Cooper - OUT

[DezFox]

Having just re watched the highlights……cooper 100% out. We were shocking, deserved to lose 5-1. On another day we will. Happy we won, but for me it has changed nothing, he is not the one to improve us and build something evolving positively.  

[Guy]

3 hours ago, Pliskin said:

Arsenal found it difficult? They could have won 10-4, Mads single handedly kept the score line to a modest one……..

That's what the club pay him handsomely to do!

[Foxmeister]

2 hours ago, Kp1984 said:

Finally someone puts it in a way the happy clappers will understand 

Now we just need to work on the dummy spitters.

[Guy]

3 hours ago, Dahnsouff said:

Yes but we could be worse off, so he should be sacked for that possibility.

I am not a fan of some of his decisions for sure, but the lack of any semblance of balance in here is mind blowing

and it's only....early October!! 

[The_Rorab]

3 hours ago, Dahnsouff said:

Yes but we could be worse off, so he should be sacked for that possibility.

I am not a fan of some of his decisions for sure, but the lack of any semblance of balance in here is mind blowing

What's the balance you keep expecting? Most posts I've seen come in 4 flavours - people saying we've been shite and Cooper should be out, people saying we've been shite but in a diplomatic way pointing out why and laying out reasoning, people saying Cooper out is ridiculous, and people saying they disagree with Cooper out and laying out reasoning why.

 

Surely balance would be the ones that offer reasoning and non-inflammatory declarations. Of which I can definitely point out posts on both the Cooper out and more time camps. 

 

But you only seem to be complaining about people who are Cooper out, even when some people not Cooper out are incendiary and offering absolutely no balance either, and you're making sarcastic comments about people thinking Cooper has been dire.

 

I hesitate to say you don't particularly seem interested in balance to me. You seem more interested in anti-negative sentiment and providing an opposition to people saying we've been shite, which is totally within your jurisdiction to do, but it's not looking for balance. Though I can understand the urge to do so in the face of negative posts. I appreciate that you have made posts acknowledging the issues we've had, but it's a bit incongruous with the sarcastic quips about people wanting Cooper out and the bolded twisting of words to suit your quip for example and then decrying a lack a balance - especially when there have been balanced takes in this thread.

 

I think Cooper is out of his depth, for example, and I believe the best move for us as a club would be to get rid. I am however not going to be vitriolic to Cooper, and I desperately would love to see it work out for him here, because I quite like how he presents himself as a bloke, and it would make things so much easier for us if he would learn from his mistakes so far and improve.

 

I just don't think that's going to happen based on the months and games he's been here, on the evidence on the pitch and stats and everything I've seen him do in games. If he turns it around in the next few games then I'll be the first to admit I was wrong in writing him off, but I'll stand by the fact that I think under his management we've looked worse than the sum of our parts so far.

 

I don't think you can deny there are valid reasons to be unimpressed with how we've played so far. Even if you disagree with the takeaway being Cooper should be sacked. Even though I agree that statistically we've been dire - there is a definitive point to be made that we do have more points than a chunk of clubs, and that's fair - I do think there's a valid reason to give him more time based on that. I just think based on the underlying stats that what we've done so far isn't sustainable long term. I've said repeatedly, I really hope I'm wrong, but I can't deny statistical evidence points to the contrary to me.

 

I kind of want to look at previous years' relegated teams and see what their average xGA and xG and maybe shots faced or something were per game and see where we're currently trending - but that's a lot of effort so might have to wait.

 

Bugger. I've just gone on another bloody rambling tangent. I blame this thread and my lack of impulse control!

Edited 7 October 2024 by The_Rorab

[KP Fox]

6 hours ago, Mike the Metal Ed said:

Because you don't compliment someone for remembering in which order to put on their pants and trousers.

well that's why we got relegated coz Brendan didn't know how to put his pants and trousers on properly 

[KP Fox]

6 hours ago, murphy said:

You can't use 'all competitions' to argue for our chances in The Premier League.  Walsall and Tranmere don't play in The Premier League.

 

The reality is that we have 6 points out of a possible 21. 

Are run in all competitions keeps our Fringe players sharp for when they are needed in the Premier league 

[Tom12345]

21 hours ago, dave12 said:

I heard from someone reliable that the players are being really vocal about the tactics and setup, well more the lack of both. Also they’re not happy with team selections specifically Ricardo being ostricised, it’s came to a head with Winks, Vardy and a few more asking for a meeting to discuss. Cooper basically said that I run the show and bombed winks out of the team, clearly didn’t have the balls to do it to Vardy as well. 

