The philosophy of Paul Cook | Page 2 | Vital Football

The philosophy of Paul Cook

Made in Wigan said:
He's in the squad but isn't fit enough to start and that's the problem. He's a bit of luxury sub. Same goes for Gibson, his fitness record isn't good. He looked decent in his hours cameo against Wednesday but can we really afford to have players whose history suggests they struggle to complete 90 minutes or keep fit long enough to play regular? For me, given our resources I'd argue not. If we were awash with cash and could afford such luxuries then maybe so -although I accept in Gibson case his salary probably isn't that great in the grand scheme of things.
Click to expand...
A certain Nick Powell used to be in the very same category, but PC and his staff have rectified that, it just takes a little time, have some faith in a coaching staff with proven results
 
You're also forgetting his salary in that figure TB. For me he was a signing we couldn't afford during the summer when it restricted what other business we could do. If you're house is leaking and needs a new roof you don't then spend all your money on an investment opportunity when it's needed for more urgent matters. In addition I'll reiterate that spending cash on salaries for players that aren't good enough or fit enough to play regular isn't an efficient use of scarce resources either.
 
Kenny Morris said:
A certain Nick Powell used to be in the very same category, but PC and his staff have rectified that, it just takes a little time, have some faith in a coaching staff with proven results
Click to expand...

Are they football coaches or miracle healers? As I said CM has been here two months, isn't injured and still isn't fit enough. He's a professional athlete not some layabout off the street. Sadly it's a common theme throughout his career which is a shame as he does have talent.
 
Made in Wigan said:
You're also forgetting his salary in that figure TB. For me he was a signing we couldn't afford during the summer when it restricted what other business we could do. If you're house is leaking and needs a new roof you don't then spend all your money on an investment opportunity when it's needed for more urgent matters. In addition I'll reiterate that spending cash on salaries for players that aren't good enough or fit enough to play regular isn't an efficient use of scarce resources either.
Click to expand...

Moving the goalposts a bit there MiW, up to this there was no mention of wages in your posts. Even with his wages he has still not cost the one million you reckon he has cost us. As far as the leaking roof goes, we didn't have one, we had a perfectly sound structure, as shown by winning the league that season, and just needed some minor alterations. You could say that by investing in roofing materials at todays prices you could save money in future when prices rise and the need to repair the roof arises.

In my opinion, investment in youth is the future of the club, young players are on moderate wages and until they prove themselves at first team level usually remain that way, so an investment made today could cost little but have the potential to increase in value in the future. Regardless of what our budget is this year investment is required to safeguard the future and as I have said previously if our budget is tight and we cant afford to pay for fit and healthy players then we have to take a risk on the likes of Gibson and Callum to give us the experience and bodies to make up the squad.
 
There would’ve been riots had Grigg started and suffered an injury through fatigue. Asking a player who is so important to the club and has a history of fitness problems to play five games in less than two weeks would be madness.

Resting Grigg was clearly a decision taken with an eye on the two ‘winnable home games’ ahead - Brentford away was surely not in the same category.

Vaughan fits well in a more defensive lineup because of his tireless work ethic, and I think Cook was right to take a more conservative approach in an attempt to stop one of the most prolific home teams in English football.

Likewise, since Vaughan replaced Grigg the week before and scored the crucial winning goal, surely he was deserving of a chance to start - especially considering Grigg’s extra workload in the build-up to the game.
 
TRUE BELIEVER said:
Moving the goalposts a bit there MiW, up to this there was no mention of wages in your posts. Even with his wages he has still not cost the one million you reckon he has cost us. As far as the leaking roof goes, we didn't have one, we had a perfectly sound structure, as shown by winning the league that season, and just needed some minor alterations. You could say that by investing in roofing materials at todays prices you could save money in future when prices rise and the need to repair the roof arises.

