Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited



Recent Profile Visitors

706 profile views
  1. S_C


    This was about five rows in-front of me yesterday. For context and what it’s worth.. I didn’t hear any celebration after goal however others clearly did. One middle aged home fan {understandably} wasn’t thrilled, angrily told the away fan(s) to get out, they didn’t, home fan aimed a few swings at one of away fans. The away fan tried to brush it off but the home fan continued at which point the away fan started throwing, caught the guy a couple of times, home fans poured in (which I’d say is where the video starts). As others have commented on I was surprised how long it took stewards/police to arrive. Some home fans were beckoning those at bottom of Dolman, who were watching incident, to come up.. No doubt in my mind the fault lies with away fan. Don’t sit in the home end. If you do, don’t draw attention to yourself. That isn’t to condone home fans behaviour but fault is with the away fan(s). There’s a reason you’re not allowed to do this. The reaction you see in the video is response to away fan punching middle aged home fan. But home fan started throwing first. But away fan shouldn’t be sat in home end..
  2. So, Jon Lansdown has made a throwaway comment regarding how we could be performing better in the league, something that Pearson has alluded to himself in regard to results, Pearson then feels the need to comment on the situation and suddenly it’s a feeding frenzy for how the heroic and visionary manager is biting back against the clueless owners. You know, just so I’m understanding where we are and all that.. With a few little concerns I am essentially fully behind Pearson and the rebuild job he is doing here. He is clearly working under difficult circumstances and is, for me, doing a good {enough} job. But, to both him and others jumping on the bandwagon, steady.. As that James Piercy piece illustrates he isn’t and shouldn’t be operating from a position of strength. This situation, in my opinion, is almost entirely of Pearson’s making. Wry smile, ‘He’s the chairman, he’s entitled to his opinion, but I’d rather discuss those things face to face than in-front of a camera’. End of story. Whether or not he is right in what he is saying that does not mean he has dealt with the situation appropriately. The next time he speaks he should qualify his words (which really isn’t difficult, just make reference to ‘the previous regime’ or ‘looking at different ways to operate’ etc) and draw a line under the whole thing. Whether or not the Lansdown family are clueless in regard to running a football club you cannot openly criticise your employers in such a manner, especially in response to what seems a generic, gee up the troops, response, and not expect to be pulled up on it. Id be very disappointed if he was to go but if I was the owner he’d be in my office ASAP.
  3. I agree, Dave. Though I suspect he would never admit it I wonder if he will look back with a degree of regret that his emotion got the better of him post-match. Again, not saying he's wrong, but it is his job to get the best out of what he has at his disposal, and this is where I somewhat waver. We've seen bits and pieces of promise through the season, some are very quick to forget that we used to have, unless my memory is betraying me, one or two shots a game under Holden. In my opinion we have improved (again, some forget that if we hadnt improved since he joined we'd be rock bottom with or without points deductions) however we consistently turn in performances that are lacking in core elements of a team in our position. He's right, we do lack heart, we still have a glaring lack of leaders and it was lovely to see Bentley dishing out a bollocking after an all too familiar passage of play where we mentally switched off. The issue, however, is that we are also lacking in areas for which he/the coaching team should be held accountable. We look ragged and disorganised far too often. We lose shape and discipline, our positional awareness is poor. There have been times this season where we've looked like a pub team. Of course when we come out of those unscathed, as we did against Reading in midweek, it is dressed up with the predictable chaff of 'bodies on the line', 'did what we needed to do' etc. I was uncomfortable with Fleming spouting such lines after Wednesday as it simply wasnt the reality. More often than not we concede an equaliser in those circumstances, don't make a rod for your back with falsified positives that, a few days later, can be countered with 'So they didn't put their bodies on the line today?' To reiterate I am behind Pearson and think, for more than one reason, people need to stop the negativity and buy into the fact we have/are pressing the reset button. However I understand when that bubbles up as we have at times this season turned in performances I would deem unacceptable. To be frank, whilst he clearly deserves credit for it happening on his watch, he should thank his lucky stars that Semenyo is a man transformed.
