**New** Puel In or Out - A simple Poll Mk 2

[Larry_LCFC]

You reckon the likes of Vardy etc, players with pace will want to hang around and play under this clown? Pace is not in Puel's game. 

[Beechey]

34 minutes ago, Larry_LCFC said:

You reckon the likes of Vardy etc, players with pace will want to hang around and play under this clown? Pace is not in Puel's game. 

Yes.

[daddylonglegs]

Am I the only one that thinks if Puel was English he'd be given more of a chance? 

[Donut]

9 hours 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.

The issue as i see it is, the only reason you would logically remove Puel, is if you could bring a manager in that you could beyond reasonable doubt assure would be better, and outperform where we are now, who would bring a 5 or so year vision with him that would be better than Puel's one.

 

And that suggestion has to be realistic. I dont see too many alternatives that I could say this about, and what makes this even more intriguing, is that ive seen names mentionned within this thread who would look to play more of a defensive orientated or short passing style too, and weve already established some people do not want Leicester to be moved in this direction. Yet people are suggesting names of managers like Wagner who have built their whole ethos around sitting deep, trying to stay in games and nick them, or Jokanovic who prefers the same possession oriented play from the back style that Puel does, but hasnt managed at Premier League level so is a total unknown quantity.

 

So youre now narrowing your pool down to a manager who plays high tempo, high press, direct balls into the channels (even though this is a total contradiction anyway, but let them have their say) as his style, and does this to a level that is better than 8th in the Premier League.

 

Puel has had a good few months to look at everyone, evaluate their strengths and weaknesses (and some players have got a shedload of weaknesses and not many strengths lets be honest) and hes worked out where he wants to strengthen.

 

A new manager coming in in the summer will have a hectic curtailed summer with the world cup, have to quickly assess the squad and add to it fast with signings. Its a very big summer, and it would be a difficult task for the new man to change things ready for the start of the season.

 

So nothing has changed my mind that Puel is the man to stick with. If we revisit this thread in mid October and we still lack cohesion and performances are underwhelming, a decision will need to be made.

 

But changing a manager before he has had chance to make a real mark on the club, whilst still being in a very good league position that many would view as acceptable would be a knee jerk reaction in my opinion and one that would only delay the inevitable issues that the next manager will have to face in rebuilding the squad.

 

If its a lack of charisma thing that is used against him, i couldnt give a stuff about that frankly.

 

[Dan LCFC]

18 hours ago, mod hero said:

If Claude Puel walked up to you at half time while you were queuing up for your warm singha and said, ay up Dan that was a perfect first half. More of same for the 2nd....

you would have slung the beer at him and contributed towards a ticket for the Eurostar.

I would be bemused by it but it doesn't excuse this leaking to the media all of the time. If that's their answer to any problem then time for them to go.

[lee7]

5 hours ago, daddylonglegs said:

Am I the only one that thinks if Puel was English he'd be given more of a chance? 

I'd disagree, our form is shocking and we must've sacked managers for less in the past. 

To be honest I'm surprised that in the poll run on here he has so many people thinking he is the man for the job 

[NotTheMarketLeader]

19 hours ago, The Doctor said:

Two good games but lets be clear, Shakespeare was an expert in making us look slightly worse than whoever we were playing. Post the first five games as caretaker he was well and truly out of his depth

Just like Puel then.

[The Doctor]

18 minutes ago, NotTheMarketLeader said:

Just like Puel then.

Well no. Under Shakespeare we were getting better results than our performances deserved (come on, we made Huddersfield and Bournemouth look like 2009-vintage Barcelona; Bournemouth had the chances to be 3-0 up inside 10 minutes), under Puel we've not be been getting the results we deserve. Games under him where we've genuinely been the worse side: Man City (H), Spurs (H), Crystal Palace (H), Liverpool (A), Man City (A). Maybe Newcastle at home but I missed that game for a conference so can't say.

 

In general we've been the better side for a chunk of the match without managing to put it in, occasionally due to fantastic keeping performances (Pope at Burnley, Butland v Stoke in both games), and sabotaged ourselves in the other teams brief period of dominance with some genuinely abysmal play (both CMs going walkabouts at home to Stoke, Fuchs and Maguire pulling apart to let in Shaqiri at Stoke, Chilwells passing at Everton, the entirety of the first ten minutes at Burnley, pretty much everything Morgan has done since coming back in for Dragovic). Results are infuriating but let's not pretend that we're consistently the worst side on the pitch, because that's simply not true.

[m4DD0gg]

28 minutes ago, NotTheMarketLeader said:

Just like Puel then.

 

Exactly, i am fed up the amount of times a confused looking and incoherent puel stutters some crap about how he got it wrong....again.

