Puel

[sylofox]

3 minutes ago, Matt said:

Been making this point for a while.

 

I've slagged Puel off for a lot but this is one thing I can't and won't (If he's kept on, hopefully not) blame or point the finger at him for.

 

I've blamed Rudkin (And his team) for quite a few years now regards transfers, it'd be massively hypocritical and contradictory of me if I all of sudden used it as a stick to beat Puel with all of a sudden.

 

But it does make me laugh when I see all these comment of Puel bringing his own players in or spending the money. He won't be.

 

50 minutes ago, Babylon said:

Especially when the one bloke he has picked out looks like an absolute steal compared to some of the players we've spent £10-£30m on.

As Babs says the one he had something to do with ain't bad.

[1972 Fox]

25 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

Puel would be only the third in the past ten years to last less than a full year:

 

Shakespeare: 8 months

Ranieri: 1 1/2 years

Pearson II: close to 4 years

Eriksson: 1 year

Sousa: 3 months (W1 D2 L6 in his first nine league matches, deservedly sacked)

Pearson I: 2 years

 

We're hardly the only club in the Premier League (or Europe, for that matter) questioning and sacking managers on a more or less regular basis.

It's always a bit of a gamble.

 

Point taken. I accept that every 6 months is an exaggeration but in more recent times it seems that as a club we are showing far less patience with our managers. However, I do understand that it would not be beneficial to give more time to the wrong man.

 

If Puel is not the right man for us, I want the next manager to be the right appointment for the medium to long term, not the short term.

[Babylon]

16 minutes ago, Mark - Reading said:

You both make great points but let’s not get carried away we put in a great display against an Arsenal Development squad with 10 men for 80 minutes!

 

lets see what Sunday brings before we get too carried away 

I'm not getting carried away, I still have absolutely no idea what's for the best.

[Chocolate Teapot]

1 hour ago, Blue Fox 72 said:

I don't think you have disguised the fact that you want Puel gone and also you've previously stated you think he will be gone when the season ends.

 

I'm probably with you on this but I'm a little bit undecided as I'm not convinced that changing manager every six months or so is best way forward.

 

It is noticeable to me that you have been very critical of Puel on here after recent poor performances but you went very quiet after the win against Arsenal. Is there any reason for this?

 

Genuine question as I appreciate the info you post on here and agree with your opinions most of the time.

Fair.

 

Im not going to get carried away after winning against a side with ten men for 75 minutes against a side who haven't won a point away from home this year....so no im not a fan so I won't give him much credit for that nor will I change my mind given the dross we've watched recently. 

Edited 11 May 2018 by Abrasive fox

[Dr The Singh]

3 minutes ago, Babylon said:

I'm not getting carried away, I still have absolutely no idea what's for the best.

Story of my life.

[Dr The Singh]

19 hours ago, Countryfox said:

 

I’ve no doubt that tactically he is very astute and has the ability to build a team/system that could be a force to be reckoned with ...    on the other hand can he motivate players with that very soft approach, and indeed, attract good players ...     the answer ...    I’ve no idea ..   .      Do we trust him to spend a shed load of money ? ....        Same answer.

He is not tactically astute, Wenger nearly out did him, he got Fuchs to drift in by packing the midfield second half to isolate diabate, they did that about 4 times leading to one goal.  How can a ten man team do that to a 11 man team.

 

He has done so many daft substitutions, and at the wrong times this season also.

 

The guy may have the ability to get quick improvements, he also maybe able build long term programmes.  I feel he is high risk, and may require a lot of money to even get us to mid table next season.

 

[inckley fox]

4 hours ago, Babylon said:

As keeps being said, week in week about he's said we need to play at a higher tempo. Why do people just keep ignoring this? What we got in terms of effort and pace of game was everything he'd been asking for. If we believe what he says, why have the players only just bothered? Were they in their comfort zone again, only woken up by the fans being pretty hostile against West Ham and blanking them?

 

Yes the questions should be asked whether Puel is capable of getting that out of them, but also the question should be asked if perhaps we need to flush a few of these players out who can't get themselves up for anything, without people (press / fans) having to dent their egos first.

 

I can accept this and I can accept that it's not entirely his fault that we're not doing it.