In my opinion, investment in youth is the future of the club, young players are on moderate wages and until they prove themselves at first team level usually remain that way, so an investment made today could cost little but have the potential to increase in value in the future. Regardless of what our budget is this year investment is required to safeguard the future and as I have said previously if our budget is tight and we cant afford to pay for fit and healthy players then we have to take a risk on the likes of Gibson and Callum to give us the experience and bodies to make up the squad.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say the goalposts were moved, in taking into account the cost of any signing you have to factor in the cost of their salary, NI, agent fees etc. which you hadn't done. On Saturday the squad looked a little weak, we had to play a left back due to lack of alternatives despite the travel and games he'd played during the week. If gets injured or suspended for any length of time we're in the shit. Having an extra left back would do us more good than having lopes play the odd development game.

I dont disagree with you about investing in youth. However we've been saying this for years, yet very rarely play any and they just get loaned out then released. We could have integrated a few into the squad this season rather than wasting salaries on players like Naismith. Look at recent examples of young players we've bought such as Cole to name but one, rarely given a chance then released. Our recruitment all seems a little haphazard to me and has been for years.
 
I
Made in Wigan said:
Are they football coaches or miracle healers? As I said CM has been here two months, isn't injured and still isn't fit enough. He's a professional athlete not some layabout off the street. Sadly it's a common theme throughout his career which is a shame as he does have talent.
Click to expand...
If I apply your logic then they are miracle healers for the way they have NP playing every game and now he doesnt come off after 60 mins in every game
 
I think there is too much speculative negativity around some players.

MiW has some very reasonable assertions that may turn out to be true (some of them i suspect will be) but as displayed in this thread there are also very reasonable a counter argument that could also turn out to be the case.

I think on this board we are horribly guilty of getting really pesemistic about players before we see enough to justify it. Football is a funny game and there's bucket loads of players that defy good or bad expectations and do things their track record would never have suggested.

We're only about a month into the season so of course they've not all played loads yet. But that isn't automically a problem, it's going to be a long hard season they will all get a chance - lets not get too down on any plauer until we seem them get a few appearances to judge them on. I wouldn't put much money on some players coming good but football has that habit of suprising you.
 
HudWiganFan said:
There would’ve been riots had Grigg started and suffered an injury through fatigue. Asking a player who is so important to the club and has a history of fitness problems to play five games in less than two weeks would be madness.

Resting Grigg was clearly a decision taken with an eye on the two ‘winnable home games’ ahead - Brentford away was surely not in the same category.

Vaughan fits well in a more defensive lineup because of his tireless work ethic, and I think Cook was right to take a more conservative approach in an attempt to stop one of the most prolific home teams in English football.

Likewise, since Vaughan replaced Grigg the week before and scored the crucial winning goal, surely he was deserving of a chance to start - especially considering Grigg’s extra workload in the build-up to the game.
Click to expand...
Absolutely cannot agree with that point in bold. Vaughan does not suit a defensive lineup whatsoever. Bringing him on against Villa and Forest led to us giving away control of the game and ultimately conceding late goals. He is slow and won’t beat any defenders in a foot race, therefore opposing defenders push up knowing that he won’t get in behind them. This leads to our two central midfielders getting completely overrun in midfield and forces them to drop back, meaning we lose complete control of the pitch to the opposition and get pinned back with the ball continuously coming back at us in waves.

Against Villa we lost control and couldn’t hold out, against Forest we lost control and couldn’t hold out. Against Rotherham we lost control but thankfully they were awful in front of goal and we managed to not only hold out, but steal a scruffy goal at the other end via a set piece. Stoke away however, Vaughan didn’t come on and Powell played up front. The difference in quality was frightening and the Stoke defenders couldn’t push up as they knew Powell would punish them. This allowed us to control the midfield and dictate the game. We looked the most threatening up front that we have all season away from home.

Next time we’re away from home and Grigg isn’t fit, I’d play Powell or Windass up front and put the odd one out in the number 10 role.
 
Vaughan could possibly fit into a side that plays with two strikers at this level but to start and also have a watered down attacking midfield behind him, is a bit too much to ask of him.
 
