inckley fox

I imagine a few of us have seen similar dynamics in the workplace. But the story is interesting, and the analogy relevant, because you have that inside information as to what was happening. Yes, the students were right on this occasion, but in any school there must also be plenty of competent members of staff that the kids and their parents might not be right to doubt. And I'm sure you'll have had difficult groups where you've tried to whip them into line, get the parents on board, and struggled. If you got it right, it may have been years before they looked back and came to thank you. The reason why it's so clear in your story that the appointment was a bad one, rather than a case of a newly-appointed HoS getting a tough time from unenthusiastic colleagues, is that you attest to people who had been flying before this appointment, doing their best to make it work and then, after a year rather than a month or so, it became clear that the switch had backfired. That's not really the case with Cooper: We're like the students in your analogy, rather than those who see what's going on behind the scenes. We weren't flying before the change. We don't know that everyone else is doing their best to make it work. And very little time has passed. I'm not advocating for waiting a full year to see whether the results are a disaster, just as I wouldn't in the workplace, but it would be a poor reflection on a school if they were firing someone based on a few grumbles and an iffy first couple of months on the job. In a good school you'd typically offer support and wait till the end of term at Xmas. When that school did eventually make the right appointment, it would have taken the new HoS time to get things back on track, they'd have ruffled a few feathers, and the extent to which they'd succeeded or failed wouldn't have become clear until a term (or two, or three arguably) had passed. So I'm not sure the analogy indicates that Cooper is akin to the erroneously appointed HoS in a finely-tuned department, nor that he's had the time for us - with our limited knowledge - to be able to confidently say he's the wrong man.

I'm not sure it's true that the sides around us have had tougher fixtures. Half of our games have been against last year's top six. No games against other newly-promoted teams. Palace have played Man Utd (who weren't actually top six, unless I'm mistaken) and Chelsea, but also Brentford, West Ham, Everton and us. Southampton have had Newcastle, Forest, Brentford, Ipswich, Man Utd and Bournemouth. One newly promoted side, and no top six teams. Wolves have had a tougher time with Liverpool, Chelsea, Villa and Arsenal, as well as Forest and Newcastle - so I'll grant you that one! Just above us, Everton have had Spurs and Villa, but also Brighton, Bournemouth, Palace and us. So, again, in relation to last year's table that's a shade easier than our opening fixtures. Ipswich have had Liverpool, Man City and Villa. They've also had Fulham, Brighton and newly-promoted Southampton. So that's more or less comparable with us. So based on that, I'd say Wolves have had tougher fixtures. Ipswich have had comparable fixtures. Southampton, Palace and Everton have all had a slightly kinder opening run of games.

Given the failure of anyone to hold down a 10 role, and the poor form of Winks, is there an argument for 3-4-3? Yes, I know it didn't work out against Palace...

The subs were plain bizarre. Four subs from 88 onwards, and we turn a great point into a 4-2 loss! When I saw El Khanouss and Reid I thought that they weren't at all what we needed to see out a point. I don't, in all honesty, think that they were a critical factor, in the event. But they were odd enough to raise questions where there might not have been too many questions asked. And I do wonder whether the absence of changes on 75-80 minutes might have been more of a factor than the changes we did make. Buonnonote was flagging for several minutes before the change. Mavididi was working hard but struggling to impact. Vardy is 37. We could have changed the attacking three out (but not for BDCR or Bilal) quite easily to freshen up our outlets.

Christ, I'd have got upset about that too. I wouldn't rule it out, mind!

It was said that Cooper is a sacked man walking. It's been said on about thirty different threads, including this. I was responding to that comment. I was pointing out that, if we're about to appoint another member of his inner circle, then that's evidently wrong. I'm not sure what you're struggling to make sense of. As for Alves, well, if Cooper is culpable for denying him opportunities at PL level, then what would that say about Maresca completely ignoring him at FLC level?

If we're truly about to appoint Reid to the coaching staff, then he most definitely is not a sacked man walking. That means the club are looking at 15 to 25 matches before they re-evaluate.

That's not far from what I thought, actually.

