Claude Puel lays out his vision for Leicester City

[Happy Fox]

1 hour ago, Babylon said:

I couldn't watch the Burnley game, but I saw the extended highlights online and we had no end of quick breaks and some fantastic chances on the end of them.

 

Why don't those quick breaks happen in the first half why is there no intensity?

[Muzzy_no7]

On ‎16‎/‎04‎/‎2018 at 20:14, Sharpe's Fox said:

Puel wants us to become a pound shop Arsenal by buying and developing players with nothing about them whatsoever. We used to bring in players who fought for the shirt like Vardy, Huth, Drinkwater, Ulloa, Morgan ect. Puel wants players like the ones he brought in at Southampton who are cowards like him and who hide so they can’t tell the media how weak he is.

Jesus wept.

 

https://www.ccfc.co.uk/tickets/season-tickets/

 

Off you go lad, taraar.

[Chocolate Teapot]

Genuine question - why are so many pro Puel people so keen to give him time, when virtually the same lot were chomping at the bit to sack Shakespeare?

 

You can argue that Puel has a way he wants us to play, but then so did Shakey, and you could argue that the football was crap under Shakey but Newcastle was worse than virtually anything we offered up under him.

 

Just curious?

 

I'm imagining people will go on about his record in France, but it's weird that he hasn't been able to get a job back there.

Edited 18 April 2018 by Abrasive fox

[Gerard]

8 minutes ago, Abrasive fox said:

Genuine question - why are so many pro Puel people so keen to give him time, when virtually the same lot were chomping at the bit to sack Shakespeare?

 

You can argue that Puel has a way he wants us to play, but then so did Shakey, and you could argue that the football was crap under Shakey but Newcastle was worse than virtually anything we offered up under him.

 

Just curious?

 

I'm imaging people will go on about his record in France, but it's weird that he hasn't been able to get a job back there.

 

Are you seriously comparing Shakespeare to Puel?

 

Shakespeare didn't have an original thought in his head. His tactic was to do the same thing as the old boss and it soon became apparent what he was once the original high had worn off. A 53 year old who had never managed a club before. 

 

Puel is his own man with a plan and is attempting to make the transition. There is evidence that we're moving in the right direction as we've played some great football under him. If we sack him now then we'll just have to accept the monkey is running the show not the organ grinder and appoint a manager who is approved by the players.

[Voll Blau]

1 hour ago, Abrasive fox said:

Genuine question - why are so many pro Puel people so keen to give him time, when virtually the same lot were chomping at the bit to sack Shakespeare?

 

You can argue that Puel has a way he wants us to play, but then so did Shakey, and you could argue that the football was crap under Shakey but Newcastle was worse than virtually anything we offered up under him.

 

Just curious?

 

I'm imagining people will go on about his record in France, but it's weird that he hasn't been able to get a job back there.

I wasn't really in favour of Shakespeare going either. To be honest it's not really about the man in charge, or the style of football he prefers, it's about being sick to death of us chopping and changing, and the ridiculous overreactions to which we've become accustomed after one or two bad results.

 

If we're serious about being big players in this division then we can't just keep switching managers every few months and expecting to get as ridiculously lucky as we did with the Ranieri appointment (though look how that sadly ultimately worked out). We need to let someone actually have a crack at building the club in their image, even if it means a season or two where we don't quite achieve our full potential. At the end of the day, we're still going to finish in a good position after having to recover from a fvcking rubbish start, so let's see how things work out over the next few months before wailing with delusion about how we deserve the likes of Benitez, Tuchel etc here. A bit of long-termism will do us all the world of good.

Edited 18 April 2018 by Voll Blau

[Foxxed]

33 minutes ago, Abrasive fox said:

Genuine question - why are so many pro Puel people so keen to give him time, when virtually the same lot were chomping at the bit to sack Shakespeare?

 

You can argue that Puel has a way he wants us to play, but then so did Shakey, and you could argue that the football was crap under Shakey but Newcastle was worse than virtually anything we offered up under him.

 

Just curious?

