Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
the messenger

Puel

Recommended Posts

The problem is if we sack Puel part way through the season, the next appointment will likewise be working with a team that isn't his and will be starting in an unenviable position part way through the season, potentially beyond the point at which you've got anything to aim for in the league.

 

Sure you can give them a chance and it might work out, but if it's as things were under Puel, you're faced with the same dilemma the owners have now. If you're going to keep changing managers, at least do it in the summer and give the bloke the season (assuming you aren't heading for relegation) otherwise you end up in a vicious circle of sacking managers who aren't getting their chance to make their mark.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Fox92 said:

And we'll just keep going around and around untill we go down. Sacking managers constantly just doesn't work.

 

 

Other than when we did it and won the premier league of course...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Papasmurf said:

Don’t recall us struggling at the wrong end of the table under Puel. 

True but his honeymoon period of eight games produced 17 points and the rest to the end of the season was distinctly underwhelming, with results and especially performances. Had he not had such a bright start we would've been getting very nervous towards the end.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, UpTheLeagueFox said:

True but his honeymoon period of eight games produced 17 points and the rest to the end of the season was distinctly underwhelming, with results and especially performances. Had he not had such a bright start we would've been getting very nervous towards the end.

But he did have a bright start, may as well claim that if it wasn't for the poor games we'd have qualified for the CL.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, OhYesNdidi said:

Can't be that bad. He's the only manager who's identified our weaknesses and signed the necessary players. He's also the only recent manager that's not had us in a relegation battle. He's done this without lying to players, changing formations two hours before kick off and spending £80m. 

Great post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, hackneyfox said:

But he did have a bright start, may as well claim that if it wasn't for the poor games we'd have qualified for the CL.

Not really. It's 8 games as a honeymoon period and then as he tinkered there were 21 subsequent league games (almost 3 times as many) where things got progressively worse.

It's the direction we took after a brief uplift which for me is the problem.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, OhYesNdidi said:

Can't be that bad. He's the only manager who's identified our weaknesses and signed the necessary players. He's also the only recent manager that's not had us in a relegation battle. He's done this without lying to players, changing formations two hours before kick off and spending £80m. 

We signed Dragovic on loan before Puel came in so it's not like we hadn't signed a centre half, we might have been chasing a RB as well for all we know, but it didn't come off. Every manager signs players I don't know why Puel's considered a genius because he's signed 2, especially as we haven't seen them play yet.

 

Maybe he's not lied to players or changed formations 2 hours before kick off (I don't know what this is referring to or if it's true) but not doing that hasn't been a great success.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Clever Fox said:

You could look at it in the context that having got us safe the the first 8 games he took the opportunity to evaluate the squad to find out the dept of talent left to deal with.

Having made his assessment he's bringing in players to plug the weaknesses in the squad.

Going by the 2 signings and targets he's doing a good job.

You could also argue he didn't give Dragovic a fair crack of the whip. And that once he realised the style he wanted to play didn't suit the players he had, he would revert back to playing a way which suited us. Rather than serving up some of the worst football in a decade or more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, STUHILL said:

I agree he will definitely be on a short leash next season, but think 10-15 games is more realistic before our owners will take action. 

 

You just know Big Sam will be lurking too! :thumbdown:

 I honestly think he'll be our manager by November. 

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, UpTheLeagueFox said:

Not really. It's 8 games as a honeymoon period and then as he tinkered there were 21 subsequent league games (almost 3 times as many) where things got progressively worse.

It's the direction we took after a brief uplift which for me is the problem.

Not all new manages get a honeymoon period and he had us playing some great football on the ground during that period.

I'm not sure about him myself but I don't think things got progressively worse.

He was seeing who would fit in with the style he wants to play and the Mahrez situation would have caused problems for any manager.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, hackneyfox said:

Not all new manages get a honeymoon period and he had us playing some great football on the ground during that period.

I'm not sure about him myself but I don't think things got progressively worse.