Firstly, you're right in that fans at the game have been generally supportive. I've always gone to pains to say that we can call for a manager's head all we like on here or in the pub - it doesn't translate to being a negative or a 'bad' supporter. I'm also very sceptical about Cooper, but just feel we need to see how the next 5-7 games go before rushing to a decision, based on what we've seen. So we're not completely at odds with each other, I just don't get the feeling yet that all is definitely lost. However I'd add two things. One, that the Forest connection has definitely been brought up by more than a few of his critics. On here and beyond! Of course you're also right that his supporters use that, or comments about his looks, to undermine the argument against him. Second, that we all know how widespread discontent can become contagious. I'd just urge people to do what you do and try to keep it from the terraces (for a few weeks, at least...).

So training games count? In that case we should have fired O'Neill after every pre-season. And given Taylor and Levein eight year contracts.

That doesn't mean all that much. Hopefully some of their past managers won't end up with us either.

I hope it's not going to become the stuff of Leicester City lore; that the great brainchild of Maresca was abandoned before we could see the fruits of our endeavours. The truth - factual truth - is that it was poor post-Xmas. We weren't even on promotion form. Everyone knew a new approach was needed, and most feared we were headed for relegation before the change of boss.

All agreed. It's not good enough and needs to change. Equally in agreement about the second part.

Nigel Pearson. Who was nearly sacked - partly because of sections of the fanbase irrationally hating him - at least 4 times in his second spell (the one that led to us going up, staying up and, one year later, winning the league). And don't get me started on O'Neill. At least the fans managed 12 games then before throwing bricks. Also ex-Forest, wasn't he? And neither of them were pin-up material, or previously successful at the level we were playing at. It'd be good to see what getting behind the team and seeing the positives for once could achieve, instead of this blanket negativity. If that fails in 5, 6 or 7 games time, then fine. But some people here seem to enjoy trying to make sure that this can't work out. If it goes wrong, with everyone pulling in the right direction, we'll know soon enough. We're way, way short of a disaster at the moment, and so long as we're a bit more on the ball than we were under Rodgers, we'll have every chance of staying up.

I don't think that's clear at all. The sources aren't great. And it's hardly a surprise that players who are either sidelined or encouraged to do things they'd prefer not to are feeling disgruntled. If that's even true. What is true is that there's an immense groundswell of determination among fans that Cooper shouldn't be manager. I have plenty of my own concerns, but when most of the complaints are based on five games of largely inconclusive evidence, and then a whole load of fairly personal hatred directed at the manager, it doesn't seem like the stuff you base major decisions on. There is a serious danger here of fans effectively making sure that this doesn't work out by creating an atmosphere of untenable negativity. If we sacked him in the next 2 or 3 games and went down, I wonder if they'd accept that their rush to judgement had played a major part in that. I ask this because there are plenty of people out there suggesting that anyone who says that five or six games isn't enough time - which is more or less the accepted wisdom in football - is complicit in our downfall. I hope they accept the same responsibility, then. Especially bearing in mind that we've rarely moved this early in a season to change something. Under Taylor, it wasn't early enough - but only because he'd gone on a record run of awful form late in the previous season. We already had ample cause to want him gone. Under Allen, we sacked him and got relegated. Under Sousa, he had longer than 5 games and was rock bottom in the second tier after we'd finished 5th in the same league the season before. Sacking Cooper would not be comparable. Maybe you think we need to act faster because we didn't under Rodgers, but we went down then not because we didn't act after 5 games - when we probably would have descended into even greater chaos - but because we didn't act after 15, 20, 25 games when, it turned out, we still had plenty of time to change things. And on top of that, five games into that season things were far, far worse in 22/23 than they are now.

Very well put. When I've looked back over page after page of this, picking out the most common criticisms, there are some that seem like big, important question marks over Cooper. The fact that things didn't really improve as time went on at Forest. The very defensive set-ups. The slowness to make changes, even when fatigue is visibly an issue, in games. Then there are the questions which may or may not have sensible answers. The exclusion of Ricardo and Vestergard, where you can look at how they got on for us when they were last playing at this level for us. The unspectacular results which, nonetheless, aren't disastrous for a team in our position at such an early point. The rumours of unrest from dodgy sources. But then you get the pure vitriol. He's ugly. He's ex-Forest (as if that's never worked out well for us before). He's changed all of Enzo's great work (which wasn't looking too promising in the second half of last season). He doesn't deserve another chance at PL level. It's the prevalence of the latter which makes me wonder whether the fans are going to contribute to such a negative atmosphere around the manager, who's already in a very tough job, that success becomes even more difficult. I wonder whether it's a Leicester tendency to turn prematurely on some managers (Milne, O'Neill, Pearson). Or maybe it's that their expectations aren't realistic regarding where we are now. Alternatively, are some people putting too much stock in what worked for us at a lower level? I go through all of these things in my head and increasingly come to the conclusion that a significant number of people simply don't like him, and decided that that was how it was going to be from the outset. I mean, I felt that way from start to finish about Brendan Rodgers, but understood quite quickly that he was doing fine and, not being any sort of expert, I should bite my tongue. But on this occasion, there hasn't been (and there's unlikely to be) anything which dramatically lifts everyone, and their negativity.

