Thursday, August 16, 2007

Pearce picks wrong 'un with poor cricket analogy

Former Manchester City manager Stuart Pearce says he
performed the role of a "night-watchman" for the club.
City's New owner
Thaksin Shinawatra has backed Pearce's successor Sven-Goran Eriksson, who has
seen his side win their opening two Premier League games.
Pearce, who was
City's boss for two years, said: "I was probably the first of the footballing
night-watchman.
"I was sent in to bat through the night until some money was
available - I knew that when I took the club over."
-BBC Sport.

I've played (and watched) a fair bit of cricket over the years and I wouldn't agree that a mangerial reign over around two and a quarter seasons (with a longer contract in place before it was terminated) was akin to the role of a nightwatchman. Thinking both over recent history, someone like Phil Neal or Asa Hartford could justifiably claim it, but Stuart Pearce? I don't think so.

I'm not for one moment denying Pearce under far tougher times than his successor is enjoying but there was no indication when he took the job it was for a limited period only and he always (in public anyway) enjoyed the backing of the board.

Ultimately, it was his performance in the role that lost him the job, not before he had the lost the fans and despite the resources given to him the differences between Pearce and Eriksson are telling already.

Maybe if during his time at the club (crease?) he had performed like this guy did then he may well have been moved up the order as opposed to being dropped to the second XI.

It isn't for one minute a pop at Pearce as despite results (and performances) he always enjoyed backing to a certain degree from fans for his approach and how he went about things - and it is clear the club meant a great deal to him during his time here; "I've got a lot of time for the club and I'm pleased to see there's some financial input to help push the club forward."

Pearce could quite easily have come out and had a bitch about his treatment, and bemoaned the general lack of finance afforded to him but to his credit he hasn't and this is a major factor in why he will have the best wishes of the majority of fans as he begins his new full-time role as manager of the under-21's - picking three City players in the first squad.

It is in contrast to the story earlier this week regarding Dennis Tueart's 'treatment' by the club, something that does seem to have backfired on him after his comments this week which were undoubtedly timed to generate maximum exposure and cause maximum damage - a move though which has hardly endeared him to fans judging by the concensus reaction.

Regardless of how justified he was in his opinion, the fact that he seems to have completely misread what the opinion would be has only served to have him portrayed as a sour individual with a very large axe to grind.

vote it up!

1 comment:

City Slicker said...

Stuart City fans loved your passion but you made a poor manager and coach. You also made some very bad signings, hardly a guide to letting ypu spend even more when the cash did become available. Even players that were playing badly seem to have found new confidence.Worst of all your team played boring football.