Puel

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

2 minutes ago, Abrasive fox said:

Do people actually believe what players say in the media?

Only if its Demarai Gray talking about how he wants to play more football

[Ric Flair]

14 minutes ago, Abrasive fox said:

Would you rather have Jamie Vardy here next season or Claude Puel?

Has there been an ultimatum? 

[MC Prussian]

1 hour ago, Babylon said:

Maguire - Iborra couldn't play the second half, Choudhury was completely anonymous and we were playing awful against a shit West Ham and had no other CM's available to change the game. A one off caused by having only one fit first team CM and a youth CM available.

 

Choudhury - played right back at youth level and Benny was garbage against West Ham. A one off caused by having no recognised right backs available.

 

Dragovic - Nobody has any idea what goes on behind the scenes. If he's turned around and stated he's not staying, the manager is put in a position of either playing an uncommitted player, who isn't actually ours. Or dropping a popular CB who still has a year on his contract. Dragovic absolutely should have played more often based on ability, but sometimes managers have to make unpopular decisions for other reasons.

 

With regards to the West Ham game, we had Barnes on the bench as an unused substitute, and he has played in central (attacking midfield) for Barnsley before and played there constantly for the U23s. If he's not good enough against a "shit West Ham", then I don't know what rode Puel there... At no point did we look like we really cared turning things around, our few efforts went wasted left, right and center. First shot on goal by Silva late into the second half...

 

Benalouane "garbage" against West Ham?  He wasn't outstanding, but did a very decent job on that side. We conceded a goal on our left side through a mishap by Fuchs and a freak goal by Noble from way outside the box, in front of our centre-back area. I'm all for putting a defender in a defensive position, even if it means using Hughes or Benalouane at right-back. Because they know how to defend on that line. Choudhury has played RB once for the U23s this season - other than that, not once in the past three, four years...

 

And looking at Dragovic, maybe I wasn't clear enough. Of couse, Puel has had no choice recently because of Dragovic's shoulder injury. I'm talking about the period of play when Morgan was out injured and Dragovic taking his place instead, performing really well. Then Morgan came back, never looked like fit or sharp enough anymore and continuously kept his place despite his failings in the subsequent games.

I can see why one would want to persist with that decision from a sentimental perspective (with Morgan being team captain), but from a sportive point of view, it makes little to no sense. Morgan's legs have gone, he can't cope with the demands of the Premier League any longer the way he used to.

Edited 14 May 2018 by MC Prussian

[MC Prussian]

16 minutes ago, lavrentis said:

Who knows, point I was trying to make was there's a hell of a lot worse out there

Well, one could as easily argue in the opposite direction.

Just because there's allegedly a lot worse out there, doesn't mean that there's nobody better...

[FrankieADZ]

44 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

Still hoping he’ll end up going to St. Ettienne and Wagner will be coming here after a massive tug of war with the Huddersfield Chairman.

isnt that one all on the takeover at the club, even so thats all speculation tbf

[Babylon]

13 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

With regards to the West Ham game, we had Barnes on the bench as an unused substitute, and he has played in central (attacking midfield) for Barnsley before and played there constantly for the U23s. If he's not good enough against a "shit West Ham", then I don't know what rode Puel there... At no point did we look like we really cared turning things around, our few efforts went wasted left, right and center. First shot on goal by Silva late into the second half...

Barnes played all of his games left wing for Barnsley and he's not a traditional CM, he's a ACM. We were attempting to get a foothold in CM, attempting to use him in the role we used Maguire, as the more defensive CM, is no less ludicrous than moving a ball playing CB up into the DCM role.

 

The fact is, if we'd not had loads of injuries none of these things people are arguing about would have happened. Moaning which square peg is better for the round hole is just ludicrous.

 

13 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

Benalouane "garbage" against West Ham?  He wasn't outstanding, but did a very decent job on that side. I'm all for putting a defender in a defensive position, even if it means using Thomas or Benalouane at right-back. Because they know how to defend on that line. Choudhury has played RB once for the U23s this season - other than that, not once in the past three, four years...

 

Yes, garbage.

