I still think we're going to finish top 8. Am I mad?

[RGFox]

Went sports lounge in Oadby and packed with armchair fans.

 

Must say it was a hugely entertaining game mind.

[bpfox]

your not mad, but i think u need to be committed for ur own safety. not a hope in hell we finish in the top 8.

[Stan]

5 hours ago, bpfox said:

your not mad, but i think u need to be committed for ur own safety. not a hope in hell we finish in the top 8.

FFS. Get a grip.

[sylofox]

No we won't finish 8th FIF and it's all your fault. You jinxed it with this thread  

[ZeGuy]

13 hours ago, coolhandfox said:

Not top 6, but pushing hard to be the best of the rest.

 

How about you?

 

How about the owners, do you think they are building an £80 million training ground, increasing the capacity of the ground, to finish 11th or 12th or in the bottom 8.

 

 

We're neither 11th, 12th nor in the bottom 8. Burnley are actually 7th because to the contrary of you and others here they don't sack the manager after a couple of bad games.

[lancyclaret]

On 4/24/2018 at 06:30, st albans fox said:

Such an odd statement ...... over how many games?  plenty of tables have been posted on here recently that show on any measure, our form is outside the bottom three. 

 

oh, and Burnley plainly don’t deserve to be where they are - they have been efficient but lucky this season.  if Burnley deserve to be 7th then we deserve to be 9th. I think that’s 9 places above bottom three .....

If Burnley had had even an average amount of luck this season, we'd be 6-8 points better off, above Arsenal and challenging Chelsea for 5th.

 

Not a SINGLE penalty this season....and we;ve had 4/5 "stonewallers" ignored by incompetent/cheating refs.

[MC Prussian]

33 minutes ago, ZeGuy said:

We're neither 11th, 12th nor in the bottom 8. Burnley are actually 7th because to the contrary of you and others here they don't sack the manager after a couple of bad games.

Burnley are 7th because they managed to keep the nucleus of the team from previous seasons and - like most teams - can still count on the „promotion effect“ in/after the first season to the new league (or immediate return following just one season in the Championship).

They also added shrewd signings, like Chris Wood, and have no real „superstar“ who sticks out or who is overly hyped.

They are a well-drilled unit with a no-nonsense approach.

 

Burnley are also seventh because all other teams below them have performed badly in recent weeks and months, us included. Although Everton and Newcastle are gaining ground. There was little competition since the start of the new year. They are the best team out of a bad bunch.

Edited 25 April 2018 by MC Prussian

[ZeGuy]

Just now, MC Prussian said:

Burnley are 7th because they managed to keep the nucleus of the team from previous seasons and - like most teams - can still count on the „promotion effect“ in/after the first season to the new league (or immediate return following just one season in the Championship).

They also added shrewd signings, like Chris Wood, and have no real „superstar“ who sticks out or who is overly hyped.

They are a well-drilled unit with a no-nonsense approach.

 

Burnley are also second because all other teams below them have performed badly in recent weeks and months, us included. Although Everton and Newcastle are gaining ground. There was little competition since the start of the new year. They are the best team out of a bad bunch.

Yeah and they achieved all of this because of stable management and a plan.

[MC Prussian]

17 minutes ago, ZeGuy said:

Yeah and they achieved all of this because of stable management and a plan.

In parts, maybe. There are many elements coming together.

 

Our management, not just Puel, needs to be held accountable, our summer transfer dealings since 2016 have been mediocre at best and why the owners went for Puel after his dismissal at Southampton remains their secret to keep.

 

Club expectations also come into play.

 

On a sidenote, Burnley have 400‘000 fans on Facebook, whereas we have 6.5 million.

 

 Our success has catapulted us into the limelight, and like a hapless rabbit, we just don‘t seem to know how to handle it.

Edited 25 April 2018 by MC Prussian

[ZeGuy]

Just now, MC Prussian said:

In parts, maybe. There are many elements coming together.

 

Our management, not just Puel, needs to be held accountable, our summer transfer dealings have been mediocre at best and why the owners went for Puel after his dismissal at Southampton remains their secret to keep.

 

Club expectations also come into play.

 

On a sidenote, Burnley have 400‘000 fans on Facebook, whereas we have 6.5 million.