Wow. If this is true, Cooper can’t last long.

 

Having said that, I always think the club is bigger than the players and players should listen to the manager. Players doing this sort of thing to a manager so early in his tenure is also somewhat troubling.

[Tom12345]

19 hours ago, whoareyaaa said:

Would like to see him give Bilal a shot in the role Ayew plays esp against teams we could beat, starting 11 was a little more balanced yesterday but still massive room for improvement 

I know I keep saying this and I apologize for the repetition, but any manager that puts Ndidi on as a DCM loses my vote. We could play ok, but without Ndidi there we could be so much better consistently. There is already 4/5 years of data on this. He is a loyal servant of the club and he has his strengths but the team is just out of balance when he plays there. It creates so much more pressure on our other players to hoof the ball up field because they can’t find an outlet. If we want some control back in our game, even if not quite Enzo level, and noting this is something even Rodgers wanted (but he never in the end realised Ndidi’s problem), we have to make the easy (but seemingly hard) choice for some to either drop Ndidi or to move him further upfield. But as Buonanotte showed us yesterday, there may be better players we have there (Bilal also).

 

DCM is essentially the pivot in modern football. We have two in our setup. They are crucial in providing outlets to our defensive backline to move the ball through the opposition front lines (which 9/10 would be pressing us). The reason why Ricardo was so important to Enzo is because he moves up to provide an additional outlet for that purpose (next to Winks). This is also why Ndidi did not play there. We all know his weaknesses and so did Enzo.

 

There was a play which Strider showed in his match review where Mads was holding on to the ball and waiting to pass. He had Okoli on one side, Skipp was moving around but marked, and Ndidi was as usual not interested in receiving the ball and was positioned directly in line with an opposition player intercepting (watch the clip). Some focussed on Skipp not being able to get the ball. Some focussed on the poor pass Okoli eventually made after Mads passed to him, but watch again, Mads struggled for a choice (if not to hoof it up) and once Okoli got the ball he was pressed and had no outlet for a pass whatsoever, so he just hit it long to touch and thereby turned over the ball without ever making it past the halfway line. I have no idea what the purpose of that play was other than to turn the ball over asap. The alternative would have been Mads just hoofed it up which will result also in a turnover. If we had the Enzo system with Ricardo, Mads would have had an extra choice. If we have a proper double pivot, our second pivot would have provided an extra outlet to split the lines. But instead, the Ndidi pivot was useless. Even if Ndidi would manage to receive the ball, 8/10 he would pass it back to put someone else under pressure (who would then often hoof it up which also results in a turnover). As he does have a good attacking pass in him, occasionally we see him make a good pass, but the problem is that is not a sustainable tactic. Teams have worked us out 4/5 years ago. Yet we continue to make the same mistake and deliberately unsettle the “balance” which we otherwise could have. In modern football, we play with 11 players in possession including the keeper to stretch the pitch, but why we choose to handicap ourselves at the important pivot position I can never justify (for any supposed tackling advantages). Maintaining a threat on the ball is far superior, even as a defensive tactic, than having a player who can tackle better than others.

 

Kristiansen is currently another who hoofs it up too often. 8/10 his long balls just hand the opposition the ball back straight away. I will reserve judgement on him but I rather Justin at LB with Ricardo on the right.

 

This is why, to the naked eye, without the depth of the above analysis, it just appears we have no plan and we can’t keep the ball. Worst, we just hoof it up to turn the ball over endlessly. Player selection is important and I agree we are far from having a balanced team selection.

Edited 7 October 2024 by Tom12345

[The Doctor]

4 hours ago, The_Rorab said:

 

I kind of want to look at previous years' relegated teams and see what their average xGA and xG and maybe shots faced or something were per game and see where we're currently trending - but that's a lot of effort so might have to wait.

 

Bugger. I've just gone on another bloody rambling tangent. I blame this thread and my lack of impulse control!

understat is probably the easiest way to do this for xG/xGA as you can date filter.

