| Well done Paul Cook! 17:31 - Mar 23 with 8323 views | Chrisd |
Chesterfield back in the EFL after 6 seasons. I still believe he started the change at our club, he had to make those tough decisions to start our climb upwards. Look at the players he brought in, some of those players still having an impact at the top of the Championship. |  |
| |  |
| Well done Paul Cook! on 06:48 - Mar 25 with 765 views | WestStanderLaLaLa |
| Well done Paul Cook! on 06:19 - Mar 25 by Chocorange |
Lamberts PPG in our relegation season were even worse than Hurst’s , let that sink in.
Like it or not Cook has plenty of mitigating circumstances over a much shorter time. |
I’m not standing up for Lambert or any other of the failures. Just pointing out Cook did considerably worse than Lambert with the same squad of players. We had every chance of the making the playoffs when he arrived. Oxford were 4 points behind us and finished in 6th, 5 points ahead of us. |  |
| |
| Well done Paul Cook! on 07:21 - Mar 25 with 713 views | Herbivore |
| Well done Paul Cook! on 06:48 - Mar 25 by WestStanderLaLaLa |
I’m not standing up for Lambert or any other of the failures. Just pointing out Cook did considerably worse than Lambert with the same squad of players. We had every chance of the making the playoffs when he arrived. Oxford were 4 points behind us and finished in 6th, 5 points ahead of us. |
We had an easy run in too. |  |
| |
| Well done Paul Cook! on 08:06 - Mar 25 with 678 views | chicoazul |
| Well done Paul Cook! on 06:48 - Mar 25 by WestStanderLaLaLa |
I’m not standing up for Lambert or any other of the failures. Just pointing out Cook did considerably worse than Lambert with the same squad of players. We had every chance of the making the playoffs when he arrived. Oxford were 4 points behind us and finished in 6th, 5 points ahead of us. |
Imagine managing Ipswich to finish behind bloody *Oxford* in division three and still some bootlickers think there are good things to say about your tenure. |  |
| |
| Well done Paul Cook! on 08:11 - Mar 25 with 682 views | WestStanderLaLaLa |
| Well done Paul Cook! on 07:21 - Mar 25 by Herbivore |
We had an easy run in too. |
Yep, you couldn’t have wished for a better run in, all of the bottom 8, only team in the top 6 was Lincoln at home. It was a pitiful return on points. We failed to score in 6 matches.
in their finishing positions we played
5th
8th
10th
11th
13th
15th x 2
17th
18th
19th x 2
20th
21st
22nd
23rd
24th | |
| |
| Well done Paul Cook! on 08:14 - Mar 25 with 665 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| Well done Paul Cook! on 20:30 - Mar 24 by Herbivore |
The gelling thing rings a bit hollow, he took 7 points from his last 6 games and 3 of those were in a really spawny home win against a terrible Crewe side. We were going backwards at that point. McKenna came in and had us looking cohesive almost immediately. |
Cook had 4 months with that new team, from a standing start.
McKenna's improvements have been ridiculously rapid - the fact that he's a football genius and we managed to get him has nothing to do with Cook's tenure being too short for most 'normal' managers.
And of course, when McKenna came in he already had the benefit of those players having now been together for 4 months.
People will judge Cook on his results - and you clearly have - but it was a 'nae normal' situation. How often do you see a complete team put together and then gelled within 4 months? |  |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| Well done Paul Cook! on 08:17 - Mar 25 with 660 views | Herbivore |
| Well done Paul Cook! on 08:11 - Mar 25 by WestStanderLaLaLa |
Yep, you couldn’t have wished for a better run in, all of the bottom 8, only team in the top 6 was Lincoln at home. It was a pitiful return on points. We failed to score in 6 matches.
in their finishing positions we played
5th
8th
10th
11th
13th
15th x 2
17th
18th
19th x 2
20th
21st
22nd
23rd
24th |
Abysmal. That few months under Cook at the end of the season must have been the absolute nadir of our stay in League 1. Abject performances, shameful results, and all against the dross of the division that even Lambert usually got the better off. | |
| |
| Well done Paul Cook! on 08:23 - Mar 25 with 646 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| Well done Paul Cook! on 20:51 - Mar 24 by Swansea_Blue |
Seems a strange hill to die on buh. Cook 4 wins in his first 16 games in 20/21 season and then 7 wins in 23 in 21/22. KM comes in with the same team, wis 6 of his his first 8 and then never looked back.
