inckley fox

Yes, that Southampton game... The one a week after after the loss to Plymouth and the subsequent crisis meeting which followed it, when we finally showed what could be done by abandoning a few of his long-since-sussed footballing fixations, adapting to the opposition for once, and hammering them with very little possession. We secured the title pretty much in the process, as a result of - just for a moment - parking some of Enzo's less well-judged convictions to one side. It was great, I agree, and an indication of what Enzo would have to learn to do if he wanted to become a top manager. Not nearly enough of what occurred after the New Year was particularly inspiring though, which was, I suppose, the point the chap was making.

Pragmatism and short-termism aren't the same thing. Pearson was often dubbed pragmatic - was he short-termist? Brendan was the absolute opposite. Did he have his eyes on longer term building? And neither did Enzo. Obviously I understand that managers don't negotiate contracts. I'm sure you're also aware that they sometimes insist on them. It's hardly a little-known fact that Enzo looked for an extension for Vestergard, and that's why he got one. And a totally different approach last season? Of course it was! We had to move away from that approach because if we had continued to play in the manner that we did in the second half of last season (which, I repeat, saw us fall well short of promotion form), it would have been no better whatsoever. We'd have been picked apart even more effortlessly if we'd attempted to be a Pep-esque, expansive footballing side. We don't have the players, and were well beyond a transfer window or two off acquiring them. I accept that Enzo has his merits. If he learns to be more flexible, he may even become a very good manager some day. But I don't think these are convincing defences of him at all.

Wow. I'm really surprised that a forum which is fervently calling for change and for the club to stop repeating past mistakes, is also so keen for it to cancel out its latest ****-up by reverting back to one we made eighteen months ago. Several of the players we should aim to shift (Coady, Mavididi, Winks) were at least partly his work, as were a couple of those extended contracts you're all moaning about (Vesty, Hamza). Our failure last year to rebuild the backbone of the side effectively - CBs, CMs, CFs - simply resulted in us having too much to do this time round. And even if we work on the principle that dodgy recruitment isn't necessarily 'on' the manager, or that those players were only brought in for a short-term second tier purpose, which they fulfilled, then surely that would be cause to call for a changed approach now, rather than 'Back to Plan A'. Quite apart from how dull and purposeless it all was, the style of play was never going to be replicable with our calibre of players at a higher level. Their own belief that it was led to the total rejection of Cooper's methods, and the need for someone who would tell them what they wanted to hear a little more. And the fixation with being a Pep-lite footballing side has been going on for many years - it's a hallmark of the Rudkin/Top years and presumably one of the convictions which people would like to see questioned. Especially as football is starting to move away from that, and perhaps back towards the style which we made so famous when we were on the up. Their interpretation of what 'sustainable football' became a major factor in our downfall. As for results, the form in the second half of the season wasn't even promotion level, despite the whole world and his dog thinking that the most expensive ever EFL side would be a shoo-in for promotion. It was predictable even at that level - all designed to push the Enzo brand for a season and keep a chairman happy with the style of football he craved at the only level where it really was sustainable - and is proving predictable once again now. This place was awash with people sensibly wondering whether, with Enzo, we'd bridge the gap after promotion. I find it hard to believe that this bunch of players would be just fine if someone persuaded them to play a tad more like Southampton under Russell Martin. And if we do that again in the second tier then, if we ever do go up, we're going to have to change our style of play with or without Enzo. And that'll be a whole lot tougher if everyone's been sold a dream of a non-negotiable 'idea' of how we should play, which subsequently has to be abandoned. A good number of our current issues come from the short-termism of Enzo's cameo at the club. Yes, well done him for earning that promotion - he does deserve credit for that because it's never easy - but personally I'd like to see real change, new ideas, less short-termism and not for us getting stuck in a vicious circle of back-and-forthing between divisions. At best. Shouldn't the club be opening its mind to a new approach right now? Myself, I would dearly love to see us actually learning from our mistakes instead of the 'That worked once - for a bit - let's just do that again' strategy.

