DesertFox
Well-Known Member
That's not what you said when me and Homey were last round... yummy!
Pearson Out
- Thread starter jas123
- Start date
- Status
Lako42
Well-Known Member
Lako42
Well-Known Member
Especially, he loves that
RHYDAL
Well-Known Member
That's one turd he would polish.
alex
Well-Known Member
The Old Fox
Well-Known Member
Small towner.
Is that another spell check error? Surely, you mean, "Small browner" .... :icon_lol:
DesertFox
Well-Known Member
That's not what you said when me, Homey and Alex were last round... etc., and so forth.
Brown Nose
Well-Known Member
Mulling over this question is causing me some difficulty.
If I look at this as objectively as possible, I'd have to rate our chances of survival under NP as 30-40%. Were we to make a change in the near future and recruit Pulis, our chances of survival must increase to 70-80%.
If the most important thing for you is our survival, then it has to make sense to make a change. If you don't mind relegation and see the value in continuity then I totally get the desire to retain NP.
The ideal is obviously retaining NP and staying up. But that's becoming a bigger gamble by the week. My head says why would anyone not want us to make the change but, in truth, I do get it. It's almost like we have an inferiority complex or don't really believe that we belong at this level. Or that the years of us going through crap manager after crap manager has made us afraid of change.
Were our owners to make a firm decision and bring in TP for NP, I'd be really impressed by them. It would be the move of people with serious intent. But if it were me in their position, could I really do it?
Seriously, put yourself in the owners position with those odds. What's the best thing to do for the future of our club?
If I look at this as objectively as possible, I'd have to rate our chances of survival under NP as 30-40%. Were we to make a change in the near future and recruit Pulis, our chances of survival must increase to 70-80%.
If the most important thing for you is our survival, then it has to make sense to make a change. If you don't mind relegation and see the value in continuity then I totally get the desire to retain NP.
The ideal is obviously retaining NP and staying up. But that's becoming a bigger gamble by the week. My head says why would anyone not want us to make the change but, in truth, I do get it. It's almost like we have an inferiority complex or don't really believe that we belong at this level. Or that the years of us going through crap manager after crap manager has made us afraid of change.
Were our owners to make a firm decision and bring in TP for NP, I'd be really impressed by them. It would be the move of people with serious intent. But if it were me in their position, could I really do it?
Seriously, put yourself in the owners position with those odds. What's the best thing to do for the future of our club?
Matt_B
Well-Known Member
The whole probablem is that your odds aren't based on anything. I see your argument, but right now we aren't eve in the relegation spots. Pulis has a great record of keeping teams up but I find his teams boring and don't like how he left Palace. I'm also a fan of continuity.
spionfox
Well-Known Member
Was it his fault?
H T B
Well-Known Member
Personally, I think you are in danger of starting to believe your own drivel.
Redditch Fox
Well-Known Member
We have gone into this season without sufficient quality to thrive in the Premier League. The fact that Pearson only picks two of the summer acquisitions indicates that he knows that the club has brought in players who are mainly worse rather than better than the existing staff.
The owners made noises at the start of the summer which might have suggested that they understood the scale of investment needed. This was not followed through - instead the club spent quite a lot of money throwing new and better contracts at existing players.
Football at this level is a cruel game. Weakness is punished.
I think our chances of survival are slim but not impossible. I'm not sure that replacing Pearson would help - but if he can't improve on 2 points out of 21 then he won't last much longer anyway. Rightly or wrongle he will carry the can - but I think there is a collective responsibility in recruitment (lack of) which has led to f a position where we can't score any goals in away matches and have very limited options in personnel in all games.
Very, very disappointing.
The owners made noises at the start of the summer which might have suggested that they understood the scale of investment needed. This was not followed through - instead the club spent quite a lot of money throwing new and better contracts at existing players.
Football at this level is a cruel game. Weakness is punished.
I think our chances of survival are slim but not impossible. I'm not sure that replacing Pearson would help - but if he can't improve on 2 points out of 21 then he won't last much longer anyway. Rightly or wrongle he will carry the can - but I think there is a collective responsibility in recruitment (lack of) which has led to f a position where we can't score any goals in away matches and have very limited options in personnel in all games.
Very, very disappointing.
pork pie fox
Well-Known Member
Firstly, I am a fan of continuity, I would like the owners to keep NP. I know some people will disagree with me, but hey, I can live with that.
I just wanted to reply to this post Matt, as I think Pulis had Palace playing good football last year. I remember an interview with him last season where he was asked about the good football they were playing, compared to the reputation his Stoke team had, and his reply was that he had a different set of players at Palace and was therefore playing to their strengths. I thought he came across very well.
Hazzman
New Member
The main negative for me if Pulis ever came here is his legacy. Judging from
how it ended at both Stoke and Palace, he expects money be in plenty of supply and doesn't wait around for it either. It would be a short fix term.
Brown Nose
Well-Known Member
That isn't true at all. Stoke sacked him because they felt he'd taken them as far as he could and they wanted to 'push on'. I think this was an absurd decision by them. They brought in Mark Hughes, who is a decent manager, but I think it remains Pulis's squad that keep them in a comfortable mid table position. Pulis's Stoke legacy is that this is their fifth successive season in the Premier League and they've never looked like going down. Not to mention a Cup Final and European football.
At Palace, he came in and with a hopeless squad and no money, he remarkably fashioned a team that were exceptional in the second half of last season playing terrific. high tempo, hassling football. He left because he wanted the squad to be strengthened and it wasn't. Given how our owners have backed their managers, I can't imagine anything similar happening here.
- Status
| P | Pld | Pts | |
| 1 | Liverpool | 11 | 28 |
| 2 | Manchester C | 11 | 23 |
| 3 | Chelsea | 11 | 19 |
| 4 | Arsenal | 11 | 19 |
| 5 | Nottm F | 11 | 19 |
| 6 | Brighton | 11 | 19 |
| 7 | Fulham | 11 | 18 |
| 8 | Newcastle | 11 | 18 |
| 9 | Aston Villa | 11 | 18 |
| 10 | Tottenham | 11 | 16 |
| 11 | Brentford | 11 | 16 |
| 12 | Bournemouth | 11 | 15 |
| 13 | Manchester U | 11 | 15 |
| 14 | West Ham | 11 | 12 |
| 15 | Leicester | 11 | 10 |
| 16 | Everton | 11 | 10 |
| 17 | Ipswich | 11 | 8 |
| 18 | Palace | 11 | 7 |
| 19 | Wolves | 11 | 6 |
| 20 | Southampton | 11 | 4 |
