Kitchandro

Sorry but I don’t agree with a lot of this. History has proven that former players don’t necessarily have good tactical understanding - most managers are rubbish (very few are consistently good over a long period) and most managers are ex-players. I think you can get as much tactical knowledge just by watching football and having some critical thinking and analytical skills. It’s not a complicated game and the most common flaw of managers is trying to make it look like it is without any broad principles to inform their decision making. Also, football players are often not even interested in football and it’s history. These days it attracts kids who may like playing but they aren’t necessarily football fans. A lot of our players won’t even remember watching Van Nistelrooy in his prime and even if they did, and even if for some reason that automatically led to them respecting him as a manager, he could still lose that very quickly if he doesn’t have the people skills. I agree that being a ‘winner’ is a bonus but you can still have this personality and have only played for an average club because you had no pace. In other words, I don’t think it matters a jot whether you were successful as a player or not. Fergie, Wenger and Klopp weren’t world class players. Football clubs should be vetting managers on how they explain and justify their tactical philosophy, and what sort of personality they have. When all the fuss has died down those are the only things that are going to matter. I don’t care if I’ve never heard of them but Top and co are only interested in people they have heard of and seemingly want to do as little scouting as possible.

I think it will be RVN. And I think he wouldn’t even be on the shortlist if he hadn’t been managing Man U for a few games very recently. Our board are genuinely that simple. The main reason they hire anyone is some sort of (usually recent) familiarity with the league or club, no matter how basic or unsuccessful. Most our managers have fit into that category.

Sad news. One of the best commentary voices ever, I can’t understand why someone like him wasn’t on mainstream telly or Sky. I’d love to be able to download some radio highlights from the 90s that he commentated on. There’s so many iconic moments from that time. I didn’t get to many games so most of my early Leicester memories were listening to him and John Sinclair in the car with my dad.

Whereas Rodger is the opposite - a reasonable appointment at first, but by far the most ruinous manager of the 10. Frankly, aside from Pearson, Claudio and Enzo they’ve done a poor job.

Agree with this. Basically, we have put ourselves in a situation (again) where we are scraping the barrel. Sure we’re not in the bottom 3 but anyone who’s watched us now knows we are in a relegation battle. There’s no chance of us being surprise packages. Moyes would be brought in to do the job of keeping us up but in the long term both he and Potter would be very underwhelming appointments. I say this every season but our manager scouting is sickening.

Inevitable, no idea what the club saw in him. Can’t say I have high expectations for the next appointment.

I don’t understand why everyone uses terms like ‘attractive’ as a synonym possession football anyway. It’s the same with all new stadiums being ‘magnificent’. There’s no reasoning behind it, it’s just popular to say this about modern things. Possession football is not attractive in itself, I don’t know why it’s got that reputation. Attractive football is based more on a combination of quality and speed with excitement (shots) at the end of it. i.e. when we won the league it was attractive despite low possession stats. As far as I’m concerned, football that ends in lots goals is attractive by default, and yes, Cooper doesn’t care about goals until we are desperate and have already lost.

I just don’t really get what the club expected from this guy. It’s obvious he’s going to be sacked within 2 seasons. Either because we are getting relegated this season or next. We aren’t going to pull clear to mid table under Cooper, he doesn’t have any potential. Surely being one of the relegation favourites it would have been less risky and potentially a higher reward to appoint some young manager with actual ideas, like certain clubs did when they hired relative no marks like De Zerbi, Pochettino and this wonder kid at Brighton.

Not really, tonight wasn’t down to them and even if it was, the players they replaced make plenty of errors.

• I thought the lineup was correct • 2 of the goals were due to terrible individual errors from regulars, not the players who came in. • We made poor decisions at both ends of the pitch. Suggests the players are either inexperienced or not very good. • Regardless of tonight, I think Cooper is a poor manager. • Why is our record so bad against Forest? Are we a club of bottlers?

We’re losing and he’s the manager. How is this result a ringing endorsement for him staying? Personally I think the lineup was correct - we’ve given them 2 shocking goals (which we regularly do with different lineups). Why are people so reactionary instead looking at things in a bit of depth. I think he’s generally a poor manager. The lineup was the best we have though.

It’s not the formation, it’s individual errors. Face it, the players aren’t very good. Faes has always had too many mistakes in him for this level.