 

13 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

And looking at Dragovic, maybe I wasn't clear enough. Of couse, Puel has no choice NOW because of Dragovic's shoulder injury. I'm talking about the period of play when Morgan was out injured and Dragovic taking his place instead, performing really well. Then Morgan came back, never looked like fit or sharp enough anymore and continuously kept his place despite his failings in the subsequent games.

I can see why one would do that from a sentimental perspective (with Morgan being team captain), but from a sportive point of view, it makes little to no sense. Morgan's legs have gone, he can't cope with the demands of the Premier League any longer the way he used to.

 

I said nothing about his injury. I was quite clear in the fact managers have decisions to make that aren't always just about ability.

 

Edited 14 May 2018 by Babylon

[Babylon]

16 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

Has there been an ultimatum? 

Do people actually believe what people say on forums?

[MC Prussian]

11 minutes ago, Babylon said:

Barnes played all of his games left wing for Barnsley and he's not a traditional CM, he's a ACM. We were attempting to get a foothold in CM, attempting to use him in the role we used Maguire, as the more defensive CM, is no less ludicrous than moving a ball playing CM up into the DCM role.

 

The fact is, if we'd not had loads of injuries none of these things people are arguing about would have happened. Moaning which square peg is better for the round hole is just ludicrous.

 

Yes, garbage.

 

 

I said nothing about his injury. I was quite clear in the fact managers have decisions to make that aren't always just about ability.

 

 

Barnes has played in the middle once for Barnsley and all of our U23 games. I stated that clearly. I also acknowledged him being the attacking sort of midfielder. Would have worked well with him in an advanced role, in front of Silva.

 

You can stand firmly on your assessment of Benalouane being "garbage" against West Ham. Opinions differ - to me, he was one of the better players in that game.

 

And as for Dragovic vs. Morgan again, we've both come to the conclusion that persisting with Morgan is reasonable from a certain perspective, but in sportive ways it makes/made no sense and worked against us several times this year, especially given the fact that Puel is keen on implementing a possession-based type of football.

 

Injuries have certainly played a certain part in our demise, but then again, it's not as if we've had no other options in terms of substitutions (as stated above) or starting XI selections (Albrighton at RB springs to mind). And speaking of injuries, the various occurrences of hamstring issues with multiple players plus further injuries to others (Okazaki) in such a short period of time does strike me as odd. For me, that's got something to do with our training regime.

Edited 14 May 2018 by MC Prussian

[Chocolate Teapot]

21 minutes ago, Babylon said:

Barnes played all of his games left wing for Barnsley and he's not a traditional CM, he's a ACM. We were attempting to get a foothold in CM, attempting to use him in the role we used Maguire, as the more defensive CM, is no less ludicrous than moving a ball playing CB up into the DCM role.

 

The fact is, if we'd not had loads of injuries none of these things people are arguing about would have happened. Moaning which square peg is better for the round hole is just ludicrous.

 

Yes, garbage.

 

 

I said nothing about his injury. I was quite clear in the fact managers have decisions to make that aren't always just about ability.

 

 

Sometimes you make some really good points and then sometimes you just go off on one.

 

I think you'll be in a minority defending the Choudhury decision yesterday. It was bonkers. 

[Babylon]

13 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

Barnes has played in the middle once for Barnsley and all of our U23 games. I stated that clearly. I also acknowledged him being the attacking sort of midfielder. Would have worked well with him in an advanced role, in front of Silva.

 

Well, we'll never know. But the lad was absolute tosh against Peterborough, so I don't know where the confidence in him stepping up instantly comes from. It took Hamza a number of games before he looked anywhere close to competent in his natural position. Barnes and Silva strikes me a rather powder puff midfield.

 

13 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

And as for Dragovic vs. Morgan again, we've both come to the conclusion that persisting with Morgan is reasonable from a certain perspective, but in sportive ways it makes/made no sense and worked against us several times this year, especially given the fact that Puel is keen on implementing a possession-based type of football.

 

Injuries have certainly played a certain part in our demise, but then again, it's not as if we've had no other options in terms of substitutions (as stated above) or starting XI selections (Albrighton at RB springs to mind). And speaking of injuries, the various occurrences of hamstring issues with multiple players plus further injuries to others (Okazaki) in such a short period of time does strike me as odd. For me, that's got something to do with our training regime.