 

 Our success has catapulted us into the limelight, and like a hapless rabbit, we just don‘t seem to know how to handle it.

The 2016 signings were disastrous, a monumental fck-up. How much of a hand did Ranieri have in it, I don't know. Since then we're stuck with players who either don't fit or are simply crap.

 

But then again you can't have a coherent signing policy if you sack every manager after less than a season.

 

As for Puel, looking at this records and given that we're not a big club, his appointement makes sense. We're not a big club and most of the managers weren't avalaible or simply didn't want to work here. He's known as a builder which is exactly what we needed and has been unfairly sacked from Southampton no matter what the Puel Out Brigade might say.

 

And if he by chance fall out with the board or some players (not counting the old guard, the transition will be over and we can think of another Manager.

 

I think that the "rabbit caught in the headlights is over" phase will be over this season if we keep Puel, since he launched the Transition and now knows the team best, and with the departure or benching of rest of the "Impossibles" (bar Vardy and Kasper) whose legacy is now more hindering than helping us.

[coolhandfox]

46 minutes ago, ZeGuy said:

We're neither 11th, 12th nor in the bottom 8. Burnley are actually 7th because to the contrary of you and others here they don't sack the manager after a couple of bad games.

No but we aren't the best of the rest, anything less the top 8 in my mind is a failure, considering our spending over the last 3-4 years, and our squad.

 

22 minutes ago, ZeGuy said:

Yeah and they achieved all of this because of stable management and a plan.

Or perhaps they have a good manager, so you would agree that CR or CS shouldn't have been sacked, both had a better win ratio then CP, so should have been given more time?

                                  Game at LCFC         Win % at LCFC   Win % Overall career

Claudio Ranieri          81                              44.44                    45.32

Claude Puel               31                              38.7                      42.4  (Win Ratio at Southampton 37.7)

Craig Shakespeare    26                              42.3                      42.3

[coolhandfox]

49 minutes ago, ZeGuy said:

Yeah and they achieved all of this because of stable management and a plan.

 

OR maybe they just have a good one?

[ZeGuy]

1 minute ago, coolhandfox said:

 

OR maybe they just have a good one?

Yeah, because Dyche hit the ground running and never had a bad spell. The concept of long-term is something you should learn to grasp.

[MC Prussian]

26 minutes ago, ZeGuy said:

The 2016 signings were disastrous, a monumental fck-up. How much of a hand did Ranieri have in it, I don't know. Since then we're stuck with players who either don't fit or are simply crap.

 

But then again you can't have a coherent signing policy if you sack every manager after less than a season.

 

As for Puel, looking at this records and given that we're not a big club, his appointement makes sense. We're not a big club and most of the managers weren't avalaible or simply didn't want to work here. He's known as a builder which is exactly what we needed and has been unfairly sacked from Southampton no matter what the Puel Out Brigade might say.

 

And if he by chance fall out with the board or some players (not counting the old guard, the transition will be over and we can think of another Manager.

 

I think that the "rabbit caught in the headlights is over" phase will be over this season if we keep Puel, since he launched the Transition and now knows the team best, and with the departure or benching of rest of the "Impossibles" (bar Vardy and Kasper) whose legacy is now more hindering than helping us.

Bit overly simplistic.

 

Sure, we sacked two managers in succession after a short while, that doesn't speak for our club management.

Yet it's fairly regular for the manager to get the axe when results don't go ones way.

We may not be a big club in the sense of a Top Six representative, and probably never will be. That's fine by me. But at least strive to become the best of the rest instead.

And it's not like we aren't an attractive proposition to whomever manager is out there. Why we couldn't find another manager instead of Puel is highly likely down to many different reasons (contractual obligations, bad timing, no interest, not fitting the owner's profile, aso).

The results since mid-December 2017 aren't encouraging and I fear for the worst.

 

The players we signed since 2016 aren't "crap", they all have/had their own individual qualities.