[st albans fox]

Question to some of the vehement ‘puel outers’

 

if we were pushing for sixth (which based on performances is actually feasible), would you still be of the same mindset? 

 

is it the overall style of possession based play which irks you rather than the results being achieved? 

[Callabinho]

7 hours ago, Donut said:

The issue as i see it is, the only reason you would logically remove Puel, is if you could bring a manager in that you could beyond reasonable doubt assure would be better, and outperform where we are now, who would bring a 5 or so year vision with him that would be better than Puel's one.

 

And that suggestion has to be realistic. I dont see too many alternatives that I could say this about, and what makes this even more intriguing, is that ive seen names mentionned within this thread who would look to play more of a defensive orientated or short passing style too, and weve already established some people do not want Leicester to be moved in this direction. Yet people are suggesting names of managers like Wagner who have built their whole ethos around sitting deep, trying to stay in games and nick them, or Jokanovic who prefers the same possession oriented play from the back style that Puel does, but hasnt managed at Premier League level so is a total unknown quantity.

 

So youre now narrowing your pool down to a manager who plays high tempo, high press, direct balls into the channels (even though this is a total contradiction anyway, but let them have their say) as his style, and does this to a level that is better than 8th in the Premier League.

 

Puel has had a good few months to look at everyone, evaluate their strengths and weaknesses (and some players have got a shedload of weaknesses and not many strengths lets be honest) and hes worked out where he wants to strengthen.

 

A new manager coming in in the summer will have a hectic curtailed summer with the world cup, have to quickly assess the squad and add to it fast with signings. Its a very big summer, and it would be a difficult task for the new man to change things ready for the start of the season.

 

So nothing has changed my mind that Puel is the man to stick with. If we revisit this thread in mid October and we still lack cohesion and performances are underwhelming, a decision will need to be made.

 

But changing a manager before he has had chance to make a real mark on the club, whilst still being in a very good league position that many would view as acceptable would be a knee jerk reaction in my opinion and one that would only delay the inevitable issues that the next manager will have to face in rebuilding the squad.

 

If its a lack of charisma thing that is used against him, i couldnt give a stuff about that frankly.

 

Best response on the whole threat, but it will be looked over by most on this forum as it’s a logical argument.

 

I am completely in agreement with you, especially with a World Cup coming up it will make the pre season near impossible for a new manager to operate in..... fans are moaning about his style, yet will some of them sit and admit the majority of the squad bar Mahrez, Vardy, N’didi and Maguire aren’t good enough? There’s a big overhaul and change of direction needed at this club otherwise we will end up another Sunderland. The owners gave him the job whether you lot like it or not, they’ve got to give him a chance, and if we’re no better come December time we re-assess.

 

You can’t go around shooting from the hip and not suffer the consequences, eventually it’ll backfire. 

[Wizerud]

I think Puel deserves a transfer window or two where he can get more of his players or quality recommendations that he think will fit in. Seems like the biggest problem we have and have had since Ranieri is motivating the players. Puel is the first manager brave enough to drop Morgan so I think he's already moving on from the title-winning nucleus, where necessary. Yes the last couple of months have been frustrating when we could so easily be 10-15 points ahead of where we are but hopefully we'll be more consistent and more creative in the final third after a full off-season/transfer window under Puel. If we're in the bottom-half by Christmas, maybe I would think about a change.

[foxinsocks]

1 minute ago, st albans fox said:

Question to some of the vehement ‘puel outers’

 

if we were pushing for sixth (which based on performances is actually feasible), would you still be of the same mindset? 

 

is it the overall style of possession based play which irks you rather than the results being achieved? 

When we are dropping points to palace Bournemouth stoke swansea newcastle southampton i question whats going on irrespective of league position.

 

When the manager describes our perfromance as high intensity and quality yet i see it at awful then i question. 

When we embark on posession footbsll the i think were going the wrong way.

When it is suggested we give such a manager a load of cash to take us further on his journey i speak up.

Hes failed the audition

[foxinsocks]

3 minutes ago, Wizerud said:

I think Puel deserves a transfer window or two where he can get more of his players or quality recommendations that he think will fit in. Seems like the biggest problem we have and have had since Ranieri is motivating the players. Puel is the first manager brave enough to drop Morgan so I think he's already moving on from the title-winning nucleus, where necessary. Yes the last couple of months have been frustrating when we could so easily be 10-15 points ahead of where we are but hopefully we'll be more consistent and more creative in the final third after a full off-season/transfer window under Puel. If we're in the bottom-half by Christmas, maybe I would think about a change.

We're showing that form now

 

[chapero82]

8 hours ago, daddylonglegs said:

Am I the only one that thinks if Puel was English he'd be given more of a chance? 

