| Paul Cook Interview 13:10 - Jan 5 with 7335 views | Martus |
Completely agree with his comments.
First off I should say I was and still am a Paul Cook fan. But, when Michael O'Leary had his first interview with the club - he said Paul Cook was their choice and they were kept in the loop when the managers were being interviewed. So he was the new ownership's team and Michael O'Leary's man too.
The big difference seems to be Mark Ashton - which is funny as he kept talking about giving the team time at the start of the season - and to have 19 new signings creating a completely new starting 11 - time was essential. I could see things starting to gel in October and admittedly they also fell apart after shortly after. But to give a manager the resources and backing to create a whole new squad under his image - and then to offload him with less than half a season gone - seems ludicrous. As PC said - if he was told he needed to be near or in the playoffs at least by November - then the job wasn't right for him. That overhaul needed time to pay off.
It sounds like the team Mark Ashton employed to work with the team didn't match the ethos of Paul Cook - and that is a great shame. Because whilst I am happy there is a constant team that will be there to continue their job and create stability - Mark Ashton can move on just as quickly as previously seen and take that team with him to a new club. So that also doesn't sit right with me - Paul Cook was the manager and should be able to run how that team works with his squad.
I feel for him - and I think it shows how much the job of manager/coach has changed in recent years. I hope he gets a job again soon and does well. And i hope PC was wrong an McKenna can make this squad gel in time for a playoff push. |  |
| "Bobby conquered Europe!!! And we won the FA cuuuuup!" |
| |  |
| Says he should have been given more time... on 19:54 - Jan 5 with 903 views | C_HealyIsAPleasure |
| Says he should have been given more time... on 19:27 - Jan 5 by Keaneish |
Irrespective, the win % in the league was up to 50% which, if maintained would have seen us in the play-offs. I’d rather be in the play-offs than not, wouldn’t you? All we’ve done is hamper the chance of going up this year and given our new manager a major uphill task. All seems a bit amateur to me. |
We’ve achieved 1 more point from the 4 league games since Cook was sacked than we did from his last 4 games fella. So no, I’m not sure the whole ‘Cook being sacked has cost us the playoffs’ argument really stacks up
EDIT: and looking at where we were when Cook was sacked, if we matched the form shown since Bolton over the rest of the season we would have finished on 71 points. In the past 10 seasons the only years that would have been sufficient to make the playoffs would have been 2017/18 and 2014/15. The former of which would have gone to GD so still potentially missing out, and the latter an unusually low 69 points. That case was particularly unlikely to be mirrored given that Oldham in 6th only had 30 points after 19 games (compared to MK Dons on 34 from 19 when Cook was sacked). So again no, even if you ignore the actual most recent form when he was sacked and extrapolate over a longer period, that form was unlikely to see us finish us in the playoffs [Post edited 5 Jan 2022 20:18]
|  |
| |
| Says he should have been given more time... on 20:07 - Jan 5 with 880 views | NthQldITFC |
| Says he should have been given more time... on 19:27 - Jan 5 by Keaneish |
Irrespective, the win % in the league was up to 50% which, if maintained would have seen us in the play-offs. I’d rather be in the play-offs than not, wouldn’t you? All we’ve done is hamper the chance of going up this year and given our new manager a major uphill task. All seems a bit amateur to me. |
I'm somewhat sympathetic to your viewpoint, but at the same time feel that what we have in place now is a properly balanced infrastructure with a manager/head coach chosen to fit in, rather than a well-respected manager who never seemed quite the right fit for the new club hierarchy. And boy did we need the new club hierarchy! |  |
| |
| Says he should have been given more time... on 20:20 - Jan 5 with 860 views | C_HealyIsAPleasure |
| Says he should have been given more time... on 19:27 - Jan 5 by Keaneish |
Irrespective, the win % in the league was up to 50% which, if maintained would have seen us in the play-offs. I’d rather be in the play-offs than not, wouldn’t you? All we’ve done is hamper the chance of going up this year and given our new manager a major uphill task. All seems a bit amateur to me. |
EDIT: double post [Post edited 5 Jan 2022 20:20]
| |
| |
| Says he should have been given more time... on 21:09 - Jan 5 with 783 views | theinbetweener |
| Says he should have been given more time... on 14:27 - Jan 5 by Martus |
I get that - if they didn't think PC was right to do what they wanted - then they have the right to sack him. But they signed him an then they backed him. But to give him all those resources and back him with all those signings - what was the point? You gave him all those signing and let him completely rebuild your squad - only to get rid a few months later?
It seems like poor planning and poor management from our CEO. If you give him all those resources - you need to back him to see that through |
Sometimes things just don’t work out the way you’d hope and expect they would. Simple as that really, as unfortunate as it is! |  | | |
| Paul Cook Interview on 22:08 - Jan 5 with 733 views | Guthrum |
| Paul Cook Interview on 16:37 - Jan 5 by chicoazul |
Remember when I told you all Rolls tells the first team manager who he can pick? |
Was it more the case that Rolls told him who he couldn't pick, on the grounds they weren't fit enough to play? Which seems a not unreasonable situation to me, if you're going to employ medical professionals to look after the squad. And a pretty poor show if a manger is happy to risk the long-term health of his charges (and thus the prosperity of the team) for one or two games. |  |
| |
| Paul Cook Interview on 08:28 - Jan 6 with 600 views | nshearman1 |
| Paul Cook Interview on 22:08 - Jan 5 by Guthrum |
Was it more the case that Rolls told him who he couldn't pick, on the grounds they weren't fit enough to play? Which seems a not unreasonable situation to me, if you're going to employ medical professionals to look after the squad. And a pretty poor show if a manger is happy to risk the long-term health of his charges (and thus the prosperity of the team) for one or two games. |
This sounds about right to me. Are people really suggesting that the likes of Kitman Craney was preferable to the more Sports Science-based people Ashton brought in? In the end, Cook failed with one team last season and another one this season (albeit with better players), and in just one game we've seen a team entirely better coached and managed than throughout Cook's reign - indeed for many many years here - and similar comments back that up from the players. I can't blame Ashton for moving quickly to put Ipswich Town Football Club on a modern, contemporary footing by introducing a strong system of thoroughly experienced people with clear roles. |  | | |
| Says he should have been given more time... on 10:37 - Jan 6 with 564 views | Bluroo |
| Says he should have been given more time... on 16:10 - Jan 5 by Martus |
Yes there is no denying that - we had not hit the ground running. But as much as you don't like me saying - i think we needed time to work the squad out. We had injuries and couldn't constantly get a settled team.
I didn't agree with Cook on everything he did e.g. taking out Chaplin when he was on fire. But I stand by the fact we needed to give him time to work it out. We appointed him - we needed to back him. |
There would need to be some tangible basis for there to be any support for the belief that things would improve. The whole "give it time" mantra offered since August had the distinctly hollow ring of an un-promissable guarantee to me. More of a dream than a reality.
Cook was a demonstrably poor manager in not being able to eak any improvement out of the Lambert squad or the new improved one he bought, chiefly because he wasn't surrounded by a team that could do the coaching and strategising for him. And there was no evidence that was going to change so please tell me on what grounds this was all going to miraculously improve given time?
It's nothing but plausible deniability. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
