The legacy of Cocuball

[Mostyn6]

1 hour ago, BondJovi said:

We haven't been a creative team for a few seasons now. At least Cocu wanted players who would address this problem. Lampard just covered it with loans. 

You have somehow made Lampard bringing in players that are too good to be owned by us, on loan, sound like a bad thing or a failing! Is this deliberate? I hope not! Loaning players is part of the modern game thanks to big clubs hoarding them.
 

Name a successful EFL championship team that had nobody in on loan. 

[brady1993]

3 hours ago, Ellafella said:

Great analysis by @11pts1win who is worth a follow. Cocuball’s legacy is as follows:

1. Having allowed your best striker to leave, prove you didn’t need him anyway by only passing sideways and backwards. 
 

That is a caricature obviously but it’s the residual as evidenced by our typical match profile. This is what the permanent successor now has to erase. 

I don't necessarily agree with all the conclusions drawn in that thread but I think there are some really salient points that I don't think have been discussed too much. Namely points about creating passing triangles and how the 4231 (although I think some of these points apply to the 343 as well) has often lead to difficult transitioning from defence to attack. 

One thing I've noticed this season in particular in is either a lack of ability or lack of willingness for players to simply move into space to give the man on the ball options and when that happens it's often why the ball ends up going sideways, backwards or a risky pass is tried. Yes sometimes it's players being risk averse but it's often been nothing dramatic that needed to happen just a willingness to move into a pocket of space that's opened or make a run to drag players around. Far too often far too many players seem content to essentially mark themselves out of the game. There are some bigger culprits which make things a lot worse and it's excerbated by the next bit; the formation.

With a 4231 because both midfielders are encouraged to sit deep it mean that when either one picks up the ball, especially on the transititon when the wide players are still perhaps moving forwards, their only option forwards is to the #10 or to the striker with the striker being usually the more difficult option as they are up against the centre backs. So if the opposition know what they are doing they can stick a man on the ten and do a damn good job at stifling forward options and leave the striker isolated. It's a formation where you will at most have 4 people ahead of the ball at frequently only 1 or 2 even when you have possession. I think it's a formation that relies upon having a very good #10 and a striker with very clever movement. The 343 suffers less with this because the two "wide" forwards are encouraged to tuck into the half spaces and stay forwards so the transition is easier, the problems we were having with the 343 I think were more personal based than anything because it requires the right kinds of centre back in order to account for the effectively extra defender. It's a big reason why I think we should switch to a 433 as it's far easier to create those passing triangles to progress forwards with as the two more forwards midfielder can float between the lines allowing for easy forwards passes.

[Ellafella]

1 hour ago, YorkshireRam said:

This i disagree with. It's only tied to Cocu if you deliberately apply a reductionist approach. It's very clear Cocu was let down by recruitment- I highly doubt it was Cocu that rejected the 2nd year of Martin's contract, and it definitely wasn't him that failed to land Dursan and didn't sign an adequate alternative either. These would big factors in our downfall, and while Cocu takes his share of the blame for on-field performances, it isn't fair to also hold him accountable for our recruitment failings.

If I was Cocu, I wouldn’t have allowed it to happen. The sword hung over his head...That’s the point. 

[Ellafella]

2 hours ago, DRBee said:

Last season we had Martin and its quite interesting you don't mention Kazim-Richards  (proprer CF ) at all. Whilst Wgahorn was able to get goals with free kicks, that apart , not sure the return of Lawrence and Waghorn helped us as much as we might have hoped. 

Our faith in their potential as key influencers has waned. No question. I believe they will drift out of the picture more and more as this season pans out. I believe that Schteeve’s remit is to add some additional youth to our existing stable of Sibley, Knight, Bird and the new perm manager’s job will be to blend a new dynamic team around young, hungry, dynamic youth. 

[Tombo]

Cocu would have beat Wycombe I'm afraid. I agreed that it was time to leave but not if there was nothing lined up. We are now worse.

The three games since he left have been nonsensical in terms of tactics. Bristol was fast paced attacking football, almost McClaren-like. But we didn't sustain it. So we went to Middlesbrough and tried to control possession a bit like under Cocu, far too slow.

Then Wycombe we start lumping it up the pitch to CKR.

There's a difference between trying different things, and having "Plan B, C and D", and just having completely schizophrenic coaching.

Wouldn’t surprise me if we start trying to play basketball against Coventry we're so confused.

[oomarkwright]

Statistics, shmishtics! 

[BondJovi]

1 hour ago, Ellafella said:

If I was Cocu, I wouldn’t have allowed it to happen. The sword hung over his head...That’s the point. 

