Stuart Pearce

[isab23502]

First season - really bucked us up and unlucky not to get UEFA
Second season - going very creditably up til the West Ham Cup game, played some nice football - bombed after that
Third season - I think we were top half going into the winter; lost our way; took some action and finished safe enough.

I think he had a hard time because a lot of Keegan's buys were coming to the end of their shelf lifes (McManaman, Reyna, Sinclair) and we also had a lot of injury problems (Cole in particular when he was scoring well).

Remember he was getting a lot of praise in the first half of 2005-2006 from all angles.

In his last season he was faced with little to spend and a lot of replacing to do. While that season was grim, he did he job needed.

I would put him down as one of the less terrible City managers.

 

[the-ecstacy-of-eight]

First season - really bucked us up and unlucky not to get UEFA
Second season - going very creditably up til the West Ham Cup game, played some nice football - bombed after that
Third season - I think we were top half going into the winter; lost our way; took some action and finished safe enough.

I think he had a hard time because a lot of Keegan's buys were coming to the end of their shelf lifes (McManaman, Reyna, Sinclair) and we also had a lot of injury problems (Cole in particular when he was scoring well).

Remember he was getting a lot of praise in the first half of 2005-2006 from all angles.

In his last season he was faced with little to spend and a lot of replacing to do. While that season was grim, he did he job needed.

I would put him down as one of the less terrible City managers.

Well said/typed mate. All this "we only scored ten goals" b'llocks does my head in.

On top of all this evidence it still grinds with me that the club, who clearly knew that a big takeover was in the pipeline, gave he less money to spend in his final season as they knew that a new manager was coming in with the new order, and that this new manager would want to shape his own team. Can't understand how some people fail to see this.

 

[Anonymous]

He had to sell our best players, made us millions in the transfer market and kept the team in the premier league. Made some mistakes and the football wasn't pretty but I think people are a bit unrealistic on what we could expect from any manager working under those conditions.

And he bought Joe Hart.

I'd say that's a fair summing up ...

you had to feel sorry for him at times , money was really scarce , the football was absolutely abysmal . and he really had no idea where to turn ....... we seemed to lose quite a number of supporters during his reign , but his 'hands were tied' , and that's always difficult ..... not really sure whether he actually wanted the job in the first place to be honest , or was simply just 'cajoled' into it.

 

[forevermancity]

He had to sell our best players, made us millions in the transfer market and kept the team in the premier league. Made some mistakes and the football wasn't pretty but I think people are a bit unrealistic on what we could expect from any manager working under those conditions.

And he bought Joe Hart.

And have absolutely no doubts about it, had Hughes stayed, Hart was a gonner.

Two seasons ago there were countless posters on here saying Given should be the number one over Hart. Hughes would have undoubtedly taken this course.

no, hughes made it clear that hart was his no1 and that he was going to ease out given

plus, the vast majority of this board wanted joe as no1 instead of given


the loan to brum made joe a much better keeper, and he knows it

 

[BoyBlue_1985]

First season - really bucked us up and unlucky not to get UEFA
Second season - going very creditably up til the West Ham Cup game, played some nice football - bombed after that
Third season - I think we were top half going into the winter; lost our way; took some action and finished safe enough.

I think he had a hard time because a lot of Keegan's buys were coming to the end of their shelf lifes (McManaman, Reyna, Sinclair) and we also had a lot of injury problems (Cole in particular when he was scoring well).

Remember he was getting a lot of praise in the first half of 2005-2006 from all angles.

In his last season he was faced with little to spend and a lot of replacing to do. While that season was grim, he did he job needed.

I would put him down as one of the less terrible City managers.

Well said/typed mate. All this "we only scored ten goals" b'llocks does my head in.

On top of all this evidence it still grinds with me that the club, who clearly knew that a big takeover was in the pipeline, gave he less money to spend in his final season as they knew that a new manager was coming in with the new order, and that this new manager would want to shape his own team. Can't understand how some people fail to see this.

They had been trying to sell the club for years on your basis we wouldnt of given a manager money from 2001 onwards

 

[isab23502]

First season - really bucked us up and unlucky not to get UEFA
Second season - going very creditably up til the West Ham Cup game, played some nice football - bombed after that
Third season - I think we were top half going into the winter; lost our way; took some action and finished safe enough.

I think he had a hard time because a lot of Keegan's buys were coming to the end of their shelf lifes (McManaman, Reyna, Sinclair) and we also had a lot of injury problems (Cole in particular when he was scoring well).

Remember he was getting a lot of praise in the first half of 2005-2006 from all angles.

In his last season he was faced with little to spend and a lot of replacing to do. While that season was grim, he did he job needed.

I would put him down as one of the less terrible City managers.

Well said/typed mate. All this "we only scored ten goals" b'llocks does my head in.

