No, I've not seen most games, I've seen every one. Most of those games you mentioned involved teams that came to our place (I'm assuming you're referring to home games) to frustrate us. To varying degrees, their tactics were success, as were ours at Stoke, Hull, Burnley etc. In most cases though, we were still the better side with most possession and created the most chances (discounting Man City; not sure how you seriously expect us to compete with them on any level) even if they weren't vintage performances. We have had to learn to adapt to this approach, and it has taken time. But the players, particularly the likes of Vardy (I certainly do not accept that his renewed form is anything to do with Albrighton, as Vardy usual creates his own chances with his pace) have done so - albeit after 30 or so games!
We've spent £20m this season. The only clubs who spend considerably less and survived in recent seasons were Norwich (£13m) and Swansea (£11m) in 2012 (both lost their managers to big clubs shortly after). Wolves finished 17th in 2011 after spending around £17m (which could end being very similar to us, as would QPRs £23m to finish 17th in 2012, although I dread to think what they spent on wages). Palace spent around £28m last season, as did Hull. Southampton spent £36m in the first season they survived. So of the three clubs who spend less and survived in the last five years, two survived only two seasons. If we can top that, then only Swansea's success would have been more impressive. If we survive this season, we'll be a more attractive option for target players next season. Other clubs have had an edge on us this season in terms of surviving in previous seasons (hence experienced squads)and by some accounts, it seems many of our targets didn't fancy our chances in pre-season and opted to go elsewhere or stayed put.
Lets be honest. At the start of the season the majority of the team (including Pearson) were on a learning curve as far as the prem was concerned. We had very few players with experiance at the top league. However we have hopefully come through that now and will get the points to staive off relegation. Next year we will be wiser as a club and be able to push forward and hopefully attract one or two more quality players, aswell as holding on to the likes of Cambiasso for another season. Im sure everyone would have been happy at the start of the season with 17th place. So if Pearson delivers that then for me deserves another year to develope the side and take us forward. If the worst happens and we are relegated, then before weilding the axe you have to consider who has a better record in the Championship
You are confusing 'spend' on players with resources ... our owners have backed the club not just Pearson ... converting considerable debt to equity and providing state of the art training facilities on a par with the best in the land ... our wage structure in the Championship was more like the Premiership ... frankly, being able to survive in the Premiership this season was, for me, the minimum target for such a club .... I'd have preferred to have done it more comfortably - Martin O'Neil achieved that with far less backing (including a stadium that generated far less working capital) .... but, as has been stated above, promotion to the Prem is indeed a learning curve and the test for Pearson, if we survive, is to prove that he can establish us in the way in which O'Neil and Jimmy Bloomfield (to name but two) did ... 'second season syndrome' does seem to be a factor for clubs coming up and the test of a good manager is either to avoid it completely or navigate through it successfully .... not going to knock Proud's 'man love' for Nigel ... we all have heroes ... just hope he can move on to a girlfriend soon ... but I'd avoid Nigel's daughter if I were him ... she seems to be a walking migraine generator
I'm not confusing anything. Most of the things you refer to relate to our long term future as a club - which I think we all agree is looking very comfortable - but has little to do with our Premier League credentials or Pearson's ability to keep us in the big time, which is what we're talking about. The short term is about staying in the Premier League and no manager I know of has been able to do this in recent times without spending considerably. In these terms, only two or three managers in recent years have kept a side up spending as little as we have. You say out wages were of Premier League level, but they clearly fitted within the stringent FFP model (unlike QPR's) and managers in previous seasons didn't have this to contend with. You could argue Pearson hasn't spent as much as he may have been permitted to (not sure there's any facts to back this up), but we have always known he's not the type of manager to spend on players he doesn't think fit in (ie, no big time charlies). We may all have opinions on this, but for me it's just another positive for the man. With all due respect to his achievements, the Premier League has changed immeasurably since O'Neill achieved miracles on a shoestring. When we went up, Wimbledon (who NEVER had any money) were a top ten side. Since our final relegation in 2004, few small clubs have managed to repeat our feats (roping in the League Cup wins, actually none have). Bloomfield was before my time, but obviously the above goes double for any pre-Premier League eras, when we, for the mostly part, only competed against the best of British, not the best in the world. I agree with you about second season syndrome. It seems to have been a big issue over the last ten years, so would be (assuming we do survive this season of course!) a massive test for us. However, I see no reason why Pearson wouldn't pass it, especially with the types of sides going up this season.