 

However we have to be careful of looking at just 1 / 2 games. Instead, look at a whole second half of the season. We ignored this sort of evidence under Taylor because of a single, misleading 4-2 over Spurs and there are various examples of a side not paying proper attention to a sustained slump, or being distracted by one or two red herrings near the end of a campaign, or even kidding themselves that all is well because there are lots of other sides out there playing badly.

 

It's easy to blame players for poor form. Poor confidence, the belief that you simply aren't going to win that 50-50, can easily be mistaken for lack of effort.  If you want a culprit I'd look at management recruitment. If poor clarity of instruction and communication was a reason for Ranieri leaving, why appoint someone who was clearly a poorer communicator? Why appoint him largely on the strength of what he did at Southampton, then fire him for replicating what he did at Southampton?

 

There's been a lot of speculation. But much of it has stated that the old guard (Mahrez aside) isn't responsible for this unrest, so if it's true it's likelier to stem from Nacho, Iborra, Silva, Jakupovic ec. Are minds being cast back to allegations against Vardy, Huth, Schmeichel and co. a year ago, which were supposed to be largely unfounded? Are we listening too much to people saying that they've 'downed tools again', when the players you're speculating about aren't the same players as the last set?

 

And you can pinpoint some of Puel's problems, before you focus on the players. Team selections, in-game changes, the apparent difficulty expressing himself, the fact that we can't play an effective front-foot passing game because quite a few of our players (Ndidi, Simpson, Morgan etc.) aren't comfortable with it and, of course, questions from his Southampton tenure about whether what worked for him in France will work for him in the EPL.

 

Of course, if the rumours about the dressing room are true then it's impractical for him to carry on. If Puel's exit was known before the game - a little unfair, given that he supposedly had until the end of the campaign to turn things around - then it might have been a reaction to Puel going, rather than an attempt to save his bacon.

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

3 hours ago, chapero82 said:

Choosing James over Silva/Iborra? 

Letting Slimani and Ulloa go out on loan?

Seeing things not working and still not use any subs until 80 odd minutes!

there was too many to remember! 

Apparently James was bossing it in training. And Took Iborra a little while to get up to scratch, not to mention knocks.

Also, Silva has in the opinion of many only just played his first good game for us.  So that isnt necessarily a mistake on Puel's part.

 

Ulloa going is fine for me.  Slim could have stayed, but we have a lot of strikers.  I'm not too fussed about this

It does however annoy me that we never crossed balls when Slim was on the pitch and then when he leaves we stick in a million crosses per game.  Never scoring from corners

 

There again, a load of people on here think Slimani is doggo

 

Honestly think his subs, whilst occasionally not been exactly what i'd like, have been ok, if not a little cautious

He makes better subs than Shakey did and Ranieri in his 2nd season

 

The only thing Puel did which really annoyed me was dropping Amartey for Simpson, then dropping Simpson for Amartey and not even putting Simpson on the bench,  Then Amartey got injured and our we had no RB to bring on

 

I dont think Puel has done many crazy things.  I like  that we've seen more variety and more of the squad under him

Edited 11 May 2018 by AlloverthefloorYesNdidi

[turtmcfly]

38 minutes ago, chapero82 said:

Choosing James over Silva/Iborra? 

Letting Slimani and Ulloa go out on loan?

 Seeing things not working and still not use any subs until 80 odd minutes!

there was too many to remember! 

Choosing James over Silva/Iborra at the time it happened would only have baffled a simpleton.

 

You (along with all the other who keep using this argument) have no idea of Puel's involvement in Slim/Ulloa loans, nor his capacity to prevent them. What is baffling is using the 'we should have kept one of the big target men' argument applied to two of the worst big target men in the league.

 

As for the subs...  here are the timings for the subs in Prem games we've lost (my own, admittedly peculiar, definition of 'things not working')  this year;

 

    West Ham   46, 61, 61

    C. Palace    46, 46, 51

    Burnley       46, 64, 86

    Newcastle   42, 57, 76   

    West Brom  60, 67, 88

    Man City     46, 62, 62

    Everton       58, 74, 75

 

 

 

But yes, too many reasons to get rid of Puel to remember. I find it helps immensely if you just remember the ones that aren't shit.