Nor the present, nor much of the recent past.

He probably is too old. In fact, he's almost certainly too old to be playing as much as he is. From what I've seen, he's still got enough going for him to be a fine impact sub or occasional starter for at least a lower mid-table side, but obviously we shouldn't be asking things of him which we didn't 3 or 4 years ago. But that's where we are. And unless people are deluded enough to believe that a youth team player, or Daka, or Edouard would be an upgrade, he's clearly going to have to keep on doing it. And frankly, if you think that any striker would have much of a chance in this team and with this set up, that'd be the most deluded thing of all. The seven goals he's got are quite an achievement. Some people have taken great pleasure (while claiming not to, of course) for the past 6-7 years in saying he's past it. Eventually they'll be correct, if they aren't already. But the idea that we're playing with ten men because of him, and that the rest of our team would be doing a whole lot better if it weren't for Vardy is - as it has been for several years - clearly well wide of the mark. Despite the pundits constantly pointing out that his is a borderline impossible job given the lack of support - something which seems painfully clear when you see him attempting to lead an uncoordinated press, or with no man within 30 yards of him - he may well be one of a hefty series of problems, but he isn't 'the' problem, by far. That's far too complimentary to the rest of them, and far too harsh on him. For me, people should stop saying silly things because they're upset and fancy pissing everyone else off too.

Yes, I wouldn't argue with that at all. From the players' perspective, though, that whole episode was about replacing someone they didn't like with someone that would be nice to them, play the way they wanted to play, tell them how wonderful they are and generally dodge taking them to task about how crap they are. The fact that he still doesn't acknowledge that our workrate/desire isn't up to scratch and continues to play some of the worst offenders is kind of confirmation of that to me. But you're quite right, none of the above means it was the wrong decision to sack Cooper. It will seem like madness to the footballing community because of what we did thereafter, and you can understand why, but in isolation that aspect of the decision-making was understandable. I'd only add the one asterisk to that, to point out that much of the necessity for Cooper's exit came from the hostility of fans, the rejection of his methods by players (which perhaps impacted on his final results) and before that, the way in which the running of the club had restricted the squad rebuild. I can't accept that these players' jurisdictions on who should or shouldn't be in charge are worth heeding, regardless of my view that - in spite of everything - Cooper still was never the right man for the task.

I agree that Cooper was probably the wrong appointment and, due to losing both fanbase and dressing room, had to go. But his failing because these players didn't like him, as you put it, is a more damning reflection on them than it is on him. Because when they did find a manager that they actually could get along with, having been relegated with another previously, he turned out to be a hopeless incompetent. And that is clearly all they warrant. We had a choice in November as to whether we further massaged egos or seriously demanded more of these jokers, and we chose to massage the egos. Steve Cooper has actually kept a side up at this level, which is more than can be said for, say, Wout Faes. I'm far, far from any campaign to recognise the martyrdom of Cooper, but clearly the switching of him for Ruud looks like a mistake of absurd proportions. I don't know a single fan of any other club who doesn't think that our players, board and fans are a little bit daft, to say the least, for lauding it.

I think that 'ha' is the reason some people feel we might need more time! You're right, it depends on getting the recruitment right. And of course it'd be better to do both that, and come up at the first time of asking. As you say though, that's a fairly big conditional. I doubt many would prefer us to deliberately tale ourselves out of the promotion picture for any length of time. That'd be madness. Perhaps some are just taking the view that the quick fixes haven't helped our cause long term, and 2-3 years out of the top flight while getting the right blend would be preferable to yo-yoing interminably. It may even give us something which puts us in a better position for years to come. But yes, there are huge problems that also come with extended periods outside the top flight. An instant return is obviously preferable, albeit with the caveat that we have the bigger picture in mind this time around. If there's an element of risk that we might not cruise it because we're building a younger side that turns out to need a bit more time, like in the Wallace and Pearson years (and going further back to Halliday, Hodge and the long-gone legends of the 1920s and 1950s), then I would at least welcome the notion of a club looking forward. But I get your point.