The reality was he wasn't up to it. |
Again you miss the point and I grow tired of explaining it! Cook had a bunch of strangers at the start of 21/22. KM didn't "come in with the the same team" - they'd been together for 4 months by then!
Why are people unable to understand this very simple point?!? | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| Well done Paul Cook! on 08:30 - Mar 25 with 637 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| Well done Paul Cook! on 20:55 - Mar 24 by Churchman |
Ah, Flash, I’m good at missing the point!
The thing is though he chose to go about it in the way he did. I also don’t think his team would have gelled however long he’d been here. They were no more a team in November than they had been in August. There were the hidings of Portsmouth, Wycombe and Donny but in between?
It just didn’t feel right and it was for me opportunity v outcome and I didn’t think he was good enough while he was here. He had to go. |
The only thing I disagree with there is that we'll never know... and we don't need to worry about it frankly, I care more about the success of ITFC than fairness to Paul Cook!
However, I maintain 4 months isn't a fair enough amount of time to gel a completely new team, for most normal people.
Oh, and on the "chose to go about it in the way he did" point - he didn't know he'd get sacked 4 months after completely changing the team (and Evans had a history of giving managers time). I suspect he wouldn't have been quite so radical had he known he was on borrowed time! | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Well done Paul Cook! on 08:33 - Mar 25 with 631 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| Well done Paul Cook! on 22:13 - Mar 24 by WestStanderLaLaLa |
Down vote it all you like, it’s a matter of fact that Cooks PPG were less than Lamberts that season. |
You're not responding to any of my points regarding that though. Lambert had 2.5 years and 5 windows. Cook had 1 month with a cr@p team at the end of its life, then 4 months with a new team after 1 window. You're comparing apples with oranges. | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| Well done Paul Cook! on 08:43 - Mar 25 with 615 views | itfcjoe |
| Well done Paul Cook! on 08:11 - Mar 25 by WestStanderLaLaLa |
Yep, you couldn’t have wished for a better run in, all of the bottom 8, only team in the top 6 was Lincoln at home. It was a pitiful return on points. We failed to score in 6 matches.
in their finishing positions we played
5th
8th
10th
11th
13th
15th x 2
17th
18th
19th x 2
20th
21st
22nd
23rd
24th |
For how frustrating Lambert had been in that time, and our awful record against top 6 sides - he did, without exception really, set us up to beat the weaker sides in the division and with that fixture list we absolutely should have got there |  |
| |
| Well done Paul Cook! on 08:43 - Mar 25 with 613 views | Herbivore |
| Well done Paul Cook! on 08:14 - Mar 25 by The_Flashing_Smile |
Cook had 4 months with that new team, from a standing start.
McKenna's improvements have been ridiculously rapid - the fact that he's a football genius and we managed to get him has nothing to do with Cook's tenure being too short for most 'normal' managers.
And of course, when McKenna came in he already had the benefit of those players having now been together for 4 months.
People will judge Cook on his results - and you clearly have - but it was a 'nae normal' situation. How often do you see a complete team put together and then gelled within 4 months? |
They'd been together four months and yet the weeks leading up to Cook's sacking they looked completely disjointed and Cook was looking at another mini demolition man job in January. I don't give the gelling argument much credence, that McKenna came in and had them looking 1000% more cohesive within a week or two than Cook managed in 4 months is very telling. | |
| |
| Well done Paul Cook! on 08:44 - Mar 25 with 609 views | Herbivore |
| Well done Paul Cook! on 08:11 - Mar 25 by WestStanderLaLaLa |
Yep, you couldn’t have wished for a better run in, all of the bottom 8, only team in the top 6 was Lincoln at home. It was a pitiful return on points. We failed to score in 6 matches.
