Puel

[chapero82]

1 hour ago, Markyblue said:

What were such a massive club that beating arsenal is nothing. Same old same old lose people moan play well and win people come up with a reason why we won because of the other teams failings as a group of fans we should take a good look at ourselves. 

All I’m saying is that the result may have papered over the cracks! One game doesn’t change the fact that it’s 5 wins in 20! 

 

 

[norwichfox]

Only 40% possession v Arse-anal.......are we really prepared to accept such a low level of possession just for the sake of winning a game? Puel must be fuming. Didn't see much celebration of our goals from him on LCFC video highlights.

[Fox92]

2 hours ago, norwichfox said:

Only 40% possession v Arse-anal.......are we really prepared to accept such a low level of possession just for the sake of winning a game? Puel must be fuming. Didn't see much celebration of our goals from him on LCFC video highlights.

Arsenal attacked us. That's why we looked so good too. Teams are gonna come and sit defensive (West Ham, Stoke etc this season) and we can't break them down. Puel needs to work out how to break these teams down. But sides like Arsenal, Spurs, Man City, Liverpool come and attack.

[Babylon]

2 hours ago, chapero82 said:

All I’m saying is that the result may have papered over the cracks! One game doesn’t change the fact that it’s 5 wins in 20!

Which sounds horrific until you realise that the best win numbers outside the big boys over 20 games is 7.

 

You're talking about a couple of goals putting a completing different perspective on things.

[chapero82]

3 minutes ago, Babylon said:

Which sounds horrific until you realise that the best win numbers outside the big boys over 20 games is 7.

 

You're talking about a couple of goals putting a completing different perspective on things.

It’s not the goals that bother me or the wins in total! It’s the way we lost! If they played like against arsenal and lost those matches then Fair one! But they didn’t it was slow and lacklustre! 

 

With baffling substitutions and line ups mixed in! 

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

7 minutes ago, chapero82 said:

It’s not the goals that bother me or the wins in total! It’s the way we lost! If they played like against arsenal and lost those matches then Fair one! But they didn’t it was slow and lacklustre! 

 

With baffling substitutions and line ups mixed in! 

For the most part I dont think his subs and line ups have been baffling.  Apart from stuff like Morgan and Simpson/Amaretey decisions early on, which may have been not wanting to upset team dynamics too much at the start, I understood his line ups and his subs. 

 

Its only towards the end of the season things started to get a bit odd.  Thats due to injuries and experimentation

 

The players have been lacklustre, sure, but as has been pointed out, low intensity is not what Puel has been asking of them

[ramaiya2]

12 hours ago, chapero82 said:

I think he will still be here next season!

I hope not

[sylofox]

I don't get all this trusting Puel spending the money thing?

 

For the last two years Rudkins been blamed for every bad signing. Not CR or Shakey. So why now is it Puel doing the spending.

 

Seems to me like some just want to use it to beat him with. Then when a manager they like comes in it will be Rudkins fault again.

[Babylon]

1 minute ago, sylofox said:

I don't get all this trusting Puel spending the money thing?

 

For the last two years Rudkins been blamed for every bad signing. Not CR or Shakey. So why now is it Puel doing the spending.

 

Seems to me like some just want to use it to beat him with. Then when a manager they like comes in it will be Rudkins fault again.

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.

[1972 Fox]

4 hours ago, Abrasive fox said:

Bit that worries me is the 20% of fans who change their mind after a 3-1 win against a ten men side without a point away from home all year....

 

Indecision may or may not be the problem here.

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.

[Papasmurf]

14 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

Its only towards the end of the season things started to get a bit odd.  Thats due to injuries and experimentation

 

 

Surely that is part of planning for next season?

 

We've been safe for ages regardless of the poor performances. He should be trying to experiment to see who's in his plans.

[UPinCarolina]

I'm coming back around to Puel staying, after swinging briefly into the 'out' camp, for four* reasons:

1. His track record of spending wisely.

 

2. His track record of building from the bottom with youth.

 

3. Clear intention to clean house.

4. Growing recognition among the players, I think, that the experiment in downing tools is over. The worst of the death throes of the title side are well and truly over, now.

Edited 11 May 2018 by UPinCarolina
I can't write a cogent sentence to save my life.

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

5 minutes ago, Papasmurf said:

Surely that is part of planning for next season?

 

We've been safe for ages regardless of the poor performances. He should be trying to experiment to see who's in his plans.

I think it definitely is part of planning for next season

 

After we lost our chance of Europe he really started experimenting I think, with an eye on next season

 

The man is thinking long term, unfortunately he is on his own a bit

[sylofox]

2 minutes ago, UPinCarolina said:

I'm coming back around to Puel staying, after swinging briefly into the 'out' camp, for three reasons:

1. His track record of spending wisely.

 

2. His track record of building from the bottom with youth.

 

3. Clear intention to clean house.

4. Growing recognition among the players, I think, that the experiment in downing tools is over. The worst of the death throes are well and truly over, now.