 

after seven games we're on 6.9 xG, 18.25 xGA, 4.24 xPts

 

after 7 games last season 

Sheff Utd 5.59xG, 20.70xGA, xPts 2.26

Luton 11.11xG, 16.10xGA, xPts 7.98

Burnley 6.07xG, 13.80xGA, xPts 5.06

 

22/23

Leicester 6.62xG 12.75xGA, xPts 5.25

Southampton 7.26xG 9.15xGA xPts 7.97

Leeds 9.38xG 10.63xGA xPts 8.83

 

21/22

Norwich 5.46xG 12.85xGA, xPts 5.11

Burnley 7.09xG 12.06xGA xPts 6.26

Watford 5.01xG 13.79xGA xPts 4.63

 

compared to the last 9 teams to get relegated we're outperforming 5 on xG, so pretty average, outperforming just one on xGA (giving up even more chances than the average relegated side in recent years) and as a result, outperforming just that Sheff Utd side from last season in expected points. it does not look good at all.

[Pliskin]

8 hours ago, KP Fox said:

They were lucky to beat us. Could have 10-4? Lol. They beat us 4-2 and only managed that in added time. 

Okay, whatever keeps you warm at night. 

[Dahnsouff]

8 hours ago, murphy said:

That is one way of looking at it.  You seem to be giving Cooper credit for the first half display.  The way I look at it, is that the first half performance shows that we can play in this division but I strongly suspect that the second half retreat was Cooper's tactical instruction, as is his MO.  Stop playing, retreat, defend for a full half at home and make Bournemouth look like Real Madrid.  I just want a manager that will let us play for a whole game, have some belief and some balls.

 

To repeat your point, this is one way of looking at it, and sorry but I always hope for better and just prefer not to expect the worst. (Yeah, its annoying so I have been told)

[Dahnsouff]

8 hours ago, 5waller5 said:

You’re giving me huge Rodger’s relegation Deja vu

I always want the same tbh. I want balance. Although yeah, will confess my hope shown for Rodgers went on far too long. Feel there are some strands of hope starting to show from the last game though.

[ClaphamFox]

1 hour ago, The Doctor said:

understat is probably the easiest way to do this for xG/xGA as you can date filter.

 

after seven games we're on 6.9 xG, 18.25 xGA, 4.24 xPts

 

after 7 games last season 

Sheff Utd 5.59xG, 20.70xGA, xPts 2.26

Luton 11.11xG, 16.10xGA, xPts 7.98

Burnley 6.07xG, 13.80xGA, xPts 5.06

 

22/23

Leicester 6.62xG 12.75xGA, xPts 5.25

Southampton 7.26xG 9.15xGA xPts 7.97

Leeds 9.38xG 10.63xGA xPts 8.83

 

21/22

Norwich 5.46xG 12.85xGA, xPts 5.11

Burnley 7.09xG 12.06xGA xPts 6.26

Watford 5.01xG 13.79xGA xPts 4.63

 

compared to the last 9 teams to get relegated we're outperforming 5 on xG, so pretty average, outperforming just one on xGA (giving up even more chances than the average relegated side in recent years) and as a result, outperforming just that Sheff Utd side from last season in expected points. it does not look good at all.

While accepting that xG and xGA have their place, I’m not convinced they provide as full a picture as is sometimes claimed. Surely if they were a very reliable indicator of a team’s quality, mean reversion would dictate that all teams would fall back close to their expected results over a season? Yet a glance at last year’s final table suggests otherwise. Only three teams (Chelsea, Palace and Fulham) achieved final points totals that were close to their expected xPts. Every other team ended up a differential of more than five between their xPts and their actual points, and six teams ended up with a differential of more than 10. Interestingly, the bottom five teams at the end of the season all gained significantly less points than their xPts. 

 

It it possible that these xG/xGA stats aren’t really an accurate indicator of final points totals, but rather a measure of how efficient teams are at both ends of the pitch? If some teams consistently score more and/or concede less than they are expected to, could it be that they are simply quite good at the two most important aspects of the game? 
 

It just makes me wonder whether this habit we’ve developed under Cooper of remaining competitive in games while only performing well in patches and allowing the opposition lots of shots is not necessarily an early-season aberration, but rather just how things are going to be under this manager. Maybe shithousing results is our identity, for the time being at least? It might be a grim watch at times (well, a lot of the time), but if we continue to outperform our expected stats (and last year’s table would suggest this is possible), we’ll survive this season. The question will then be whether this approach is the right one to take us to the next level.

 

https://understat.com/league/EPL/2023

Edited 7 October 2024 by ClaphamFox

[Sly]

Clearly he shouldn’t be abused.

 

He is however still not the person to take us forward.

