| The gamble of keeping Paul Cook 21:24 - Apr 20 with 7034 views | TieDyedIn95 |
I have been a big supporter of Paul Cook coming here and he's had 100% of my backing since he arrived but like others (and even more moderate posters) have suggested the team morale and overall performance, shape, instruction have dipped to so many new lows since his arrival I am also getting genuinely concerned.
I understand the players have downed tools, but why aren't we trying out more of the squad? Why aren't we using a system that suits what we have, if we are just going to use what we have? What I will say is it's clear the players do not rate Cook and have taken to him as warmly as they did to Paul Hurst and that is worrying for me. I am not someone who over rates this squad by any means, but we should have enough in us to beat Rochdale, Wimbledon, Wigan, Northampton and so on. We beat the piss poor teams last season in most cases without even breaking a sweat and we were a mid-table side then. So what has happened?
So I am going to say we're in a weird position of taking a gamble of continuing on with Paul Cook next season. I know many are calling for a complete squad over haul but that approach rarely works either. If we go too radical like we did under Hurst we could end up getting relegated. Cook is trading off his reputation with Pompey and Wigan here, which is the only reason we should keep him because what we've seen from him so far is a lot of shouting, animation but a complete regression in footballing terms. Paul Lambert would have done better had he stayed on, not saying he should have, but hew knew the squad and its limitations and they were poorer than what most supporters believed they were. Cook took none of what Lambert did on board, or even Gill who was there and has pushed to adopt his own system as quickly as possible, also likely on the assumption that Lambert was the sole issue.
The idea that he's going to recruit 15 odd players in the summer from this league and lower and suddenly walk this league is not realistic. Yeah, some of the old guard have to go, some of the injury prone and that lot have to go but players like your Nydhams, Kenlocks, Bishops, Downes, Wolfies and even to some extent Edwards and even dare I say it... Judge should easily be able to manage football in this league with some good recruitment around them. All of the strikers have been bad, except Norwood when he is fit but he's a liability for the club in other ways that we can probably do better there.
I just don't know if it's just the players after this many games. We have been absolutely awful. We've been told it will be better next season so many times before when the writings been on the wall that it has to be stupid to ignore what we have seen.
Cook out? I don't know. My heart says no, but my head is telling me that maybe it is a risk to keep him on after the end of this season. |  |
| Football League First Division / Premier League
Champions (1): 1961—62 - Runners-up (2): 1980—81, 1981—82
Football League Second Division / EFL Championship
Champions (3): 1960—61, 1967—68, 1991—92 - Play-off winners (1): 1999—2000
Football League Third Division / EFL League One Champions (2): 1953—54, 1956—57 - Southern League Champions (1): 1936—37
FA Cup Winners (1): 1977—78 - Texaco Cup Winners (1): 1972—73
UEFA Cup / UEFA Europa League Winners (1): 1980—81 | | Poll: | Would you attend a socially distanced training ground protest? |
| |  |
| The gamble of keeping Paul Cook on 14:30 - Apr 21 with 979 views | Charlie_pl_baxter |
The difference to Hurst will be budget and being able to attract players to join an exciting project. I think Phil has previously reported that the plan will be to attract players who can compete in the Champ from the off. Clearly we aren't going to suddenly grab players from the top Champ sides but there will be plenty of solid players available to sign on both frees and transfers. |  |
| |
| The gamble of keeping Paul Cook on 14:32 - Apr 21 with 974 views | Charlie_pl_baxter |
| The gamble of keeping Paul Cook on 11:39 - Apr 21 by ElephantintheRoom |
The wealthiest club in this division? Erm....?
Town are probably the poorest club in this division in that they are funded entirely by debt - and this time the debt needs paying for.