 

Edited 11 May 2018 by turtmcfly

[CarbonVirtine]

3 minutes ago, Dr The Singh said:

He is not tactically astute, Wenger nearly out did him, he got Fuchs to drift in by packing the midfield second half

I noticed that. A couple of times, I wondered where Fuchs was and saw he was playing more or less as a centre back, acres of space down the left flank that maybe Diabate was supposed to have tracked back into. 

[Ric Flair]

28 minutes ago, Babylon said:

Based on what? I'm afraid we've shown little which proves that to be the case for two seasons now. We've spent no more money than the likes of Palace and Watford, what we have spent has been mostly wasted as well. We're still relying on aging players that won the league and we've lost two of our better players (including what was probably our best player ever).

 

Based on the fact that a huge nucleus of this team took apart the rest of the league playing fast counter attacking football only 2 seasons ago. It wasn't a fluke, yes it was fair to accept it wasn't going to continue every season without others clocking on and losing Kante hampered us but this team is all about fast attacks, when we do it the very best can't deal with us. The problem is we needed to tailor this and add a way of being harder to break down ourselves, we were crying out for more flexibility and to be comfortable to get a foot on the ball when needed. Puel seemed to clock this early on and we were showing signs of being the best of the rest no problemmo. Yet as the weeks went on, the fast and direct attacks and pressing evaporated and left us pedestrian and it went like clockwork every time we played anybody at home that weren't there to take the game to us. We may not have spent more money than Palace and Watford, but we didn't need to in the first place. We had a team of players the majority of the league would do anything to get their hands on. What Puel has allowed to or dictated happen in the last few months is appalling and I'm not sure he deserves to continue. We've made many mistakes in the last 2 seasons, those above him are an atrocious band of executives and I think we've ran out of luck. It's going to require off the field changes to give us the chance of building a capable team going forward in the next few years to challenge for any honours.

[Dr The Singh]

2 minutes ago, CarbonVirtine said:

I noticed that. A couple of times, I wondered where Fuchs was and saw he was playing more or less as a centre back, acres of space down the left flank that maybe Diabate was supposed to have tracked back into. 

It's clever tactics, isolate the weakest link, diabate is shit at defending and tracking back.

 

Wenger did this with a man down to a supposedly great tactician.

[UPinCarolina]

1 hour ago, sylofox said:

I take it countings not your strong point  

I added a fourth point ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Nickfosse]

I have my reservations like seemingly everyone else, but equally just can’t help feel that sacking him would be the most unfair dismissal since Jimmy Bloomfield. 

He took over a team that was in the bottom 3 under their previous full time manager; had been played off the park first halves away at Huddersfield and Bournemouth and stunk the place out at home to WBA. 

He has proceeded to secure a top 10 finish with the addition of the win at Swansea under Appleton. 

We were playing perfectly well until our most skilfull player decided to go on strike costing vital momentum with a loss at Everton on deadline day, and has had to manage the fall out from that situation ever since. 

In addition he has had to deal with a whole host of injuries and suspensions. 

When we look at it in those very simple terms, a 9th place finish looks like a job well done. And all this without a preseason and only one addition in the transfer window. 

 

Edited 11 May 2018 by Nickfosse

[hackneyfox]

49 minutes ago, chapero82 said:

Choosing James over Silva/Iborra? 

Letting Slimani and Ulloa go out on loan?

Seeing things not working and still not use any subs until 80 odd minutes!

there was too many to remember! 

Uloa was finished at the club and was best moved on.

The same probably applies to Slimani and the injury that kept him for most of that loan period happened with us so he wouldn't have been playing anyway.

[UPinCarolina]

50 minutes ago, chapero82 said:

Choosing James over Silva/Iborra? 

Letting Slimani and Ulloa go out on loan?

Seeing things not working and still not use any subs until 80 odd minutes!

there was too many to remember! 

James was baffling but not criminal; Ulloa was deadwood but Silmani ought to have stayed.

[Papasmurf]

1 hour ago, Ric Flair said:

I fear we're one more big mistake away from relegation in the next season or so.

Most of the premier league fits into this category.

 

The mistake may be the next manager we appoint.

