inckley fox

Maybe Ricardo just isn't good enough as a PL right back.

Really? He was clearly not PL level from early 2020 to 2022. When he started, we lost way more games than when he didn't. Maybe he was to blame, maybe he wasn't. But for me, when he was fit, he either couldn't get a game, or did, and looked substandard, in a side that got relegated. Look at the highlights. It's a shame, because in his prime he was a wonderful player and injuries held him back. And, yes, at a lower level, in a custom-made role, he excelled. But the idea that Cooper was incompetent because he wouldn't pick him was totally wrong. He was rubbish today, in our worst performance of the season which, coincidentally, was the only one he's started in. It was utterly clear why his last three PL managers have overlooked him. And the obsession over his exclusion is one of the least helpful distractions I've ever known as a fan. At times, it borders on the deranged.

Utter rubbish. In the PL? He started 20 odd games in 2-3 seasons and we lost nearly all of them.

Based on that, and the previous three seasons he played at this level, Ricardo isn't part of our strongest eleven. And we hadn't gained a win all season starting with Fatawu on the right or Justin on the left. Certain fans decided that this was the strongest eleven. They were wrong. And if, for a second, the manager listened to them, he wasn't only wrong, but also the most wrong he's ever been as a Leicester manager. If Cooper fails, the guy who succeeds isn't going to have Ricardo at the centre of his project. The weird obsession over his omission is the most unhelpful distraction I've know since people shat themselves over Tommy Wright supplanting Rooster Russell in 1991.

Yes. And yet it was the line-up that people on here lauded the most. What does that tell you? The specific changes that the Foxestalk mob bayed for were instrumental in costing us the game. Mind you, what does that say about the manager?

You're totally, massively wrong. That was basically a fan's XI, and - as it turned out - the worst selection of the season by far. I have no idea why the manager folded and put out the side that the biggest cretins under the sun were hankering to see. For me, it was the moment that I understood, clearly, that he's not in control of the situation.

Justin needs dropping, and has for ages. A child can see it. It's embarrassingly easy to see. Ricardo and Fatawu were horrendous additions today. Neither have earned the shirt based on that. Maybe the fans who have bemoaned their absence will understand why we've looked for other solutions. I've defended Cooper loads. But I thought he got everything wrong today.

I've defended him often enough, but today the manager had a nightmare. I should add that the fans calling for Ricardo and Fatawu and JJ on the left also need to ask themselves a question or two. I'm sure his big selection decisions weren't in any way concessions to the fans, but either way, they backfired spectacularly. Fatawu, for one, put in as bad a PL performance as I've ever seen.

I honestly thought both FBs were the two worst players on the pitch. Ricardo looked as lost to me as JJ normally does. Facundo was also completely brain dead for the goal, but Justin equally so. Based on the evidence, it makes perfect sense that we'd previously not gone with Ricardo on the right, nor Justin on the left. Defensively - awful. And, beyond that, Fatawu has been totally substandard up to now. Some of our moans and groans about team selection are at least getting cleared up.

As regards the comparison; was Enzo particularly effective at protecting the RB slot? I thought we were wide open in that position for all of the season, and were being frequently punished for it by the second half of the campaign. Surely that's part of the reason why we don't play Ricardo as an inverted full back anymore, regardless of whether this area of the field remains a weakness. Now I do agree that it remains a part of the pitch where we're vulnerable, but not that we were fine beforehand. In addition, I'd grant you that we need to tweak something in this area before Friday. Even so, some of our problems down there are down to poor defending by Justin (and others), as opposed purely to a flawed system. And you also have to look at the parts of the pitch where this change has enabled us to be stronger. Not every vulnerability is down to tactical ineptitude.

It is, but some people have been using it for several weeks as a stick to beat the manager with. After six games someone was arguing that we'd had an easier run than any other side near the bottom - and plenty of others jumped on board, failing to notice that only one side in the bottom six could seriously claim a tougher opening set of fixtures. We've played a fairly representative spread of games.

It's not about settling, it's just about being realistic when it comes to expectations of a new boss with a newly promoted side after a tumultuous summer. It seems too easy when people say that the players have shown they're good enough, as if that doesn't also reflect positively on the manager. There may be ability in the squad, but many of these players came down with us eighteen months ago, and since then we've lost three of that squad's most saleable talents. We were not in promotion form for the second half of last season, and Southampton's return in the PL from the sort of expansive approach that many longed to see from us should have been indicators that we need a more pragmatic approach. I'm far from convinced that you can expect possession-based football or a mid-table finish from a squad like ours, with its track record, in Year One. It doesn't mean I don't share your ambitions further down the line, nor that I have no doubts that Cooper will end up being the man for that task. But the business of debating these things has been so overwhelmed by negativity and absurdly dismissive statements about the manager - prejudices which caused some fans to refuse to even acknowledge the possibility that he could be up for the job, and led others to will a trouncing on us just to be shot of him - that it seems too hard now to get any balance. Claiming he's vindicated after two wins seems almost as hasty as those who wrote him off in record time. But you'll get that sort of thing when people seem so hellbent on it all going wrong. Even so, recent results should at very least be a reminder that it doesn't hurt to keep an open mind when things are at an early stage.