 

He wants to play with an attacking right back, Simpson isn't that and he get slated on here every day of the week anyway as not being good enough. He tried something different to get an attacking option in the position he wanted, ok it didn't work out brilliantly because MA is just too rash for that position. But the thought process behind it is absolutely fine, it has been mooted by people on here plenty of times. He's played wingback very effectively before down that side as well. 

 

In terms of it being a bad decision, it shouldn't really even register IMO. It didn't work, so he's not persisted with it. You yourself in April, said Albrighton at right back works against lesser teams. So even you weren't particularly up in arms about it at one point.

 

[Babylon]

11 minutes ago, Abrasive fox said:

Sometimes you make some really good points and then sometimes you just go off on one.

 

I think you'll be in a minority defending the Choudhury decision yesterday. It was bonkers. 

I don't believe there was any particularly good options for the position. I don't like Benny, he's a car crash and he'd have been out of position. Hughes would have been out of position. Even if Dragovic was fit, I wouldn't have been confident. When he's rocked up at right back now and again, I thought he was absolutely dreadful (Watford away for instance).

 

The reality of it is, we don't know how Benny or Hughes would have performed. Hamza was poor, it didn't work... but it doesn't instantly mean the other two would have been better.

Edited 14 May 2018 by Babylon

[MC Prussian]

10 minutes ago, Babylon said:

I don't believe there was any particularly good options for the position. I don't like Benny, he's a car crash and he'd have been out of position. Hughes would have been out of position. Even if Dragovic was fit, I wouldn't have been confident. When he's rocked up at right back now and again, I thought he was absolutely dreadful (Watford away for instance).

 

The reality of it is, we don't know how Benny or Hughes would have performed. Hamza was poor, it didn't work... but it doesn't instantly mean the other two would have been better.

 

That's the point and the great thing about this forum. You can have your opinion, and I keep mine.

Hence...

I could equally say that even if we don't know how Benalouane or Hughes would have performed, there's nothing to suggest they'd have done a worse job at right-back than Choudhury.

[Babylon]

3 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

That's the point and the great thing about this forum. You can have your opinion, and I keep mine.

Hence...

I could equally say that even if we don't know how Benalouane or Hughes would have performed, there's nothing to suggest they'd have done a worse job at right-back than Choudhury.

I've not said they would have, my position is that there wasn't any particularly great options in that position and that it's not the ludicrous decision people are making it out to be.

[Ricey]

16 hours ago, Babylon said:

A new man won't see most of his squad until late summer, it would delay recruitment as he can't assess them properly. That means we miss out on people we have lined up and end up barrel scraping come the transfer window deadline again. 

 

Or we'd probably end up trying to get players in without a manager (like we tried with Kante). Signing players that fit the old managers system, rather than the new mans as that's all we've scouted for the last year.

 

I'm inclined to give him a chance to get it right unless an exceptional candidate becomes available.

I’m not sure I agree with this. A new man won’t need to wait until the World Cup players are back to know what Vardy, Maguire, Ndidi etc are all about.

 

When appointed they will watch plenty of videos from last season to build up a better knowledge of the squad. They will learn more from that than watching a squad do pre-season training.

 

Also, recruitment teams now work quite separately from the manager. We know we need a RB, CB and a no.10. Any new manager will agree with that.

[Babylon]

1 minute ago, Ricey said:

I’m not sure I agree with this. A new man won’t need to wait until the World Cup players are back to know what Vardy, Maguire, Ndidi etc are all about.

When appointed they will watch plenty of videos from last season to build up a better knowledge of the squad. They will learn more from that than watching a squad do pre-season training.

He might know a few players, but it's the squad fillers that's the problem. Puel has already worked out he doesn't want Slim, Musa, King etc. A new man comes in it's likely to be a clean slate for everyone. Managers don't just make decisions on ability, it's about personality and getting the right blend of them in a squad. That's something that videos don't tell you. Will they also let players live off reputation again, because it's a name they know? Management is a complex beast.

 

1 minute ago, Ricey said:

Also, recruitment teams now work quite separately from the manager. We know we need a RB, CB and a no.10. Any new manager will agree with that.

