'A very average team'

I didn't hear the interview, but two things come to mind:

1. You quote the team that started against Leeds. What was the team at the time Morgan was signed?

2. A "very average team" could mean a poor performing team and is not, necessarily, a reflection of the ability of individuals. We can't really argue that last year's performances were very average.

As I said I didn't hear the interview so can't comment on the context or how it was said.

Nigel remains clumsy with the press.

I think the best way to look into the context of this is to see Pearson's apparent mindset. We talk a lot on these boards about players like Jermaine Beckford. While there are differing views on him, let's assume for a moment that he has ability of Premiership/upper Championship quality, but a poor overall attitude.

We often separate these two things - we might argue that if you can get the attitude right then we'll reap the rewards of the player's footballing ability. However, I don't believe that Pearson thinks like that. I believe he views a poor attitude as part of a person's make up, and as a result demands to see evidence that such a person will change before he lets them back in - what is more, he leaves it up to them to make the change. Since in life we don't tend to change much, that is often terminal.

Therefore what Pearson would refer to as an average player would be a player who is average by the sum of his parts: He may have a high level of footballing ability, but his perceived attitude and personality would level that out. In other words, he'd consider the mental side to be part of a footballer's innate ability rather than something separate that can be adjusted massively by management.

This isn't to say that he's right or wrong in that, but this is the impression I get when he talks about players, or the team, being average: Their overall performance on the pitch wasn't of as high a standard as last year, therefore this was reflected in the results.


However, I agree that the way he puts this across in interviews does him few favours and does sound like a constant explanation and justification of why (for instance) Mills has gone, Beckford isn't in the frame and Danns isn't playing. He's a lot better talking to individual players and in-house - he must be or he wouldn't have had the success he has.

"....and does sound like a constant explanation and justification of why (for instance) Mills has gone, Beckford isn't in the frame and Danns isn't playing."

-------------------

I think NP explained that quite conclusively in some comments I saw attributed to him the other day:

"I am not going to add players just because people start bleating on about the fact we might need players.

"It took me long enough last season to get rid of players who were either not good enough, or didn't want to be at the club, and it's been a huge task for us to eliminate those influences from the club.

"So I don't intend to have any knee-jerk reactions in terms of bringing players in. Any players we do bring in will be because we feel that they are the right people for our football club."

I've seen a few comments recently saying how pleased they were that Nigel was being more open in interviews.

I think this is a prime example of why he's very gaurded.

I understand that the interpretation of his comments may not look great, but I've seen no evidence on the pitch that the players aren't fully behind him and I'm pretty sure that this comment won't change that.

And if it did, I'm pretty sure Nigel would sort it out behind closed doors. If a player really did continue to have a problem, I'm sure that's the type of weak attitude that Pearson would weed out of the squad anyway!!

Nigel is football's Kimi Raikkonen of press interviews – they are something to be got through rather than enjoyed.

So long as he keeps managing as consistently well as Kimi drives, no problem.

Vulpes - Unfortunately, by that analogy as soon as a drop of rain hits the floor, our Nige will go crashing into the nearest wall.

"I really don't remember big Wes being anything special last year. He made just as many mistakes as the rest of our defenders and I wouldn't have put him down as a certain starter by any means"

I disagree, I think Morgan overall was quite comfortably our most consistent defender from the point at which he signed. I'd also feel confident in putting a wager on the fact that he didnt make as many mistakes as other defenders when comparing these to a minutes on field ratio.

I feel like we are getting to the stage where literally everything Pearson does or doesn't allude to in his interviews is being analysed.

Is guarded = is slated, provides open opinion on something = is slated.

One thing I can say is; there's a significant difference in his interviews with other press members than with Stringer.

I've seen a few comments recently saying how pleased they were that Nigel was being more open in interviews.

For this read imparting more information. It Nigel has any problems with the media it of his own doing.
Acting from the start as if he is Sir Alex Getting Stringy suspended.