He was seeing who would fit in with the style he wants to play and the Mahrez situation would have caused problems for any manager.

Some of the football in the first 8 games was terrific, yes.

So why then muck about with it?

Some of the football in those successive home games with Swansea, Stoke, Bournemouth, Newcastle, Southampton and West Ham was absolute filth.

Not to mention some of the away performances - Palace etc.

I'm not someone who generally moans about managers - and if he stays of course I hope he does brilliantly - but he infuriates me too much and would be delighted if he left.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, UpTheLeagueFox said:

Some of the football in the first 8 games was terrific, yes.

So why then muck about with it?

Some of the football in those successive home games with Swansea, Stoke, Bournemouth, Newcastle, Southampton and West Ham was absolute filth.

Not to mention some of the away performances - Palace etc.

I'm not someone who generally moans about managers - and if he stays of course I hope he does brilliantly - but he infuriates me too much and would be delighted if he left.

I'd hate to think about your opinion on Claudio then. Considering the perfomances his team served up, much worse than anything puels team has and that's with be able to spend £80m on players. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, UpTheLeagueFox said:

You could also argue he didn't give Dragovic a fair crack of the whip. And that once he realised the style he wanted to play didn't suit the players he had, he would revert back to playing a way which suited us. Rather than serving up some of the worst football in a decade or more.

Did you not watch us between January and March 2017? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, OhYesNdidi said:

I'd hate to think about your opinion on Claudio then. Considering the perfomances his team served up, much worse than anything puels team has and that's with be able to spend £80m on players. 

Ranieri will always be a hero for 15/16. Sadly he lost the plot big time in 16/17.

The performances under Puel were consistently a lot worse than under Ranieri (second season)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, UpTheLeagueFox said:

Ranieri will always be a hero for 15/16. Sadly he lost the plot big time in 16/17.

The performances under Puel were consistently a lot worse than under Ranieri (second season)

Give over lol That team under Claudio would have lost to pretty much all 92 football league teams, it was an utter disgrace. Southampton, Swansea and milwall away were sackable offences alone. I'd never seen a team so incapable of passing the ball. 

Edited by OhYesNdidi
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, OhYesNdidi said:

Give over lol That team under Claudio would have lost to pretty much all 92 football league teams, it was an utter disgrace. Southampton, Swansea and milwall away were sackable offences alone. I'd never seen a team so incapable of passing the ball. 

 

I hear you but I'd say we were putting in worse / as bad performances over a longer period under Puel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, UpTheLeagueFox said:

You could also argue he didn't give Dragovic a fair crack of the whip. And that once he realised the style he wanted to play didn't suit the players he had, he would revert back to playing a way which suited us. Rather than serving up some of the worst football in a decade or more.

Granted Drago go a raw deal but you also have to remember Morgan was both team and club captain.

Therefore it made it hard to leave him out. As to our style we had to change even Ranieri knew that and tried and failed because players were protecting their own interests. Purl is determined to see that change through and rightly so.

Edited by Clever Fox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Fox92 said:

And we'll just keep going around and around untill we go down. Sacking managers constantly just doesn't work.

The prelude to sacking managers is often appointing the wrong ones  beforehand.

 

Thats the part that is preferable to get right and we have got it wrong on the last two occasions.

 

Sacking underperforming managers I don’t have a problem with per se.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, NotTheMarketLeader said:

The prelude to sacking managers is often appointing the wrong ones  beforehand.

 

Thats the part that is preferable to get right and we have got it wrong on the last two occasions.

 

Sacking underperforming managers I don’t have a problem with per se.

Definitely. But this is what we seem to do. 

 

I'm not sure at what point Rudkin was appointed DOF (who I assume looks for managers) but under our current ownership we've had Sousa, Sven, Pearson, Ranieri, Shakespeare and Puel... All of which prior to Puel have been sacked and only two have been successful (Pearson and Rainieri). 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...