Puel In or Out poll 5/5/18.

[KingsX]

On ‎06‎/‎05‎/‎2018 at 14:04, Kitchandro said:

Honestly, that attitude people give me on here despite the fact I am constantly proved right is astonishing.

 

You’re not constantly proved right.

You are constantly negative.

Which means you’re wrong … surely wrong … and then, when the thing being discussed finally, inevitably turns to shit ... then you’re right. 

That doesn’t prove you’re “constantly” right, it proves you support City.

 

[Lambert09]

I wonder how this vote would look if we manged to beat Arse and Spurs... huge opportunities to turn doubt into optimism despite our recent performances. 

 

Id probably take 5000/1 odds on it at this point... but we know those odds can be defied 

Edited 7 May 2018 by Lambert09

[Bob Weasel Fox]

3 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

I've seen maybe one or two posts on the whole that raise the question WHY we have (had) so many injuries. Training regime plays into it to some extent - so why have so few people questioned Puel's training methods?

You can't just explain it by sheer bad luck.

 

In the end, you may be able to put down some of our lack of application on the lack of experience or match practice - but still... The effort on the whole and from most individuals was very poor - once again. Just another day at the office where no one or very few players were actually bothered to play it forward, direct and effective. Having a manager who puts players in odd positions, makes somewhat odd substitutions and who comes up with some of the most irritating and incomprehensible interviews and post-match assessments doesn't help, either.

However, I was pleasantly surprised by Benalouane - and that at right-back!

 

Does beg the question for sure

[DJ Barry Hammond]

On 06/05/2018 at 20:58, Pete from the USA said:

Here's an argument for sacking Puel *after* the summer: A new-manager bounce is best during the playing season. We saw this with both Shakespeare and Puel whose appointments both boosted Leicester up the table. Appointing a manager at the end of the season would squander the bounce. 

 

Also, we don't want to get a reputation for rapidly hiring and firing managers. Keeping Puel into the beginning of next season would make the club look less trigger happy. 

 

Also, the transfer window will go more smoothly if there is continuity in management. This window is too important to also be dealing with manager upheaval. Keep Puel through the window, focus on getting in some new talent, then dump him in October. 

 

16 hours ago, Pete from the USA said:

Ok, I'll bite. What's wrong with it? I'm just questioning whether swapping managers in a mad panic is the smartest approach.

 

 

• The assumption that a ‘new manager bounce’ happens every time. It is not guaranteed.
• The claim that one can’t happen if a manager is appointed during the summer.
• The owners of the club couldn’t give a toss about looking trigger happy if they feel they’ve got the wrong man in the job. Bottom line is results matter - and managers looking in at the club as a potential job opportunity will understand that.
• An even worse reputation would be for a club to keep a manager who’s not up to the job.
• Windows too important to bugger up you say... so let’s keep a crap manager and let him call the shots, with the idea of sacking him in October if he’s still shit (which appears highly likely). How does that help the players brought in or the club in that scenario?
• You ignore the generally perceived wisdom that replacing a manager during the summer gives a club a wider choice and the opportunity for the new man to assess the club and implement their ideas fully on the training pitch. 

Just admit it - far from being clever, what you’ve done here is been a class A prat!

 

Edited 8 May 2018 by DJ Barry Hammond

[Pete from the USA]

9 hours ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

 

 

• The assumption that a ‘new manager bounce’ happens every time. It is not guaranteed.
• The claim that one can’t happen if a manager is appointed during the summer.
• The owners of the club couldn’t give a toss about looking trigger happy if they feel they’ve got the wrong man in the job. Bottom line is results matter - and managers looking in at the club as a potential job opportunity will understand that.
• An even worse reputation would be for a club to keep a manager who’s not up to the job.
• Windows too important to bugger up you say... so let’s keep a crap manager and let him call the shots, with the idea of sacking him in October if he’s still shit (which appears highly likely). How does that help the players brought in or the club in that scenario?
• You ignore the generally perceived wisdom that replacing a manager during the summer gives a club a wider choice and the opportunity for the new man to assess the club and implement their ideas fully on the training pitch. 

Just admit it - far from being clever, what you’ve done here is been a class A prat!

 

 

Thanks for the clear answer. I won't bother asking what a prat is.

[themightyfin]

Top target - Eddie Howe 

[st albans fox]

4 minutes ago, themightyfin said:

Top target - Eddie Howe 

Interesting suggestion 

 

failed the only time he tried his luck away from Bournemouth ?????? 

 

their goals conceded column last three seasons is about 1.8 per game average - that’s a worry. 

