Matt Posted 21 April 2018 Posted 21 April 2018 3 minutes ago, Beechey said: Simply saying "we were 14th" doesn't quite put it into perspective. That one win under Appleton only put us 1 point above 18th. Again, i'm not disputing that, but people keep claiming we were 18th and in the relegation zone when Puel took over, we weren't, if you're gonna claim things atleast get them right.
Beechey Posted 21 April 2018 Posted 21 April 2018 Just now, Matt said: Again, i'm not disputing that, but people keep claiming we were 18th and in the relegation zone when Puel took over, we weren't, if you're gonna claim things atleast get them right. No I agree with you, but it's not quite as simple as saying we weren't in a mess because we were 14th either.
Matt Posted 21 April 2018 Posted 21 April 2018 2 minutes ago, Beechey said: No I agree with you, but it's not quite as simple as saying we weren't in a mess because we were 14th either. We were only 5 points behind 8th/7th aswell. Hardly a mess. We're 8 points behind 7th now, we're further away now.
Beechey Posted 21 April 2018 Posted 21 April 2018 Just now, Matt said: We were only 5 points behind 8th/7th aswell. Hardly a mess. We're 8 points behind 7th now, we're further away now. We were also only 9 games into the season, as a proportion of games played we were in a much worse place then (meaning we'd lost significantly more than whoever was 7th at the time). I imagine Puel's remit was to keep us up this season, and we're now 15 points above 18th, a much better place than 1 point above.
UPinCarolina Posted 21 April 2018 Posted 21 April 2018 15 minutes ago, Matt said: I assume that comment is supporting Puel, you're one of a few people saying 'Be careul what you wish for, look at Southampton this season' e.t.c. Just playing devils advocate. IF we had brought Pulis in when we brought Puel in would you still have the same opinion? Bearing in mind WBA look done? Bearing in mind WBA finished 10th on 45 points last season - which isn't outrageous to suggest we'll finish the same this season, Ironically they were 8th very point last season. Just making the comparison, I mean it makes as much sense (As in no sense whatsoever) as the people saying 'we could be in Southampton's position next season if we sack him'. Southampton did exactly what we’re possibly going to do - sack after a season with no preseason, no summer transfer window. Expect more exciting football, and not give Puel any sort of chance to construct something. They were not even in my top 6 relegation strugglers going into the season, based on players and club - and we see what happened to them. Puel might be boring right now, but he’s safe and there’s movement and a direction. We’re a club in transition. Cutting his head off now is foolish. I suppose my main point is that we’d be moving from relative stability into a chaotic situation for the sole purpose of excitement when the season is done and dusted, and there’s tremendous change on the horizon *anyways* - I’d rather we have a steady hand on the rudder this summer...not just Rudders. 2
Matt Posted 21 April 2018 Posted 21 April 2018 1 minute ago, Beechey said: We were also only 9 games into the season, as a proportion of games played we were in a much worse place then (meaning we'd lost significantly more than whoever was 7th at the time). I imagine Puel's remit was to keep us up this season, and we're now 15 points above 18th, a much better place than 1 point above. I think that supports both of our points. It'd be interesting to see how Puel would have got on with the start we had, the comparison of Shakespeare/Puel records are virtually the same, i'd imagine it'd be the case had Puel started the season with us. I make no bones about it Shakespeare is not a manager, he was massively out his depth but he also had a horrible set of games to start the season with. I'm not even sure what we're trying to prove with this argument/discussion. It just started because people were incorrectly trying to make points, points I keep seeing time and time again. 1
Beechey Posted 21 April 2018 Posted 21 April 2018 2 minutes ago, Matt said: I think that supports both of our points. It'd be interesting to see how Puel would have got on with the start we had, the comparison of Shakespeare/Puel records are virtually the same, i'd imagine it'd be the case had Puel started the season with us. I make no bones about it Shakespeare is not a manager, he was massively out his depth but he also had a horrible set of games to start the season with. I'm not even sure what we're trying to prove with this argument/discussion. It just started because people were incorrectly trying to make points, points I keep seeing time and time again. Yeah I think we're basically arguing the same points 1
HighPeakFox Posted 21 April 2018 Posted 21 April 2018 2 hours ago, southfox66 said: Exactly Larry i dont know why others can't see that Unless you're of the opinion that we all must agree (and I'm sure you're not), it's because we all have different perceptions. And they're all equally valid, if backed up by a reasoned argument.
