Pearson Out

[Redditch Fox]

They aren't wrong or irrelevant at all, they just aren't ones that fit in with your view.

What fans of other clubs are discussing or not discussing is utterly irrelevant to LCFC and its supporters.

Fans come at matters largely based on their own expectations. Burnley fans will be sort of enjoying the pain/ pleasure - but most will know they are going down anyway. QPR fans will have higher expectations and consequently is allegedly 'arry is on the brink. We are supposed to be an ambitious club and the Thais have resources...... they have just been under used.

 

[Jeff]

Not sure whether the club confirmed it...

GTF said it himself, not long after he signed his first contract with us.

 

[Volpone]

What opinions do members have on this comment by NP posted on the club website today?

"You’ll find most teams play with an extra man in the middle of the park,” said Pearson. “Most good Premier League sides are passing teams. You need to have the ball enough. Key areas in midfield remain the central areas.

“We have players that are capable of performing well in wide areas but what you can’t do is set up in a way which concedes too much possession to sides who can potentially out-manoeuvre you.

“I always feel it is the same process – who is best suited to try and get a win in this game. People want to look at systems a lot but we played 4-4-2 a lot last season but played about five different systems.

“What is important is you retain your own identity in terms of the type of team that you are. Our game is all about a good, collective work ethic playing at a good tempo regardless of the system.

“I’ve been told we’ve played 4-4-2 sometimes this year and it’s not actually been that. It’s how you perceive it.

“If you’re the best side, generally speaking you can impose your system of play on other teams – the top teams in the Premier League do it. You could argue last season we did that. We have to be a bit more streetwise."

 

[Matt_B]

What opinions do members have on this comment by NP posted on the club website today?

"You’ll find most teams play with an extra man in the middle of the park,” said Pearson. “Most good Premier League sides are passing teams. You need to have the ball enough. Key areas in midfield remain the central areas.

“We have players that are capable of performing well in wide areas but what you can’t do is set up in a way which concedes too much possession to sides who can potentially out-manoeuvre you.

“I always feel it is the same process – who is best suited to try and get a win in this game. People want to look at systems a lot but we played 4-4-2 a lot last season but played about five different systems.

“What is important is you retain your own identity in terms of the type of team that you are. Our game is all about a good, collective work ethic playing at a good tempo regardless of the system.

“I’ve been told we’ve played 4-4-2 sometimes this year and it’s not actually been that. It’s how you perceive it.

“If you’re the best side, generally speaking you can impose your system of play on other teams – the top teams in the Premier League do it. You could argue last season we did that. We have to be a bit more streetwise."

I'd say he's about right, especially about us not being one of the best sides and having to adjust accordingly to their systems.

 

[Lako42]

I'd say he's about right, especially about us not being one of the best sides and having to adjust accordingly to their systems.

The issue is that we are now getting beat every week regardless of setting up to stifle opponents.

We now look like we are trying for 0-0 every game, which I guarantee will see us down way before the end of the season.

I agree with what he says about the better sides, but we are setting up negatively against the lesser sides, what is the point exactly?

 

[Volpone]

I'm particularly interested in a post that Brown Nose made recently to the effect that you can't play 4-4-2 in the Premier League and expect to win games. For those of us who are not so tactically aware (including myself), perhaps BN and others could enlighten us? Posted in all seriousness.

 

[Redditch Fox]

The issue is that we are now getting beat every week regardless of setting up to stifle opponents.

We now look like we are trying for 0-0 every game, which I guarantee will see us down way before the end of the season.

I agree with what he says about the better sides, but we are setting up negatively against the lesser sides, what is the point exactly?

Spot on.

At the start of the season we approached games with positivity - whoever the opposition.

Where did it all go wrong?

Was it losing at Palace in spite of commanding possession in the first half? Was it the give away equaliser at home to Burnley? Is it just a cumulative loss of confidence?

Pearson doesn't exactly sound like he is about to restore confidence - in fact more like a rationalisation of failure.

I hope he snaps out of this, gets us to hang in there - suficient to persuade some quality to sign up in January. If not - we are stuffed.

 

[Lako42]

Spot on.

At the start of the season we approached games with positivity - whoever the opposition.

Where did it all go wrong?

Was it losing at Palace in spite of commanding possession in the first half? Was it the give away equaliser at home to Burnley? Is it just a cumulative loss of confidence?

Pearson doesn't exactly sound like he is about to restore confidence - in fact more like a rationalisation of failure.

I hope he snaps out of this, gets us to hang in there - suficient to persuade some quality to sign up in January. If not - we are stuffed.

It doesn't sound like he's going to be changing anything any time soon, which will be the end of him I'm afraid.

I don't want Pearson to leave but as stated above, why have we changed our approach all of a sudden despite getting some fantastic results?

We didn't play like frightened little rabbits at Stamford Bridge against the best team in the league by a country mile, so why are we doing it against some of the lesser teams? We didn't win but we got some credit for causing them problems and looking like we wanted to win.

