| In defence of the Paul Cook "was sacked too early" argument. 13:31 - Apr 19 with 2243 views | BonneNIL |
First of all, I agree that Paul Cook was a disaster at Ipswich Town, right from taking a team on the verge of the Playoffs to a demoralised mess he finished the season with, to the 20 something players he signed to replace them with and his frankly laughable coaching team, however...
I do think the people making the argument he was sacked too early may have a point. Generally speaking, people thought that we were a work in progress before he got the chop and that ultimately he would put it right and get the team moving in the right direction. The Crewe game was a big step forward in getting more right but it seems Ashton had other ideas and the decision was made some weeks prior that he was out, which was more or less confirmed when out of nowhere John McGreal was on the staff.
The reason I feel they have a point is, if you look at both managers over the 20 games, while McKenna has done marginally better., the difference in overall results is pretty negligible. There could be some argument that Cook, having recruited these players, and having his own aims with these players in mind could have achieved the same results as that at the very least. Do we honestly think we would have finished any lower than 11th with Cook in post?
Also had Cook failed, as I suspect he would have, at this point, it may have made more sense to have waited until the season was finished to sack him and bring in a new face for the new season. The argument could be that at least McKenna has time to assess the squad before the new season, but on the other hand from the clubs perspective, there are going to be more managers to choose from at the end of the season potentially giving us better options than we had at the time of Cooks sacking.
Sacking Cook during the season has both its advantages and disadvantages and I am not sure jumping on people for suggesting it may have been a mistake is helpful because it could have been. There is always a chance he could have turned us around and we could have finished in the top 6 as well. I personally do not think he would have, but you can't rule it out either.
What I will say though is Gamechanger/Ashton does have to take some share of the responsibility for the disaster that was this season, they signed off on the radical change, the 20 plus new players, and the hiring of the coaching team and to try and lay all of the blame on a manager, who had previously done exceptionally well, is not fair. Maybe they did jump the gun? We will never know.
|  |
| |  |
| In defence of the Paul Cook "was sacked too early" argument. on 13:35 - Apr 19 with 1932 views | ArnieM |
I think had Cook not lost all his experienced backroom staff , he'd have done well with his new squad as it settled into the season. But we'll never know and I hope McKenna goes on to smash it next season ( I do actually really like him) but its very early days yet ... one gets the time , the other didn't , for what ever reason. Its history . Am really looking forward to seeing who he brings in. |  |
| |
| In defence of the Paul Cook "was sacked too early" argument. on 13:39 - Apr 19 with 1920 views | BonneNIL |
| In defence of the Paul Cook "was sacked too early" argument. on 13:35 - Apr 19 by ArnieM |
I think had Cook not lost all his experienced backroom staff , he'd have done well with his new squad as it settled into the season. But we'll never know and I hope McKenna goes on to smash it next season ( I do actually really like him) but its very early days yet ... one gets the time , the other didn't , for what ever reason. Its history . Am really looking forward to seeing who he brings in. |
One could have argued that a Cook/McKenna partnership may have offered the best of both worlds, Cook's setup was far more productive in the attack whilst McKenna has made us more defensively sure. Another fact many arent accounting for is McKenna had the luxury of Walton and Morsy to pick from his entire tenure where as they were delayed arrivals while Cook was in post. Would we have dropped as many of the points at the start had we had Walton over Hladky and Morsy over say, Harper? I don't honestly think so. | |
| |
| In defence of the Paul Cook "was sacked too early" argument. on 13:41 - Apr 19 with 1904 views | BlueBadger |
| In defence of the Paul Cook "was sacked too early" argument. on 13:35 - Apr 19 by ArnieM |
I think had Cook not lost all his experienced backroom staff , he'd have done well with his new squad as it settled into the season. But we'll never know and I hope McKenna goes on to smash it next season ( I do actually really like him) but its very early days yet ... one gets the time , the other didn't , for what ever reason. Its history . Am really looking forward to seeing who he brings in. |
He could have recruited some more experienced backroom staff. He didn't.
He had the budget, reputation and draw of a 'big' club.
He chose to recruit his drinking buddies.
Mind you, the kits all looked top notch. [Post edited 19 Apr 2022 13:50]
|  |
| |
| In defence of the Paul Cook "was sacked too early" argument. on 13:43 - Apr 19 with 1885 views | BlueBadger |
| In defence of the Paul Cook "was sacked too early" argument. on 13:39 - Apr 19 by BonneNIL |
One could have argued that a Cook/McKenna partnership may have offered the best of both worlds, Cook's setup was far more productive in the attack whilst McKenna has made us more defensively sure. Another fact many arent accounting for is McKenna had the luxury of Walton and Morsy to pick from his entire tenure where as they were delayed arrivals while Cook was in post. Would we have dropped as many of the points at the start had we had Walton over Hladky and Morsy over say, Harper? I don't honestly think so. |
Cook could have done the pressers ala Keane and Mckenna could have actually run the team? | |
| |
| In defence of the Paul Cook "was sacked too early" argument. on 13:43 - Apr 19 with 1897 views | Steve_M |
We weren't a work in progress when Cook was sacked, we had tailed off massively from the one good six week spell - mid-September to Wycombe away - and he was off talking about the players not being good enough again.