On top of all this evidence it still grinds with me that the club, who clearly knew that a big takeover was in the pipeline, gave he less money to spend in his final season as they knew that a new manager was coming in with the new order, and that this new manager would want to shape his own team. Can't understand how some people fail to see this.

I think also that the problem was he just couldn't keep the team that started the 2005 season so well fit. He had a solid defence and a couple front two in Cole and Vass but the former's disappearance post Christmas and the regular loss of a properly-firing Reyna and Sinclair meant we were down to the bare bones - people like BWP and Croft who were crap to be honest. The next season the defence was looking excellent for a lot of the season and the real problem was getting some continuity in midfield and upfront. Hamann's injuries/ lack of fitness were a shame since he showed the following season he could contribute a lot. Dabo was understandably a bit of a disaster signing. Where we really struggled was up front - and Corradi's failure to make much impression. Perhaps if he had signed Mpenza at the start of the season things would have worked out better overall - but he did sign him and that turned the ship round to avoid the drop. More than the likes of Benson, Ball and Frizzell and of course Joe Royle could claim.
As for entertainment - yes it was dire through the winter of 2006/2007 but I really enjoyed some of the games the previous season (eg 3-1 vs rags, stuffing lots of teams at home with Cole and Vassell scoring) and perhaps given Sven's warchest 2007/2008 under Pearce would have been more like that 2005 one than the 2006 one.

 

[forevermancity]

remember when keegan left about 7 years ago and pearce pretty much said that if he wasnt givent the job he would be off as he was too good to be an assistant then?

7 years later and im pretty sure no prem clubs would touch him, neither would most championship clubs.

cheeky bastard with that ultimatum

I posed this question last week, however this thread is more appropriate.

Where does Pearce go? He will never be given the senior England Manager's job and he can't be U-21 manager forever. So based on his previous managerial experience with us and his showing as team GB manager, who on earth would take a punt on the fella to manage their club?

Personally, I think he'll fuck off abroad to 'expand' his coaching experience.

hes going to have to go abroad i think

the quality of managers in the championship has risen massively and unless a club like forrest comes calling, i cant see anyone touching him

 

[Tricky Dickys Right Foot Shot]

I felt it went all tits up when he agreed to take over England U21's when still in charge of us, the players just lost interest under him at that point.

Bringing his daughters toy pony (or whatever it was) to games as a good luck charm was the breaking point for me, embarrassing and he lost his image as psycho Pearce from that point.

 

[the-ecstacy-of-eight]

First season - really bucked us up and unlucky not to get UEFA
Second season - going very creditably up til the West Ham Cup game, played some nice football - bombed after that
Third season - I think we were top half going into the winter; lost our way; took some action and finished safe enough.

I think he had a hard time because a lot of Keegan's buys were coming to the end of their shelf lifes (McManaman, Reyna, Sinclair) and we also had a lot of injury problems (Cole in particular when he was scoring well).

Remember he was getting a lot of praise in the first half of 2005-2006 from all angles.

In his last season he was faced with little to spend and a lot of replacing to do. While that season was grim, he did he job needed.

I would put him down as one of the less terrible City managers.

Well said/typed mate. All this "we only scored ten goals" b'llocks does my head in.

On top of all this evidence it still grinds with me that the club, who clearly knew that a big takeover was in the pipeline, gave he less money to spend in his final season as they knew that a new manager was coming in with the new order, and that this new manager would want to shape his own team. Can't understand how some people fail to see this.

They had been trying to sell the club for years on your basis we wouldnt of given a manager money from 2001 onwards

"Trying to sell" and "having a billionaire lined up for the end of the season" are two totally different things. Are you trying to tell me that a deal as big as the one Shinawatra tried to do just happened in the close season? These deals take time to thrash out, the club knew about it for most of Pearce's last season, I certainly did and I'm not ITK, but if you don't see that, well I'm very, very sorry mate, but that's not my fault is it.

 

[dennishasdoneit]

First season - really bucked us up and unlucky not to get UEFA
Second season - going very creditably up til the West Ham Cup game, played some nice football - bombed after that
Third season - I think we were top half going into the winter; lost our way; took some action and finished safe enough.

I think he had a hard time because a lot of Keegan's buys were coming to the end of their shelf lifes (McManaman, Reyna, Sinclair) and we also had a lot of injury problems (Cole in particular when he was scoring well).

Remember he was getting a lot of praise in the first half of 2005-2006 from all angles.

In his last season he was faced with little to spend and a lot of replacing to do. While that season was grim, he did he job needed.

I would put him down as one of the less terrible City managers.

Probably the most balanced and accurate review of Pearce.s time at city i,ve ever read on here. I can honestly say i don,t remember being pissed off with him until the last few months of his third season in charge.