 

I take it countings not your strong point  

[Ric Flair]

25 minutes ago, Babylon said:

Which sounds horrific until you realise that the best win numbers outside the big boys over 20 games is 7.

 

You're talking about a couple of goals putting a completing different perspective on things.

The thing is outside the big boys it should be us and only us, we are the best of the rest bar a shambolic Everton side this year. Wednesday night was the first time we had taken the lead in a game at home since Swansea back at the end of January. During this slump we've drawn a horrible amount of games at home to absolute dross. Needing late goals against one of the worst sides in the league in Stoke and the latest of late goals against Bournemouth. We have also lost to a muck Newcastle and West Ham side at home, we don't lose games like that at home. It's gotten very bad and Puel has to shoulder the blame for that. Our away form under Puel has been ok, purely because teams won't sit back against us. I could almost accept if we were a team like Arsenal that are notorious for not breaking defensive teams down with their walking the ball in the net style of play. Yet we mastered counter attacking football, defensive teams found it difficult to play that way against us because we teased them in to coming forward by giving them space and a lot of the ball.

 

We still have a nucleus of players who are perfect for this but for whatever reason we couldn't muster the motivation to play this way when it became clear teams like Stoke, Swansea, Southampton and Newcastle had come to sit deep and watch us trip over ourselves.

 

Puel's best spell with us from October - early December blended fast and direct football with a better tolerance of possession when we needed to. He gave us 3 attacking midfielders all interchanging rather than a rigid 4-4-2 or 4-4-1-1 that we'd seen previously and although this seemed to make Vardy less of a force it brought Mahrez back to life and both Gray and Albrighton revelled in it, so did Okazaki at times. We were able to get a foot on the ball when we needed to, the game vs Spurs at home was a masterclass in blending the two styles. Can he build a team to do this next season, rather than build a boring possession based team and more importantly does he deserve to be given the chance after this quite abysmal last few months? I've struggled to warm to the man, even though his record in France is very good and there's something there that tells me he's better than all of this but is he worth the gamble, I fear we're one more big mistake away from relegation in the next season or so.

[MC Prussian]

17 minutes 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.

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.

Edited 11 May 2018 by MC Prussian

[RODNEY FERNIO]

5 minutes ago, UPinCarolina said:

I'm coming back around to Puel staying, after swinging briefly into the 'out' camp, for three reasons:

1. His track record of spending wisely.

 

2. His track record of building from the bottom with youth.

 

3. Clear intention to clean house.

4. Growing recognition among the players, I think, that the experiment in downing tools is over. The worst of the death throes of the title side are well and truly over, now.

 

What's clear intention to clean house meant to allude to ?

[richardsfoxes]

The main two reasons i'd want to keep Puel is A, he will get rid of the obvious deadwood we have and B getting a new manager might cost us getting players we've already laid foundation talks with to sign with us.  

[4everfox]

4 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.

 

Nigel Worthington

Ian Holloway 

Gary Megson

 

All around ten years ago. 

[Jimmy]

9 minutes ago, RODNEY FERNIO said:

What's clear intention to clean house meant to allude to ?

Huth's going Fuchs is on his way out, Morgan will (hopefully) be replace next season and he obviously wants a Simpson replacement and every one expects Mahrez to go, that's a big chunk of the title winners gone, freeing up Puel to bring in fresh blood who are hungrier

[Mark - Reading]

1 hour ago, Babylon said:

Which sounds horrific until you realise that the best win numbers outside the big boys over 20 games is 7.

 

You're talking about a couple of goals putting a completing different perspective on things.

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 

[chapero82]

48 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

For the most part I dont think his subs and line ups have been baffling.  Apart from stuff like Morgan and Simpson/Amaretey decisions early on, which may have been not wanting to upset team dynamics too much at the start, I understood his line ups and his subs. 

 

Its only towards the end of the season things started to get a bit odd.  Thats due to injuries and experimentation

 

The players have been lacklustre, sure, but as has been pointed out, low intensity is not what Puel has been asking of them

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! 

[Babylon]

27 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

The thing is outside the big boys it should be us and only us

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).

 

[Matt]

41 minutes ago, sylofox said:

I don't get all this trusting Puel spending the money thing?

 

For the last two years Rudkins been blamed for every bad signing. Not CR or Shakey. So why now is it Puel doing the spending.

 

Seems to me like some just want to use it to beat him with. Then when a manager they like comes in it will be Rudkins fault again.

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.

[Babylon]

3 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! 

1) Because performances have been amazing since James was left out?

2) Do we know that's entirely his decision?

3) There were a couple of games like that, but that's not been the case for a long time.