He was never Gamechanger's choice, failed badly to get anything out of the existing squad and made a mess of the start of the season. Six weeks of mainly good results - even that included Accrington and Cambridge away - was nowhere near enough.
For those who can't see the difference between the two managers we have had this season, then there really isn't a lot of hope. |  |
| |
| In defence of the Paul Cook "was sacked too early" argument. on 13:43 - Apr 19 with 1881 views | BiGDonnie |
He should have been sacked after last seasons shambles and not been allowed to start this season. |  |
| |
| In defence of the Paul Cook "was sacked too early" argument. on 13:49 - Apr 19 with 1833 views | BlueBadger |
| In defence of the Paul Cook "was sacked too early" argument. on 13:43 - Apr 19 by BiGDonnie |
He should have been sacked after last seasons shambles and not been allowed to start this season. |
Taking a Lambert team and making it worse should be grounds for instant dismissal in anyone's book. | |
| |
| In defence of the Paul Cook "was sacked too early" argument. on 13:50 - Apr 19 with 1830 views | BonneNIL |
| In defence of the Paul Cook "was sacked too early" argument. on 13:43 - Apr 19 by Steve_M |
We weren't a work in progress when Cook was sacked, we had tailed off massively from the one good six week spell - mid-September to Wycombe away - and he was off talking about the players not being good enough again.
He was never Gamechanger's choice, failed badly to get anything out of the existing squad and made a mess of the start of the season. Six weeks of mainly good results - even that included Accrington and Cambridge away - was nowhere near enough.
For those who can't see the difference between the two managers we have had this season, then there really isn't a lot of hope. |
It's a results-based game, while we are moving the ball around a bit better the fact is we are creating absolutely nothing in the midfield, the discipline overall has fallen off and we are giving away silly stuff all game and being drawn into more traps from the opposition in terms of the timewasting. People were generally happy with Cooks football for the first few months let's be honest.
So you think Cook would have finished lower than 11th? I think we would have finished 7th or 8th myself, on a similar points total. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| In defence of the Paul Cook "was sacked too early" argument. on 13:53 - Apr 19 with 1805 views | DanTheMan |
| In defence of the Paul Cook "was sacked too early" argument. on 13:50 - Apr 19 by BonneNIL |
It's a results-based game, while we are moving the ball around a bit better the fact is we are creating absolutely nothing in the midfield, the discipline overall has fallen off and we are giving away silly stuff all game and being drawn into more traps from the opposition in terms of the timewasting. People were generally happy with Cooks football for the first few months let's be honest.
So you think Cook would have finished lower than 11th? I think we would have finished 7th or 8th myself, on a similar points total. |
Can't speak for Steve but I think we would have finished lower. We looked to be going backwards. |  |
| |
| In defence of the Paul Cook "was sacked too early" argument. on 13:54 - Apr 19 with 1790 views | BlueBadger |
| In defence of the Paul Cook "was sacked too early" argument. on 13:50 - Apr 19 by BonneNIL |
It's a results-based game, while we are moving the ball around a bit better the fact is we are creating absolutely nothing in the midfield, the discipline overall has fallen off and we are giving away silly stuff all game and being drawn into more traps from the opposition in terms of the timewasting. People were generally happy with Cooks football for the first few months let's be honest.
So you think Cook would have finished lower than 11th? I think we would have finished 7th or 8th myself, on a similar points total. |
If it's results you're talking, then Mckenna has a much better points per game and win ratio than Cook. | |
| |
| In defence of the Paul Cook "was sacked too early" argument. on 13:55 - Apr 19 with 1788 views | reusersfreekicks |
Do we need a second thread on the same flawed revisionist argument?
Enough! |  | | |
| In defence of the Paul Cook "was sacked too early" argument. on 13:58 - Apr 19 with 1770 views | Parsley |
| In defence of the Paul Cook "was sacked too early" argument. on 13:50 - Apr 19 by BonneNIL |
It's a results-based game, while we are moving the ball around a bit better the fact is we are creating absolutely nothing in the midfield, the discipline overall has fallen off and we are giving away silly stuff all game and being drawn into more traps from the opposition in terms of the timewasting. People were generally happy with Cooks football for the first few months let's be honest.
