Puel

[lifted*fox]

11 minutes ago, vanity said:

I am delighted by what Puel has done, but this was almost undoubtedly Shakey's direction for the team as well. Puel may do it better, IDK, but let's not dismiss what Shakey helped the club with, he was significant as both an assistant and as a manager, and he deserved better than he got. 

 

Sorry dude, but whilst Shakespeare might have had a similar line-up in mind he certainly wasn't going to get us playing 50% possession-based AND counter-attacking football. It looked like we'd be hoofing until the world resembled Blade Runner under Shakespeare - Puel has clearly got more tactical awareness in his little finger.

 

And don't get me wrong - I thought Shakespeare deserved his shot, so I'm no hater - but this was too deep too soon for Shakes. 

[Corky]

Quite surprised he hasn't been sacked yet as the owners expect top 4 finishes and we are 14 points away.

 

If Ranieri and Shakespeare were binned for that reason, why hasn't Puel gone as well?

 

The pundits don't seem to have mentioned that for a while. Hmmm.

[SheppyFox]

1 hour ago, volpeazzurro said:

Yes, he got seriously found out  ... finished 8th and got into a cup final. Just as well they got the new bloke in to weave his magic and get the same underperforming team to flourish!

Puel will be a big success here

[Wymsey]

He's different, and more successful than presently, than Shakespeare as he's willing to change some personnel etc without making the team weaker and less of an attacking threat.

It feels like the relationship between him and the club/fans is strong at the moment imo.

Edited 2 January 2018 by Wymeswold fox

[Redouane]

3 hours ago, vanity said:

Come off it mate, Shakey wasn't crap. Under his watch, he pulled us out of the relegation zone, which should bank enough goodwill in and of itself. On his watch, we brought in some terrific talent -- Iborra, Silva, Maguire, Sam Hughes, and from all I have seen, Dragovic, with a costly potential miss on Iheanacho, tho the kid is only 20. Shakey was trying to get us passing and playing a more possession-focused style, much like Puel has done, except he got well and truly fuched, first by the scheduling, then by 14 seconds/the injury to Iborra/the injury to Matty James, which left him bereft of midfield talent. Teams don't win games without midfielders with talent on the ball. 

 

I am delighted by what Puel has done, but this was almost undoubtedly Shakey's direction for the team as well. Puel may do it better, IDK, but let's not dismiss what Shakey helped the club with, he was significant as both an assistant and as a manager, and he deserved better than he got. 

Shakey also didnt have the courage to rotate players so effectively like Puel

[EnglishOxide]

37 minutes ago, Wymeswold fox said:

He's different, and more successful than presently, than Shakespeare as he's willing to change some personnel etc without making the team weaker and less of an attacking threat.

It feels like the relationship between him and the club/fans is strong at the moment imo.

 

 

He definitely feels like a fit, overall. Andy King sang his praises after only about week in the job which probably tells you a bit about the relationship he's establishing with the players.

 

It will be interesting to see what we look like with a couple of transfer windows to help him get the players he wants.

[Dan LCFC]

12 hours ago, HighPeakFox said:

We're on 30 points in 8th place. Goodwill duly banked for me. 

Without a transfer window, with a record of 21 points from 13 games, with a decent previous track record of lasting a long time at his clubs. I couldn't give a toss if he isn't some overpaid cheerleader like Klopp.

[Colourmy]

11 hours ago, vanity said:

Come off it mate, Shakey wasn't crap. Under his watch, he pulled us out of the relegation zone, which should bank enough goodwill in and of itself. On his watch, we brought in some terrific talent -- Iborra, Silva, Maguire, Sam Hughes, and from all I have seen, Dragovic, with a costly potential miss on Iheanacho, tho the kid is only 20. Shakey was trying to get us passing and playing a more possession-focused style, much like Puel has done, except he got well and truly fuched, first by the scheduling, then by 14 seconds/the injury to Iborra/the injury to Matty James, which left him bereft of midfield talent. Teams don't win games without midfielders with talent on the ball. 

 

I am delighted by what Puel has done, but this was almost undoubtedly Shakey's direction for the team as well. Puel may do it better, IDK, but let's not dismiss what Shakey helped the club with, he was significant as both an assistant and as a manager, and he deserved better than he got. 

No, I think Shakespeare was one of the boys at Leicester for a long time. NP bad cop, CS good cop.  CR bad cop CS good cop. To then try and change your hat and become the gaffer would be an extremely difficult ask after being one of the lads. CS was never going to get any more than a bit of new manager bounce out of that lot, too much had gone before them as a more or less equal unit to suddenly be able to become their boss.