I'm not sure wealth, real or alleged is entirely relevant given who is currently soaring above Town. And it might be best to wait and see who's relegated. Rotherham for example are this divisions Norwich City - and Derby, if they make it have Tom Lawrence who is Premier Legue class..... and also very good at throwing money away. |
The new owners have literally just concluded the process of paying back our existing debt. I'm not sure we need to worry too much about the remaining £400k. | |
| |
| The gamble of keeping Paul Cook on 14:33 - Apr 21 with 973 views | chrismakin |
| The gamble of keeping Paul Cook on 14:30 - Apr 21 by Charlie_pl_baxter |
The difference to Hurst will be budget and being able to attract players to join an exciting project. I think Phil has previously reported that the plan will be to attract players who can compete in the Champ from the off. Clearly we aren't going to suddenly grab players from the top Champ sides but there will be plenty of solid players available to sign on both frees and transfers. |
The other difference
Hurst didn't have the respect that PC has in the game before becoming ipswich manager
Hurst could only attract a certain level of player and it was never going to be good enough for a championship side.
PC will be able to attract not only top league 1 players but he will be able to attract some already primed championship players who will welcome the opportunity to be part of something. |  |
| |
| The gamble of keeping Paul Cook on 14:39 - Apr 21 with 965 views | TieDyedIn95 |
Have to say this thread went way beyond what I thought it would.
I am still Cook In, but I am recognizing there may be a risk with keeping him based on what we have seen so far. This team is bang average, but under Cook we've been less than that. We cannot hide from that, yes, some of it is the players, but part of it will be Cooks approach to them and how he's set the teams up as well.
We have to be careful because this situation smacks of a hybrid between when Hurst came in, destroyed the dressing room, and tore everything up and when Lambert was given a free pass to get us relegated and again fail to get us promotion. We have a habit of making bad decisions on managers here, so for everyone having digs at the support for starting to worry and to go back to the tired old argument of "it will be better next season" as a rebuttal is not really fair. We can all see there's been a massive downward shift in the whole team since Cook arrived and his own behavior has been effected by that, some of that will be the ownership change, but you can see the bloke is a wits end as well.
It could end in tears, that's the sad fact of this situation. Evans is to blame for the entire mess though, Lambert should have gone at the end of last season. | |
| Football League First Division / Premier League
Champions (1): 1961—62 - Runners-up (2): 1980—81, 1981—82
Football League Second Division / EFL Championship
Champions (3): 1960—61, 1967—68, 1991—92 - Play-off winners (1): 1999—2000
Football League Third Division / EFL League One Champions (2): 1953—54, 1956—57 - Southern League Champions (1): 1936—37
FA Cup Winners (1): 1977—78 - Texaco Cup Winners (1): 1972—73
UEFA Cup / UEFA Europa League Winners (1): 1980—81 | | Poll: | Would you attend a socially distanced training ground protest? |
| |
| The gamble of keeping Paul Cook on 15:33 - Apr 21 with 931 views | haynes_toe1 |
| The gamble of keeping Paul Cook on 13:32 - Apr 21 by chrismakin |
Even if you didn't why would you say a relegated manager would be better than a manager who's had success FROM May with his two previous clubs , whilst undertaking a squad repacement.. |
I'm confused. I can't use Warne's previous history because he'll have got Rotherham relegated, but we can use Cook's previous success despite the fact he's been dismal since coming here.
Double standards much? I would say Paul Warne has equalled expectation for Rotherham this season (and could still exceed it by keeping them up) whereas Cook has massively underachieved here so far where the target would have been to atleast get us into the playoffs. |  | | |
| The gamble of keeping Paul Cook on 15:34 - Apr 21 with 930 views | haynes_toe1 |
| The gamble of keeping Paul Cook on 14:33 - Apr 21 by chrismakin |
The other difference
Hurst didn't have the respect that PC has in the game before becoming ipswich manager
Hurst could only attract a certain level of player and it was never going to be good enough for a championship side.
PC will be able to attract not only top league 1 players but he will be able to attract some already primed championship players who will welcome the opportunity to be part of something. |
This is delusional. We won't be signing proven championship players because they'll, in all likelihood, be playing championship football. Cook isn't some super-god that players all over the country are desperate to play for. | | | |
| The gamble of keeping Paul Cook on 15:41 - Apr 21 with 921 views | PJH |
| The gamble of keeping Paul Cook on 15:33 - Apr 21 by haynes_toe1 |
I'm confused. I can't use Warne's previous history because he'll have got Rotherham relegated, but we can use Cook's previous success despite the fact he's been dismal since coming here.