Kevin sheldon said:
Let's get it straight from the off. I am a great admirer of Paul Cook. Top class in every sense. However I cut a frustrated figure with team selection on Saturday.

The main point is The non selection of Grigg combined with Connolly on the right. Grigg is our only option up front as a goal threat at this level. I realise I was not the only sigh at the selection of Vaughan from the off. What is perplexing injury withstandingis that effectively when you tot up his minutes he played one game in a week. Connolly does not work on the right. In fact the system does not work without genuine wide men like Jacobs and Massey. With the personnel available it requires a change in system not square pegs and round holes.
I sighed last year when Vaughan started and we invariably struggled with him on from the start.The philosophy of Cook is to win every game but he moved away from that mantra with team selection at Brentford.Press conferences prior implicated cook in an unusual moan about three games in nine days. Brentford was always a tricky game one we might have lost anyway. However the players were subconsciously or consciously aware through team selection that the usual mantra of we will have a right go was missing. Thoughts were on the easier two games.
This contradicts the idea that every game in the championship is unpredictable. The truth is I believe he fancied them more. It is a good job he did not fancy QPR more than Stoke and at that point he employed he usual stance of we will have a go which I love.
We are short without Grigg up front and he should start if fit. No doubt he will Tuesday and also expecting Jacobs having been rapped in wool Saturday. If we beat Hull and Bristol then Saturday will be erased. Actually our best 11 could have won all three.There was a move away from trying and giving the players the belief they can win every game.The Morsy sending off was from a frustrated figure who sensed things were not right from the off.
Cook is top class but something different happened Saturday. Let's remind our self that Brentford have used the least amount of players 16. Not doing badly then and no rest required. The Paul Jewell of the championship would have picked his strongest team Lets stick to the philosophy its great and let's not deviate from it and see where it takes us.
Click to expand...
We have had a great start let the guy do his job and let s look in say15 games.
 
C_Latic said:
Absolutely cannot agree with that point in bold. Vaughan does not suit a defensive lineup whatsoever. Bringing him on against Villa and Forest led to us giving away control of the game and ultimately conceding late goals. He is slow and won’t beat any defenders in a foot race, therefore opposing defenders push up knowing that he won’t get in behind them. This leads to our two central midfielders getting completely overrun in midfield and forces them to drop back, meaning we lose complete control of the pitch to the opposition and get pinned back with the ball continuously coming back at us in waves.

Against Villa we lost control and couldn’t hold out, against Forest we lost control and couldn’t hold out. Against Rotherham we lost control but thankfully they were awful in front of goal and we managed to not only hold out, but steal a scruffy goal at the other end via a set piece. Stoke away however, Vaughan didn’t come on and Powell played up front. The difference in quality was frightening and the Stoke defenders couldn’t push up as they knew Powell would punish them. This allowed us to control the midfield and dictate the game. We looked the most threatening up front that we have all season away from home.

Next time we’re away from home and Grigg isn’t fit, I’d play Powell or Windass up front and put the odd one out in the number 10 role.
Click to expand...

Agreed about inviting pressure in those games with the change. But I think that it's less Vaughan replacing Grigg in the side, it's more the change of tactics to a more direct style that always acompany Vaughans introduction. I wish we'd stop pretending Vaughan is a 6'4 target man it's never been his game, we try to play to Griggs strengths which i think are largely the same as Vaughans but we play them differently.

If we want to use more high balls Grigg and Vaughan can't make it work at least up font on their own. I don't think Windass would be better than Vaughan at winning headers or holding the ball if we asked him to, he doesn't seem to be that type. While Powell could but he will get roughed up more playing directly against a centre half marking him and with his injuries over the years I'm not sure if Powell is robust enough to endure all the kicks and physical battles a striker has to cope with regulary. Also Powell tires late in games so chances are a switch later in a game wont see us get that much out of him.

