| If Cook had switched to a back three would he still be here? (n/t) 13:29 - Jan 9 with 1320 views | Pinewoodblue |
|  |
| |  |
| If Cook had switched to a back three would he still be here? (n/t) on 13:32 - Jan 9 with 1309 views | Marshalls_Mullet |
Irrelevant, as it was never gonna happen.
I think the huge point is that all the players refer to how much better the training is.
...its almost as if having a good coaching team is important. |  |
| |
| If Cook had switched to a back three would he still be here? (n/t) on 14:17 - Jan 9 with 1213 views | Mullet |
No. He was just sh1t here throughout. |  |
| |
| If Cook had switched to a back three would he still be here? (n/t) on 14:19 - Jan 9 with 1208 views | Dubtractor |
| If Cook had switched to a back three would he still be here? (n/t) on 13:32 - Jan 9 by Marshalls_Mullet |
Irrelevant, as it was never gonna happen.
I think the huge point is that all the players refer to how much better the training is.
...its almost as if having a good coaching team is important. |
This latest interview with Burns really does emphasise the improvement in training doesn't it? What he had to see is much more than token new manager praise and seems to contrast it more with what came before. |  |
| |
| If Cook had switched to a back three would he still be here? (n/t) on 14:19 - Jan 9 with 1206 views | Dyland |
| If Cook had switched to a back three would he still be here? (n/t) on 13:32 - Jan 9 by Marshalls_Mullet |
Irrelevant, as it was never gonna happen.
I think the huge point is that all the players refer to how much better the training is.
...its almost as if having a good coaching team is important. |
Cookie, Franny, Gazza, and that other bloke, and... er...
ffs
In Cook's defence, this was an Evans setup. Think Cook will do well elsewhere fwiw. |  |
| |
| If Cook had switched to a back three would he still be here? (n/t) on 14:20 - Jan 9 with 1200 views | pointofblue |
| If Cook had switched to a back three would he still be here? (n/t) on 14:19 - Jan 9 by Dubtractor |
This latest interview with Burns really does emphasise the improvement in training doesn't it? What he had to see is much more than token new manager praise and seems to contrast it more with what came before. |
He's the third player to highlight the improvement in training IIRC - Woolfenden and Evans said as much too. |  |
| |
| If Cook had switched to a back three would he still be here? (n/t) on 14:24 - Jan 9 with 1181 views | Marshalls_Mullet |
| If Cook had switched to a back three would he still be here? (n/t) on 14:19 - Jan 9 by Dyland |
Cookie, Franny, Gazza, and that other bloke, and... er...
ffs
In Cook's defence, this was an Evans setup. Think Cook will do well elsewhere fwiw. |
Cook personally hand picked his coaching staff. No excuses. | |
| |
| If Cook had switched to a back three would he still be here? (n/t) on 14:28 - Jan 9 with 1171 views | Dyland |
| If Cook had switched to a back three would he still be here? (n/t) on 14:24 - Jan 9 by Marshalls_Mullet |
Cook personally hand picked his coaching staff. No excuses. |
Aye, that's my point.
But... it was Evans era mentaility... his comments about working with Ashton's team are fair enough. I am not excusing him at all, it was a failure. Only point I'm making is I don't think he's a bad manager all of a sudden. | |
| |
| If Cook had switched to a back three would he still be here? (n/t) on 14:30 - Jan 9 with 1165 views | Churchman |
| If Cook had switched to a back three would he still be here? (n/t) on 14:24 - Jan 9 by Marshalls_Mullet |
Cook personally hand picked his coaching staff. No excuses. |
Yep, he was the engineer, they were his chosen oily rags. All down to him. PC had his go, made a right dogs dinner of it whatever excuses and blame he might be able to conjure up now.
We and he move on. I’m sure he will be a success in the future. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| If Cook had switched to a back three would he still be here? (n/t) on 14:35 - Jan 9 with 1141 views | Herbivore |
No, because he'd likely have played Nsiala, Edmundson, and Burgess as his three first choice CBs and that's not a great proposition. Donacien on the right gives us mobility and decent enough use of the ball and Woolf playing in the centre as something of a sweeper is working well so far. He gives us composure on the ball (most of the time) that Nsiala and Burgess don't. |  |
| |
| If Cook had switched to a back three would he still be here? (n/t) on 14:37 - Jan 9 with 1141 views | clive_baker |
Unlikely. It’s partly formation, and this system definitely seems to suit the personnel we have, but I still think this squad is good enough to win games with a back 3 or otherwise. Cook never showed we knew how to defend, or even attributed any value to the art of it. We were comically bad at times and none of his backroom team seemed a good fit for that side of things either. We’ll never get anywhere if we can’t keep clean sheets and limit chances. The most encouraging thing of all of this is KM’s clear focus on that. |  |
| |
| If Cook had switched to a back three would he still be here? (n/t) on 15:14 - Jan 9 with 1036 views | Marshalls_Mullet |
| If Cook had switched to a back three would he still be here? (n/t) on 14:28 - Jan 9 by Dyland |
Aye, that's my point.