So you think Cook would have finished lower than 11th? I think we would have finished 7th or 8th myself, on a similar points total. |
We might have ended up in a similar position at the end of the season but the timing of the sacking meant that we still had a chance of making the playoffs so was worth the risk. Ultimately it ended up being too much but McKenna feels like the right fit for what Ashton and the owners are trying to achieve so I'd say it was the right decision. We have generally hung onto managers too long under Marcus Evans which I think was a huge contributing factor to our general decline. |  | | |
| In defence of the Paul Cook "was sacked too early" argument. on 14:01 - Apr 19 with 1755 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
Your post has a lot going for it ... apart from all the facts behind it.
"McKenna has done marginally better., the difference in overall results is pretty negligible." Really? So Cook did so well in the cup matches? Or the ppg difference is negligible? I haven't looked at the detail recently but I am fairly sure that is completely and utterly wrong unless you take a small section of Cook's time and compare it with a carefully selected part of McKenna's. Over any 20-game period, it simply won't be true. (I am not sure which 20 games you are taking for Cook - his first 20, the first 20 of this season, his last 20, 20 league games from this season, etc.)
Do we honestly think we would have finished any lower than 11th with Cook in post? Yes. We were in that position and on a downward trajectory. Extrapolate Cook's ppg. It won't have us top half, I am sure.
"there are going to be more managers to choose from at the end of the season potentially giving us better options than we had at the time of Cooks sacking" Please show your working on that one. There are usually roughly the same number of managers available at any time.
There are 2 mistakes that we need to avoid. One is not giving the right man enough time. The other is appointing the wrong man in the first place and then giving them any longer in the hope they will come good. As a club we have done far too much of the latter. Jewell, Keane, Lambert, all had plenty of time to prove they were not good enough. We could have given Hurst or Cook much longer but we would certainly not be in a better place for it. Just look at their records since they left us if you need convincing. |  |
| |
| In defence of the Paul Cook "was sacked too early" argument. on 14:08 - Apr 19 with 1706 views | Strimmer |
Football is an odd one where its both a hardnosed results based game AND operates on emotion, vibe, rolls of the dice based on a hunch.
I have some sympathy with the argument that taken as a whole results have improved somewhat, but maybe not loads under McKenna so far.
But does McK have the *vibe* of a coach taking his squad places:? Yes!
Did Cook have that? Very much no. |  |
| |
| In defence of the Paul Cook "was sacked too early" argument. on 14:10 - Apr 19 with 1690 views | STYG |
You can say what you like about Cook going too early and make a case for or against but for me the following is damning:
We failed to score against Colchester at home. They were down the bottom of League Two.
We failed to beat Oldham at home. They were down the bottom of League Two.
We failed to score against Barrow at home. They were down the bottom of League Two.
In addition we were failing to beat newly promoted League One teams and Under 21 teams.
The football had become poor, we'd continued to concede but stopped scoring, it looked like another new 20 players would be needed.
Looking at how the season has panned out, we'd have finished bottom half. We have only just finished top half with half a season under McKenna and a magnificent run of clean sheets and not being beaten. He immediately won 5 of 7 with Cook's team, something Cook never came close to.
Cook is continuing to fail at Chesterfield who were flying and had lost their top scorer, but nonetheless in about 15 games I think he's lost half and they'd only lost 2 in 25 or something before that.
Cook seems to be a manager who is finished and who relied on Richardson the way Lambert clearly needed Culverhouse.
On paper he looked a great appointment and one thing I will give Cook is he always saw the problems. He just had no idea how to stop them and we'd have wasted a whole season under him, whilst now we look to have a fantastic, bright new manager that compliments the infrastructure we are trying to build and may only be a few players away from a fantastic side. | | | |
| In defence of the Paul Cook "was sacked too early" argument. on 14:12 - Apr 19 with 1674 views | BiGDonnie |
| In defence of the Paul Cook "was sacked too early" argument. on 13:49 - Apr 19 by BlueBadger |
Taking a Lambert team and making it worse should be grounds for instant dismissal in anyone's book. |
Terrible manager. We were way too big for him to handle, as it seem Chesterfield are too. | |
| |
| In defence of the Paul Cook "was sacked too early" argument. on 14:14 - Apr 19 with 1652 views | STYG |
| In defence of the Paul Cook "was sacked too early" argument. on 13:50 - Apr 19 by BonneNIL |
It's a results-based game, while we are moving the ball around a bit better the fact is we are creating absolutely nothing in the midfield, the discipline overall has fallen off and we are giving away silly stuff all game and being drawn into more traps from the opposition in terms of the timewasting. People were generally happy with Cooks football for the first few months let's be honest.
So you think Cook would have finished lower than 11th? I think we would have finished 7th or 8th myself, on a similar points total. |
How could we have finished 7th or 8th on a similar points total than the points total we have that has us sitting in 11th? How can that even work!
