Pumpkin said:

What does "closest connection ive felt to the club" mean to you, if its ok asking?

I went to the most away matches in his two spells so attended the most games overall of any manager we've had in my time. He was so refreshing after the five years of sterile dross before it. I liked the fact it wasn't a PR game or a bullshitting the fans situation. As I said before, I felt the club was going in the right direction and it was a sensible place with Pearson in charge.

 

It wasn't the best time we've ever had as a club obviously but he made me enjoy football again.

 

 

[Smashing-Pumpkin]

10 minutes ago, Corky said:

I went to the most away matches in his two spells so attended the most games overall of any manager we've had in my time. He was so refreshing after the five years of sterile dross before it. I liked the fact it wasn't a PR game or a bullshitting the fans situation. As I said before, I felt the club was going in the right direction and it was a sensible place with Pearson in charge.

 

It wasn't the best time we've ever had as a club obviously but he made me enjoy football again.

 

 

Do you feel the club is still going in the right direction or is that no longer the case?

 

Is this a style of play issue that makes you feel like you connect more to him than other managers?

 

Just trying to understand why youve felt "less connected" to the club the better the club has become?

[Corky]

1 hour ago, Smashing-Pumpkin said:

Do you feel the club is still going in the right direction or is that no longer the case?

 

Is this a style of play issue that makes you feel like you connect more to him than other managers?

 

Just trying to understand why youve felt "less connected" to the club the better the club has become?

Generally, yes. We're having a poor season but I think the club are demanding and this won't just be shrugged off.

 

Not particularly, his style was mixed but I thought he put together a squad of great characters who you could fully support.

 

I did say being away for 18 months forced a detachment of sorts but generally the sport isn't in a good place at the moment with power grabs, who is investing into it, even things like kick-off times being shoved all over the shop have pushed me away from it a bit. Don't get me wrong, I loved the FA Cup win, we've played some fantastic football under Rodgers but, yeah, I just feel underwhelmed by it all at the moment.

[Mr Weller]

6 hours ago, Raw Dykes said:

I find it very difficult to understand Leicester fans who can't see what Pearson achieved here. Perhaps they don't really know? Or choose to ignore it? Or just have a visceral dislike of the man? Don't know.

 

I may or may not think it's downright disrespectful. I just copy and pasted the OP's last paragraph, but substituted 'Nigel Pearson' for 'the owners.'

I think it’s because most Pearsonites are of a certain age where he was manager during the first period of moderate success they’d had in their lives. Younger fans hardly know who he was and older fans know he was well short of the likes of O Neil.

 

He delivered them from a decade of dirge and they’re eternally grateful.

Edited 1 March 2022 by Mr Weller

[Raw Dykes]

16 minutes ago, Mr Weller said:

I think it’s because most Pearsonites are of a certain age where he was manager during the first period of moderate success they’d had in their lives. Younger fans hardly know who he was and older fans know he was well short of the likes of O Neil.

 

He delivered them from a decade of dirge and they’re eternally grateful.

I don't think moderate success really covers it. He put together the side that achieved the greatest feat in all of sporting history. It's no surprise they're grateful.

[foxinsocks]

Sorting my cv out tonight