in their finishing positions we played
5th
8th
10th
11th
13th
15th x 2
17th
18th
19th x 2
20th
21st
22nd
23rd
24th |
Not sure why this got down arrowed, it's all factual. | |
| |
| Well done Paul Cook! on 08:47 - Mar 25 with 603 views | Herbivore |
| Well done Paul Cook! on 08:33 - Mar 25 by The_Flashing_Smile |
You're not responding to any of my points regarding that though. Lambert had 2.5 years and 5 windows. Cook had 1 month with a cr@p team at the end of its life, then 4 months with a new team after 1 window. You're comparing apples with oranges. |
But using the logic you've used, that McKenna benefited from the squad having been together a little while, shouldn't Cook have benefited from inheriting a squad that had been together for a while? A squad that even the disengaged and hopeless Lambert had navigated to the brink of the play offs. Yet Cook is given a pass for not being able to drag anything out of that side over a very easy run in, despite bold proclamations of aiming for promotion when he arrived. | |
| |
| Well done Paul Cook! on 09:06 - Mar 25 with 574 views | Mach_foreignBlue |
| Well done Paul Cook! on 22:13 - Mar 24 by WestStanderLaLaLa |
Down vote it all you like, it’s a matter of fact that Cooks PPG were less than Lamberts that season. |
Cook this, Lambert this......
Care to talk about the players? Those so called fantastic professionals who represented us under both of them?
[Post edited 25 Mar 9:10]
|  | | |
| Well done Paul Cook! on 09:06 - Mar 25 with 573 views | bobbyramsey |
| Well done Paul Cook! on 08:43 - Mar 25 by Herbivore |
They'd been together four months and yet the weeks leading up to Cook's sacking they looked completely disjointed and Cook was looking at another mini demolition man job in January. I don't give the gelling argument much credence, that McKenna came in and had them looking 1000% more cohesive within a week or two than Cook managed in 4 months is very telling. |
To be fair though KM is exceptional, I don't think any manager could have done what he did in such a short space of time.
Comparing Cook to KM is like comparing chalk to cheese....... |  | | |
| Well done Paul Cook! on 09:16 - Mar 25 with 549 views | Mach_foreignBlue |
| Well done Paul Cook! on 08:47 - Mar 25 by Herbivore |
But using the logic you've used, that McKenna benefited from the squad having been together a little while, shouldn't Cook have benefited from inheriting a squad that had been together for a while? A squad that even the disengaged and hopeless Lambert had navigated to the brink of the play offs. Yet Cook is given a pass for not being able to drag anything out of that side over a very easy run in, despite bold proclamations of aiming for promotion when he arrived. |
'Yet Cook is given a pass for not being able to drag anything out of that side over a very easy run in'
Cook is given a free pass because Skuse/Chambers culture was the biggest cancer of the dressing room. The player-power. They both wanted things their own way. [Post edited 25 Mar 9:16]
| | | |
| Well done Paul Cook! on 09:32 - Mar 25 with 515 views | Herbivore |
| Well done Paul Cook! on 09:16 - Mar 25 by Mach_foreignBlue |
'Yet Cook is given a pass for not being able to drag anything out of that side over a very easy run in'
Cook is given a free pass because Skuse/Chambers culture was the biggest cancer of the dressing room. The player-power. They both wanted things their own way. [Post edited 25 Mar 9:16]
|
Lolz. | |
| |
| Well done Paul Cook! on 09:36 - Mar 25 with 507 views | Mach_foreignBlue |
| Well done Paul Cook! on 09:32 - Mar 25 by Herbivore |
Lolz. |
Gonna be yet another day of your rants about Cook?
Perhaps you should seek a help. | | | |
| Well done Paul Cook! on 09:52 - Mar 25 with 467 views | Herbivore |
| Well done Paul Cook! on 09:36 - Mar 25 by Mach_foreignBlue |
Gonna be yet another day of your rants about Cook?
