The Claude Puel Era - what will he bring?

[Sharpe's Fox]

1 hour ago, brucey said:

 

2 shots on target against teams in the bottom three for the rest of the season then.

[ZeGuy]

1 hour ago, brucey said:

 

Awesome news. 

[inckley fox]

10 minutes ago, FIF said:

Must say that I really hate the comments putting Puel down. He hasn't even been here 5 minutes. we sound like West Ham/Everton fans.

 

Give the man time before you start judging him.

Especially on the back of a decent point away at West Ham, who were resurgent under their new manager. He suffered from many of the same problems as Ranieri and Shakespeare before him (Fuchs' declining form, Mahrez badly off colour, Gray not looking ready for the first team, lack of supply for Vardy, poor set piece defending etc.) and hasn't had time, or a transfer window, to do a great deal of work on these things.

 

I think he just about justified the inclusion of Albrighton, and I disagree with those who say the Chilwell-Mahrez switch didn't make sense. We protected our weakest defender, held onto a point, and lost nothing by taking Riyad off. We lack alternatives in the 'three' of the preferred 4-2-3-1.

 

Our fans should be patient. Our impatience early in the O'Neill era and the second Pearson era should remind us of that. Equally, the elation when Hamilton, Pleat, Taylor, Levein and Sven picked up good results early in their respective reigns demonstrates how deceptive early impressions can be, either good or bad. Two of our three or four best ever managers had lousy starts, and two of our worst got off to fliers!

 

If we can get by until his impact is more apparent, two or three months from now, then we'll be able to evaluate whether there's been progress. But I had no problem with his approach to the game yesterday, other than that we shouldn't be scared of countering with the direct ball, and pace, every so often. It's not good enough that we produced no shots after 29 minutes (if that's accurate?), but this isn't the first time we've been toothless in attack over the past few months, or over the past year.

[m4DD0gg]

Claude levein is a big mistake. 

 

I really wonder about our owners sometimes. Obviously astute business men but clueless when it comes to football. 

[Monsell1976]

1 hour ago, Fox92 said:

Good.

 

We're actually playing good football now and not hoofball shit.

 

He's changing our style, it'll take longer than three or four weeks.

 

If we had a good final ball last night we would have been three up by half time. The amount of times Mahrez didn't pass or our crossing let us down was incredible. 

I agree, will judge him when he’s brought in his players, who hopefully are good enough to play as he wants to.

 If he can sort the defence out, and add replace a couple up the pitch, we are not far off, but he’s limited in what he can achieve, with the players he currently has.

[mod hero]

49 minutes ago, m4DD0gg said:

Claude levein is a big mistake. 

 

I really wonder about our owners sometimes. Obviously astute business men but clueless when it comes to football. 

Clueless? 

 

That is some statement that, remember where we were when they took over and the decisions they have made since has seen us win the premier league.

 

****in nonesense this.

[m4DD0gg]

15 minutes ago, mod hero said:

Clueless? 

 

That is some statement that, remember where we were when they took over and the decisions they have made since has seen us win the premier league.

 

****in nonesense this.

Yes I said astute business men. They bought out our debt and serviced it noand made a **** tonne of money through a little luck...well actually a lot of luck. 

 

That has nothing to do with the layer of management that sits between them and the playing side which is rotten to the core and until they see past this cultural loyalty then Leicester City are going no where. 

 

Edited 25 November 2017 by m4DD0gg

[BaggyPants]

1 hour ago, m4DD0gg said:

Claude levein is a big mistake. 

 

I really wonder about our owners sometimes. Obviously astute business men but clueless when it comes to football. 

I think that is being a somewhat harsh overall on the owners, for after all people hold positions in the club and who supposedly have direct responsibility for the direct football matters. It is not the owners who are clueless...a point which I have alluded to in an earlier thread.

[mod hero]

33 minutes ago, m4DD0gg said:

Yes I said astute business men. They bought out our debt and serviced it noand made a **** tonne of money through a little luck...well actually a lot of luck. 

 

That has nothing to do with the layer of management that sits between them and the playing side which is rotten to the core and until they see past this cultural loyalty then Leicester City are going no where. 

 

If you are referring to Rudkin I agree. 

 

The thais were the ones who brought Pearson back who got us promoted, He was the manager that built the team and laid the foundation. The Thais then brought in Claudio who delivered the greatest sporting miracle.

 

It was a sweeping statement you made Maddog. I do agree that there is something wrong higher up and recruitment has been woeful.

 

Bringing Puel in was a massive shock, but who else was out there that would've come to us? 