 

I'm imagining people will go on about his record in France, but it's weird that he hasn't been able to get a job back there.

Shakespeare had no experience and was playing the style of football he wanted with the players he wanted. When Puel is playing the style of football he wants with the players he wants and we're in the relegation zone Puel will suffer the same fate.

[Babylon]

1 hour ago, Happy Fox said:

 

Why don't those quick breaks happen in the first half why is there no intensity?

They did from what I saw

[Chocolate Teapot]

49 minutes ago, Gerard said:

 

Are you seriously comparing Shakespeare to Puel?

 

Shakespeare didn't have an original thought in his head. His tactic was to do the same thing as the old boss and it soon became apparent what he was once the original high had worn off. A 53 year old who had never managed a club before. 

 

Puel is his own man with a plan and is attempting to make the transition. There is evidence that we're moving in the right direction as we've played some great football under him. If we sack him now then we'll just have to accept the monkey is running the show not the organ grinder and appoint a manager who is approved by the players.

 

Their records are near on identical - Shakespeare's slightly better actually so you can actually compare them without it being dismissed as a ridiculous point to make.

 

Also keeping the players on side and getting the best out of him is the managers job - if he can't get on with the players then he's going to lose his job, exactly the same thing happened at Southampton.

Edited 18 April 2018 by Abrasive fox

[Chocolate Teapot]

24 minutes ago, Foxxed said:

Shakespeare had no experience and was playing the style of football he wanted with the players he wanted. When Puel is playing the style of football he wants with the players he wants and we're in the relegation zone Puel will suffer the same fate.

I think the league position is a fair enough point to be honest, experience and whatever else is shite.

[ZeGuy]

9 hours ago, Abrasive fox said:

Genuine question - why are so many pro Puel people so keen to give him time, when virtually the same lot were chomping at the bit to sack Shakespeare?

 

You can argue that Puel has a way he wants us to play, but then so did Shakey, and you could argue that the football was crap under Shakey but Newcastle was worse than virtually anything we offered up under him.

 

Just curious?

 

I'm imagining people will go on about his record in France, but it's weird that he hasn't been able to get a job back there.

Let's see...

 

On one side, a great coach

 

-  but a total noob as manager with literally no club managing experience whatsover

- without any idea of his own

- tactically inept

-  whose plan could be resumed to "let's play like the good old days and hope it works" with his mates.

 

 

On the other, a man who: 

 

- has been managing at high level for 20 years

- won the League 1 twice 

- reached the Champions League semi-finals

- is known to develop teams (see what he did at Lille and Nice) and promote young players

- has a clear vision of what he wants for the club and from his players

- wants to strenghten the bound between academy and first team by developping a common style of play, making us less reliant on the external market in the long term.

- gets the best out of his flair players (see Hazard, Lopez, Ben Arfa, Mahrez).

 

No really, I don't see why I'd give Puel a chance but not Shakespeare.

 

 

Edited 18 April 2018 by ZeGuy

[lgfualol]

There's a reason Shakespeare went right back to coaching. 

[Chocolate Teapot]

1 hour ago, ZeGuy said:

Let's see...

 

On one side, a great coach

-  but a total noob as manager with literally no club managing experience whatsover

- without any idea of his own

- tactically inept

-  whose plan could be resumed to "let's play like the good old days and hope it works" with his mates.

 

 

On the other, a man who: 

 

- has been managing at high level for 20 years

- won the League 1 twice 

- reached the Champions League semi-finals

- is known to develop teams (see what he did at Lille and Nice) and promote young players

- has a clear vision of what he wants for the club and from his players

- wants to strenghten the bound between academy and first team by 

  developping a common style of play, making us less reliant on the external market in the long term.

- gets the best out of his flair players (see Hazard, Lopez, Ben Arfa, Mahrez).

 

No really, I don't see why I'd give Puel a chance but not Shakespeare.

 

 

 

Shakespeare as I think you're trying to say was probably out of his depth in his role, however the stuff you quote about Puel happened about 19 years ago (when he won the league - only once, i assume you meant his playing career, which I'm not really sure is relevant in this).