Sadly, they were in parts either unable to replicate their previous performances at LCFC (Musa, Slimani, Zieler), suffered unfortunate injuries (Mendy) or fell out of favour with the manager (for whatever reason, be it personal or lack of effort in training, difficult character, etc., see Ulloa or Hernandez for example) or didn't work in the system we are/were trying to implement. A handful of new players have also been promising - Maguire, Iborra, Dragovic, Ndidi, Diabaté. Jury's still out on Silva and Iheanacho, although I quite like both and would love it if they became a big success here.

 

I understand that Shakespeare wasn't a proper manager and had his flaws, but to imply we would have fared worse under him after a difficult start to the season than we are doing now under Puel or that he couldn't have guided us to a 10th or 11th place finish himself (or whatever an improvement over last season means), remains debatable.

 

"Unfairly sacked at Southampton". Sorry, can't agree with you there. He failed to connect at his previous job and continues to do so here. 

And it's still questionable whether he has really started a transition already or not. Even if he has, a transition for the better or the worse?

 

Four wins out of 17.

One home win since late January.

Players bedazzled by his motivational skills (my guess is because of his lack of English skills).

Loaning out our two tallest strikers in January, then persisting with a style of play favouring high crosses into the opposing box.

Loaning out King in January (although who could've known that James would get injured again and Iborra to follow shortly after).

Coming across as rather odd in post-match interviews.

Talking about a "vision" for the club when he's not been his best promoter himself.

Edited 25 April 2018 by MC Prussian

[Guest]

1 hour ago, lancyclaret said:

If Burnley had had even an average amount of luck this season, we'd be 6-8 points better off, above Arsenal and challenging Chelsea for 5th.

 

Not a SINGLE penalty this season....and we;ve had 4/5 "stonewallers" ignored by incompetent/cheating refs.

 

I'm getting tired of  your hard done to mantra.

 

You've been incredibly lucky with injuries this season and been able to field your best players nearly every game and they've grown to know each otgher well - it's something we benefitted from greatly the year we WON the league. you've managed 7th - big deal. Take your Dyche love to a Burnlet site and get out of my thread.  

[ZeGuy]

14 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

Bit overly simplistic.

 

Sure, we sacked two managers in succession after a short while, that doesn't speak for our club management.

Yet it's fairly regular for the manager to get the axe when results don't go ones way.

We may not be a big club in the sense of a Top Six representative, and probably never will be. That's fine by me. But at least strive to become the best of the rest instead.

And it's not like we aren't an attractive proposition to whomever manager is out there. Why we couldn't find another manager instead of Puel is highly likely down to many different reasons (contractual obligations, bad timing, no interest, not fitting the owner's profile, aso).

The results since mid-December 2017 aren't encouraging and I fear for the worst.

 

The players we signed since 2016 aren't "crap", they all have/had their own individual qualities.

Sadly, they were in parts either unable to replicate their previous performances at LCFC (Musa, Slimani, Zieler), suffered unfortunate injuries (Mendy) or fell out of favour with the manager (for whatever reason, be it personal or lack of effort in training, difficult character, etc., see Ulloa or Hernandez for example) or didn't work in the system we are/were trying to implement. A handful of new players have also been promising - Maguire, Iborra, Dragovic, Ndidi, Diabaté. Jury's still out on Silva and Iheanacho, although I quite like both and would love it if they became a big success here.

 

I understand that Shakespeare wasn't a proper manager and had his flaws, but to imply we would have fared worse under him after a difficult start to the season than we are doing now under Puel or that he couldn't have guided us to a 10th or 11th place finish himself (or whatever an improvement over last season means), remains debatable.

 

"Unfairly sacked at Southampton". Sorry, can't agree with you there. He failed to connect at his previous job and continues to do so here. 

And it's still questionable whether he has really started a transition already or not. Even if he has, a transition for the better or the worse?

 

Four wins out of 17.

One home win since late January.

Players bedazzled by his motivational skills (my guess is because of his lack of English skills).

Loaning out our two tallest strikers in January, then persisting with a style of play favouring high crosses into the opposing box.

Loaning out King in January (although who could've known that James would get injured again and Iborra to follow shortly after).

Coming across as rather odd in post-match interviews.

Talking about a "vision" for the club when he's not been his best promoter himself.