[mod hero]

49 minutes ago, m4DD0gg said:

Yes I said astute business men. They bought out our debt and serviced it noand made a **** tonne of money through a little luck...well actually a lot of luck. 

 

That has nothing to do with the layer of management that sits between them and the playing side which is rotten to the core and until they see past this cultural loyalty then Leicester City are going no where. 

 

If you are referring to Rudkin I agree. 

 

The thais were the ones who brought Pearson back who got us promoted, He was the manager that built the team and laid the foundation. The Thais then brought in Claudio who delivered the greatest sporting miracle.

 

It was a sweeping statement you made Maddog. I do agree that there is something wrong higher up and recruitment has been woeful.

 

Bringing Puel in was a massive shock, but who else was out there that would've come to us? 

[StriderHiryu]

3 hours ago, Kitchandro said:

Gonna stop you right there. That's completely incorrect. The fact (not opinion, fact) is that we changed the way we were playing to a style similar to what we are playing now, presumably because Claudio was trying to compensate for losing Kante. And I very strongly feel this was the reason we declined so rapidly. That is because we started to decline rapidly at that point. Even as early as the first game against Hull.

 

I remember us playing 'the Leicester way' about 3 times last season. Sevilla at home, Man City at home, Liverpool at home. All impressive wins. Teams did not adapt to our style of play at all, in fact when we implemented it properly in those very few games, even without Kante, we were just as unstoppable as ever. Is it harder/less effective in the long run without Kante? Certainly, yes. Is it impossible to do it without Kante? Certainly not.

Is it still the best way of playing for a club like us? All the evidence suggests so, as all our best performances come with that style of play.

 

I could give you the benefit of the doubt and say obviously you missed most of last season and are just guessing how we played. Except you've shown further astonishing lack of awareness with you 3rd point. It obviously never occured to you that the thing most title winners have in common, in tandem with high possession, is in fact stronger squads and more spending money. Making your point totally irrelevant. Had we tried to play a possession based game in 2015/16, I doubt we'd have finished in the top half. The only reason we won the league is because we had our own style that wasn't dependent on superior players having loads of the ball.

 

And the goalposts haven't moved. We're still an average club at this level that needs to find a way to make the most of what it has.

 

So no, there are no good reasons, all the evidence suggests you are wrong.

Can we agree to disagree? It’s starting to feel a bit personal here. 

[ramadaone]

My simplistic view on us being crap in every second half so far under the new man

 

Teams are expecting us to play hoof ball as normal so set up accordingly in the first half 

 

They then realise we are giving this proper football style a go and in the second half play much further up the field. This leaves less space in the areas where we are trying to play and because we haven't quite mastered it yet we are struggling when teams put the squeeze on.

 

If we mixed up our game a bit more by using some cultured hoof balls in behind high defences as well as some proper football we might be more successful ?

 

Alternatively we could stick to the hoof ball that won us a Premier League and is pretty much unique rather than just becoming another possession based mid table mediocre football team

 

"I hate this hoof football".   Be careful what you wish for

 

What do you think ?

Obviously asking for a friend 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Pete from the USA]

6 minutes ago, ramadaone said:

My simplistic view on us being crap in every second half so far under the new man

 

Teams are expecting us to play hoof ball as normal so set up accordingly in the first half 

 

They then realise we are giving this proper football style a go and in the second half play much further up the field. This leaves less space in the areas where we are trying to play and because we haven't quite mastered it yet we are struggling when teams put the squeeze on.

 

If we mixed up our game a bit more by using some cultured hoof balls in behind high defences as well as some proper football we might be more successful ?

 

Alternatively we could stick to the hoof ball that won us a Premier League and is pretty much unique rather than just becoming another possession based mid table mediocre football team

 

"I hate this hoof football".   Be careful what you wish for

 

What do you think ?

Obviously asking for a friend 

 

 

I don't know what style is the best, but for sure Leicester need to stick with one manager for a couple of seasons. Firing the manager every 15 matches is a sure way to never develop a strategy at all. 

[RumbleFox]

I actually hate a lot of you.  Deep, horrible, putrid hate.  If I had more of a life, or if my ol' donger was a wee bit bigger I would leave and never come back.  X

[SheppyFox]

You really are an idiot if you want Puel sacked

[dynamark]

Not sure I have heard anyone asking for him to go but-

4 points from 4 games so far

Second half yesterday was dire -Slim gets 4 minutes FFS.

Passing the ball sideways and back in our own half at a snails pace is not going to win us any games.