[Beechey]

 

[Babylon]

1 hour ago, inckley fox said:

I can accept this and I can accept that it's not entirely his fault that we're not doing it.

Well I'm going to stop reading right there, because this has now happened under THREE different managers, one of whom actually won the league for the club, the other was liked and wanted by the players if we read reports.

 

This isn't just a one off, it's happening over and over again. Look at the difference in application and effort form the players after the whole country absolutely roasted them when Ranieri got sacked. Fantastic performance with unquestionable application from all of them against Liverpool. The atmosphere turns sour against West Ham and the fans turn their backs on them, suddenly we get another similar performance. With a quite an obvious social media presence afterwards from many of the players "that's for the fans". Clearly something had been said internally to get the response.

 

Ultimately it's down to the manager to get the best from people. But even someone like Pearson had to change players to get the best out of his teams effort wise, always wanting hungry players with something to prove. For me, that's the biggest issue we've had since the won the league. The hunger isn't there like it was, they've proved themselves and it's all too easy and cosy.

 

It's not all down to the players, but you can't just ignore it like you are when it's happening time after time. It's been two years since we've seen any consistent form and application.

 

For the record I'm not sold on Puel, not sure anyone could be. But we can't keep going around in the "sack the manager" circle, without perhaps looking a little deeper.

Edited 11 May 2018 by Babylon

[Dr The Singh]

2 minutes ago, Beechey said:

 

This all stinks of a man trying to save his job to me.  All of a sudden all the drivel that has been served is shit when it goes bad but great when it goes good.

 

Maybe he has changed his mind about the Southampton

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

Puel sounds like he's not quite resigned to being sacked yet. Maybe they will give him more time

[Babylon]

1 hour ago, Ric Flair said:

Based on the fact that a huge nucleus of this team took apart the rest of the league playing fast counter attacking football only 2 seasons ago. It wasn't a fluke, yes it was fair to accept it wasn't going to continue every season without others clocking on and losing Kante hampered us but this team is all about fast attacks, when we do it the very best can't deal with us. The problem is we needed to tailor this and add a way of being harder to break down ourselves, we were crying out for more flexibility and to be comfortable to get a foot on the ball when needed. Puel seemed to clock this early on and we were showing signs of being the best of the rest no problemmo. Yet as the weeks went on, the fast and direct attacks and pressing evaporated and left us pedestrian and it went like clockwork every time we played anybody at home that weren't there to take the game to us. We may not have spent more money than Palace and Watford, but we didn't need to in the first place. We had a team of players the majority of the league would do anything to get their hands on. What Puel has allowed to or dictated happen in the last few months is appalling and I'm not sure he deserves to continue. We've made many mistakes in the last 2 seasons, those above him are an atrocious band of executives and I think we've ran out of luck. It's going to require off the field changes to give us the chance of building a capable team going forward in the next few years to challenge for any honours.

We had about 4 players any decent team would have wanted, the others were cast offs and journey men coming to the end of their careers. Well those players have now mostly had it and are coming to an end and we've lost two of the players of the 4 that other clubs would have wanted and struggled to replace them.

 

We missed our chance to nail that 7th spot easily for a while when we failed to replace so many aging players, failed to improve on the obvious weak spots in the team and signed a load of shit the summer after winning the league. We've not been dragged back into the mire and performances and results have done nothing to prove otherwise for two years.

[Dr The Singh]

2 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

Puel sounds like he's not quite resigned to being sacked yet. Maybe they will give him more time

As the only true ITK on this forum, I was told he is staying Angeles will be backed with millions

[STUHILL]

3 minutes ago, Beechey said:

 

It doesn't change anything for me. This just suggests that he is incapable of picking the correct team or getting them to play the way he wants, whether through poor selections, training or/and communication. 

 

The only excuse he can have for this, would be that he needs to get his own players in who are capable of this style but I'm unsure if he will do that this summer. 

 

I hope the owners come out straight after the Spurs game and announce if he is staying or not. I for one (a doubter!), will then get back on board with Puel and hope that he has a very successful transfer window, which he will definitely need to make this new style a consistent success. 

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

Just now, Dr The Singh said:

As the only true ITK on this forum, I was told he is staying Angeles will be backed with millions

I trust you. You're a doctor