Double standards much? I would say Paul Warne has equalled expectation for Rotherham this season (and could still exceed it by keeping them up) whereas Cook has massively underachieved here so far where the target would have been to atleast get us into the playoffs. |
I really hope that Warne keeps Rotherham up (despite him supporting THEM) because it would almost certainly mean Derby coming down which would be highly amusing. |  | | |
| The gamble of keeping Paul Cook on 15:48 - Apr 21 with 916 views | haynes_toe1 |
| The gamble of keeping Paul Cook on 15:41 - Apr 21 by PJH |
I really hope that Warne keeps Rotherham up (despite him supporting THEM) because it would almost certainly mean Derby coming down which would be highly amusing. |
I agree on the basis that weirdly I think Rotherham are more likely to be a threat next season than Derby, who could well implode upon relegation. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| The gamble of keeping Paul Cook on 16:38 - Apr 21 with 887 views | chrismakin |
| The gamble of keeping Paul Cook on 15:34 - Apr 21 by haynes_toe1 |
This is delusional. We won't be signing proven championship players because they'll, in all likelihood, be playing championship football. Cook isn't some super-god that players all over the country are desperate to play for. |
Watch this space Haynes, watch this space | |
| |
| The gamble of keeping Paul Cook on 16:40 - Apr 21 with 878 views | chrismakin |
| The gamble of keeping Paul Cook on 15:33 - Apr 21 by haynes_toe1 |
I'm confused. I can't use Warne's previous history because he'll have got Rotherham relegated, but we can use Cook's previous success despite the fact he's been dismal since coming here.
Double standards much? I would say Paul Warne has equalled expectation for Rotherham this season (and could still exceed it by keeping them up) whereas Cook has massively underachieved here so far where the target would have been to atleast get us into the playoffs. |
Cook hasn't underachieved yet, he's not even started | |
| |
| The gamble of keeping Paul Cook on 16:41 - Apr 21 with 877 views | haynes_toe1 |
| The gamble of keeping Paul Cook on 16:40 - Apr 21 by chrismakin |
Cook hasn't underachieved yet, he's not even started |
He's underachieved SO FAR, like I said originally. That is undisputable. | | | |
| The gamble of keeping Paul Cook on 17:57 - Apr 21 with 857 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| The gamble of keeping Paul Cook on 15:34 - Apr 21 by haynes_toe1 |
This is delusional. We won't be signing proven championship players because they'll, in all likelihood, be playing championship football. Cook isn't some super-god that players all over the country are desperate to play for. |
No, but there's this little thing called money that they will be willing to play for. |  |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| The gamble of keeping Paul Cook on 18:00 - Apr 21 with 851 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| The gamble of keeping Paul Cook on 14:39 - Apr 21 by TieDyedIn95 |
Have to say this thread went way beyond what I thought it would.
I am still Cook In, but I am recognizing there may be a risk with keeping him based on what we have seen so far. This team is bang average, but under Cook we've been less than that. We cannot hide from that, yes, some of it is the players, but part of it will be Cooks approach to them and how he's set the teams up as well.
We have to be careful because this situation smacks of a hybrid between when Hurst came in, destroyed the dressing room, and tore everything up and when Lambert was given a free pass to get us relegated and again fail to get us promotion. We have a habit of making bad decisions on managers here, so for everyone having digs at the support for starting to worry and to go back to the tired old argument of "it will be better next season" as a rebuttal is not really fair. We can all see there's been a massive downward shift in the whole team since Cook arrived and his own behavior has been effected by that, some of that will be the ownership change, but you can see the bloke is a wits end as well.
It could end in tears, that's the sad fact of this situation. Evans is to blame for the entire mess though, Lambert should have gone at the end of last season. |
It could end in tears - but equally it could end brilliantly once Cook's able to get in his own players. That's what we got him for.
He needs time... and you need patience. | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| The gamble of keeping Paul Cook on 18:02 - Apr 21 with 850 views | chrismakin |
| The gamble of keeping Paul Cook on 16:41 - Apr 21 by haynes_toe1 |
He's underachieved SO FAR, like I said originally. That is undisputable. |
He hasnt though hes been given a 2.5 year deal and part of the role hes been asked to do is to come in and oversee a massive turnaround in players etc. That's his job and then moving into next season and beyond and that point we will know if hes underacheived or not.