HighPeakFox Posted 21 April 2018 Posted 21 April 2018 19 minutes ago, Matt said: We were only 5 points behind 8th/7th aswell. Hardly a mess. We're 8 points behind 7th now, we're further away now. I'm sure you'd appreciate that a statistic like that has to take into account the number of games played.
Matt Posted 21 April 2018 Posted 21 April 2018 2 minutes ago, HighPeakFox said: I'm sure you'd appreciate that a statistic like that has to take into account the number of games played. Likewise with the point he was making. Which we've both accepted really we were arguing the same point.
volpeazzurro Posted 21 April 2018 Posted 21 April 2018 14 minutes ago, Matt said: I think that supports both of our points. It'd be interesting to see how Puel would have got on with the start we had, the comparison of Shakespeare/Puel records are virtually the same, i'd imagine it'd be the case had Puel started the season with us. I make no bones about it Shakespeare is not a manager, he was massively out his depth but he also had a horrible set of games to start the season with. I'm not even sure what we're trying to prove with this argument/discussion. It just started because people were incorrectly trying to make points, points I keep seeing time and time again. It might of only been that amount of games into the season but you're also forgetting Shakespeare's end of the previous season. He was hardly improving.
Matt Posted 21 April 2018 Posted 21 April 2018 (edited) 25 minutes ago, volpeazzurro said: It might of only been that amount of games into the season but you're also forgetting Shakespeare's end of the previous season. He was hardly improving. Where have I said he was? Do people not read what I post. You make it sound like i'm sticking up for Shakespeare, I'm not, whenever I post about Shakespeare I pretty much always note i'm not and always says he was no manager and massively out of his depth. I am purely comparing records and whilst people (Inc me) claim Shakespeare was poor, Puel is hardly any improvement. And with that train of thought Puel is hardly improving either, infact it's getting worse. Edited 21 April 2018 by Matt
Bozman Posted 21 April 2018 Posted 21 April 2018 Think this poll should be done in about 3 weeks , bet the numbers would have differed then. I can see 1 win and 3 defeats...
TonyN11 Posted 21 April 2018 Posted 21 April 2018 On 20/04/2018 at 14:30, southfox66 said: If Puel was in charge of building Rome, i think ud be waiting a long time for it to be built We're still waiting for that Colosseum thingy to get finished! 1
MC Prussian Posted 21 April 2018 Posted 21 April 2018 19 minutes ago, volpeazzurro said: It might of only been that amount of games into the season but you're also forgetting Shakespeare's end of the previous season. He was hardly improving. How was he supposed to, with matches against Arsenal (twice), Manchester United, Manchester City, Chelsea, Tottenham and Liverpool in that time frame? Our schedule at the end of the 16/17 season and at the start of this season gave Shakespeare the worst possible fixtures. Not forgetting our club management messing up the Silva deal by the now infamous 14 seconds. And Drinkwater left late in August, too. I don't see how that can be used as a stick to beat him with.