Indeed, but what sort of right back? Puel wants an attacking right back who has certain qualities. What if the next man wants his right back to sit back and do no attacking? What if Puel wants a ball playing CB, but the other man wants a laces through the ball, into row Z type player? We get the wrong sort, and we're back to square one like we were with Puel having a squad full of players who don't suit his style. Do we need a No. 10 as immediately as we thought now Nacho has shown such promise the last month?

 

 

[MC Prussian]

36 minutes ago, Babylon said:

I've not said they would have, my position is that there wasn't any particularly great options in that position and that it's not the ludicrous decision people are making it out to be.

I know you didn't.

I'm just saying that the outcome could've gone either way, with two sides to each coin and whatnot.

[Babylon]

2 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

I know you didn't.

I'm just saying that the outcome could've gone either way, with two sides to each coin and whatnot.

So I think we've come to the conclusion that neither of us have a ****ing clue either way.

[MC Prussian]

Just now, Babylon said:

So I think we've come to the conclusion that neither of us have a ****ing clue either way.

Arguing for the argument's sake is a great way to kick off the new week and the first week after the end of the season.

[Chocolate Teapot]

1 hour ago, Ric Flair said:

Has there been an ultimatum? 

No. 

 

But the new contract we want him to sign hasn't been, could be waiting till the WC finishes, or could be waiting to see who the new manager is, if there is one.

[Koke]

1 hour ago, Abrasive fox said:

Sometimes you make some really good points and then sometimes you just go off on one.

 

I think you'll be in a minority defending the Choudhury decision yesterday. It was bonkers. 

 

Hamza has played RB in his youth career.  It wasn't ideal but it was an emergency. Benny is hopeless. Hardly the worst decision Puel has made. We had already shipped in 4 with Simpson and he was directly responsible  for the first one so having Hamza in there wasn't what decided the game.

 

Albrighton playing RB didn't work but I see the logic behind it. 

[Chocolate Teapot]

10 minutes ago, Koke said:

 

Hamza has played RB in his youth career.  It wasn't ideal but it was an emergency. Benny is hopeless. Hardly the worst decision Puel has made. We had already shipped in 4 with Simpson and he was directly responsible  for the first one so having Hamza in there wasn't what decided the game.

 

Albrighton playing RB didn't work but I see the logic behind it. 

No you're right it wasn't what decided the game, but when you've got Hughes who has played there in the last two years and Benalouane in the last two weeks it's not exactly great management of a kid finding his feet in the first team.

 

It's just the latest in the long list of bizarre decisions Puel makes and whilst I don't think the players are blameless I have sympathy with them that they're confused most of the time.

[filbertway]

Honestly don't see the problem playing Hamza there. It's an absolute nothing game and he was probably the best option if we were sticking with the same formation.

 

Benny is a joke of a footballer and shouldn't be anywhere near Leicester after the world cup.

[Gerard]

5 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

That was one match ago, the numbers have gone slightly down in Puel's favour after yesterday's loss (W10 D8 L11 = 34,48%).

A winning percentage of less than 35% still is pretty poor, I'm afraid.

 

Only the top 7 had a win percentage of 35% or more over the course of this season. 

[sacreblueits442]

1 hour ago, Koke said:

 

Hamza has played RB in his youth career.  It wasn't ideal but it was an emergency. Benny is hopeless. Hardly the worst decision Puel has made. We had already shipped in 4 with Simpson and he was directly responsible  for the first one so having Hamza in there wasn't what decided the game.

 

Albrighton playing RB didn't work but I see the logic behind it. 

.....we had conceded 3 goals when Simpson was substituted!!

Substituted on 56 mins. Lamela scored in 60 mins. This took the score to 4 - 3.

Why is Benny on the bench?

Why is Hughes on the bench?

[Babylon]

5 minutes ago, sacreblueits442 said:

.....we had conceded 3 goals when Simpson was substituted!!

Substituted on 56 mins. Lamela scored in 60 mins. This took the score to 4 - 3.

Why is Benny on the bench?

Why is Hughes on the bench?

So we'd already shipped three with first choice RB, yet Choudry is to blame