  4. If he isnt in the position to change personnel it isnt incredibly sensible to publicly out the options he has. I am largely behind Pearson and sympathetic to the circumstances he is operating in but I think you have to go very careful as a manager. If circumstances dictate that you have no option but to work with x you don't put x in a position where they think 'well **** you then.' Is he right, yeah he probably is. The squad does need new faces and people do need to leave. I am behind Pearson in regard to overseeing that transition but he's very reliant on fans buying into him being the person to steer us through with, to be honest, not a whole heap of evidence to back that up.
  5. Yes, agree. Wires crossed as per previous reply. In my opinion he’s at fault for the first whilst the second was just generally shambolic.
  6. @billywedlock Sorry, not sure if I’ve misinterpreted which goal we were talking about here.. What I’ve said above is in reference to the first goal. The second goal I’d be less critical of him, more questioning what the plan was as the initial cross took three of our defenders out of the game (Martin, O’Dowda plus one other). Was an absolute shambles.
  7. Disagree. Cross is telegraphed, stays in the air an age, he takes a few steps forward but then backs out. A goalkeeper advancing with reach advantage is infinitely better placed to deal with situations like that than defenders who are back tracking under pressure. I haven’t read this thread so no idea if some have gone OTT but it was a poor mistake from a good, young, goalkeeper which, I think it would be fair to suggest, went a long way to costing us the game.
  8. It’s a results business, this week has inescapably highlighted that. The performance against QPR was good/very good in parts. Ironically it was the experienced King, whose presence alongside Tanner gave the XI a much more reassuring feel, who cost us the game. We lose and those who have made their mind up that Pearson isn’t the man surface - whether blatantly or with subtle, snarky remarks. The performance against Millwall was poor/fine/good in parts. Better 2nd half, clearly, but not the performance of a few days earlier where we were very unfortunate not to claim a point at least. I didn’t like the team selection, I didn’t like the blinkered optimism that it was more (if not entirely) an endorsement of the academy than necessity and I didn’t like the way that giddiness inevitably turned to criticism. But we win. So the pessimists retreat when they have greater ground to criticise than QPR, and the optimists advance when they had greater reason to do so following a defeat a few days earlier. There’s multiple things in play here and, as has been said before, this season was always going to have enough for the opposite ends of the spectrum to exchange blows. This squad has more than enough about it to not be anxiously looking over its shoulder. Factoring in we’re in full reset mode, so excluding many of the higher paid who we’re clearly trying to move on, we look hugely vulnerable. The starting XI yesterday was a walking wicket. At season start if it were known in early Jan we’d have an XI featuring Towler, Pring, Scott and Benarous, and that’s overlooking Vyner (for who the jury seems very much still out) and O’Leary, it would have drawn gasps. And rightly so. Put it a different way. Players who didn’t play yesterday (for whatever reason) could make the following team - Bentley, Simpson, Baker, Atkinson, Dasilva, Massengo, Williams, King, Palmer, Wells, Martin. Personally, I don’t believe that Pearson was ‘trying to make a point’. Yesterday’s starting XI screamed two things for me; 1. Pearson himself has no concerns what-so-ever over his position. 2. We’re in much deeper trouble generally than is/was widely acknowledged. Yesterdays starting XI showed, in my opinion, that Pearson has full backing and will almost certainly be backed through a theoretical relegation. Clearly there are extremes which change the landscape but with a three year deal and Lansdown looking for investment it seems clear we’ve handed the reigns to an experienced head with the aim of being a more attractive investment opportunity by the time his contract ends - PL seems a pipe dream at present, the hope is a Championship club whether through survival or promotion. People need to buckle up. If yesterday’s XI is a sign of things to come and January is more about out than in, which it surely will be, there will be more bad days than good. At the start of the season my expectation was something like 12th-16th (from memory), if yesterday’s starting XI is an indication of where we are I’d snap your hand off for survival.
  9. Looking forward to this wave of positivity translating to a measured, 'learning curve' response should we not get a result today.. All well and good seeing youngsters in the XI, the questions is are they there through requirement, merit or a bit of both. If this lineup had been quoted at the start of the season then the conclusion could only have been that we're in much deeper trouble than any of us acknowledged. Of course it's nice to see the academy bearing fruit, however it's much easier to enthuse that the youngsters are included on merit than it is to contemplate otherwise.