How though? You see it a lot these days. I am certain Dyche didn't want Hendrick and co to leave Burnley but he was powerless. Almost certain Solskjaer wanted players such as Sancho, but he didn't get them.

It seems to me we like to blame the recruitment when it suits our argument. I would argue they did an ok job this window, except the striker we desperately needed which was a huge blunder. But you have to take into account a limited budget and a transfer embargo, these things are incredibly relevant. 

And quite often it does just take that one player to make it all click. Our previous two managers relied heavily on one player, Vydra then Mount. Without them we were not good. 

We don't have that star player now and we could all see from post lockdown Rooney was not that player if he ever was here.

 

[Ramarena]

Surely if Cocuball needs to be eradicated from the the club then we need to get rid of all the coaching staff involved in implementing it?

[Chris_Martin]

6 hours ago, Ellafella said:

Yes. That was evident on Saturday versus Wycombe. I expect more to come V Coventry. Maybe SM will have by then added some timely observations to Wazza’s perceptions. 

True, but lets not forget we were playing Wycombe Wanderers. 

[Chris_Martin]

37 minutes ago, Ramarena said:

Surely if Cocuball needs to be eradicated from the the club then we need to get rid of all the coaching staff involved in implementing it?

We have haven't we. Shay Given was a Lampard signing, i have no problems with him. Rooney was brought in as a player/ to learn about coaching, so you can't class him as part of Cocu's Staff. Liam Rosenior i get was a part of it. Although he seems quite an intelligent guy in general and i get the impression he is willing to adapt and change to whatever works. 

[Chris_Martin]

2 hours ago, Tombo said:

Cocu would have beat Wycombe I'm afraid. I agreed that it was time to leave but not if there was nothing lined up. We are now worse.

The three games since he left have been nonsensical in terms of tactics. Bristol was medium paced attacking football, not quite McClaren-like. But we didn't sustain it. So we went to Middlesbrough and tried to control possession a bit like under Cocu, far too slow.

Then Wycombe we start lumping it up the pitch to CKR.

There's a difference between trying different things, and having "Plan B, C and D", and just having completely schizophrenic coaching.

Wouldn’t surprise me if we start trying to play basketball against Coventry we're so confused.

Edited a couple of bits for you but yeah mostly agreed

[Chris_Martin]

I've said it before, i'll say it again. Over the last 18 months or so Cocu gradually killed our players attacking instincts. Where they used to take a defender on, or cut in and go for a quickfire shot, they now just pass and keep the ball at all costs. The perception of Cocu was that he was quite an attacking manager because he likes to play 4-3-3, he's dutch, etc,etc. But in reality he just likes his sides to keep the ball and not take any risks at all. It took a while to get his style across to our players, i fear it may take just as long to get rid of it again. 

[Ramarena]

1 hour ago, Chris_Martin said:

We have haven't we. Shay Given was a Lampard signing, i have no problems with him. Rooney was brought in as a player/ to learn about coaching, so you can't class him as part of Cocu's Staff. Liam Rosenior i get was a part of it. Although he seems quite an intelligent guy in general and i get the impression he is willing to adapt and change to whatever works. 

They will all have been coaching it. As I said if you want eradication of this style the best way is to strip out everyone involved. 

[RoyMac5]

1 hour ago, Chris_Martin said:

It took a while to get his style across to our players, i fear it may take just as long to get rid of it again. 

This was what was said when we sacked Clement too.

[Millenniumram]

I said a while back that I worried about the long term impact of Cocu’s coaching on our attacking players. There seemed to be quite a few players regressing, and we’ve probably left it too late now to avoid a lasting impact. The creativity has been wiped from the team, and no one has any confidence anymore. The damage is done I’m afraid. I can understand why we stuck by Cocu, he deserved time to try and turn it around, but in hindsight we’d be in a better place now had we sacked him following the Blackburn debacle. Putting his own coaching staff in charge following his dismissal doesn’t exactly help to turn things around either...

[RoyMac5]

2 minutes ago, Ramarena said:

They will all have been coaching it. As I said if you want eradication of this style the best way is to strip out everyone involved. 

I believe the cliche used is 'we was only following orders'! They were coaching the players but do you really think they were doing their own thing?!

[Ramarena]

15 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

I believe the cliche used is 'we was only following orders'! They were coaching the players but do you really think they were doing their own thing?!

Maybe, maybe not.

The point remains if you want to eradicate something so seemingly problematic you wipe the slate clean and start again.

This happens a lot, many managers bring their own team in and the former team departs. 

[May Contain Nuts]

Lol talk about confirmation bias

[66DegreesNorth]

Another 'Anti Cocu' thread... Come on folks, move on.