I think he will get the season and we will just survive and its going to be dull as hell-and Riyah will be away in Jan. 

[katieakita]

5 minutes ago, dynamark said:

Not sure I have heard anyone asking for him to go but-

4 points from 4 games so far

Second half yesterday was dire -Slim gets 4 minutes FFS.

Passing the ball sideways and back in our own half at a snails pace is not going to win us any games.

I think he will get the season and we will just survive and its going to be dull as hell-and Riyah will be away in Jan. 

5pts in 4 games 2 away draws and beaten by this seasons champions 

[WigstonWanderer]

22 hours ago, Kitchandro said:

I think you've hit the nail on the head here. People were too stupid to realise that this is what it looks like when you try to play out from the back. It's predictable, it's pedestrian, it's boring. We haven't got the players to play beautiful flowing football that way and, contrary to the parts not in bold, we never will.

 

People are blinded by watching Spain, Barcelona and Man City and think that's how it's going to look when we do it. But it's not the case.

 

The best we can be playing that way is the way Southampton have been over the last few years. Decent, but not that good. Not hideously boring, but not that exciting. A bit above average. But it's limited.

 

We need a better plan A, not a plan B. It's not passing out from the back. It's not hoofball. It's aggressive pressing and quick transition from defence into attack. It's good players being programmed to get their head up early and look for positive passes immediately. It's about prioritising chance creation.

 

Just maybe people could accept that Ranieri was a genius for getting us to play a way that no one else did (until he went senile and stopped doing the right things).

 

 

Precisely!

 

We will never be able to compete with the top 6 trying to play them at their own game. They simply have too much resources so their players will always have better quality for this type of football.

 

We need to do what we do, but do it better. Ranieri proved it was possible. 

[norwichfox]

I find it worrying that we have been performing about 50% in the latter parts of the game (just before half time to the end) to the way we start games. The substitutes so far just haven't upped our game, and they seem to be ill timed, obviously the jury is still out after such a short time and he is aiming towards more "watch-able" football than the "hoof it now chase it later" we've had for 18 months or so....although we've already proven that the counter attack game can be consistent and win the league too many bits lost out of that jigsaw puzzle for it ever to work again for us unfortunately.

 

He's clearly not a good motivator at half time, perhaps Appleton should take the team talk at half time and lead in the second half of games.

Edited 26 November 2017 by norwichfox

[Babylon]

We did not try and become a passing team under Ranieri, not a bloody chance. We were aimlessly hoofing it more than ever because teams sat back and gave us respect. We didn't have a clue how to play against it.

 

It's like saying we were a passing team under CS because we had loads of ball due to West Brom not wanting to venture out of their half.

Edited 26 November 2017 by Babylon

[Corky]

2 hours ago, Babylon said:

We did not try and become a passing team under Ranieri, not a bloody chance. We were aimlessly hoofing it more than ever because teams sat back and gave us respect. We didn't have a clue how to play against it.

 

It's like saying we were a passing team under CS because we had loads of ball due to West Brom not wanting to venture out of their half.

The West Brom match proved how one-dimensional we are. When we had a lot of the ball, we had no idea what to do. Laboured passing, too many touches, predictable movement. Now, we are at least starting to find a way of being better with the ball and finding another way of going about things.

 

The quick ball over the top to Vardy should still be utilised but it was our safe, only option for too many players. We have to find a balance.

[NotTheMarketLeader]

On 25/11/2017 at 13:53, Kitchandro said:

Gonna stop you right there. That's completely incorrect. The fact (not opinion, fact) is that we changed the way we were playing to a style similar to what we are playing now, presumably because Claudio was trying to compensate for losing Kante. And I very strongly feel this was the reason we declined so rapidly. That is because we started to decline rapidly at that point. Even as early as the first game against Hull.

 

I remember us playing 'the Leicester way' about 3 times last season. Sevilla at home, Man City at home, Liverpool at home. All impressive wins. Teams did not adapt to our style of play at all, in fact when we implemented it properly in those very few games, even without Kante, we were just as unstoppable as ever. Is it harder/less effective in the long run without Kante? Certainly, yes. Is it impossible to do it without Kante? Certainly not.

Is it still the best way of playing for a club like us? All the evidence suggests so, as all our best performances come with that style of play.

 

I could give you the benefit of the doubt and say obviously you missed most of last season and are just guessing how we played. Except you've shown further astonishing lack of awareness with you 3rd point. It obviously never occured to you that the thing most title winners have in common, in tandem with high possession, is in fact stronger squads and more spending money. Making your point totally irrelevant. Had we tried to play a possession based game in 2015/16, I doubt we'd have finished in the top half. The only reason we won the league is because we had our own style that wasn't dependent on superior players having loads of the ball.