 

However, he is an improvement on who we have at the moment but not sure he has the character to impose himself on the dressing room. I also think he will be wiating for a top six opportunity (arsenal/Liverpool/spurs) next vacancy in these clubs after proving himself for a few more seasons on the south coast 

[Bob Weasel Fox]

1 hour ago, themightyfin said:

Top target - Eddie Howe 

I think he would be good for us potentially 

 

long term mind you not a quick fix

[Bunyip]

20 hours ago, Lambert09 said:

I wonder how this vote would look if we manged to beat Arse and Spurs... huge opportunities to turn doubt into optimism despite our recent performances. 

 

Id probably take 5000/1 odds on it at this point... but we know those odds can be defied 

 

Ah, the crystal Meths is kicking in then?

[ZeGuy]

Puel in.

 

Players out.

[foxy boxing]

Some players out. new man, fresh broom. sweep the dead wood out.

[STUHILL]

57 minutes ago, ZeGuy said:

Puel in.

 

Players out.

Puel out.

 

Some players out. 

[foxinsocks]

If raffa wount come then... get big sam. He will sort the players out and play to our strengths.   It woukd be his best shot at managing games in euro compititions

[ZeGuy]

8 minutes ago, STUHILL said:

Puel out.

 

Some players out. 

It was more a tongue in cheek comment  but yeah, yours sums up what I'm currently thinking.

[shen]

On 07/05/2018 at 19:09, MC Prussian said:

I've seen maybe one or two posts on the whole that raise the question WHY we have (had) so many injuries. Training regime plays into it to some extent - so why have so few people questioned Puel's training methods?

You can't just explain it by sheer bad luck.

 

In the end, you may be able to put down some of our lack of application on the lack of experience or match practice - but still... The effort on the whole and from most individuals was very poor - once again. Just another day at the office where no one or very few players were actually bothered to play it forward, direct and effective. Having a manager who puts players in odd positions, makes somewhat odd substitutions and who comes up with some of the most irritating and incomprehensible interviews and post-match assessments doesn't help, either.

However, I was pleasantly surprised by Benalouane - and that at right-back!

 

So when we have no/few injuries praise goes to our coaching staff, physios and sports scientists. When we do have injuries it's down to Puel's training methods?

Do we actually know anything about his training methods or are you just finding another stick to beat him with?

[yks]

I voted " Keep him and back him in the transfer window. "

Firing an experienced and previously successful manager who had a few bad months in his first season in a club in which he arrived only in October after a terrible start, where he couldn't buy his own players, in the end of a season where there are no real stakes is the key formula to never build anything and never be a successful club.
It's a shame that most football fans and people in power are in a such short-term mindset and one of the main reason why clubs like City will never compete in the long term with established clubs.
 

 

Edited 9 May 2018 by yks

[MC Prussian]

1 hour ago, shen said:

So when we have no/few injuries praise goes to our coaching staff, physios and sports scientists. When we do have injuries it's down to Puel's training methods?

Do we actually know anything about his training methods or are you just finding another stick to beat him with?

No, I'm asking the question why we've had so many injuries in a relatively short period of time:

 

Iborra (hamstring)

Okazaki (ankle)

Ndidi (hamstring)

James (achilles; well, peculiar case with his injury history, but still...)

Morgan (hamstring)

Amartey (hamstring)

Huth (foot, ankle - reoccurring, though)

Simpson (groin)

Chilwell (ankle)

 

We also sent Slimani to Newcastle when he was carrying a thigh injury...

 

As an aside, I usually don't comment on the fitness status of our players - it's just something that caught my eye this time around. Given some posters' persistence that Puel's hand were forced in terms of selection lately, I do wonder how much of that being down to the training regime itself. It's only logical.

I don't recall that many players being out injured (at once) under Ranieri or Pearson...

 

Besides, I don't know what I need to do for people to change their perception of me as being on a manhunt or something to that effect. I do realize our problems are based on several different factors, not just the manager. But the manager does bear the majority of the brunt. Wouldn't be any different under another manager.

[shen]

3 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

No, I'm asking the question why we've had so many injuries in a relatively short period of time:

 

Iborra (hamstring)

Okazaki (ankle)

Ndidi (hamstring)

James (achilles; well, peculiar case with his injury history, but still...)

Morgan (hamstring)

Amartey (hamstring)

Huth (foot, ankle - reoccurring, though)

Simpson (groin)

Chilwell (ankle)

 

We also sent Slimani to Newcastle when he was carrying a thigh injury...