 

All the stats say we should be in the bottom three unfortunately. Obviously stats don’t matter and points do, however Maresca football (which many won’t like), managed those numbers to ensure we had control in games. 
 

We are out of the relegation zone in spite of Cooper, not because of him.

 

That win extends his stay. 

[Dahnsouff]

13 hours ago, The_Rorab said:

What's the balance you keep expecting? Most posts I've seen come in 4 flavours - people saying we've been shite and Cooper should be out, people saying we've been shite but in a diplomatic way pointing out why and laying out reasoning, people saying Cooper out is ridiculous, and people saying they disagree with Cooper out and laying out reasoning why.

 

Surely balance would be the ones that offer reasoning and non-inflammatory declarations. Of which I can definitely point out posts on both the Cooper out and more time camps. 

 

But you only seem to be complaining about people who are Cooper out, even when some people not Cooper out are incendiary and offering absolutely no balance either, and you're making sarcastic comments about people thinking Cooper has been dire.

 

I hesitate to say you don't particularly seem interested in balance to me. You seem more interested in anti-negative sentiment and providing an opposition to people saying we've been shite, which is totally within your jurisdiction to do, but it's not looking for balance. Though I can understand the urge to do so in the face of negative posts. I appreciate that you have made posts acknowledging the issues we've had, but it's a bit incongruous with the sarcastic quips about people wanting Cooper out and the bolded twisting of words to suit your quip for example and then decrying a lack a balance - especially when there have been balanced takes in this thread.

 

I think Cooper is out of his depth, for example, and I believe the best move for us as a club would be to get rid. I am however not going to be vitriolic to Cooper, and I desperately would love to see it work out for him here, because I quite like how he presents himself as a bloke, and it would make things so much easier for us if he would learn from his mistakes so far and improve.

 

I just don't think that's going to happen based on the months and games he's been here, on the evidence on the pitch and stats and everything I've seen him do in games. If he turns it around in the next few games then I'll be the first to admit I was wrong in writing him off, but I'll stand by the fact that I think under his management we've looked worse than the sum of our parts so far.

 

I don't think you can deny there are valid reasons to be unimpressed with how we've played so far. Even if you disagree with the takeaway being Cooper should be sacked. Even though I agree that statistically we've been dire - there is a definitive point to be made that we do have more points than a chunk of clubs, and that's fair - I do think there's a valid reason to give him more time based on that. I just think based on the underlying stats that what we've done so far isn't sustainable long term. I've said repeatedly, I really hope I'm wrong, but I can't deny statistical evidence points to the contrary to me.

 

I kind of want to look at previous years' relegated teams and see what their average xGA and xG and maybe shots faced or something were per game and see where we're currently trending - but that's a lot of effort so might have to wait.

 

Bugger. I've just gone on another bloody rambling tangent. I blame this thread and my lack of impulse control!

I think that is fair, I do tend to try to (like to?) push a little against the general consensus and sometimes not in the most productive of ways. (Becoming a contrarian at this point, so that needs greater self awareness and control on my part!).

 

Agree with the 4 types of posts classification, but it does somewhat ignore the quantity of certain types, such to a degree it becomes a drum best of protest.

A perfect example  is Bournemouth, not that we won, that can be put to one side under discussion, but in that game we were Dr Jekyll (1st half) and Mr Hyde (2nd half), yet Mr Hyde takes centre stage alone with the majority of negative posters, and I think the balance I am perhaps hoping for is a little more time on stage for Dr Jekyll, although I do recognise though that is at the personal choice of any given poster.

 

Case in point, Bournemouth had 2 shots on target, same as us, yes they has 17 shots off target, and they hit the bar, hit the post, yet we saw an inexplicable miss from Vardy and could easily have had a penalty, there are reason to add balance from both sides.

 

Have stated many times, I have reservations about Cooper, I see no sense in the late substitutions and sometimes the nature of the changes seems weird and unhelpful, and he seems rather cowardly with the intensity, but at the same time I recognise that events, personnel and performances prior to his appointment can not always be trusted as a barometer for how he should manage this team. For example, for Ricardo a player who must be one of the first names under consideration after recent seasons who would not struggle to remain quizzical at his exclusion? (The only possible reasoning here that makes any sense too me is that JJ is preferred due to his robustness, but I can see a scenario where a simple declaration of stupidity on the managers part may not be the only reasoning) 

 

So if my posts seem frustrated with a perceived imbalance of negativity then I apologise, but this negativity can be self perpetuating and personally do not find an echo room a particularly healthy place.