 

His recent history is him being sacked from clubs and falling out of favour with players. There's a reason he didn't get another job in France and why no one else came in for him in the summer.

Edited 18 April 2018 by Abrasive fox

[ZeGuy]

46 minutes ago, Abrasive fox said:

 

Shakespeare as I think you're trying to say was probably out of his depth in his role, however the stuff you quote about Puel happened about 19 years ago (when he won the league - only once, i assume you meant his playing career, which I'm not really sure is relevant in this).

 

His recent history is him being sacked from clubs and falling out of favour with players. There's a reason he didn't get another job in France and why no one else came in for him in the summer.

Nope, nope, nope. 

 

He did extremely well with Nice and that was not long ago. In fact just before he came to... well Southampton. He brought a club battling with relegation to a fourth place in the league and a qualification to the Europa Ligue after two seasons, with a colossal annual budget of 30M. 

 

He'll repeat the same performance two seasons later.

 

Lyon was his only real failing, since he didn't win any title with one of the best teams in France at that time. If you consider consistently finishing in the top 3 and a CL semi-final after eliminating Real Madrid in the last 16 and only falling against Bayern Munich, that is.

 

You'd be hard pressed to find a manager who's never been sacked. He does however have the reputation of falling out with players. There is no denying it. 

 

I think that he's perfect to bring stability to the club and achieve the crucial transition from a yo-yo club used to relegation to a solid midtable team with a regular shot at a european competition. After that well, one can think of the next level.

 

We'll never find out though, since you lot just want to sack him after less than a season, because "muh boring football and conferences".

Edited 18 April 2018 by ZeGuy

[MC Prussian]

2 hours ago, ZeGuy said:

Let's see...

 

On one side, a great coach

 

-  but a total noob as manager with literally no club managing experience whatsover

- without any idea of his own

- tactically inept

-  whose plan could be resumed to "let's play like the good old days and hope it works" with his mates.

 

 

On the other, a man who: 

 

- has been managing at high level for 20 years

- won the League 1 twice 

- reached the Champions League semi-finals

- is known to develop teams (see what he did at Lille and Nice) and promote young players

- has a clear vision of what he wants for the club and from his players

- wants to strenghten the bound between academy and first team by 

  developping a common style of play, making us less reliant on the external market in the long term.

- gets the best out of his flair players (see Hazard, Lopez, Ben Arfa, Mahrez).

 

No really, I don't see why I'd give Puel a chance but not Shakespeare.

 

 

Sorry, Kölsche Jung.

 

But this is wischi-waschi bollocks, partially based on hearsay.

 

As much as you can criticize Shakespeare for his obvious lack of first-team coaching at pro level, I doubt that anyone saw him as a long-term replacement for Ranieri, he was simply a "cheap" option and had the advantage of knowing the club inside out. His overall record with a 42.6 winning percentage isn't that bad, it's the start to the current season that went somewhat pear-shaped and cost him.

I bet the club had a more professional replacement lined up for a while or at least been in touch with him last autumn, and just wanted to see when to call it quits with regards to Shakey.

 

All the achievements you attribute to Puel are a bit of a copy-paste effort, let's look at it with more detail:

- has been managing at high level for 20 years (what's that supposed to mean - he's also been sacked four times in the past ten years and usually left the clubs in question under questionable/dubious circumstances and under a lot of scrutiny from the club's management, the players, the fans and media)

- won the League 1 twice (wrong - he won it once, and that 18 years ago)

- reached the Champions League semi-finals (once with Lyon, eight years ago - he then was forced out of the club with one more year on his contract)

- is known to develop teams (see what he did at Lille and Nice) and promote young players (that's why he's had to quit his previous teams after three, four years the most, he can build up teams, but also destroy them with his philosophy and his hunger for control)

- has a clear vision of what he wants for the club and from his players (which is...? And having a vision and being able to implement it are two very different shoes)