 

As an aside, I usually don't comment on the fitness status of our players - it's just something that caught my eye this time around. Given some posters' persistence that Puel's hand were forced in terms of selection lately, I do wonder how much of that being down to the training regime itself. It's only logical.

I don't recall that many players being out injured (at once) under Ranieri or Pearson...

 

Besides, I don't know what I need to do for people to change their perception of me as being on a manhunt or something to that effect. I do realize our problems are based on several different factors, not just the manager. But the manager does bear the majority of the brunt. Wouldn't be any different under another manager.

It is a very valid question and a pertinent one. But once more, we're going on a limited amount of knowledge of what goes on in-house.

My beef is that we can only speculate on the causality here.

 

Puel wasn't in charge during pre-season so he cannot be responsible for that.

But the stats this season are showing the players run much less per 90 minutes than previous seasons and I don't think the injuries happening too is a coincidence.

 

I'm no sports scientist, but maybe the playing style Puel is trying to implement is not 'compatible' with our current fitness training regime.

Maybe you are right that Puel has had an adverse effect on training methods/injuries, maybe other factors are attributable.

I would be intrigued to see how next season pans out (with or without Puel) and I sincerely hope we rectify this as it has been a crucial reason to us performing so well in the PL since our promotion.

[MC Prussian]

11 minutes ago, shen said:

It is a very valid question and a pertinent one. But once more, we're going on a limited amount of knowledge of what goes on in-house.

My beef is that we can only speculate on the causality here.

 

Puel wasn't in charge during pre-season so he cannot be responsible for that.

But the stats this season are showing the players run much less per 90 minutes than previous seasons and I don't think the injuries happening too is a coincidence.

 

I'm no sports scientist, but maybe the playing style Puel is trying to implement is not 'compatible' with our current fitness training regime.

Maybe you are right that Puel has had an adverse effect on training methods/injuries, maybe other factors are attributable.

I would be intrigued to see how next season pans out (with or without Puel) and I sincerely hope we rectify this as it has been a crucial reason to us performing so well in the PL since our promotion.

But this appallingly long list of injured players has little to nothing to do with pre-season, see...

All these injuries, bar Huth's ankle problems, occurred under Puel's tutelage.

[FrankieADZ]

1 hour ago, yks said:

I voted " Keep him and back him in the transfer window. "

Firing an experienced and previously successful manager who had a few bad months in his first season in a club in which he arrived only in October after a terrible start, where he couldn't buy his own players, in the end of a season where there are no real stakes is the key formula to never build anything and never be a successful club.
It's a shame that most football fans and people in power are in a such short-term mindset and one of the main reason why clubs like City will never compete in the long term with established clubs.
 

 

 

well thats stretching it tbh, he might have got Southampton to 8th last season but there was only 6 points between 8th and 17th, and the performances they had towards the end of the season were awful on a par with what we are seeing.

 

hes making a rod for his own back imo since hes been picking players who have been awful and the tactics have been woeful too. dont get me wrong i dont like all the chopping and changing, but if the performances on the pitch had of been better then most fans would be more than willing to given him more time. 

at the moment Puel is trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.....

 

and frankly atm i cant be arsed either way if he stays or go's frankly ive gone passed caring.....kind of like the performances we are seeing from the players

[yks]

37 minutes ago, FrankieADZ said:

well thats stretching it tbh, he might have got Southampton to 8th last season but there was only 6 points between 8th and 17th, and the performances they had towards the end of the season were awful on a par with what we are seeing.

 

hes making a rod for his own back imo since hes been picking players who have been awful and the tactics have been woeful too. dont get me wrong i dont like all the chopping and changing, but if the performances on the pitch had of been better then most fans would be more than willing to given him more time. 

at the moment Puel is trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.....

 

and frankly atm i cant be arsed either way if he stays or go's frankly ive gone passed caring.....kind of like the performances we are seeing from the players

I wasn't talking about the last season at Southampton.
I was talking about building relegation candidates Lille & Nice into clubs qualifying for European cups (and that didn't happen in 8 months...), winning Ligue 1 with Monaco or leading Lyon to Champions League semi-finals.

I agree, he picked players who have been awful but there is a good reason: the other choices were awful too...
Picking Chilwell instead of Fuchs, Simpson instead of Amartey, James instead of Silva, Gray instead of Diabaté, Iheanacho instead of Okazaki or even Dragovic instead of Morgan isn't the reason the club is in bad form, it's because none of them are good enough at the moment and they're either too old, too inconstant, too young or not fullty adapted to Premier League yet.