Need a Vards goal tonight. I think he’s only scored once against them and that was 10 years ago. Last minute winner in his (potentially) last season would be right up there for iconic moments.

History tells us that most people are easily manipulated and poor judges of character, especially when it comes to leaders. I agree with bovril, we were brilliant for about 3 months, then the performances and tactics started to decline and eventually the results. Southampton away was during the lovebombing stage. Still proud of the result though. Amazing to have an away top flight record.

People can not rate the manager, acknowledge he should be starting certain players that he only brought on as sub, and still enjoy a comeback and last minute winner. I had to laugh that it was Ayew that got it.

1-1 Coca-Cola Cup final 1997.

I’d add that in the 90s stadiums were more varied / unique, visually interesting and atmospheric. Kits were more creative and artistic (took artistic risks even), tickets were cheaper and footballers weren’t as rich so they weren’t quite as detached from the average man. You could still probably see Leicester players at the local, and in the 70s my grandparents were actually acquainted with Leicester players and went to bars with them. Now there is no doubt that you have no shared experiences with these people that represent the club, and no reason to connect with them. I’m sure some people will say that there are things that are much better now, like the quality of the football (personally I find it quite boring and if there is more skill it hasn’t equated to being more wondrous or entertaining) but I think the bad things outweigh the positive changes. If you look at attendances and scorelines you could argue the 50s were even better, but certainly I think football is at its very lowest ebb, it’s basically dead with no tangible or even perceived link with local communities as people cotton on to the fact they are customers with absolutely no say in anything now most profits are from TV money and not ticket sales.

Disagree, Pearson had plenty of charisma, just not with the media. As a fan I loved his honesty and dry humour. In answer to the question I think it’s a really useful trait. Players need to believe in what you are saying, charm and confidence are a huge part of that. Players respond very differently depending on how motivational the manager is and that is personality. There are some exceptions of course, but it doesn’t help if everyone thinks you’re awkward or not likeable.

I have some extended highlights that I taped, not HD quality but it’s basically the whole season if you’d like a link.

It’s funny how ‘showing character’ to these managers always means staying in an extremely well-paid job and not changing anything about their approach to it, and rarely seems to mean having the courage to make bold, attacking decisions and analyse / change their tactical philosophy.

8 - 10 points would be good. I think 5 or 6 is more realistic. Anything less than 7 and he won’t have a leg to stand on.

Shakespeare, Pearson? Neither they nor Cooper had a solid history of that kind of football. All their managers have something in common - convenience. Most because they’ve managed in that division before and are usually readily available, want the job etc. They are the very basic choices someone who isn’t a professional would pluck out of thin air. Shakey was clearly well out of his depth but we kept him on full time anyway cos hey why not. Puel was a terrible appointment that did not progress the club (he wasn’t the DOF or the scout so his credit for signings is limited), Sven and Sousa were really poor appointments. Even if you could argue some of these were ok appointments in the short term, many were kept on way too long and left the club in a similar or worse position. Rodgers the best example of course. Others did very well of course but I’ve always maintained there was no deep scouting or thought put into choosing them like you see with Brighton.

People saying it’s too early need to be a bit more honest with themselves. The only thing that matters is this: do you think the performances are a fair reflection of Cooper’s tactics and selection and, if so, do you genuinely believe he will change? I’d say yes to the first question and, based on the fact he had similar tactical flaws at Forest, no he isn’t going to change. We need to be pragmatic at this football club. He doesn’t have what it takes, time will not change that because, like almost every manager, he will not change.

There are some people on this forum whom I know have been watching football for many years, but who give the impression that they haven’t. People who watch football know that if you put everyone behind the ball and invite pressure for over 15-20 minutes, you will concede 9 times out of 10. It’s just common sense. So it’s pointless blaming Coady when there was so much time and so many opportunities for Palace to capitalise on their territorial dominance. We weren’t playing the percentages and giving ourselves the best chance of hanging onto a lead (or extending it, which is still a viable option at 2-0 & 2-1 btw), and that is the criticism. If you’re playing well and not under the cosh, don’t start putting yourself under the cosh. It’s just cowardice and stupidity. What constantly surprises me is that there are so many professional coaches who have not learnt this.

Yeh, that’s a shit plan though. Backed up by the fact that we lost, and were well on top once we brought attacking players on.