inckley fox

I always take the view that these people are being watched all the time, and you can't expect them not to crack a smile at some point or other, regardless of how upset they are. The problem here is that, when these images suggest a lack of concern and their running of the club suggests the same, one is always going to seem reflective of the other.

It sounds a bit like you've been possessed by Ian Brown, but yes, I agree.

A home side mostly uninterested in attacking, up against underwhelming and arrogant Champions Elect who thought they just needed to turn up to win, or wait long enough for us to implode. Which, in fairness, will most probably happen. It's unspeakably dull though.

You're right, more or less. I thought Winks was targeted by sides in the FLC post-Xmas and struggled with the attention. Mavididi did well, but we saw enough in the way of limitations, and dips in form, to be wary about his prospects at a higher level. Ultimately, it depends whether you want success in the second tier built around a large number of players that you know to be too poor to make the step up. The Enzo project capitalised on the strengths of players like Faes and Vestergard, that we already knew to be unfit for top tier football but suspected were, in the right system, a class above the second tier. And we were right in that assumption. But without ample funds to rebuild the squad upon promotion - and with the dressing room largely unwilling to compromise on Enzo's footballing ideals - we were doomed before kicking a ball. If, from here on in, we predominantly build around those two and Winks / Coady / Justin / Kristiansen / Mavididi / Ayew / Reid / Daka or even Vardy / Ndidi, then promotion would most likely be pointless to everyone outside the accounts department. We'd be giving ourselves too much to do thereafter. It'd be nice to see us show some desire to be a top flight club again. That means as a general rule looking for people who haven't been tested (at least not thoroughly) at the top, but you believe to be capable of stepping up, rather than exploiting the strengths of those who nobody else wanted at the highest level because they're either no longer good enough or never were. Naturally, that can't be uniform. You're bound to need a few short-term fixes (as we did in 2015 with GTF, Philips etc.), but if the backbone of your team needs dismantling it's never going to be easy. Sadly, I think we'd be seeing major changes in the recruitment department now, with an eye on a different approach for the forthcoming summer, if we'd woken up to this.

That's what bothers me. It's precisely what I expect Top likes, and in line with his previous decision-making: short-termist (if we'd have to tweak the style upon promotion; see Enzo), possession-fixated (like Puel, Rodgers, Maresca, and to a lesser extent Sven and Ruud), presentation-fixated (they love someone who looks the part, has a bit of hype behind them, and brings their own determined 'brand' of football), Southampton-centric (like Puel, the Head of Recruitment, and many of the defenders we've signed or tried to sign since we put nine past them) and would appease the players who like to believe they're budding Man City stars (i.e. the ones who were fine at a lower level, but kicked and screamed and got a manager fired when they weren't allowed to play that way at a higher level, and whom - if we had an ounce of sense - we'd be marching towards the exit door now) . Maybe we can add the Buddhism to that list now. I increasingly believe that the assumption should be that it's an awful appointment as long as it has Top's fingerprints all over it. Until there's an overhaul of the club staff, I wouldn't trust any of the conclusions they come to. In fact, I'd be inclined to presume them to be horribly misguided.

It wasn't him who loaned him out, though. Assuming we're talking about Alves here.

I have to be honest and say that I dislike Lampard about as strongly as I'm capable of disliking anyone, save for murderers, tyrants and sex offenders. I have to lay that down before I say anything else because I'm probably incapable of being balanced about the guy. I also think he tends to do very well until those who work with him start to clock just how thoroughly obnoxious he is. Of course, I'll grant you that he's a bright bloke. And yes, he did well at Derby (though not quite as well as Rowett the season before) - early in the season especially. He blew the play-offs by committing the schoolboy error of celebrating the semis as if he'd just won the league, but nobody is perfect. He also started well in his first stint at Chelsea, at Everton, and right now with Cov. But the less said about his success over a longer period of time, and the state he leaves clubs in, the better. Results dip after 4-6 months. Recruitment is poor, unless it's a Chelsea loanee. Discipline isn't his strongpoint. Bearing in mind short-termism, ill discipline, poor recruitment and a fixation with 'football played the right way' have been significant factors in our undoing, I'd really give that one a wide berth. Every bit as wide a berth as Russell Martin, in fact. We need someone who is going to give us a lot more than a short-term bounce, or a quick fix.

I sometimes feel that our lack of atmosphere is down to people for some strange reason equating it with the opera, ballet or theatre. But I never had any proof that people genuinely did that, until now.

His 7 or 8 goals, or whatever, still amount to one of the few positive contributions that anyone has made, alongside Mads' early form, and the glimpses we've seen from Bilal. No striker would thrive in this team, and while there's a valid debate about whether he stays or not, he's hardly one of our standout problems. It makes me smile to see people who have spent the past decade saying he's finished having their tuppence worth about this. I mean, eventually they're going to be right, but I don't get the eagerness.

I suspect most managers would, in an ideal world, prefer players to be based in the area. If they don't act on it, it's most likely because players usually move of their own accord, and those who don't tend to have accommodation or some kind of second / third / fourth home nearby. O'Neill had a flat, I think. Les Ferdinand practically lived in a hotel. Or maybe no problems present themselves as a result of living a long way away, which is what Pearson probably thought. If there is an attitude problem across the squad and a high number doing long commutes, it's makes more sense that a manager would propose a change, and a show of commitment. Winks' behaviour regarding Cooper, his dire performances and very visible lack of effort on the pitch at times would indicate that there is a problem with him, and maybe that's why the manager has asked him for that demonstration of his commitment. Perhaps it's not a blanket rule, but rather a case-by-case approach, and in Winks' case you could easily see why a manager would ask more of him. If he's clashed with the manager over it, then I'd be more inclined - based on what I've seen and heard of the player - to back the manager in taking action, and take the view that it's probably not an arbitrary flexing of the muscles. It doesn't take much imagination to suppose that Winks is one of those characters we need to be working hard to get out of the door if we're to instill a new ethic at the club. Of course, it still doesn't change the fact that Ruud has done a lousy job, and given us no reason at all to believe that he's the right man in the long run. The fact that failure is understandable with such an unspirited set of substandard players (that he's tended to stick by, and for whom he's hardly exhausted all of the alternatives) isn't a great argument for his continuation.

In the old Double Decker, if you sat on the front row upstairs in the winter - Pleat/Lee/Little era - your feet were always in about two or three inches of freezing water. I could never feel them by half-time.

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.