 

Edited 7 October 2024 by Dahnsouff

[MGLCFC]

10 hours ago, The whole world smiles said:

Not sure I agree most of his best work came in the arsenal game which we got nil points from anyway, I can't remember him making a save yesterday that you wouldn't expect another premier league keeper to make, same with palace, i was away for Everton and spurs was a too long ago to remember.

Crystal Palace, Spurs, Everton he made important saves IMO. Not sure our No.2 would have made some of them saves. I think our defence feel confident in his ability.

[MGLCFC]

10 hours ago, KP Fox said:

It's a results business and results are based on goals scored and goals conceded. It's not our fault the the opposition have crap forwards. We are effective with our scoring ratio to chances. We have scored in every single game except Walsall. Why don't you commend the manager for playing Mads? Remember a previous manager got us relegated because he got rid of a world class keeper, then pursued with Ward instead of Iverson and then to rub salt in the wound goes and signs that afore mentioned world class keeper for Celtic! 

It's only a matter of time before our luck changes. It's not about commending the manager for playing our number 1 keeper, he deserves to play after last season. The points I've highlighted suggest that our luck in not conceding and scoring is unlikely to last throughout the season. I was under no illusions that this season was going to be a struggle, I'm pleased we are competing in games, it's just comes across to me we go out with the intention of not losing some matches, rather trying to win them. For me, game management, team selections and substitutions are strange, to be polite.

[Bourbon Fox]

10 hours ago, murphy said:

You can't use 'all competitions' to argue for our chances in The Premier League.  Walsall and Tranmere don't play in The Premier League.

 

The reality is that we have 6 points out of a possible 21. 

'All competitions' made me smile.

 

Failing to score against Walsall supports what point exactly?!

[Foxmeister]

7 hours ago, The_Rorab said:

What's the balance you keep expecting? Most posts I've seen come in 4 flavours - people saying we've been shite and Cooper should be out, people saying we've been shite but in a diplomatic way pointing out why and laying out reasoning, people saying Cooper out is ridiculous, and people saying they disagree with Cooper out and laying out reasoning why.

 

Surely balance would be the ones that offer reasoning and non-inflammatory declarations. Of which I can definitely point out posts on both the Cooper out and more time camps. 

 

But you only seem to be complaining about people who are Cooper out, even when some people not Cooper out are incendiary and offering absolutely no balance either, and you're making sarcastic comments about people thinking Cooper has been dire.

 

I hesitate to say you don't particularly seem interested in balance to me. You seem more interested in anti-negative sentiment and providing an opposition to people saying we've been shite, which is totally within your jurisdiction to do, but it's not looking for balance. Though I can understand the urge to do so in the face of negative posts. I appreciate that you have made posts acknowledging the issues we've had, but it's a bit incongruous with the sarcastic quips about people wanting Cooper out and the bolded twisting of words to suit your quip for example and then decrying a lack a balance - especially when there have been balanced takes in this thread.

 

I think Cooper is out of his depth, for example, and I believe the best move for us as a club would be to get rid. I am however not going to be vitriolic to Cooper, and I desperately would love to see it work out for him here, because I quite like how he presents himself as a bloke, and it would make things so much easier for us if he would learn from his mistakes so far and improve.

 

I just don't think that's going to happen based on the months and games he's been here, on the evidence on the pitch and stats and everything I've seen him do in games. If he turns it around in the next few games then I'll be the first to admit I was wrong in writing him off, but I'll stand by the fact that I think under his management we've looked worse than the sum of our parts so far.

 

I don't think you can deny there are valid reasons to be unimpressed with how we've played so far. Even if you disagree with the takeaway being Cooper should be sacked. Even though I agree that statistically we've been dire - there is a definitive point to be made that we do have more points than a chunk of clubs, and that's fair - I do think there's a valid reason to give him more time based on that. I just think based on the underlying stats that what we've done so far isn't sustainable long term. I've said repeatedly, I really hope I'm wrong, but I can't deny statistical evidence points to the contrary to me.

 

I kind of want to look at previous years' relegated teams and see what their average xGA and xG and maybe shots faced or something were per game and see where we're currently trending - but that's a lot of effort so might have to wait.

 

Bugger. I've just gone on another bloody rambling tangent. I blame this thread and my lack of impulse control!

Love the bit about "anti-negative sentiment" 😂 am I right in thinking your opposed to it? If so I'd like to counteract your opposition to anti-negativity.