Perhaps you should seek a help. |
Imagine posting about Paul Cook on a Paul Cook thread. Clearly I need therapy. The calm and rational thing here would obviously be to start banging on about Skuse and Chambers and describing two excellent pros as "cancer". That's definitely not unhinged in any way, shape, or form. | |
| |
| Well done Paul Cook! on 09:55 - Mar 25 with 459 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| Well done Paul Cook! on 08:47 - Mar 25 by Herbivore |
But using the logic you've used, that McKenna benefited from the squad having been together a little while, shouldn't Cook have benefited from inheriting a squad that had been together for a while? A squad that even the disengaged and hopeless Lambert had navigated to the brink of the play offs. Yet Cook is given a pass for not being able to drag anything out of that side over a very easy run in, despite bold proclamations of aiming for promotion when he arrived. |
Some might call that a reasonable point. However, that Team 1 was at the end of its life, hadn't achieved anything under several managers, and most felt gutting the side was the right way to go (albeit we were all a bit surprised at the extent). Team 2 was a much better set of players... evidenced by the fact that many of them are still with us, and doing exceptionally, now.
So yeah, except McKenna benefitted from a much better side having been together a little while compared to what Cook inherited. Cook didn't inherit any 'Championship ready' players, unless you count Jackson. And also McKenna is a lot better than Cook, no-one's disputing that. | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| Well done Paul Cook! on 10:02 - Mar 25 with 447 views | Mach_foreignBlue |
| Well done Paul Cook! on 09:52 - Mar 25 by Herbivore |
Imagine posting about Paul Cook on a Paul Cook thread. Clearly I need therapy. The calm and rational thing here would obviously be to start banging on about Skuse and Chambers and describing two excellent pros as "cancer". That's definitely not unhinged in any way, shape, or form. |
Two excellent pros who took us down without a fight and carried a cosy life in League One. ... oh yeah I need the tissues ! It was never their fault as they did give everything for this club. Never their fault, never ! It was Cooks/Lamberts/Hursts fault.
Yes you need a therapy over Cook. | | | |
| Well done Paul Cook! on 10:06 - Mar 25 with 435 views | Dyland |
| Well done Paul Cook! on 08:23 - Mar 25 by The_Flashing_Smile |
Again you miss the point and I grow tired of explaining it! Cook had a bunch of strangers at the start of 21/22. KM didn't "come in with the the same team" - they'd been together for 4 months by then!
Why are people unable to understand this very simple point?!? |
So is 4 months long enough or not?
You seem confused dear boy :) |  |
| |
| Well done Paul Cook! on 10:10 - Mar 25 with 422 views | Herbivore |
| Well done Paul Cook! on 09:55 - Mar 25 by The_Flashing_Smile |
Some might call that a reasonable point. However, that Team 1 was at the end of its life, hadn't achieved anything under several managers, and most felt gutting the side was the right way to go (albeit we were all a bit surprised at the extent). Team 2 was a much better set of players... evidenced by the fact that many of them are still with us, and doing exceptionally, now.
So yeah, except McKenna benefitted from a much better side having been together a little while compared to what Cook inherited. Cook didn't inherit any 'Championship ready' players, unless you count Jackson. And also McKenna is a lot better than Cook, no-one's disputing that. |
He also inherited Woolfenden, and we still had Downes at that point as well. But yes, I take the point that the squad McKenna inherited had more potential upside, albeit we didn't really have a striker who fitted his system or a left back who could actually play football. | |
| |
| Well done Paul Cook! on 10:11 - Mar 25 with 420 views | Herbivore |
| Well done Paul Cook! on 10:02 - Mar 25 by Mach_foreignBlue |
Two excellent pros who took us down without a fight and carried a cosy life in League One. ... oh yeah I need the tissues ! It was never their fault as they did give everything for this club. Never their fault, never ! It was Cooks/Lamberts/Hursts fault.
Yes you need a therapy over Cook. |
There's a really weird coincidence where whenever I read one of your posts I can simultaneously hear a cuckoo. | |
| |
| Well done Paul Cook! on 10:14 - Mar 25 with 413 views | Mach_foreignBlue |
| Well done Paul Cook! on 10:11 - Mar 25 by Herbivore |
There's a really weird coincidence where whenever I read one of your posts I can simultaneously hear a cuckoo. |
You must be talking to your mirror. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