Anything before the summer is seeing us through the pain. Hes told the fans for weeks. There will be alot of pain. Do put your feet up. Relax and wait. | |
| |
| The gamble of keeping Paul Cook on 18:24 - Apr 21 with 835 views | J2BLUE |
| The gamble of keeping Paul Cook on 18:02 - Apr 21 by chrismakin |
He hasnt though hes been given a 2.5 year deal and part of the role hes been asked to do is to come in and oversee a massive turnaround in players etc. That's his job and then moving into next season and beyond and that point we will know if hes underacheived or not.
Anything before the summer is seeing us through the pain. Hes told the fans for weeks. There will be alot of pain. Do put your feet up. Relax and wait. |
While I think your optimism is justified it's very hard to argue with those who think he should have had more of an impact on the current squad. |  |
| |
| The gamble of keeping Paul Cook on 18:59 - Apr 21 with 821 views | chrismakin |
| The gamble of keeping Paul Cook on 18:24 - Apr 21 by J2BLUE |
While I think your optimism is justified it's very hard to argue with those who think he should have had more of an impact on the current squad. |
I agree to a point but also there is a much bigger picture.
I dont agree a manager relegating a side would be a better manager than Cook however in this division.
We heard from Haynes about a month ago that PC in his opinion should get a year.
If so.. come back in a year.
Saying youd give him a year and that following every non win with a concerned post doesnt really go with the 1 year grace you either give him a year or you dont | |
| |
| The gamble of keeping Paul Cook on 19:07 - Apr 21 with 813 views | J2BLUE |
| The gamble of keeping Paul Cook on 18:59 - Apr 21 by chrismakin |
I agree to a point but also there is a much bigger picture.
I dont agree a manager relegating a side would be a better manager than Cook however in this division.
We heard from Haynes about a month ago that PC in his opinion should get a year.
If so.. come back in a year.
Saying youd give him a year and that following every non win with a concerned post doesnt really go with the 1 year grace you either give him a year or you dont |
He's not calling for his head. I saw i'd give Cook a transfer window and until Christmas (at least) but that doesn't mean i'm not a little disappointed with the start he's made. Hopefully well be proven right that he's a great manager let down by poor disinterested players. | |
| |
| The gamble of keeping Paul Cook on 14:57 - Apr 22 with 742 views | haynes_toe1 |
| The gamble of keeping Paul Cook on 18:02 - Apr 21 by chrismakin |
He hasnt though hes been given a 2.5 year deal and part of the role hes been asked to do is to come in and oversee a massive turnaround in players etc. That's his job and then moving into next season and beyond and that point we will know if hes underacheived or not.
Anything before the summer is seeing us through the pain. Hes told the fans for weeks. There will be alot of pain. Do put your feet up. Relax and wait. |
Again, I'm not sure how I can put this more simply to you.
SO FAR, he has underachieved. He came in and both Evans and him wanted to cement a play-off position. That was their own expectation let alone anyone elses.
So again, I can't stress how I shouldn't have to re-emphasise this but he has underachieved so far. | | | |
| The gamble of keeping Paul Cook on 15:04 - Apr 22 with 736 views | BryanPlug |
[content removed at owner's request] |  |
| |
| The gamble of keeping Paul Cook on 15:05 - Apr 22 with 736 views | chrismakin |
| The gamble of keeping Paul Cook on 14:57 - Apr 22 by haynes_toe1 |
Again, I'm not sure how I can put this more simply to you.
SO FAR, he has underachieved. He came in and both Evans and him wanted to cement a play-off position. That was their own expectation let alone anyone elses.
So again, I can't stress how I shouldn't have to re-emphasise this but he has underachieved so far. |
But hes not had the years grace you gave him. That's my point.
If you said you would give him a year. Give him that year
Doesnt matter what's happening now. We arent even close to the year you gave him. | |
| |
| The gamble of keeping Paul Cook on 15:09 - Apr 22 with 728 views | haynes_toe1 |
| The gamble of keeping Paul Cook on 15:05 - Apr 22 by chrismakin |
But hes not had the years grace you gave him. That's my point.