It's the same in any industry and people are people.

CS will become a manager but at a different club to any, he has worked at previously. He needs to be a new broom somewhere.

Edited 3 January 2018 by Colourmy

[Ric Flair]

10 hours ago, Corky said:

Quite surprised he hasn't been sacked yet as the owners expect top 4 finishes and we are 14 points away.

 

If Ranieri and Shakespeare were binned for that reason, why hasn't Puel gone as well?

 

The pundits don't seem to have mentioned that for a while. Hmmm.

Perhaps because they were only sacked when we were in or around the relegation zone. We are currently 8th and if either Ranieri or Shakespeare had us sitting in 8th they’d still be here too. 

 

Hang on, I’ve got the wrong end of the stick here haven’t I? Hahahaaa sorry.

[Leeds Fox]

11 hours ago, Corky said:

Quite surprised he hasn't been sacked yet as the owners expect top 4 finishes and we are 14 points away.

 

If Ranieri and Shakespeare were binned for that reason, why hasn't Puel gone as well?

 

The pundits don't seem to have mentioned that for a while. Hmmm.

 

Where would we be if the season started when Puel took charge? 

 

It’s also worth bearing in mind he hasn’t had a transfer window yet, and January isn’t exactly the most fruitful.

[Donut]

29 minutes ago, Colourmy said:

No, I think Shakespeare was one of the boys at Leicester for a long time. NP bad cop, CS good cop.  CR bad cop CS good cop. To then try and change your hat and become the gaffer would be an extremely difficult ask after being one of the lads. CS was never going to get any more than a bit of new manager bounce out of that lot, too much had gone before them as a more or less equal unit to suddenly be able to become their boss.

It's the same in any industry and people are people.

CS will become a manager but at a different club to any, he has worked at previously. He needs to be a new broom somewhere.

Craig shakespeares biggest failing for me was he had no clear plan for taking leicester forwards and putting HIS style on things.

 

We had avoided relegation from our bounce and proving the doubters and claudioista's wrong.

 

However PERMANENT management is different and either his ideas were poorly implemented or most likely he couldnt shift us away from what wasnt working. Or didnt feel happy to experiment.

 

The time to judge a new man is really after the honeymoon wears off at say 10 games in

[Chocolate Teapot]

53 minutes ago, Donut said:

Craig shakespeares biggest failing for me was he had no clear plan for taking leicester forwards and putting HIS style on things.

 

We had avoided relegation from our bounce and proving the doubters and claudioista's wrong.

 

However PERMANENT management is different and either his ideas were poorly implemented or most likely he couldnt shift us away from what wasnt working. Or didnt feel happy to experiment.

 

The time to judge a new man is really after the honeymoon wears off at say 10 games in

This is spot on.

 

Interesting those that say the difference betwee Shakespeare and Puel is massive due to comparing the end of Shakespeare's reign to the start of Puel's.

 

Like for like the start of Shakespeare's reign was better, not saying he's a better manager, but we'll need to judge Puel properly once he's had a full pre season behind him to see where we are.

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

6 minutes ago, Abrasive fox said:

This is spot on.

 

Interesting those that say the difference betwee Shakespeare and Puel is massive due to comparing the end of Shakespeare's reign to the start of Puel's.

 

Like for like the start of Shakespeare's reign was better, not saying he's a better manager, but we'll need to judge Puel properly once he's had a full pre season behind him to see where we are.

Its not just about results though.  Shakespeare had the new manager bounce, all that press bollocks went off and we had a chance at going through in the Champions League.  It was drama, maybe it helped us, but the playing style was just the same as under Ranieri in the title season

 

Shakespeare added nothing, reverted to what we knew best, and it worked for a while, but we already knew it wasnt sustainable

 

The effect of Puel can be seen in how we are adapting how we play. We can see and analyse tangible differences

 

It is too soon to say how this will pan out (I say that as a disclaimer, I actually believe it will go well for at least 2 seasons, which is ages in today's football world) but I think its a huge insult to Puel to compare him with Shakespeare as a manager

 

Thats like comparing Michael Macintyre to Stewart Lee  (for those hard of taste, Stewart = good;  Michael = dog-s****)

 

And I dont mean to disrespect Shakespeare, although of course, it does, sorry, but to highlight how much I believe Puel to be in a different league.  Shakespeare will not manage again at this level

[Bablemikey]

Its too early to judge how Puels management will work out but I'm pretty happy with the points he's won and delighted with the way we are increasingly playing passing football. It's really entertaining to watch and I'm enjoying going to the games again.