Shaky was fired for less 

[Vacamion]

8 hours ago, daddylonglegs said:

Am I the only one that thinks if Puel was English he'd be given more of a chance? 

 

Spot on.

 

One example that springs to mind is Eddie Howe, who gives quite boring, low key, reasoned post match interviews, but in fluent English, and no one slags him for being a poor interviewee.

 

It’s amazing that supporters of Leicester City,  a club which once employed loudmouths like Ian Holloway and Martin Allen, might think that the way that someone interviews in the media is more important than the long term development and evolution of the side.

 

But yeah, he ain’t got no passhun, and it’s boring now we are not thrashing sides and winning the Premier League, so Puel Out 

 

 

FFS.

[chapero82]

1 minute ago, Vacamion said:

 

Spot on.

 

One example that springs to mind is Eddie Howe, who gives quite boring, low key, reasoned post match interviews, but in fluent English, and no one slags him for being a poor interviewee.

 

It’s amazing that supporters of Leicester City,  a club which once employed loudmouths like Ian Holloway and Martin Allen, might think that the way that someone interviews in the media is more important than the long term development and evolution of the side.

 

But yeah, he ain’t got no passhun, and it’s boring now we are not thrashing sides and winning the Premier League, so Puel Out 

 

 

FFS.

No it’s boring when you go to watch your team in four months! That has been feeezing cold at times! Travel for hours to get there and don’t win once in that time period! 

 

And watch the team team pass it sideways and back to the keeper without a shot on target until 90 mins! 

 

That’s the problem nothing to do with race! 

[Old Fox]

7 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Question to some of the vehement ‘puel outers’

 

if we were pushing for sixth (which based on performances is actually feasible), would you still be of the same mindset? 

 

is it the overall style of possession based play which irks you rather than the results being achieved? 

Personally I hate all the manager changes as it makes the club unstable and does not help in delivering a plan, however the owners have to get a solution that will take us forward and CP has served his purpose in keeping us up but imo he is the wrong fit for the future and the owners will not trust him to invest over the summer. 

We need to evolve our style but do not need to throw away all of our strengths and closing down, being together and utilising our pace should be part of developing some possession football but not completely at the expense of being effective.

We do have some very talented players who can adapt but we are seeing a number completely bemused and CP’s insistence on picking players like Chilwell who will never be a left back when Fuchs given the same run of games would have provided better quality is stupid. 

The owners I believe will be evaluating options and IF they can get the right manager I understand they will change but whether it is possible we will see - I would not trust CP with £100m+ based upon the structure, performances and plan demonstrated!

[Matt]

18 minutes ago, Wizerud said:

I think Puel deserves a transfer window or two where he can get more of his players or quality recommendations that he think will fit in. Seems like the biggest problem we have and have had since Ranieri is motivating the players. Puel is the first manager brave enough to drop Morgan so I think he's already moving on from the title-winning nucleus, where necessary. Yes the last couple of months have been frustrating when we could so easily be 10-15 points ahead of where we are but hopefully we'll be more consistent and more creative in the final third after a full off-season/transfer window under Puel. If we're in the bottom-half by Christmas, maybe I would think about a change.

Huh? Really? Seriously?

 

How did he justify him walking back into the team and then continuing to play for aslong as he did?

 

It's took him how long? How long have we been calling for it?

 

Besides, and this remains to be seen but apparently (I'm getting this info 2nd maybe even 3rd hand because I simply can't listen to him) he said Morgan was only rested on Thursday because of the quick succession of games, so if that's right and true, he'll be back for the next game, doesn't fill me with confidence that he has been dropped.

Edited 22 April 2018 by Matt

[st albans fox]

There is an issue with the managers language. He can’t slag the performances off - it’s easier and better  to be positive. He needs to make statements which reflect what has just happened. He can’t say one thing after the game and another on the website. I imagine if he didn’t have to do quick post match interviews, we would see a more measured assessment on the club website. 

 

i dont believe for one minute that he really thinks its been good enough. He might, however, be looking at everything with a different longer term perspective than the rest of us. 

[MC Prussian]

50 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

Well no. Under Shakespeare we were getting better results than our performances deserved (come on, we made Huddersfield and Bournemouth look like 2009-vintage Barcelona; Bournemouth had the chances to be 3-0 up inside 10 minutes), under Puel we've not be been getting the results we deserve. Games under him where we've genuinely been the worse side: Man City (H), Spurs (H), Crystal Palace (H), Liverpool (A), Man City (A). Maybe Newcastle at home but I missed that game for a conference so can't say.