Since 2015/16 we're sacking the manager after 8 months (Ranieri, Shakey and Puel if the trend continues) and it demonstrates quite obviously that we have no plan. This makes it kinda difficult to attract a (good) manager with a long-term project. This kind of manager has generally more than one offer, coming from clubs who also have money (don't speak about Benitez it's more an exception than the rule).

 

Who else could have come, I don't know. I just maintain that at that time Puel or a Puel-type manager was an adequate move.

 

I didn't say they were all crap and was talking only about 2016. Obviously things got better in 2017, but you're not going to tell me that Musa was a PL player (yes, yes I know he scored a brace against Barca).

 

Lol, he was regarding of how Soulthampton sold their best players and the results he achieved nonetheless. But feel free to disagree.

 

I don't know if the transition will succeed but I have good hopes. I do know that if we ditch him, it will all have been for nothing and we're back to square one.

[MC Prussian]

22 minutes ago, ZeGuy said:

Since 2015/16 we're sacking the manager after 8 months (Ranieri, Shakey and Puel if the trend continues) and it demonstrates quite obviously that we have no plan. This makes it kinda difficult to attract a (good) manager with a long-term project. This kind of manager has generally more than one offer, coming from clubs who also have money (don't speak about Benitez it's more an exception than the rule).

 

Who else could have come, I don't know. I just maintain that at that time Puel or a Puel-type manager was an adequate move.

 

I didn't say they were all crap and was talking only about 2016. Obviously things got better in 2017, but you're not going to tell me that Musa was a PL player (yes, yes I know he scored a brace against Barca).

 

Lol, he was regarding of how Soulthampton sold their best players and the results he achieved nonetheless. But feel free to disagree.

 

I don't know if the transition will succeed but I have good hopes. I do know that if we ditch him, it will all have been for nothing and we're back to square one.

Please get the facts straight:

 

Ranieri was sacked after 1 1/2 years in charge.

The difficulty of us being able to attract a "good" manager is not just because of our recent managerial history.

It's what the owners have in mind and whether other managers are available in the first place - we are not the only club (constantly) looking for an improvement in the managerial department, we compete with many others, Europe-wide.

 

Southampton sold their most valuable player (Van Dijk) last summer, after Puel was gone. Rodriguez went in the same transfer window.

Under Puel in the summer before, they brought in Højbjerg, Redmond, Pied, Boufal and Gabbiadini, plus Martin Caceres as a free agent.

Puel's record with the Saints in the last eight matches doesn't speak for him: One win, three draws, four losses. Four goals scored.

And lots of burnt ground left behind.

Edited 25 April 2018 by MC Prussian

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

2 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

Please get the facts straight:

 

Ranieri was sacked after 1 1/2 years in charge.

The difficulty of us being able to attract a "good" manager is not just because of our recent managerial history.

It's what the owners have in mind and whether other managers are available in the first place - we are not the only club (constantly) looking for an improvement in the managerial department, we compete with many others, Europe-wide.

 

Southampton sold their most valuable player (Van Dijk) last summer, after Puel was gone. Rodriguez went in the same transfer window.

Under Puel in the summer before, they brought in Højberg, Redmond, Pied, Boufal and Gabbiadini, plus Martin Caceres as a free agent.

Puel's record with the Saints in the last eight matches doesn't speak for him: One win, three draws, four losses. Four goals scored.

And lots of burnt ground left behind.

They were also without Van D through injury for the tail end of the season

We'd be pretty poor in defence without Maguire

[MC Prussian]

3 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

They were also without Van D through injury for the tail end of the season

We'd be pretty poor in defence without Maguire

Southampton also lost seven out of their twelve matches (three wins) in between late October 2016 and his injury in late January 2017 - after three wins, four draws and two losses.

Either way, not that much of a sportive loss on the whole.

[ZeGuy]

1 hour ago, MC Prussian said:

Please get the facts straight:

 

Ranieri was sacked after 1 1/2 years in charge.

The difficulty of us being able to attract a "good" manager is not just because of our recent managerial history.

It's what the owners have in mind and whether other managers are available in the first place - we are not the only club (constantly) looking for an improvement in the managerial department, we compete with many others, Europe-wide.

 

Southampton sold their most valuable player (Van Dijk) last summer, after Puel was gone. Rodriguez went in the same transfer window.