Unless Cook could somehow influence that Sheffield Wednesday, Oxford, Sunderland, Portsmouth and Bolton would all hand points to teams well below us in the table! | | | |
| In defence of the Paul Cook "was sacked too early" argument. on 14:17 - Apr 19 with 1625 views | Mookamoo |
You just have to look at how Woolfenden, Donacien and even Jackson have responded to see how toxic he was. |  | | |
| In defence of the Paul Cook "was sacked too early" argument. on 14:19 - Apr 19 with 1609 views | BiGDonnie |
| In defence of the Paul Cook "was sacked too early" argument. on 13:50 - Apr 19 by BonneNIL |
It's a results-based game, while we are moving the ball around a bit better the fact is we are creating absolutely nothing in the midfield, the discipline overall has fallen off and we are giving away silly stuff all game and being drawn into more traps from the opposition in terms of the timewasting. People were generally happy with Cooks football for the first few months let's be honest.
So you think Cook would have finished lower than 11th? I think we would have finished 7th or 8th myself, on a similar points total. |
How on earth would we have finished 7th or 8th with Cooke in charge?
You're on a wind up aren't you? Go and do some work instead of wasting our time. | |
| |
| In defence of the Paul Cook "was sacked too early" argument. on 14:35 - Apr 19 with 1532 views | BlueBadger |
Can we now all agree by BlueBadger 19 Apr 2022 9:46A venn diagram of people who were appalled by people accepting mediocrity under Mick but happy to accept mediocrity(or worse) under Hurst, Lambert and Cook is basically a circle.
| |
| |
| In defence of the Paul Cook "was sacked too early" argument. on 14:38 - Apr 19 with 1503 views | pointofblue |
Cook’s last ten matches in charge (league only): 1.7 points game
McKenna’s first ten matches in charge: 2.1 points per game
Cook’s average across 20 matches: 1.35 points per game
McKenna’s average across 29 matches: 1.8 points per game
But to be honest I can’t buy the argument that the Crewe game indicated we were moving in the right direction. | |
| |
| In defence of the Paul Cook "was sacked too early" argument. on 15:06 - Apr 19 with 1433 views | Sawtrich |
It's interesting that the OP references the Crewe game as evidence things could've got better under Cook. For me it was the final straw that made me think it was definitely time for Cook to go. At home to relegation fodder, we scored two goals through individual skill from Aluko and Celina but we looked disjointed and we weren't performing as a team. Crewe got through us far too easily and a game that should have been done and dusted at half time ended up being a struggle.
It wasn't working under Cook, a couple of bad results for McKenna doesn't change that. |  | | |
| In defence of the Paul Cook "was sacked too early" argument. on 15:09 - Apr 19 with 1412 views | itfcjoe |
Unless we sacked Cook in the summer, we sacked him about as early as we could have done.
We must have watched different Crewe games if that was seen as a 'big step forward' because we were pretty rubbish and carved open by the divisions worst side. They passed us off the park but were just beaten by 2 moments of quality of players who probably between them earn more than their whole squad.
The difference between the 20 games each had isn't negligible, it's 33% more points for McKenna - and under the latter we also lost to Arsenal and West Ham U21s at home, couldn't dispose of 2 of L2's bottom dwellers in Oldham and Barrow, couldn't beat Colchester or Newport at home - 6 games at Portman Road vs L2 and U21 sides - 0 wins.
Cook failed last year, and failed this year - he put us in a position where it was effectively impossible to get to the play offs from - and was already talking about bringing in more players to replace those he had signed in the summer window. Luke Woolfenden had 1 foot out of the door with Cook pushing him fully out - how costly would that have been?
He was a disaster of a manager for this football club, there are extenuating circumstances and he ended up having to do a job that he didn't sign up for - but he was a disaster |  |
| |
| In defence of the Paul Cook "was sacked too early" argument. on 15:10 - Apr 19 with 1403 views | tractorboy1978 |
| In defence of the Paul Cook "was sacked too early" argument. on 15:06 - Apr 19 by Sawtrich |
It's interesting that the OP references the Crewe game as evidence things could've got better under Cook. For me it was the final straw that made me think it was definitely time for Cook to go. At home to relegation fodder, we scored two goals through individual skill from Aluko and Celina but we looked disjointed and we weren't performing as a team. Crewe got through us far too easily and a game that should have been done and dusted at half time ended up being a struggle.
It wasn't working under Cook, a couple of bad results for McKenna doesn't change that. |
Yep - could easily have lost that game. | | | |
| In defence of the Paul Cook "was sacked too early" argument. on 15:11 - Apr 19 with 1400 views | pointofblue |
Oh, plus who wanted to clear out the squad and start again? Who decided that he wanted a coaching team lacking any kind of real experience or knowledge? And who, going by Kieron Dyer, was responsible for Downes moving on rather than hanging around for another season?
I think on all cases, rather than Gamechanger, it was Paul Cook. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
