Puel

[ajthefox]

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.

 

 

[Guest Papasmurf]

2 hours ago, Ian S said:

The alternative is a season of struggle anyway based on what we have seen of Puel so far.You don't always need a full season to realise you have the wrong man in charge.

Not to worry lets just give him 15 more games by which time we will be consigned to another season of under achieving at the wrong end of the table.

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

[MPH]

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...

[UpTheLeagueFox]

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.

[hackneyfox]

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.

[OhYesNdidi]

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. 

[Fox92]

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.

[UpTheLeagueFox]

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.

[Webbo]

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.

[Clever Fox]

4 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.

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.

On 21/05/2018 at 15:38, Wookie said:

Obviously Puel isn't anywhere near as good a coach as Klopp or Guardiola but it took both a significant amount of time to mould the their teams into shape and both clubs are reaping the rewards now. Of course it doesn't mean the same will happen here, under Puel we could continue in the same vein as we played in 2018 but with key additions and a preseason hopefully we are more prepared to play in his desired play style.

Not quite true, Klopp has players train to within an inch of their lives. The Coach, was his right hand man who left recently. Who also persuaded him to sign Salah,  Klopp didn't really believe in Salah.

But you are right, it takes time to build a team, generally 3 years, which is roughly how long it took City and Liverpool.

Purl is a well respected  French Coach, and from a period when France has produced quite a few top top Teams/Coaches/ Managers. I think the only thing in question is if he has the ability to manage at a high level.

His record suggests with a Club willing to spend and give him time to bring a few players in he can be a success. His first two signings here look to fit the bill. With a few more signings and a full pre season I think we'll be ok.  What I am sure of the Man deserves to be given a fair chance.

[UpTheLeagueFox]

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.

[BenTheFox]

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! 

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

[hackneyfox]

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.

[UpTheLeagueFox]

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.

[OhYesNdidi]

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. 

[OhYesNdidi]

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? 

[UpTheLeagueFox]

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)

[OhYesNdidi]

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  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 16 June 2018 by OhYesNdidi

[UpTheLeagueFox]

2 minutes ago, OhYesNdidi said:

Give over  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

[Clever Fox]

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 16 June 2018 by Clever Fox

[OhYesNdidi]

4 minutes ago, UpTheLeagueFox said:

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

I disagree. 

[UpTheLeagueFox]

2 minutes ago, OhYesNdidi said:

I disagree. 

That's perfectly fine, sir.

Be dull if we all thought the same on everything.

[NotTheMarketLeader]

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.

[Fox92]

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). 

[CosbehFox]

16 hours ago, UpTheLeagueFox said:

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

We had a five game losing streak without a goal under Ranieri. Puel never had that.