While I totally go along with your general point about this squad being clearly relegation fodder, unlike the 'Class of 2023', I'd disagree about one or two of the other comments. Firstly the whole HMS Piss the League thing. We only went up by seven points, and only won the league by one or two. Secondly, it wasn't merely a late season blip - we weren't even on promotion form for the second half of the season, and came perilously close to blowing what, on paper, looked like the biggest ever shoo-in for a second tier title. Enzo did his job, but it was far, far from emphatic. Part of the problem was that we didn't recruit all that well. We still effectively had to replace the backbone of the side when we did get promoted because we already knew Faes and Vesty weren't EPL standard, KDH left, and Vardy was 37 - and we simply hadn't developed enough new options with our investments at the lower level. If the likes of Souttar / Nelson / Alves etc. were ever likely to add to those options, then the decision to play a brand of football which would be way beyond the skill-set of our players at a higher level, and to favour those who could handle that brand of football but only at a lower level, totally sidelined them. It left us with too much work to do in the summer of last year, when our resources were limited. As for the 2023 signings, too few of them offered anything at the higher level. The keeper - great - but Stephy, Winks, Coady, Cannon didn't really advance our cause. Winks' form was middling even in the FLC from the New Year onwards. Fatawu may indeed be a great prospect, but he was still some way off PL standard in most of his performances this season. So yeah, you're right that this side is likely to have some difficulties which we didn't have last time round. You're right that they're a lot poorer than the side which went down in 2023. But I think there were plenty of signs last season that things weren't going all that phenomenally well, and many of our current problems come from the short-sightedness of our approach back then. I'm not advocating for a long-term approach which devastates any chance of an instant return next season. But if we don't do a better job of rebuilding the core of the squad next time round, we will also deprive ourselves of the chance to compete again at the highest level, and for the foreseeable future.

Absolutely. He's remained popular with the players by setting the bar appropriately low for them.

It makes no difference whether a set of players like a manager or not if the results are awful. My take on it is - much as it was with Enzo - that these players generally prefer a type of manager which isn't going to bring them success (not at this club, at least) at a higher level. It's not to say that those managers wouldn't pull it off with a better set of players at their disposal, nor that the managers they disliked would fail with a more positive and adaptable squad at theirs. Most players would love to be praised, to play 'expansive' football, and to be made to believe that they're good enough to do it, but those that make the grade at clubs like ours are often those who understand the need to compromise on some of their ideals. I mean, just for starters, Albrighton started out as a quick, tricky winger at Villa but then had a bunch of injuries and later a torrid few months under Pearson while he had to learn how to serve a different kind of purpose. He wasn't technically as gifted as several of our current players, he was just - after a few gripes along the way - ultimately more willing to adapt. We currently have too many players who aren't willing to listen and adapt their game in accordance with the situation we're in. That's what made Cooper's position untenable, and it's why they're quite happy getting mauled now under a manager who is nice to them and happy to make concessions, where possible, for their personal, inviable preferences. It's wonderful in the second tier when a manager encourages you to play as you'd like, and gives you the effusive praise that you deeply desire. Not so good when you need to scrap, work tirelessly, listen to advice or even take in a few serious rocketings, and get better. Perhaps there are good sides out there that could accommodate some of the Wouts and Boubas and Vestys and Harry Winks of this world, but they can't possibly be at the heart of a side that needs to battle fiercely for survival.

My first instinct is to say that this kind of post is totally preposterous. But if as manager you literally never offer anything resembling a new idea, when we need stacks of them, you have to wonder whether he's really trying. No struggling side with Faes and Soumare at its core, just as a starting point, could ever stay up. I'd hoped we learnt that the last time round. While I'm still not convinced it's sabotage, the outcomes have been so poor that it all amounts to the same thing. Any suggestion that he should be allowed to remain at the club seems utterly dumb to me at the moment, because nothing he's done gives you the impression that he's a semi-capable manager. The question is whether you spend a load of money on a change in a probably-futile attempt at survival, or wait a little longer until you implement a longer-term plan, largely so that the successor isn't tarnished by the unmitigated misery which awaits us in the next few months.