If you said you would give him a year. Give him that year
Doesnt matter what's happening now. We arent even close to the year you gave him. |
Yeah, i'm not saying he can't turn it around and prove me wrong, we'll all be delighted if he does that. I'm just saying that to date, he's underachieved. If by the end of next season we're champions, i'd say we'e overachieved | | | |
| The gamble of keeping Paul Cook on 15:29 - Apr 22 with 720 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| The gamble of keeping Paul Cook on 15:09 - Apr 22 by haynes_toe1 |
Yeah, i'm not saying he can't turn it around and prove me wrong, we'll all be delighted if he does that. I'm just saying that to date, he's underachieved. If by the end of next season we're champions, i'd say we'e overachieved |
What's the point in saying anything this early into his tenure (other than so you can say 'I told you first' if it all goes wrong)?
I can't believe anyone's questioning the manager after 12 games, with no ability to change players, several players knowing they're on the way out, and a takeover going on in the background. | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| The gamble of keeping Paul Cook on 15:39 - Apr 22 with 714 views | haynes_toe1 |
| The gamble of keeping Paul Cook on 15:29 - Apr 22 by The_Flashing_Smile |
What's the point in saying anything this early into his tenure (other than so you can say 'I told you first' if it all goes wrong)?
I can't believe anyone's questioning the manager after 12 games, with no ability to change players, several players knowing they're on the way out, and a takeover going on in the background. |
Well why wouldn't you give your opinion on a football messageboard about the performance of a new manager who's come in?
I think if he'd won 6 of his games and we were playing better football everyone would be using that as a reason to re-affirm how good a manager he is.
The fact he's underperformed Lambert is concerning - to anyone who's watched any of the games it's more concerning that not a single one of the players has looked better under him, young, old, leaving, staying.
It's like saying "whats the point in giving an opinion on a new manager" whatsoever. It's a talking point. He has underperformed so far this season and under him, we've somehow contrived to become worse on the pitch.
Of course there's plenty of caveats involved - i've accepted that in multiple posts but it doesn't change the fact that I was looking at least for some sort of tactical switches, some ability to re-motivate, demonstrating ways of changing the course of games, improving on set-pieces, evidence of positive coaching in training being transferred to the pitch.
It could equally be that every single player in our squad is to blame and we'll know that next season. I personally have my doubts.
The "I Told You" stuff only works if he proves to be a failure though, doesn't it? Otherwise, if he succeeds, I look like an idiot for doubting him. | | | |
| The gamble of keeping Paul Cook on 15:41 - Apr 22 with 710 views | BlueWorldOrder |
We shouldn't be keeping him. We can't keep handing out free hits to bad managers just because it's the nice thing to do. |  |
| |
| The gamble of keeping Paul Cook on 15:45 - Apr 22 with 702 views | chrismakin |
| The gamble of keeping Paul Cook on 15:39 - Apr 22 by haynes_toe1 |
Well why wouldn't you give your opinion on a football messageboard about the performance of a new manager who's come in?
I think if he'd won 6 of his games and we were playing better football everyone would be using that as a reason to re-affirm how good a manager he is.
The fact he's underperformed Lambert is concerning - to anyone who's watched any of the games it's more concerning that not a single one of the players has looked better under him, young, old, leaving, staying.
It's like saying "whats the point in giving an opinion on a new manager" whatsoever. It's a talking point. He has underperformed so far this season and under him, we've somehow contrived to become worse on the pitch.
Of course there's plenty of caveats involved - i've accepted that in multiple posts but it doesn't change the fact that I was looking at least for some sort of tactical switches, some ability to re-motivate, demonstrating ways of changing the course of games, improving on set-pieces, evidence of positive coaching in training being transferred to the pitch.
It could equally be that every single player in our squad is to blame and we'll know that next season. I personally have my doubts.
The "I Told You" stuff only works if he proves to be a failure though, doesn't it? Otherwise, if he succeeds, I look like an idiot for doubting him. |
Because I've yet to see you comment on the positive things you can actually see in the games
The volume of crosses we put in. Getting in those areas. Playing with the ball in the opponents half more. Being more direct with our play. The likes of dozzell getting into positions just outside the box. Etc etc.
Results arent great. Clearly. We havent scored. Clearly. But there are plenty of positives if you take the time to see them. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