[SuperMike]

Bet Southampton are glad they replaced Puel with Pellegrino. (refer to league table).  !!!!!

[Stadt]

3 minutes ago, SuperMike said:

Bet Southampton are glad they replaced Puel with Pellegrino. (refer to league table).  !!!!!

Aha yes ! Because there rubbish now  

[Colourmy]

5 hours ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

Its not just about results though.  Shakespeare had the new manager bounce, all that press bollocks went off and we had a chance at going through in the Champions League.  It was drama, maybe it helped us, but the playing style was just the same as under Ranieri in the title season

 

Shakespeare added nothing, reverted to what we knew best, and it worked for a while, but we already knew it wasnt sustainable

 

The effect of Puel can be seen in how we are adapting how we play. We can see and analyse tangible differences

 

It is too soon to say how this will pan out (I say that as a disclaimer, I actually believe it will go well for at least 2 seasons, which is ages in today's football world) but I think its a huge insult to Puel to compare him with Shakespeare as a manager

 

Thats like comparing Michael Macintyre to Stewart Lee  (for those hard of taste, Stewart = good;  Michael = dog-s****)

 

And I dont mean to disrespect Shakespeare, although of course, it does, sorry, but to highlight how much I believe Puel to be in a different league.  Shakespeare will not manage again at this level

6

Stewart Lee wouldn't get a mainstream weekend TV slot. Micky Mac is funny, you just need to understand humour and thinking Stewart Lee is good, suggests you don't really! 

[Dan LCFC]

 

 

 

 

Big thread from a Southampton fan on Twitter about the state they're in now, and how it actually does reflect well on Puel. It's absolutely worth a read.

Edited 4 January 2018 by Dan LCFC

[urban.spaceman]

43 minutes ago, Dan LCFC said:

 

 

 

 

Big thread from a Southampton fan on Twitter about the state they're in now, and how it actually does reflect well on Puel. It's absolutely worth a read.

Fascinating read. They're buggered.

 

[ZeGuy]

7 hours ago, Dan LCFC said:

 

 

 

 

Big thread from a Southampton fan on Twitter about the state they're in now, and how it actually does reflect well on Puel. It's absolutely worth a read.

A must read for any LCFC fan. He's not the only level headed Soton fan who said that but sadly in the minority. Guess to whom some here listened to?

Edited 4 January 2018 by ZeGuy

[shen]

14 hours ago, Colourmy said:

Stewart Lee wouldn't get a mainstream weekend TV slot. Micky Mac is funny, you just need to understand humour and thinking Stewart Lee is good, suggests you don't really! 

Both are good. Macintyre just appeals to a broader audience and he does it well. Lowest common denominator and all that. Lee appeals to those that appreciate sophisticated humor more.

 

Not sure how either of them compare to Shakes and Puel though.

[Colourmy]

33 minutes ago, shen said:

Both are good. Macintyre just appeals to a broader audience and he does it well. Lowest common denominator and all that. Lee appeals to those that appreciate sophisticated humor more.

 

Not sure how either of them compare to Shakes and Puel though.

Film comparisons: Puel - Leon. Shakey- The Transporter if we are to insist on comparing them to something totally irrelevant.

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

37 minutes ago, shen said:

Both are good. Macintyre just appeals to a broader audience and he does it well. Lowest common denominator and all that. Lee appeals to those that appreciate sophisticated humor more.

 

Not sure how either of them compare to Shakes and Puel though.

 

39 minutes ago, shen said:

Both are good. Macintyre just appeals to a broader audience and he does it well. Lowest common denominator and all that. Lee appeals to those that appreciate sophisticated humor more.

 

Not sure how either of them compare to Shakes and Puel though.

 

3 minutes ago, Colourmy said:

Film comparisons: Puel - Leon. Shakey- The Transporter if we are to insist on comparing them to something totally irrelevant.

Who is insisting?   You'll be having a go at similes next.  I can see we have some Hemingway fanatics in the room

[murphy]

On 02/01/2018 at 11:35, HighPeakFox said:

Can he manage the team, does he appear to have the players' ear? Yes?

 

Ok, that'll do me. The rest is for the birds...

Exactly.

 

As long as results are good I couldn't care less if he comes across like John Major on Prozac.

[foxinsocks]

13 minutes ago, murphy said:

Exactly.

 

As long as results are good I couldn't care less if he comes across like John Major on Prozac.

Hmnm more john major than prozac i think