As many have said, it's a complex picture without a great deal of black and white. Rodgers didn't start the fire, at least not in straightforward terms. In your analogy, the kerosene was first spilled years ago but nobody had got round to dropping the match! Strategies which served us very well for a long while - the financial gambles that depended on us not going down, even the insistence that the only 'sustainable' football was that represented by possession-obsessives like Puel and Rodgers (or even Sven, and later Maresca) - were all there to see long before Vichai's passing. As regards that fixation, it increasingly led to us seeking ready-to-roll PL players who actually had the composure and pedigree to manage possession, rather than the sorts of quick or direct or physical player we'd initially succeeded with. They're expensive, they're often a wee bit older, and when you're a club like us you're unlikely to get access to the best of the brand. Add to that a succession of scouts with questionable track records, and you can see how that might become a problem (maybe I'm wrong, but it's probably easier to sharpen up physical attributes than it is to teach intelligence and vision, so we ended up bringing in guys who were not quite as good, and never would be, at possession football than the sort of player we'd previously been bringing in to play a more direct game.) And, of course, the game is changing. The luminaries of 2010, when KP came in, were almost all positional managers. That's no longer as clear-cut. So the financial gambles which paid off when we recruited under, say, Puel, and the sorts of players we successfully signed for the game he and his successors preferred, quickly became a problem when the recruitment went awry. Perhaps we'd never have won an FA Cup without that approach, and perhaps a different approach would have brought a different set of problems, but like I said, none of it's black and white. As an example, in your analogy Maresca briefly quells the flames, but to others he's a manager who largely misspent his funds (especially with a view to bringing in young players that a good coach might be able to craft into PL players), who played a style which we'd never be able to replicate in the top flight, and who jumped ship after a promotion which the whole world and his dog had down as a shoo-in. To me he lit a ten foot long fuse and rolled around gaily in the kerosene until the moment it got anywhere near. Okay, I do agree that Rodgers' poor recruitment and sheer negligence in the relegation season really lit that touchpaper of yours. He'd argue that the board did that themselves by getting their figures wrong, but I for one didn't expect to see us splashing out after a season in which we'd spent big for zero reward. So I'll grant you that one! Even so, I think you can find the roots of the downturn in all kinds of places - in strategies which initially worked out wonderfully, both footballing and financial, as well as in those warning signs, like a minor financial breach in 2014, or the god-awful recruitment of 2016. I recognise there's a strong anti-Rodgers argument, perhaps strong enough to cancel out the 'pro' argument all together, and yet I can't accept that we'd have cruised along merrily if he'd just had the decency to evaporate back in 2021.

I think you're right.

Taylor made some horrendous decisions, even if he gets a sprinkling of credit for his part in our early season form, and a respectable enough mid-table finish. He totally blew the Heskey money, and more, which led to financial disaster when the wheels came off. He signed Akinbiyi, Lewis and Lee Marshall and insisted on playing them way beyond the moment that it became clear that they were hopeless. He split his duties between City and England at a time when our form was faltering. He also signed Wise, who upset half the squad, put Davidson out for three months and was involved in a winding up order on the club. He switched Izzet to the wing and went to a 4-4-2 which he had to abandon at half time in our first game of the season when we were 0-5 down against a newly promoted side. However three things should be said to offer some balance. One is the aforementioned mid-table finish. One is the fact that we weren't necessarily down when he left, and if Bassett had done a good job we'd barely talk about how crap he was. The third is that the criticism - much of which came from Walsh after his exit - that he'd 'systematically dismantled' the O'Neill team is, as you suggest, unfair. He inherited an ageing squad (Flowers, Taggart, Elliott, Sinclair, Walsh, Cottee, Guppy were all the wrong side of 30, Lennon, Impey and Collymore weren't far off, and Marshall, who Taylor was slated for barring from training, wasn't even our player) and many of the players who left were simply coming to the end of their careers. Lennon pushed for his exit, Stan got into trouble again, so it was hardly all the manager's doing. He was still extremely crap of course. But Ruud is more comparable with Bassett, who was also crap but not really responsible for the downturn, than Taylor.