- wants to strenghten the bound between academy and first team by 

  developping a common style of play, making us less reliant on the external market in the long term (I wish him good luck with that, because it requires a lot of money and patience - I'll be surprised if Puel were to witness the harvest of these fruits first-hand himself, and he's never really achieved that even just in parts apart from his time at Lille or Nice maybe)

- gets the best out of his flair players (see Hazard, Lopez, Ben Arfa, Mahrez) (only worked for x amounts of time, he only worked with Eden Hazard for less than one season, gave him his pro debut, but everything else that followed was down to Hazard blossoming under Rudi Garcia; he only got the best out of Ben Arfa for two seasons, before two frustrating and disappointing campaigns followed where nothing worked; and in the case of Mahrez, what exactly has he gotten out of him since he took over? Him sulking and trying to force a move in January? The lacklustre displays that followed?)

 

 

Edited 18 April 2018 by MC Prussian

[Jordan]

I'm not 100% serious here, but since Puel can build a team, can City move him out of the manager position and into the Director of Football role to replace Rudkin?

 

OK, maybe I am serious about the last two words in that question.

 

 

Edited 18 April 2018 by Jordan
typos

[ZeGuy]

22 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

Sorry, Kölsche Jung.

 

But this is wischi-waschi bollocks, partially based on hearsay.

 

As much as you can criticize Shakespeare for his obvious lack of first-team coaching at pro level, I doubt that anyone saw him as a long-term replacement for Ranieri, he was simply a "cheap" option and had the advantage of knowing the club inside out. His overall record with a 42.6 winning percentage isn't that bad, it's the start to the current season that went somewhat pear-shaped and cost him.

I bet the club had a more professional replacement lined up for a while or at least been in touch with him last autumn, and just wanted to see when to call it quits with regards to Shakey.

 

All the achievements you attribute to Puel are a bit of a copy-paste effort, let's look at it with more detail:

- has been managing at high level for 20 years (what's that supposed to mean - he's also been sacked four times in the past ten years and usually left the clubs in question under questionable/dubious circumstances and under a lot of scrutiny from the club's management, the players, the fans and media)

- won the League 1 twice (wrong - he won it once, and that 18 years ago)

- reached the Champions League semi-finals (once with Lyon, eight years ago - he then was forced out of the club with one more year on his contract)

- is known to develop teams (see what he did at Lille and Nice) and promote young players (that's why he's had to quit his previous teams after three, four years the most, he can build up teams, but also destroy them with his philosophy and his hunger for control)

- has a clear vision of what he wants for the club and from his players (which is...? And having a vision and being able to implement it are two very different shoes)

- wants to strenghten the bound between academy and first team by 

  developping a common style of play, making us less reliant on the external market in the long term (I wish him good luck with that, because it requires a lot of money and patience - I'll be surprised if Puel were to witness the harvest of these fruits first-hand himself, and he's never really achieved that even just in parts apart from his time at Lille or Nice maybe)

- gets the best out of his flair players (see Hazard, Lopez, Ben Arfa, Mahrez) (only worked for x amounts of time, he only worked with Eden Hazard for less than one season, gave him his pro debut, but everything else that followed was down to Hazard blossoming under Rudi Garcia; he only got the best out of Ben Arfa for two seasons, before two frustrating and disappointing campaigns followed where nothing worked; and in the case of Mahrez, what exactly has he gotten out of him since he took over? Him sulking and trying to force a move in January? The lacklustre displays that followed?)

 

 

- It was a direct answer to the question. He asked why one would give Puel a Chance but wanted Shakey to give the boot. I replied accordingly.

 

- He only won it only once? My bad.

 

- Still reached the Champions Leagues semi-final nonetheless. Not sure what's you're point here.

 

- Yeah, he destroyed all of them. All of these clubs were doing great before he took over and now are playing in the Championship. They'll never ever recover from Puel's evil doing.

 

- He still has the balls to begin the work even if he doesn't see the end of it. It proves that he thinks of the future and has a vision. A plan. Wether it is suceeds or not remains to be seen.

 

- Hazard himself gave him credit but not you? Well I know who'll trust in this matter.