I'm also pretty worried about today, and partly because it's always a bumpy road when survival is the main objective - and I suspect a poor result today against a desperate Southampton won't be treated as a mere bump in the road, but instead prompt mass hysteria! Just to pick you up on a couple of points. As plenty have said, there have been underwhelming starts by good managers in living memory. I wasn't around when Wallace turned up, but 17th in the second tier after relegation was obviously a lacklustre start. I was around for O'Neill though, and his first three to four months were fairly awful. I also remember the early optimism around Pearson's second reign quickly evaporating, and a great deal of negativity surrounding the first eight months back at the club. Equally, the fact that some of those managers you mention - like Taylor - ended up being so poor for the club is a reminder that early results aren't always indicative, one way or the other. And finally, in many of your examples we were established at this level beforehand. Some people might need to get used to the realistic outcomes when you're newly promoted. The idea that we were setting the bar too low in Rodgers' final season makes sense, but on this occasion I think the club are just being realistic. Survival would represent success. But I do have plenty of doubts myself, and above all go along with your notion that it can be turned around - but that some things might need to change. Edit - I also think the fact that Enzo's tactics didn't work so well post-Xmas at a lower level would explain why we're going about this in a different way now in the PL. Not only are Southampton are the warning for the idealists, but also us in those final months under Maresca.

You may well have a point when you say that it's simply not going to work out, but we've had managers walk into a dressing room which doesn't want them there, but who go on to achieve long-term success. The same names keep cropping up, but once again O'Neill and Pearson are valid comparisons. O'Neill spoke of negativity from some quarters, including Steve Corica, in his early days. Pearson got rid of most of the players, had a headline-grabbing bust-up with his captain, and denounced pretty much everyone as unfit for purpose. There are others too - Wallace falling out with some of the remaining Bloomfield-era players is another example. So yes, you'll probably turn out to be right, but all is far from lost as things stand.

It's out of context though. He has managed clubs that were aiming to stay up, and that points per gane average has kept sides up for many years. The stats reflect a manager meeting expectations at PL level. Had he been at an established PL club, they would show someone falling short in the first tier, but he wasn't. To illustrate the point, look at Taylor and Pearson's identical points-per-game records at PL level. Both better than Cooper's, by the way. For one of those managers, that represented disaster. It got the other one on the three-man shortlist for PL manager of the season in his only full PL campaign. Why? Because one club had finished in the top half for four years running before one of those chaps arrived, while the other had just come up after a decade in the wilderness under the other. But on paper the records look the same. If you looked without such context at the PL records of the likes of Gross, Ramos or Lampard, who clearly fell well short of their relative expectations, you'd think they were leagues above successful managers of lower end clubs. All these stats tell you is that he's not had a chance at an established club yet. You could argue that Cooper should have improved Forest more in his second PL season, but when you consider the club level mismanagement and the fact that he'd unexpectedly taken them up after a spectacular turnaround (yes, I know it's a lower level, but it doesn't stop people calling for Corberan, whose record isn't as good as Cooper's in the second tier) those stats seem quite respectable. It doesn't mean he's the right man for the job. But that judgement should be made without resorting to an argument that his past record proves him to be unsuitable for the level.

And that's before we even got to the Sheffield United game!

That's my gut feeling too. Some managers simply come up against an environment in which they'll never be accepted. Puel did well in the meantime, but was buoyed by a great start. This feels more Gary Megson to me. As others have pointed out, there have been managers who overcame a slow start, going back to Wallace. From what I'm told, however, he got the fans and staff on board. Milne and O'Neill didn't, but turned things around after the three month mark. You could also say that Pearson, in his second reign, had a very turbulent first six months (after a good start in his first few games), with many fans wishing Sven had never left. You're right in that Bassett, Megson and Sousa never got over their early bumps in the road. Of course, it's also worth remembering the times we've been unduly enthusiastic for a new boss. Hamilton, Pleat, Taylor, Levein, Kelly, Allen, Holloway and Sven were all very popular early on. Fans are often wrong. I suppose you could also say: what about the stats on goals scored, goals conceded and points gained? Which are the most important ones. Perhaps it'll pan out the other way round, and those stats will hold up while the ones you quote fall into line. I confess that I'm far from convinced that this will happen, especially given the nine game run-up to New Year (after the next three fixtures). I also doubt that four points from the next three - which would leave us on a point-per-game after ten matches - would reassure people that we'll cope with the upcoming tougher run of games. But it doesn't seem like such a hopeless situation quite yet. And I still don't think a newly-promoted club should typically be in the business of replacing new managers after 6 points from their first 7.

He's been utter crap, surely. That's probably the most understandable decision all season long.

Like Taylor for us in 2000!

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?