 

Edit: I'm not having a dig at you.

Edited 7 October 2024 by Foxmeister

[dr.o.ball]

2 hours ago, Tom12345 said:

I know I keep saying this and I apologize for the repetition, but any manager that puts Ndidi on as a DCM loses my vote. We could play ok, but without Ndidi there we could be so much better consistently. There is already 4/5 years of data on this. He is a loyal servant of the club and he has his strengths but the team is just out of balance when he plays there. It creates so much more pressure on our other players to hoof the ball up field because they can’t find an outlet. If we want some control back in our game, even if not quite Enzo level, and noting this is something even Rodgers wanted (but he never in the end realised Ndidi’s problem), we have to make the easy (but seemingly hard) choice for some to either drop Ndidi or to move him further upfield. But as Buonanotte showed us yesterday, there may be better players we have there (Bilal also).

 

DCM is essentially the pivot in modern football. We have two in our setup. They are crucial in providing outlets to our defensive backline to move the ball through the opposition front lines (which 9/10 would be pressing us). The reason why Ricardo was so important to Enzo is because he moves up to provide an additional outlet for that purpose (next to Winks). This is also why Ndidi did not play there. We all know his weaknesses and so did Enzo.

 

There was a play which Strider showed in his match review where Mads was holding on to the ball and waiting to pass. He had Okoli on one side, Skipp was moving around but marked, and Ndidi was as usual not interested in receiving the ball and was positioned directly in line with an opposition player intercepting (watch the clip). Some focussed on Skipp not being able to get the ball. Some focussed on the poor pass Okoli eventually made after Mads passed to him, but watch again, Mads struggled for a choice (if not to hoof it up) and once Okoli got the ball he was pressed and had no outlet for a pass whatsoever, so he just hit it long to touch and thereby turned over the ball without ever making it past the halfway line. I have no idea what the purpose of that play was other than to turn the ball over asap. The alternative would have been Mads just hoofed it up which will result also in a turnover. If we had the Enzo system with Ricardo, Mads would have had an extra choice. If we have a proper double pivot, our second pivot would have provided an extra outlet to split the lines. But instead, the Ndidi pivot was useless. Even if Ndidi would manage to receive the ball, 8/10 he would pass it back to put someone else under pressure (who would then often hoof it up which also results in a turnover). As he does have a good attacking pass in him, occasionally we see him make a good pass, but the problem is that is not a sustainable tactic. Teams have worked us out 4/5 years ago. Yet we continue to make the same mistake and deliberately unsettle the “balance” which we otherwise could have. In modern football, we play with 11 players in possession including the keeper to stretch the pitch, but why we choose to handicap ourselves at the important pivot position I can never justify (for any supposed tackling advantages). Maintaining a threat on the ball is far superior, even as a defensive tactic, than having a player who can tackle better than others.

 

Kristiansen is currently another who hoofs it up too often. 8/10 his long balls just hand the opposition the ball back straight away. I will reserve judgement on him but I rather Justin at LB with Ricardo on the right.

 

This is why, to the naked eye, without the depth of the above analysis, it just appears we have no plan and we can’t keep the ball. Worst, we just hoof it up to turn the ball over endlessly. Player selection is important and I agree we are far from having a balanced team selection.

Playing Ndidi? Depends what players you have fit and confident at any given time. Maybe you don't have the luxury of choice. Winks out of form? Letting others go/unable to bring in some you really want.

[Wolfox]

10 hours ago, Finnegan said:

 

Can we just get one thing very clear.

 

Making unfunny and hurtful comments about the man's physical appearance is "vitriol."

 

Claiming he isn't good enough to be our manager and wanting him replaced by someone that is of the quality to manage at this level is just a footballing opinion.

 

People are hateful about not just Cooper but pretty much everyone in football at some point or other. But this isn't 146 pages of vitriol, it's 146 pages of frustration that the club thought a man who had a Premier League win percentage of about 20% and an average of 0.91 points per game at this level was the man to replace Enzo Maresca. 

 

Opinion/ Vitriol - you get the point…. If you want to call me out for overstating things on that point, then I’ll happily to take it on that chin… Scroll back and you’ll see plenty of hyperbolic comments regarding Cooper (but you already know that!)