I just don't understand where the requirement to change our attitude has come from?

 

[FryattFox]

The issue is that we are now getting beat every week regardless of setting up to stifle opponents.

We now look like we are trying for 0-0 every game, which I guarantee will see us down way before the end of the season.

I agree with what he says about the better sides, but we are setting up negatively against the lesser sides, what is the point exactly?

Indeed.

At present, best case scenario is we get a point from every game. Which we won't achieve given our porous defence.

We should be taking it to teams on the counter attack with our pace. If we get the odd drubbing then so be it. But we're currently going down without a fight based on the last five games.

 

[Matt_B]

Why are people so convinced that he won't change things? Surely he changed them before to the "losing system"?

 

[Lako42]

Why are people so convinced that he won't change things? Surely he changed them before to the "losing system"?

From his quotes in various stories regarding us. Doesn't sound like he's expecting us to return to using wide men.

 

[Matt_B]

From his quotes in various stories regarding us. Doesn't sound like he's expecting us to return to using wide men.

Ah so they mean he won't change things to what they want. The constant moans about different personel show he's not afraid to change it up.

 

[FryattFox]

Why are people so convinced that he won't change things? Surely he changed them before to the "losing system"?

I'm not 'convinced' and I certainly am not currently advocating his dismissal, but the last 5 matches have been dire and the changes that he's made come across as confused and a little desperate.

Fwiw, I think that our midfield is the main cause of all of our problems, and we desperately need a more settled structure and personnel.

 

[fox58]

Keep the faith

 

[alex]

Wot he said up above....

 

[Feriol]

Pearson's comments have suggested that we are not good enough in midfield to attack. However Hammond and King as a pair (seen by some as our 4th and 5th choice) were doing a respectable job against Everton, Chelsea and Arsenal. We were doing an excellent job of soaking up pressure and looked dangerous on the break.

Now we are flooding the midfield, still conceding possession and still coming under pressure, only now we have no threat. I can understand Pearson wanting to change things but the worrying thing is that the changes he has made aren't working, yet his comments suggest he hasn't acknowledged it.

 

[Hazzman]

I'm not 'convinced' and I certainly am not currently advocating his dismissal, but the last 5 matches have been dire and the changes that he's made come across as confused and a little desperate.

Fwiw, I think that our midfield is the main cause of all of our problems, and we desperately need a more settled structure and personnel.

I am with FF here. If we play Ulloa, surely we play to his strengths with at least one wide man who can get a cross in.

 

[Lako42]

Ah so they mean he won't change things to what they want. The constant moans about different personel show he's not afraid to change it up.

I'm talking about this absurd fascination with a narrow system, not his constant changing of personnel.

 

[Brown Nose]

I'm particularly interested in a post that Brown Nose made recently to the effect that you can't play 4-4-2 in the Premier League and expect to win games. For those of us who are not so tactically aware (including myself), perhaps BN and others could enlighten us? Posted in all seriousness.

I would be able to do this quite effectively with one of those interactive board things that Neville and Carragher use.

However, it's simply a matter of controlling the game. On this, I'm in total agreement with NP. Unless you can assert some control over the way a game is played, you are unlikely to get very far. Possession is nothing to do with it, rather is it being able to play the way you want to.

Consider how many Premier League teams play 4-4-2? I don't think any of them do. There is a clue about its effectiveness here. Surely, if it was an effective option, other clubs would be using it. I've seen Man City use it a couple of times this season but even they prefer 4-2-3-1 now.

Most sides play a variation on 4-5-1 such as 4-2-3-1 or 4-3-3. Some play with wide players, most don't. If you play 4-4-2 against any of these variations, you have to have exceptionally good midfielders. We haven't got any players that I'd trust in this system. The work rate, ability to keep the ball and positional play required is well beyond our lot. Cambiasso maybe could have done it three years ago. The others just aren't good enough. Opposition players will pass through it too easily, your defence isn't defended well enough, the wide players get isolated or have to support the central midfielders and so on.

We can only play wide players if we play three central midfielders.

I've little doubt that 4-4-2 will return in a developed format. It is such a good formation in so many ways. However, someone has got to work out how to adapt it to be able to overcome the dominant way of playing nowadays. There is no way on this earth that NP and his training ground coaches will ever come up with the answer or with the personnel required to trailblaze it.

I know this explanation is limited and somewhat lacking but without the tools to demonstrate it, you'll just have to trust just about every top level manager in the game. This article is pretty good, although quite dated now: http://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2010/jul/14/the-question-what-next-for-442

 

[Volpone]

This article is pretty good, although quite dated now: http://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2010/jul/14/the-question-what-next-for-442

Firstly, many thanks for taking the time to write your reply to my question. I feel I learnt a lot. Much appreciated.

Also the Guardian article was very illuminating. I guess this quote sums up our current predicament quite nicely: 'A five-man midfield, however it is arrayed, brings its own problems, perhaps most obviously that it can be difficult, particularly for less technical teams, to get men forward to support the lone striker.'