 

[st albans fox]

2 minutes ago, yks said:

I wasn't talking about the last season at Southampton.
I was talking about building relegation candidates Lille & Nice into clubs qualifying for European cups (and that didn't happen in 8 months...), winning Ligue 1 with Monaco or leading Lyon to Champions League semi-finals.

I agree, he picked players who have been awful but there is a good reason: the other choices were awful too...
Picking Chilwell instead of Fuchs, Simpson instead of Amartey, James instead of Silva, Gray instead of Diabaté, Iheanacho instead of Okazaki or even Dragovic instead of Morgan isn't the reason the club is in bad form, it's because none of them are good enough at the moment and they're either too old, too inconstant, too young or not fullty adapted to Premier League yet.

 

He should have been able to cultivate a playing style that maximised our existing qualities but slowly built the greater possession based one he wants us to play. 

 

We sort of started that way when when he arrived but seem to have gone too far the possession way - the players look very confused now. 

[FrankieADZ]

29 minutes ago, yks said:

I wasn't talking about the last season at Southampton.
I was talking about building relegation candidates Lille & Nice into clubs qualifying for European cups (and that didn't happen in 8 months...), winning Ligue 1 with Monaco or leading Lyon to Champions League semi-finals.

I agree, he picked players who have been awful but there is a good reason: the other choices were awful too...
Picking Chilwell instead of Fuchs, Simpson instead of Amartey, James instead of Silva, Gray instead of Diabaté, Iheanacho instead of Okazaki or even Dragovic instead of Morgan isn't the reason the club is in bad form, it's because none of them are good enough at the moment and they're either too old, too inconstant, too young or not fullty adapted to Premier League yet.

 

dont get me wrong he did well in France, but its a bit of a different kettle of fish in Ligue 1 compared to the premiership, 

i agree with most your points tbh, dont get me wrong i think if he stays and we manage to get the right sort of players in for his style etc we should improve, just atm for me, he needs to adapt so to speak, we havent got the players to play the style he wants,

 

all due respect to Puel though, hes made a rod for his own back with some of the decisions hes made the past 4/5 months, cant expect to be safe in a job when weve only won 4 games in 18 and the form weve been on has been worse than the relegated teams

[yks]

37 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

He should have been able to cultivate a playing style that maximised our existing qualities but slowly built the greater possession based one he wants us to play. 

 

We sort of started that way when when he arrived but seem to have gone too far the possession way - the players look very confused now. 

Actually, I don't see the difference in tactics between his start and now, but I clearly see the lack of intensity and efforts made by the players.
They don't look confused, they look uninterested in being ranked 8th instead of 10th.

 

5 minutes ago, FrankieADZ said:

dont get me wrong he did well in France, but its a bit of a different kettle of fish in Ligue 1 compared to the premiership, 

i agree with most your points tbh, dont get me wrong i think if he stays and we manage to get the right sort of players in for his style etc we should improve, just atm for me, he needs to adapt so to speak, we havent got the players to play the style he wants,

 

all due respect to Puel though, hes made a rod for his own back with some of the decisions hes made the past 4/5 months, cant expect to be safe in a job when weve only won 4 games in 18 and the form weve been on has been worse than the relegated teams

Yeah it's a bit different between Ligue 1 and Premier League, but that's not two entirely different worlds and I'm not sure that comparison is really relevant.
Comparing Nice or Lille with other Ligue 1 clubs and Leicester City with other PL clubs would be, I think.

I agree he has made some mistakes, but which coach hasn't ?
I also agree the form is terrible at the moment but I don't think that's his full responsability.
There are a lot of games that would have been won with just a bit more of luck, or without individual errors (from Schmeichel for instance) and the form would look decent or at least not that bad.

I don't have the full explanation of why the results are so bad at the moment but what I know is Puel is a good coach, based on his previous experiences and hasnt magically became terrible since January.
I also know he is in the top-tier of the coaches who might be interested in working for Leicester City, so firing him and trying a different one would be just as much as a gamble as letting him work for a summer building a team he wants and reevaluate the situation after a significant number of games next season.
The plus side would be if the rumors about "player power" are true, keeping him would send a clear message, firing him who just comfort them in their state of mind which seems toxic for the club.

That being said, I think he will be fired before June and that will be a terrible mistake.

[Nick]

Saints fans had some interesting ideas about songs for him...

 

https://www.saintsweb.co.uk/showthread.php?56963-Songs-for-Claude-Puel#.WvMm0BbTWaM