Surely he took us over in June? (Or have I missed something?!)

If King is serious about being a manager, it'd just be a case of one unproven manager who has had nothing in the way of new ideas, and shown himself to be incapable, being subbed out for another unproven manager who might well cut his teeth on the job. You never know what you might find, if he has the mandate to be brave with new ideas, and even braver when it comes to sidelining players who aren't fulfilling their most basic professional duties. If that's the stipulation, then it would make more sense then a costly, short term interim appointment, or a longer term manager who'd forever be tarnished by what happens in the next few months. Unless there are green shoots of improvement before the end of the season, we'll need a fresh start in the summer. If Ruud has to go, and we accept that only a miracle can save our season, then this is the most affordable of the 'wild stab in the dark' / 'nothing to lose' options.

I have a feeling that most of the footballing community, if not all (us excepted), thinks we've been extremely dumb over Cooper. They'd say that any manager who'd inherited that squad, with a pending points deduction, limited funds and a fanbase (soon to be followed by a dressing room) stacked against him, had done quite well to have them in 16th. The same players who were partying on the day he was fired - and who have been responsible for our recent form, and who in many cases got us relegated last time round - had clearly abandoned the Cooper cause some time before he departed. Which makes it hard to imagine how things might have been if fans and players had given him a chance. We might try to kid ourselves that these outsiders in the media have no idea what's really going down in Leicester, but anyone with half a brain outside of our neck of the woods knows full well that we've been silly. For what it's worth, I think we probably did make the wrong appointment with Cooper, though I found it staggering to hear people suggest he was way below our level, or a hopeless incompetent with nothing to offers (especially as these were often the same people who thought the entirely unproven Ruud to be a stellar appointment). But I don't think Cooper did a great job, I don't think his transfer policy was right, I do think things would have gone downhill if he'd continued, and I think it was wise to fire him, even if much of that was down to the fact that neither fans nor players were going to give him a chance to be successful. Even so, there are so many other factors to consider. Years of poor recruitment under successive managers. The whole Maresca project, which was only ever going to end in a serious rethink once we got promoted, and which only uncovered one single player who would prove PL standard (contrast that to our promotions in 1983, 1996, 2014, when we stayed up). A large number of (inherited) overpaid players who overestimate their worth to the club, and football as a whole. Regarding transfers, Cooper never seemed to value Okoli or Skipp himself particularly, so there's a question over whose babies they were. As for Reid and Ayew... Clearly we'd spent 5m on a winger in 2023, and committed to a further 12-15m or whatever for another one, and in 2024 we couldn't afford more. So we bought experienced back-ups. We needed the class of '23 to step up - and they didn't - so the back-ups ended up being first choice. They weren't dreadful signings, regardless of my indifference to them, they just ended up playing way more than they should have due to poor form and injury. Our current plight goes way beyond Cooper, irrespective of his many errors. It goes beyond Ruud too, despite him appearing to be a lot less qualified than his predecessor for the post.

If we'd spent 5m and got the Vardy of last season, which is what his wages cost based on that, we wouldn't have moaned. Compared with the amounts we spent on Mavididi, Winks, Coady, even Ayew - fees and wages tallied - I don't think he's given us bad value for money over the past two years. For me, he's the least of our problems. He's an ageing legend who still has things to offer, but on whom we depend more than we should. You could have skipped some of the previously mentioned signings and found that alternative up front. How has the money we've splashed out on one of our better players over the past couple of seasons been the problem, either financially or in terms of performance?