I think Cook wants to have a more direct / physical alternative and that's why Garner has been bought. Apparently he is very good in the air and has a tremendous leap for headers despite him not being that tall and is very strong and good at playing with his back to goal.

I imagine Vaughan is a great lad to have in the dressing room and never lets you down for commitment on the pitch, he apparently took a big pay cut to join us in the first place, so i think Cook will feel he owes Vaughan a fair crack at this level. But i do think that Garner was bought as Vaughans replacement and it will be a gradual phase in / phase out.
 
Made in Wigan said:
I wouldn't say the goalposts were moved, in taking into account the cost of any signing you have to factor in the cost of their salary, NI, agent fees etc. which you hadn't done. On Saturday the squad looked a little weak, we had to play a left back due to lack of alternatives despite the travel and games he'd played during the week. If gets injured or suspended for any length of time we're in the shit. Having an extra left back would do us more good than having lopes play the odd development game.

I dont disagree with you about investing in youth. However we've been saying this for years, yet very rarely play any and they just get loaned out then released. We could have integrated a few into the squad this season rather than wasting salaries on players like Naismith. Look at recent examples of young players we've bought such as Cole to name but one, rarely given a chance then released. Our recruitment all seems a little haphazard to me and has been for years.
Click to expand...

Come on MiW admit it ,you are clutching at straws to make the case, we all know there are additional costs in signing a player, but you have never brought these up before. The figure quoted for Lopes was 1 million, not 1 million including additional costs, neither of which is correct as the figure was 300k initial fee with add ons rising to a seven figure fee.

I concede your point that we seem to have wasted young talent under previous regimes, but hopefully we have turned the corner on that and Paul Cook proves to be the difference. I also agree that Coles signing is a mystery but can only speculate that he flattered to deceive and was not the player we thought he was, after all he is not exactly setting the division alight on loan is he.
 
Sometimes managers make mistakes. Players make mistakes. Or we just have one of those games.

Come the end of the season everyone will get game time. In the summer who would’ve thought Burn & Byrne would hardly have kicked a ball for us so far. It’s far too early to make judgements about incoming players. Especially when they are fighting for a place against well established team mates.
 
Precisely my point Studds, which manager is going to move an established player in favour of another player who is perhaps showing promise in training. Football is a results game and not many managers are willing to sacrifice their careers by changing a winning formula and players to bring in new players. All the fringe players will have to wait for their opportunity which will no doubt come from injuries or poor results and hopefully the will be ready to step up to the plate. This however should be no reflection of their talent or ability, merely that they are being kept out by someone who is considered their equal or a slightly better option at this time.
 
TRUE BELIEVER said:
Come on MiW admit it ,you are clutching at straws to make the case, we all know there are additional costs in signing a player, but you have never brought these up before. The figure quoted for Lopes was 1 million, not 1 million including additional costs, neither of which is correct as the figure was 300k initial fee with add ons rising to a seven figure fee.

I concede your point that we seem to have wasted young talent under previous regimes, but hopefully we have turned the corner on that and Paul Cook proves to be the difference. I also agree that Coles signing is a mystery but can only speculate that he flattered to deceive and was not the player we thought he was, after all he is not exactly setting the division alight on loan is he.
Click to expand...

I've never felt the need to bring them up. I'm quoting the sum Peterborough said we paid, if you say it's 300 grand then so be it but it won't be a flat 300 grand and so you need to take account of the additional figures which in the context of your post it wasn't acknowledged, or at least i interpreted it that way. Whatever the sum I still maintain at that time, given our limited financial resources, that the sum involved for Lopes could have been used more wisely. However that doesn't mean I don't think investment in promising players isn't a good idea - it is but it has to be balanced by investing in the here and now.

As for the introduction of young talent, it is difficult I accept. Normally we are battling to go up or stay up so taking that risk by a manager is hard. Perhaps if we look set to be a mid table team then come Feb timeCook may look to blood one or two as the need for points for one reason or another wouldn't be that crucial.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.