But... it was Evans era mentaility... his comments about working with Ashton's team are fair enough. I am not excusing him at all, it was a failure. Only point I'm making is I don't think he's a bad manager all of a sudden. |
I agree, but even Fergie needed a good assistant and coaching set up.
Part of his skill as a manager was his recruitment and management of high calibre coaches. | |
| |
| If Cook had switched to a back three would he still be here? (n/t) on 15:20 - Jan 9 with 1009 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
If he had done that alone, no.
If he had played 2 up front as well, still no.
If he had played Norwood as one of those 2, maybe but probably no.
If he had been prepared to change tactics to suit the game situation, getting closer now.
If he had (as well as all of the above), trained the team (or appointed coaching staff who did) to play as a team and effectively, then yes. Not only would he still be here but we might well be already in the Championship. He probably would not have shown such disdain to all of his players either. |  |
| |
| If Cook had switched to a back three would he still be here? (n/t) on 15:36 - Jan 9 with 958 views | Keaneish |
| If Cook had switched to a back three would he still be here? (n/t) on 14:19 - Jan 9 by Dubtractor |
This latest interview with Burns really does emphasise the improvement in training doesn't it? What he had to see is much more than token new manager praise and seems to contrast it more with what came before. |
I like that they do high intensity 90 minute sessions to replicate a match day but the rest sounds much-of-a-muchness. We used to train Tuesday and Thursday and Thursday’s were always 2-hour sessions only with the ball, which got shorter and sharper until it was one touch 3-a-sides with different zoned rules.
Maybe the intensity and style is a cut above with McKenna than it was Cook as there was a clear difference yesterday. [Post edited 9 Jan 2022 15:37]
|  |
| |
| If Cook had switched to a back three would he still be here? (n/t) on 15:37 - Jan 9 with 947 views | jeera |
| If Cook had switched to a back three would he still be here? (n/t) on 15:20 - Jan 9 by Nthsuffolkblue |
If he had done that alone, no.
If he had played 2 up front as well, still no.
If he had played Norwood as one of those 2, maybe but probably no.
If he had been prepared to change tactics to suit the game situation, getting closer now.
If he had (as well as all of the above), trained the team (or appointed coaching staff who did) to play as a team and effectively, then yes. Not only would he still be here but we might well be already in the Championship. He probably would not have shown such disdain to all of his players either. |
If he was somebody else then. |  |
| |
| If Cook had switched to a back three would he still be here? (n/t) on 15:39 - Jan 9 with 940 views | Guthrum |
That was one of the oddest things about Cook's tenure, that he was so monomanically wedded to a single formation. Having a preferred setup is fair enough, but to persist even when it did not seem to be working very well seems irrational. |  |
| |
| If Cook had switched to a back three would he still be here? (n/t) on 15:51 - Jan 9 with 889 views | Pinewoodblue |
| If Cook had switched to a back three would he still be here? (n/t) on 15:39 - Jan 9 by Guthrum |
That was one of the oddest things about Cook's tenure, that he was so monomanically wedded to a single formation. Having a preferred setup is fair enough, but to persist even when it did not seem to be working very well seems irrational. |
Suppose we should be thankful for that, had we beaten Barrow and had just a handful more league points Cook would still be here. | |
| |
| If Cook had switched to a back three would he still be here? (n/t) on 16:01 - Jan 9 with 841 views | jeera |
| If Cook had switched to a back three would he still be here? (n/t) on 15:39 - Jan 9 by Guthrum |
That was one of the oddest things about Cook's tenure, that he was so monomanically wedded to a single formation. Having a preferred setup is fair enough, but to persist even when it did not seem to be working very well seems irrational. |
So why won't people accept that he had few other ideas and that it showed on the pitch.
Teams that didn't adapt to our system we gave a hiding.
Those who did we saw the same pattern of our players passing the ball around the back and often to the goalie because they simply looked lost. | |
| |
| If Cook had switched to a back three would he still be here? (n/t) on 16:03 - Jan 9 with 826 views | RobTheMonk |
4-2-3-1. |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