 

In general we've been the better side for a chunk of the match without managing to put it in, occasionally due to fantastic keeping performances (Pope at Burnley, Butland v Stoke in both games), and sabotaged ourselves in the other teams brief period of dominance with some genuinely abysmal play (both CMs going walkabouts at home to Stoke, Fuchs and Maguire pulling apart to let in Shaqiri at Stoke, Chilwells passing at Everton, the entirety of the first ten minutes at Burnley, pretty much everything Morgan has done since coming back in for Dragovic). Results are infuriating but let's not pretend that we're consistently the worst side on the pitch, because that's simply not true.

Under Puel, we almost granted Brighton a 2-0 lead - fortunately for us, they were a bit hindered in the conversion department that day.

We also almost lost 1-0 to Bournemouth at home, if it hadn't been for a late, late moment of magic from Mahrez. We allowed Watford to beat us 2-1 after leading by a goal, Swansea to equalize and chased after an equalizer ourselves against Stoke, only managing a point thanks to a Butland blunder.

 

How did we deserve more or anything at all out of these matches? Against Brighton, we were very, very lucky and in all other matches very much careless and lacklustre for an entire half of football. That's where we are the most consistent, throwing matches away in one half, then chasing after an equalizer or pulling one back desperately.

[MC Prussian]

24 minutes ago, Vacamion said:

 

Spot on.

 

One example that springs to mind is Eddie Howe, who gives quite boring, low key, reasoned post match interviews, but in fluent English, and no one slags him for being a poor interviewee.

 

It’s amazing that supporters of Leicester City,  a club which once employed loudmouths like Ian Holloway and Martin Allen, might think that the way that someone interviews in the media is more important than the long term development and evolution of the side.

 

But yeah, he ain’t got no passhun, and it’s boring now we are not thrashing sides and winning the Premier League, so Puel Out 

 

 

FFS.

Hmm... Compare a club like Bournemouth to Leicester City FC.

What have Bournemouth achieved in the past and what are their realistic targets for each season, I wonder?

 

They are a small club (with lots of money now, from what I gather) from the South Coast, whose sole purpose is to remain in the Premier League.

Will they ever play in Europe? Unlikely. Do they have the potential to ever win a cup or a league title? Doubtful.

 

The best Howe can do is play to the strengths as an underdog and make life harder for the other teams in the league. They'll hardly ever be known to play attractive football or *shudders* possession-based football.

 

With us, it's a bit different. The league title has obviously changed our season-by-season goals to a certain extent. We have the players, the finances, the stadium to be better and that's what we should strive for. Aiming for 7th/8th on a regular basis doesn't seem so unrealistic now. Whereas for Bournemouth, that in itself would be quite an achievement.

 

And why bother what we think about Howe as a manager in pre-match interviews when we should be concerned about the way our own manager behaves in public and how he bedazzles both his players and the fans at the same time, both before and after matches? He can't express himself properly and that always in that monotonous, nasal tone - think of a less eloquent and a lot less quirky version of Arsène Wenger.

[The Doctor]

12 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

Under Puel, we almost granted Brighton a 2-0 lead - fortunately for us, they were a bit hindered in the conversion department that day.

We also almost lost 1-0 to Bournemouth at home, if it hadn't been for a late, late moment of magic from Mahrez. We allowed Watford to beat us 2-1 after leading by a goal, Swansea to equalize and chased after an equalizer ourselves against Stoke, only managing a point thanks to a Butland blunder.

 

How did we deserve more or anything at all out of these matches? Against Brighton, we were very, very lucky and in all other matches very much careless and lacklustre for an entire half of football. That's where we are the most consistent, throwing matches away in one half, then chasing after an equalizer or pulling one back desperately.

Because we created some excellent chances we just didn't take and then made some sloppy mistakes in defence. Take Stoke and Bournemouth at home if you like, Mahrez missed a 1v1 in both, James and Maguire both hit the post v Stoke, Morgan and Iheanacho both fluffed their lines v Bournemouth. Expected goals in those was 1.12 to 0.17 (Stoke), 2.98 to 1.40 (Bournemouth) - on the basis of chances created vs chances allowed we should have won both but didn't take our chances.

 

If you want to cite Swansea home and Watford away, 1.48 to 0.57 (Swansea), 1.55 to 1.43 (Watford). Closer games, but if you round those it's a 1-1 draw and a 2-1 win - 3 points more than we achieved. Similarly Burnley away - xG to us 2.00, to Burnley: 1.06. Should have won 2-1 on the balance of chances but conceded sloppy and fluffed our lines.

 

Fair Brightons xG was 1.60 to our 1.27, although that is skewed up by their dubious penalty.

[Happy Fox]

If the players cannot understand him that’s a problem, say your boss uses a translator it would be a bit of a joke wouldn’t it? Can understand the players perspective.

[Happy Fox]

https://www.fansonline.net/leicestercity/mb/view.php?id=1106058

 

Does anyone know if this bnet chap is speaking shite or truth?