MC Prussian Posted 21 April 2018 Posted 21 April 2018 1 hour ago, bmouth_fox said: Fair play. Over the season though it has been upward trajectory is the key point, albeit that has faltered recently. Puel is currently living off the wonderful start to his tenure here. We've been floundering ever since. 1
MC Prussian Posted 21 April 2018 Posted 21 April 2018 1 hour ago, UPinCarolina said: Some seem hellbent on us going from Southampton 2016-2017 to Southampton 2017-2018. Tell that to the management, the manager and the players first. Let's see where we are in four matches from now.
volpeazzurro Posted 21 April 2018 Posted 21 April 2018 (edited) 15 minutes ago, MC Prussian said: How was he supposed to, with matches against Arsenal (twice), Manchester United, Manchester City, Chelsea, Tottenham and Liverpool in that time frame? Our schedule at the end of the 16/17 season and at the start of this season gave Shakespeare the worst possible fixtures. Not forgetting our club management messing up the Silva deal by the now infamous 14 seconds. And Drinkwater left late in August, too. I don't see how that can be used as a stick to beat him with. I think it can when every man and his dog could see that he was entirely clueless by employng the same old tired tactics of hoof ball without having the players anymore to fulfil previous glories. I seem to remember an inadequate 2 man midfield against Mata, Matic and Pogba and dopey decisions against Arsenal that cost us the game. Oh and then there was Spurs, what a disaster! Edited 21 April 2018 by volpeazzurro
Larry_LCFC Posted 21 April 2018 Author Posted 21 April 2018 Question then to the "Puel In" Brigade because I am genuinely intrigued. What specifically is it over Puel's reign here that makes you think "This guy is good"? From where I'm sitting, defensively we are poor. Attacking we are really poor. Midfield we lack creativity. I have seen nothing from Puel other than his suffocating sideways football. 1
st albans fox Posted 21 April 2018 Posted 21 April 2018 Shakey was disposed of because the tactics seemed questionable and more importantly, the team failed to show up for the lesser games in the way they did against the big ones. Be interesting to see what happens if the team suddenly become inspired last two games.
st albans fox Posted 21 April 2018 Posted 21 April 2018 8 minutes ago, Larry_LCFC said: Question then to the "Puel In" Brigade because I am genuinely intrigued. What specifically is it over Puel's reign here that makes you think "This guy is good"? From where I'm sitting, defensively we are poor. Attacking we are really poor. Midfield we lack creativity. I have seen nothing from Puel other than his suffocating sideways football. We are controlling the football for the first time since our championship winning season under Pearson. if he cant add anything to that come next season then yes, he is indeed a gonna.
Larry_LCFC Posted 21 April 2018 Author Posted 21 April 2018 5 minutes ago, st albans fox said: We are controlling the football for the first time since our championship winning season under Pearson. if he cant add anything to that come next season then yes, he is indeed a gonna. 4 wins from 16? What is the point in controlling the football if that equates to nothing. I would actually suggest our appaling record indicates we control **** all. Possession doesn't mean we control the game.
st albans fox Posted 21 April 2018 Posted 21 April 2018 1 minute ago, Larry_LCFC said: 4 wins from 16? What is the point in controlling the football if that equates to nothing. I would actually suggest our appaling record indicates we control **** all. Possession doesn't mean we control the game. The stats say we should have won more. Clearly there are exceptions to the rule (Burnley this season and us in 15/16) but over the majority of this season and next season added together, the expected goals stat will generally come out right. Its not appalling either. It isn’t good but you need some perspective. We have long since written off this season to prepare for next.
foxinsocks Posted 21 April 2018 Posted 21 April 2018 6 minutes ago, st albans fox said: The stats say we should have won more. Clearly there are exceptions to the rule (Burnley this season and us in 15/16) but over the majority of this season and next season added together, the expected goals stat will generally come out right. Its not appalling either. It isn’t good but you need some perspective. We have long since written off this season to prepare for next. The days of posessiin == goals are over If the stats say we should have won more then whats the problem been?
Matt Posted 21 April 2018 Posted 21 April 2018 (edited) Didn't we all used to take the piss out of Tottenham and their possession stats or stats in general? Sideways, sideways, backwards, sideways, backwards. Doesn't matter how much possession you have, it's what you do with it and we're quite clearly doing very little with it. Bores the shit out of me. Edited 21 April 2018 by Matt 3
Recommended Posts