You're absolutely spot on. Like I said, when injuries and seasons of poor form at this level are concerned, I can imagine why Ricardo wouldn't be in the side, but the same could apply to Justin. And based on what little information I have (i.e. performances, knowledge of the players) I'd have lumped for Ricardo too. But it's not hard to imagine that, in the manager's position, he's seen a bit more to suggest that Justin has the slight edge physically. Perhaps he's even bought into the manager's ethos a bit better (he did say that Cooper had been 'a breath of fresh air'). And then he's younger, so arguably more likely to get back on track at a higher level. In that way, it's not necessarily poor man management. But yes, it's bound to raise eyebrows more and more while Justin's performances are as poor as they have been.

Yes, he did have a clear plan. It seemed to have been sussed at a lower level, and we weren't even on promotion form for the second half of the season. Quite a few people on here who want Cooper gone also wanted Maresca gone as late as April. Most of us saw that the set-up needed to change. Most were calling for a more flexible tactical approach. Your hatred of him, though, is just a further example of what's going on, in that some people can't separate their emotions from their ability to reason. Most of his critics decided that on day one. In many ways, if you wanted to defend Cooper or the board, one of the strongest arguments for them would be how unbalanced the criticisms against them have been. I have serious doubts about the board and Cooper. But you're never going to win those arguments if you're baying for a new manager's blood (newly promoted, at a troubled club which was out of form for some time) after 5 fairly inconclusive games. Bide your time and, if things don't improve, at least nobody will say that it was the tidal wave of pessimism which led to things not working out.

That's not really an 'in / out / wait' poll, is it? It's a 'sack him now / sack him soon / never sack him' poll. Anyone calm enough to say 'things will be a lot clearer in a month or so, one way or another' literally can't vote.

How would you define Pearson's system in 2014-15? I couldn't. It changed every five minutes. Being able to clearly define a system doesn't mean it's any good.

We're talking 5, 6, 7 more games. We're not even in the relegation zone at the moment. At this rate, given results so far, then if we wait that long we would still be in a very strong position if we deemed it necessary to make a change. But clubs in our position now: newly promoted, out of form second half of last season, after a change of manager, loads of off-field uncertainty, with financial restrictions in place and yet still not in the drop zone - don't make changes after 5 or 6 games. And for very good reasons. Firstly, because things often improve from that point onwards. Secondly, because you'd be derided by any sensible pundit, and potential appointments of any calibre will listen to the noise. Thirdly, because everyone around the club would see that a situation which didn't apparently warrant panic had, as it turns out, provoked complete chaos. This isn't a collapse of Sousa proportions, not by any measure, relative to prior achievements and expectations. It's a slightly disappointing start and nothing more. We went through this in 1982, 1995-6 and 2012-13 and our patience was rewarded. In 2010 and 2017, in wildly different circumstances (in the drop zone, as it happens, with teams that had in the first case recently pushed for promotion, and in the second recently been champions), we correctly moved early. The situations that we didn't respond to in 1987, 1990, 2001 and 2022 were completely incomparable. I have a sneaking suspicion that Cooper isn't the man. But I'm no authority and, if I was, this wouldn't be the way you'd arrive at that sort of a conclusion. If you're looking for historical comparisons, then I think that we're in danger of making history repeat itself to some degree, in bringing about an atmosphere where the negativity from the stands makes it harder for a manager to make things work. Megson was not a great manager, and I didn't want him either. His Forest connections didn't especially bother me, as they hadn't with O'Neill and wouldn't with Morgan, but I didn't like his conservative brand of football. Still, we basically hounded him out after six weeks, leading to him jumping at the first chance to leave, and instead went down under the immensely popular Holloway. Mandaric, for all his flaws, was probably right in saying that we'd never have gone down under Megson. He might have been unspectacular, but the chairman saw that he was starting to get to grips with the complex issues he'd just inherited. There's a serious danger now that our refusal to give any sort of patience or respect to another unspectacular, uninspiring ex-Forest man - who probably won't deliver on our long-term aspirations - might, nonetheless, once again nullify any hope of success. He may well be the wrong guy, either long-term or short. But we don't need to overwhelm the place with such a sense of pessimism that it's impossible for anyone around the club to engender the faintest amount of positivity. Be patient, and there'll be a moment not too far down the line - long, long before the springtime firing of Rodgers which, as it turns out, was probably only a week or two too late to keep us up - when we'll either have smiles on our faces, or a perfectly sensible moment to make a reasoned decision.