 

And the goalposts haven't moved. We're still an average club at this level that needs to find a way to make the most of what it has.

 

So no, there are no good reasons, all the evidence suggests you are wrong.

This.

 

Some people need to understand this basic principle.

 

We are going to find it very difficult to be competitive with any of the top seven; even in one off games let alone over a season playing the possession football that this manager is aiming for.

 

The reason being it is necessity to have the best and most skilful players to play that way and win. 

 

We are not going to spend the money to enable us to do that.

 

Playing our high press counter attacking style did enable us to compete on a fraction of the budget, both when we won the league AND the FEW times we actually tried playing that way high energy game as stated above last season.

 

It was obviously going to be more difficult without Kante but I believe 18 months ago ‘the baby’ was needlessly thrown out with the bathwater and our style fell between two ideals and thus was bound to fail.

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

On 25/11/2017 at 14:53, Kitchandro said:

Gonna stop you right there. That's completely incorrect. The fact (not opinion, fact) is that we changed the way we were playing to a style similar to what we are playing now, presumably because Claudio was trying to compensate for losing Kante. And I very strongly feel this was the reason we declined so rapidly. That is because we started to decline rapidly at that point. Even as early as the first game against Hull.

 

I remember us playing 'the Leicester way' about 3 times last season. Sevilla at home, Man City at home, Liverpool at home. All impressive wins. Teams did not adapt to our style of play at all, in fact when we implemented it properly in those very few games, even without Kante, we were just as unstoppable as ever. Is it harder/less effective in the long run without Kante? Certainly, yes. Is it impossible to do it without Kante? Certainly not.

Is it still the best way of playing for a club like us? All the evidence suggests so, as all our best performances come with that style of play.

 

I could give you the benefit of the doubt and say obviously you missed most of last season and are just guessing how we played. Except you've shown further astonishing lack of awareness with you 3rd point. It obviously never occured to you that the thing most title winners have in common, in tandem with high possession, is in fact stronger squads and more spending money. Making your point totally irrelevant. Had we tried to play a possession based game in 2015/16, I doubt we'd have finished in the top half. The only reason we won the league is because we had our own style that wasn't dependent on superior players having loads of the ball.

 

And the goalposts haven't moved. We're still an average club at this level that needs to find a way to make the most of what it has.

 

So no, there are no good reasons, all the evidence suggests you are wrong.

About those 3 games we played "the leicester way" and won impressively.

Can we really objectively say that that was the case?

Man City as everyone saw underestimated us and set up to fail. Liverpool are just Liverpool and sometimes like to give it away for free, also, it was the reaction to the media with all the snakes bollocks, and Seville home was an historical game for us, everyone emotional and pumped up and rose to the occasion.

 

Only Man City was a normal game if you like, as in, one without exceptional circumstance surrounding it, and they just did exactly what a team shouldnt do against us. 

 

I dont think we can just say that those games we did something tactically that we didnt opt to do in all other games last season. 

[ZeGuy]

4 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

About those 3 games we played "the leicester way" and won impressively.

Can we really objectively say that that was the case?

Man City as everyone saw underestimated us and set up to fail. Liverpool are just Liverpool and sometimes like to give it away for free, also, it was the reaction to the media with all the snakes bollocks, and Seville home was an historical game for us, everyone emotional and pumped up and rose to the occasion.

 

Only Man City was a normal game if you like, as in, one without exceptional circumstance surrounding it, and they just did exactly what a team shouldnt do against us. 

 

I dont think we can just say that those games we did something tactically that we didnt opt to do in all other games last season. 

In all of those games the opponent played with a high line defense. Special mention for Guardiola who totally underestimated us. As soon as teams sat deep, we were shit again. That's what the supporters of "high pressing, counter-attacking style" (read hoofball) refuse to see. 

 

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

4 minutes ago, ZeGuy said:

In all of those games the opponent played with a high line defense. Special mention for Guardiola who totally underestimated us. As soon as teams sat deep, we were shit again. That's what the supporters of "high pressing, counter-attacking style" (read hoofball) refuse to see. 

 

Yeah, we did Pep a big favour in the long run with a sharp lesson in that game.

And yes, teams sit deep and we are pretty useless a lot of the time, which is exactly why we need to be better in possession and why i'm glad to see Puel moving us in this direction

Edited 26 November 2017 by AlloverthefloorYesNdidi