 

There were plenty of ‘Enzo out’ posters last year too, and I was at Plymouth away where my mate got ripped into for applauding them off at the end!  And that atmosphere was borderline vitriolic at the end of that match by the way 

 

I can also read stats too, and they’re nothing without context…. He took Forest up, they stayed up and then the wheels fell off…. He had basket case for an owner…. 
 

There are also plenty of good stats, albeit at a different level, at Swansea and England youth…. And we are yet to determine whether his solid reputation as coach is is unfounded or not…

 

How much choice did are owners have?  We don’t really know…. I’m just pointing out that it’s not reasonable to declare that he’s a disaster after 7 bloody games…

 

Okoli was a woeful based on a couple of pre-season games and Skipp was poor and way too expensive according to the experts on here …. One looks right at home in the prem now and the other looks to be just about worth the money from where I’m sat…

He may not be the second coming, but I suspect that he may just be competent/ a steady hand on the tiller…. Given a bit of time, patience and support he good even be quite good…. We shall see of course!

 

[Finnegan]

9 hours ago, Wymsey said:

Don't think he was the club's first-choice, but had to choose someone with PL experience quite quickly.

 

I mean, we didn't, did we? 

 

Liverpool's manager with no Premier League experience, who is replacing a generational talent, is doing fine.

 

Brighton's manager with no Premier League experience, who is 12 years old, is doing fine. 

 

Chelsea's manager with no Premier League experience, who we were going to have this year, is doing fine. 

 

And it's not like we hired Moyes or Benitez. Cooper has a small amount of Prem experience and it's with a largely losing record. It doesn't matter how you try and justify it, it was still a hideous bit of recruitment. 

 

[Dahnsouff]

2 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

I mean, we didn't, did we? 

 

Liverpool's manager with no Premier League experience, who is replacing a generational talent, is doing fine.

 

Brighton's manager with no Premier League experience, who is 12 years old, is doing fine. 

 

Chelsea's manager with no Premier League experience, who we were going to have this year, is doing fine. 

 

And it's not like we hired Moyes or Benitez. Cooper has a small amount of Prem experience and it's with a largely losing record. It doesn't matter how you try and justify it, it was still a hideous bit of recruitment. 

 

Would those  managers have gone to those clubs if they had just been promoted and had a likely points deduction? Liverpool and Chelsea probably yes due to their stature. Brighton maybe due to their recognised impressive board level performance (Except a relegation may rendered that null and void).

 

Don`t take it as a defence of Cooper, I have no interest in that, but if we are going to do ifs-and-buts, lets do all of them.

[murphy]

1 hour ago, Dahnsouff said:

I think that is fair, I do tend to try to (like to?) push a little against the general consensus and sometimes not in the most productive of ways. (Becoming a contrarian at this point, so that needs greater self awareness and control on my part!).

 

Agree with the 4 types of posts classification, but it does somewhat ignore the quantity of certain types, such to a degree it becomes a drum best of protest.

A perfect example  is Bournemouth, not that we won, that can be put to one side under discussion, but in that game we were Dr Jekyll (1st half) and Mr Hyde (2nd half), yet Mr Hyde takes centre stage alone with the majority of negative posters, and I think the balance I am perhaps hoping for is a little more time on stage for Dr Jekyll, although I do recognise though that is at the personal choice of any given poster.

 

Case in point, Bournemouth had 2 shots on target, same as us, yes they has 17 shots off target, and they hit the bar, hit the post, yet we saw an inexplicable miss from Vardy and could easily have had a penalty, there are reason to add balance from both sides.

 

Have stated many times, I have reservations about Cooper, I see no sense in the late substitutions and sometimes the nature of the changes seems weird and unhelpful, and he seems rather cowardly with the intensity, but at the same time I recognise that events, personnel and performances prior to his appointment can not always be trusted as a barometer for how he should manage this team. For example, for Ricardo a player who must be one of the first names under consideration after recent seasons who would not struggle to remain quizzical at his exclusion? (The only possible reasoning here that makes any sense too me is that JJ is prepared to his robustness, but I can see a scenario where a simple declaration of stupidity on the managers part may not be the only reasoning) 

 

So if my posts seem frustrated with a perceived imbalance of negativity then I apologise, but this negativity can be self perpetuating and personally do not find an echo room a particularly healthy place.

 

But don't you see that  Mr Hyde's appearance was as a direct result of Cooper's tactical instruction to retreat and defend?  Cooper summoned him...  On purpose.

 

We got away with it, but as tactics go, deliberately inviting pressure without offering any offensive threat, is just not particularly bright in my opinion.