 

- Ben Arfa is a known nutjob who's never been able to consistently deliver despite of his great talent. That Puel got the best out of him 2 two seasons is a wonder in itself. I remember you that Ben Arfa went to PSG right after that when most thought his a career was already over before he came to Nice.

 

- Mahrez, without being crap, was a shadow of the PFA 2015/16 before Puel came in. After he was flying until january. His depression and lacklustre performances the last three games has nothing to do with Puel. You have to be incredibly ill-intentionned to put it the manager's account.

 

Now I'm bored of this-hair splitting bad faith. I've made my points and I'll stick to them.

 

Feel free to continue the rant.

Edited 18 April 2018 by ZeGuy

[Babylon]

4 hours ago, Abrasive fox said:

Genuine question - why are so many pro Puel people so keen to give him time, when virtually the same lot were chomping at the bit to sack Shakespeare?

 

You can argue that Puel has a way he wants us to play, but then so did Shakey, and you could argue that the football was crap under Shakey but Newcastle was worse than virtually anything we offered up under him.

 

Just curious?

 

I'm imagining people will go on about his record in France, but it's weird that he hasn't been able to get a job back there.

I'd have been happy to give CS more time, as I stated at the time. He had a pretty tough run of games, that much was obvious and I think he deserved at the very least two or three more games. But, I was never pro CS and I'm not pro Puel particularly.

 

What I was, and this isn't just CS's fault. Was fed up of having 36% posession every game and not being able to pass the ball to a blue shirt. I've been calling for a change/adapation of style for several years. That was never going to happen under CS and I never felt as though there was a grand plan in place to improve, just a case of treading water.

 

Puel has a vision, he has experience, he's moved us up the table. Our form no matter what people say on here, isn't' relegation form or even close. Puel is braver and willing to give youth a chance, where I feel CS would stick with what he knew rather than taking risks.

 

Performances haven't been great, but I get what he's trying to achieve. I feel that with a few of the right purchases, our style will get better.

[Chocolate Teapot]

4 minutes ago, Babylon said:

I'd have been happy to give CS more time, as I stated at the time. He had a pretty tough run of games, that much was obvious and I think he deserved at the very least two or three more games. But, I was never pro CS and I'm not pro Puel particularly.

 

What I was, and this isn't just CS's fault. Was fed up of having 36% posession every game and not being able to pass the ball to a blue shirt. I've been calling for a change/adapation of style for several years. That was never going to happen under CS and I never felt as though there was a grand plan in place to improve, just a case of treading water.

 

Puel has a vision, he has experience, he's moved us up the table. Our form no matter what people say on here, isn't' relegation form or even close. Puel is braver and willing to give youth a chance, where I feel CS would stick with what he knew rather than taking risks.

 

Performances haven't been great, but I get what he's trying to achieve. I feel that with a few of the right purchases, our style will get better.

 

I think that's fair enough and I agree with much of what you say - my concern is that people keep saying we're a few purchases short of what he wants.....given we're most likely going to lose Mahrez and maybe even Ndidi or Maguire I'd feel he'll need more than a few, and with the recruitment we've had in the last few years I'm not sure that's even possible. 

 

He's inherited a very good squad with players with a lot of players who already suit his style, and some that suit his style more than others, but yet he choses others.

[MC Prussian]

17 minutes ago, ZeGuy said:

- It was a direct answer to the question. He asked why one would give Puel a Chance but wanted Shakey to give the boot. I replied accordingly.

 

- He only won it only once? My bad.

 

- Still reached the Champions Leagues semi-final nonetheless. Not sure what's you're point here.

 

- Yeah, he destroyed all of them. All of these clubs were doing great before he took over and now are playing in the Championship. They'll never ever recover from Puel's evil doing.

 

- He still has the balls to begin the work even if he doesn't see the end of it. It proves that he thinks of the future and has a vision. A plan. Wether it is suceeds or not remains to be seen.

 

- Hazard himself gave him credit but not you? Well I know who'll trust in this matter.