Under Puel in the summer before, they brought in Højbjerg, Redmond, Pied, Boufal and Gabbiadini, plus Martin Caceres as a free Agent.

Puel's record with the Saints in the last eight matches doesn't speak for him: One win, three draws, four losses. Four goals scored.

And lots of burnt ground left behind.

I should have said after winning the title.

 

Did I ever said that? I merely pointed to the fact that being trigger happy doesn't help our case, even more so when we're not a so-called big club.

 

VvD was injured by Vardy and Puel spent the second half of the season without his best CB. Gabbiadini did well, Boufal has been hit mad miss and Redmond is still a starter. But we're talking about Mané, Wynaldum, Waynyama, Fonte and Pellé who were Southampton's best players and not easy to replace.

 

Puels record over his season at Soton speaks for himself and you're just splitting hair.

Edited 25 April 2018 by ZeGuy

[MC Prussian]

18 minutes ago, ZeGuy said:

I should have said after winning the title.

 

Did I ever said that? I merely pointed to the fact that being trigger happy doesn't help our case, even more so when we're not a so-called big club.

 

VvD was injured by Vardy and Puel spent the second half of the season without his best CB. Gabbiadini did well, Boufal has been hit mad miss and Redmond is still a starter. But we're talking about Mané, Wynaldum, Fonte and Pellé who were Southampton's best players and not easy to replace.

 

Puels record over his season at Soton speaks for himself and you're just splitting hair.

Well... Again, we have to agree to disagree there. The season there petered out in one of the worst and most disappointing possible ways.

 

The sale of Mané was down to the management and happened two days before Puel officially took helm at the club; Fonte left because of Puel, Wijnaldum never played for Southampton (WTF?) and the money for a near 31-year old Pellè from China was too good an offer to pass.

Puel still had a full summer to prepare for the upcoming season and brought in very decent players and still had a pretty good squad to work with from the Koeman era.

 

With regards to the Van Dijk argument, see my post above. He wasn't a decisive factor for Southampton before his injury.

Edited 25 April 2018 by MC Prussian

[ZeGuy]

42 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

Well... Again, we have to agree to disagree there. The season there petered out in one of the worst and most disappointing possible ways.

 

The sale of Mané was down to the management and happened two days before Puel officially took helm at the club; Fonte left because of Puel, Wijnaldum never played for Southampton (WTF?) and the money for a near 31-year old Pellè from China was too good an offer to pass.

Puel still had a full summer to prepare for the upcoming season and brought in very decent players and still had a pretty good squad to work with from the Koeman era.

 

With regards to the Van Dijk argument, see my post above. He wasn't a decisive factor for Southampton before his injury.

So what?

 

Just imagine us selling Vardy, Mahrez and Ndidi (it was Waynyama not Wynaldum. Can't remember their name correctly) in the same summer and see Maguire off in January whilst Dragovic or Morgan gets injured for half of a season.

 

I'm laughing off loud by just picturing the epic meltdown it would be here.

 

Edited 25 April 2018 by ZeGuy

[coolhandfox]

1 hour ago, ZeGuy said:

Yeah, because Dyche hit the ground running and never had a bad spell. The concept of long-term is something you should learn to grasp.

 

So where you one of the people against getting rid of CS and CR?   

 

So because I don't rate Puel, I have no grasp of a long term concept......yawn

 

 

[MC Prussian]

3 minutes ago, ZeGuy said:

So what?

 

Just imagine us selling Vardy, Mahrez and Ndidi (it was Waynyama not Wynaldum. Can't remember their name correctly) in the same summer and see Maguire off in January whilst Dragovic or Morgan gets injured for half of a season.

 

I'm laughing off loud by just picturing the epic meltdown it would be here.

 

Sorry, but we're talking about what happened to Southampton under Puel, not what could've happened/what didn't happen to us.

We are not Southampton.

You're going to great lengths there with that hypothetical scenario.

 

[ZeGuy]

Just now, MC Prussian said:

Sorry, but we're talking about what happened to Southampton under Puel, not what could've happened/what didn't happen to us.

We are not Southampton.

You're going to great lengths there with that hypothetical scenario.

 

Ah, I see.

 

Well then, let's break it here.