Some might say Hamilton/Pleat, or Taylor/Bassett. But as some said Allen/Megson and Megson/Holloway were hard to beat. Cooper/Ruud has to be up there though.

Just utter, utter rubbish.

It's going to get a lot worse than 0.50 if we don't fire him.

I thought he probably left partly because he knew he'd be signing players like that. And it's not as if all of his signings came off either. Of those that did, only one has so far been able to make the step-up. Of course that could be down to the sorts of recruitment problems that have plagued us for four or more years. So Maybe it's harsh to have a go at Maresca for that, but then it'd be even harder to be critical of Cooper (given the greater restrictions, and the need to have PL-capable players). Some of the players who came in, including Okoli and Skipp, were hardly clear-cut first choices for him. The former was probably a product of long-term scouting. Either way, I am a bit surprised that people feel that - playing Enzo's style of football, with largely the same set of players and a limited budget - we'd be mid-table. That seems very hopeful to me.

Most agree that with Ricardo/Vardy older and KDH gone it's a weaker squad than the one which wasn't even in promotion form for us in the second half of last season. I'm not sure why they'd piss the league, and the collapse of Luton (whose eventual points total was higher than it seems ours will be) is a warning of what can happen. Complacency and arrogance are two of the worst hallmarks of this side and club, and I really can't be doing with more 'don't worry, we'll piss it' voices from the sidelines this time round. Even if we did, it'd be because we'd opted for the sort of short-termism which got us to where we are now. They need to build a young squad with a home-grown base - without a blind adherence to outdated footballing purism - and let it grow. Hopefully it will push for promotion next year, but if it doesn't it wouldn't necessarily mean that all is lost. In fact, if it's a consequence of us restructuring thoroughly, then we may have a better chance of being a good PL side 4-5 years from now than if we broadly stick with the same set-up, again try to capitalise on our experience rather than moving on from it, and add big names that we consider 'a class above' at that level.

I really hope not. His brand of football has been branded outdated by its own creator, and the drop-off we saw post-Xmas, when we weren't even in promotion form, is happening now with Chelsea. When we saw that it wasn't going to succeed with these players at this level we did an about-turn with the next appointment, leading to a whole load of discontent from players and fans who had bought into the great 'idea'. I really don't want to see an impact appointment with little long-term future. His transfer business, except for Mads, was either good enough for the FLC but not for the EPL (Winks, Mavididi and, elsewhere, Cannon), or simply not good enough, but nonetheless costly (Coady). The jury is out on Fatawu in that regard. It was a short-term fix designed to drive some belief, and top-end second tier, quality into a side, and capitalise on its technical superiority, but with little consideration to what came next. That approach, as opposed to bringing in genuine promise, gelling the best of the crop into a unit, and adopting an 'identity' (over-used word I know) which could actually be carried through, played huge part in our current demise. That and him sodding off as soon as the tricky part came around. What Enzo rightly understood was the need for a reset. Without that - say, if we'd have stuck with Rodgers or Smith and established ways of doing things - you really can slide. That's why I expect and hope to see Ruud gone ahead of the next campaign, unless there are actually any new ideas at some point which might help us to make a fist of things, and a willingness to be unpopular with the personnel if it's a consequence of making changes. If there weren't a reset, this side would struggle, just as much of it did in the second half of last season, which is when the wheels really started to come off. I doubt they'll suddenly be regalvanised, even by a good manager. But, unless there's an embargo, we'll have funds from sales to refresh the squad with, and I expect we'll compete, regardless of whether the rebuild is well implemented. Still, I'd prefer us to play it a little less 'safe and steady' with our strategy. Run the risk of more than one year down there, get our financial house in order and build a squad - and style - with the potential for long-term success. And like in the early months of NP's second stint, funds might have to be kept to one side for accepting those lower end offers, taking a bit of a hit, and making sure decks are properly cleared. If we scramble to the play-offs with Daka up front, Coady and Vesty at the back, Ayew, Mavididi and Reid on the flanks etc. then we'll know what's coming next.