 

- Ben Arfa is a known nutjob who's never been able to consistently deliver despite of his great talent. That Puel got the best out of him 2 two seasons is a wonder in itself. I remember you that Ben Arfa went to PSG right after that when most thought his a career was already over before he came to Nice.

 

- Mahrez, without being crap, was a shadow of the PFA 2015/16 before Puel came in. After he was flying until january. His depression and lacklustre performances the last three games has nothing to do with Puel. You have to be incredibly ill-intentionned to put it the manager's account.

 

Now I'm bored of this-hair splitting bad faith. I've made my points and I'll stick to them.

 

Feel free to continue the rant.

Your argumentation seemed a bit odd, so I intervened.

 

With regards to Puel and Olympique Lyonnais, you have to understand that it wasn't that difficult to perform at OL in Ligue 1 before the rise of Paris St. Germain. The club is incredibly wealthy, has possibly the best youth academy in France and was stuffed with talent that season. Reaching the semi-finals was an exceptional feat, but remains their biggest success on the European stage also. Also worth mentioning that they lost to lowly Lorient in the second round of the Coupe de France that season.

 

There's a common theme with Puel in France and now in England. He's gotten the sack four times in succession, and in all cases, with little to no sympathy from neither the club nor the fans or the media, they were all pretty much glad to see the back of him. Lille did win the title two years after his departure in 2010-11 (under Garcia) and Nice finished third in Ligue 1 again in the season after he had left. Southampton are now (still somehow) in the FA Cup semi-final, despite the loss of many valuable and talented players in the past few years.

 

Looking at the "getting the best out of his flair players argument" - again, he managed to do that only in increments (maybe with Lopes at Lyon and for two seasons with Ben Arfa at Nice), but otherwise, he's failed in that department so far.

 

Hazard gave Puel some credit, but that's for "two months" (Hazard) and because Puel gave him his pro debut, and that's it (http://www.skysports.com/football/news/11700/10875900/eden-hazard-insists-claude-puel-is-one-of-the-top-managers-amid-southampton-sack-reports). Hazard only started to shine for Lille once Puel was gone.

 

Mahrez has two goals and one assist to his name in the past EIGHT games - after he spat his dummy out, going on strike. He's never really looked that interested ever since. Was he playing for the club, the manager or maybe just for himself before that, angling for a move to (insert club of Mahrez' choice here)? Besides, as great as the 2015-16 season was, there was little chance of it happening again and our star players being able to replicate that accomplishment. It was a freak season for all the right reasons and should be regarded as such.

[esoog]

We can't be one dimensional, we don't have the personnel anymore to continue that style of play each and every game. So give Puel the time he needs. Interesting he is essentially doing what spurs have been these last few seasons. Can see why they are interested in Gray 

[turtmcfly]

1 hour ago, MC Prussian said:

There's a common theme with Puel in France and now in England. He's gotten the sack four times in succession, and in all cases, with little to no sympathy from neither the club nor the fans or the media, they were all pretty much glad to see the back of him.

I believe he resigned from Nice to go to Southampton. The club and fans being glad to see the back of a manager tends to go hand-in-hand with his sacking - you seem to be trying to make it doubly relevant. As for the media, I'm sure there were some commentators raising eyebrows about his sacking from Southampton.

 

He's has had 6 managerial jobs (including us) in 19 years, during which time he's been sacked twice, poached twice and not had his contract renewed once. Those numbers are positively epochal compared to our recent managerial history.

[The Doctor]

8 hours ago, Bunyip said:

I didn't say it would get us relegated I said its relegation form and if that had been at the start of the season we would indeed be in a relegation scrap. let's see how this present form pans out by the end of the season.

It's not relegation form though, relegation form is form that would see you go down...

[KingsX]

9 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

It's not relegation form though, relegation form is form that would see you go down...

 

[FLAN]

With all this talk of possession. Why does he still allow the ridiculous kick off routine where we hoof it into touch or to their defence?  Hardly sets the tone...

[Stevosevic]

8 hours ago, Babylon said:

They did from what I saw

Yep. We had a few openings on the break but the final ball let us down.