I'm just not sure that you can say that everyone who is saying 'look, it's not that bad, and new managers need a bit of time' is jumping on the negativity bandwagon. Not when those they're arguing with are, in many cases, the ones who'd decided that there was no hope under the manager from Day One. That to me is negativity. We had blind negativity early in the Milne, O'Neill and Pearson (pt.2) reigns. And we had blind positivity early on with Hamilton, Pleat, Taylor, Allen and Sven. Sometimes - as with Megson - the negativity is right. Sometimes the early euphoria is right. But it doesn't make sense to me to characterise the more optimistic (for better or worse) set of people as negative. You could, I suppose, argue that they're succumbing to the passive, apathetic mindset which had seen us decline without much in the way of complaint from the stands, but even then I'd say (a) that most ongoing concerns about the club aren't particularly concerned with this manager, or your views on him. Many of those who are furious with club mismanagement will still want to give players and management staff a fair crack of the whip. And (b) I'd say that it's still too early to be discarding someone based on the evidence we've seen. It may well turn out to be right to do so, but then again there was once a gang of Southampton locals who hung around the docks week-in week-out shouting 'that boat's going to sink!' at every departure. Some people praised them as visionaries years later, but I doubt there was much insight (or positivity, for that matter) in what they did.

It does, but the management team he served under didn't pick him most of the time either, even when fit. As for Stowell's two games when he was actually in charge, Riccy was an 85th minute sub in one (despite him playing half the game and scoring in his previous game), and came off in the 58th in the other. And our performances back then were way worse than they are now, whether you're willing to hold judgement on Cooper or not. Like I say, if you asked me who the better player was, I'd give the same answer. But three years of recurring injuries in that role, his age, a poor pre-season, and the pressing need to play a more standard defensive unit than the one which had accommodated Riccy - very successfully, but at a lower level - means that it shouldn't be too hard to work this one out.

I was just half-way through writing pretty much this, albeit less detailed. So now I've had to go back and change everything so I'm not just repeating you... It's the court of public opinion which is being used to slate Cooper for this, among many other things, right now. And at times its reasoning has been a bit mucky. So it's worth looking at where it stood on the last three seasons that Ricardo played at this level. In 20-21 he started ten PL games, coming off early in three of them. We conceded seven goals in the final two and one glance at the post-match stuff after West Ham and Newcastle tells you that people were certain he was a spent force. It seemed a bit premature to me at the time but his season was devastated by follow-on injuries and poor form, and it was clear that we couldn't build around him over Castagne and Justin at that point. A season on, there were more injuries. 13 starts, coming off (often very) early in four of them. He was dropped after we shipped four to West Ham early in the season and never truly regained his place. And in our relegation season, again, more injuries, more poor form. He made five PL starts, which we only picked up a single point from. The court of public opinion on here was very clear that that was game over for him. Now, go down a division and change his role so he's no longer bombing up and down the line, and he has a great season. I wouldn't argue, though part of what was wonderful about it was the surprise to see someone look the part who, for three years, did not. But most of us saw how sides had learnt to exploit the gaps on our right in the second tier and doubted we'd continue to play Ricardo in a hybrid role. And many of us wondered whether he'd be able to revert to the standard FB role that he'd failed to nail down for three years or be preferred in the middle over seasoned CMs. Add to that a pre-season where he looked poor and was dropped after a stinker of a performance, and the only real mystery is looking at JJ's displays and wondering 'if this is HIS level now, why weren't we in the market for a right back?' As much as I know Riccy was the better player, and wonder whether he might be a bit more solid there than Justin, a quick revision of how he got on for three seasons in that role suffices to not lose any sleep over the 'mystery' of it all.

Puel took over months after our period as reigning champions came to an end. That's very different to someone who takes over a newly-promoted side.