  10. There’s a difference between moaning and commenting. Not saying some didn’t moan, not saying those that did weren’t justified in doing so, but saying Gould was uncertain and nervous {on RB}, for example, isn’t {necessarily} moaning. Don’t want to go in circles with this conversation, you (and others) were satisfied/reassured with what the club released yesterday and that’s great, however from my point of view the question is - if you could do the one thing to stop speculation (get a direct quote from Pearson stating his willingness to return) then why wouldn’t you do it? It’s also important to clarify ‘we want more’. I’m not saying I want more. I said in original comment that club had to speak and they did. Again, there’s a difference between commenting and moaning, and I think too often people mistake the two. I’m not moaning that Pearson hasn’t commented, there’s various reasons why that could be the case including his health, so I’m certainly not moaning. I’m simply commenting that it’s interesting he hasn’t.
  11. No I most definitely don’t want him to do anything that in any way compromises his recovery. Hopefully my response to DaveFevs explains my thought process.
  12. One of two things must be true; 1. Pearson is in regular contact with the club, whether simply updating on his health or having input into day-to-day. The club surely realise the best way to address uncertainty surrounding the managers future, an uncertainty that they helped create after Gould’s RB interview, is to get two sentences from Pearson during one of their phone chats which they can pump out to fans, settling rumours down. 2. Pearson either isn’t in regular contact with the club or is and, for whatever reason, the situation is more uncertain than is appropriate to reveal. As has been discussed previously it is inappropriate to speculate on health. Pearson’s health isn’t any of mine, or any of ours, business. I very much hope he’s doing ok/improving, I don’t want nor am suggesting details of the situation be shared, the only thing that matters is his health. However, to my mind, either 1. is true in which case why not have a general (not specific, not making promises that might not be kept etc.) ‘Thank you to all those who have passed on their good wishes, this is a frustrating time for me in which I must put my health first however I am eager to get back to work’ message, which for me carries significantly more weight than Gould firming up his tone. The only reason I can see is 2. This isn’t about details of health it’s about clarity of message. I’m not annoyed, frustrated, clamouring for info, a man’s health is more important than the fortunes of a football club. I wish him all the very best in his recovery but am curious to why the message continues to be ambiguous.
  13. Not trying to fuel conspiracy theories, understand people will say things like ‘never satisfied’ etc. but the lack of a quote directly from Pearson makes me suspicious on this. Not expecting a 20 minute sit-down but he’s presumably in contact with the club via phone so I’m curious why that wasn’t able to be included. The club needed to say something and they have. That’s great. Not criticising them and it’s nice to hear a more promising tone, fingers crossed he’s back fit and firing ASAP. As it always has been the main/only thing is he gets himself healthy.
  14. Agree, good article, enjoyed reading. This is purely my opinion, of course, but I think we might be further along the road than the article suggests. I don’t blame Gould for being shaky in the RB interview, he can only say what he can say and certainly can’t offer assurances he isn’t in a position to give, but I thought his tone spoke volumes and it simply isn’t a situation the club can allow to drift. It goes without saying, seem to say it in every post, Pearson’s health comes first. No question. However if he isn’t in a position to return to work (or definitively state he will return to work imminently) by the end of the international break then the club need to start putting feelers out for replacements. Again, purely my opinion, but I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s already happening. In fact I would go as far as saying that, in my mind, it’s possible Pearson has already told the club he requires an indefinite amount of time off and the extent of the situation isn’t being acknowledged publicly. From the article I thought the attached was quite telling. Just wording, perhaps, but ‘disinterest’ and ‘exasperation’ caught my eye. We now know that Pearson has been {largely} absent for some time, seemingly coinciding with our dip in form. Mentioned in other places players can be a fragile bunch and if I were Fleming et al I would be using this time to asses who has the character to buckle down and lead in these difficult circumstances and who is going with the flow, absolving themselves with a ready-made excuse for underperforming.
  15. Thought the one comment that sounded absolutely unequivocal in the RB interview was that there had been no contact with Shakespeare, and I think you have to wonder whether that’s saying more than was intended. Club are in a catch 22 situation now. Shakespeare makes sense if Pearson is here, he doesn’t if he’s not.
  • Create New...