Puel goes. Who do you choose?

[Jimmy]

most people on this forum wanted Chilwell left out and Fuchs to never be dropped last season now, Puel has been shown to be right, Chilwell is one of our better players and was linked with and England call up BEFORE being an injury replacement and getting his cap.

 

There will be days like Saturday that are painful to go through but I firmly believe its short term pain for a massive amount of long term gain.

[STUHILL]

2 minutes ago, Jimmy said:

most people on this forum wanted Chilwell left out and Fuchs to never be dropped last season now, Puel has been shown to be right, Chilwell is one of our better players and was linked with and England call up BEFORE being an injury replacement and getting his cap.

 

There will be days like Saturday that are painful to go through but I firmly believe its short term pain for a massive amount of long term gain.

Let's hope so, but he still needs to get the basics right, and he got it very wrong at Bournemouth. 

 

How he sets up against Huddersfield will be very interesting and I think tell us a lot about our Manager, good or bad! 

[BenTheFox]

1 hour ago, DANGEROUS TIGER said:

IF Puel gets sacked, then I would go for Santes. Benitez is doing far worse than Puel, and has done nothing for Newcastle, yet he is people's favourite. Bloody well, barmy! 

I'm not demanding we sack Puel and appoint Benitez but he did finish only one place below us last season with a far worse squad. 

Edited 17 September 2018 by BenTheFox

[Jimmy]

Just now, STUHILL said:

Let's hope so, but he still needs to get the basics right, and he got it very wrong at Bournemouth. 

 

How he sets up against Huddersfield will be very interesting and I think tell us a lot about our Manager, good or bad! 

that's true and its fine to be critical of that performance but the hysterical reaction to every defeat helps no one and just gives the media a chance to print yet another Puel on the brink story based off of read twitter

[Jimmy]

1 minute ago, BenTheFox said:

I'm not demanding we sack Puel and appoint but he did finish only one place below us last season with a far worse squad. 

but his style of football is horrid, one of the big criticisms of Puel last season and people like Fat Sam is always the style of play

[Ric Flair]

3 hours ago, FIF said:

Stupid topic.

 

Only a few weeks ago the same people calling for his head were saying they wanted the successful Dyche and Wagner. Seems they aren't that hot after all doesn't it?

 

It takes time to work in new players and a new system. we have a very young team (especially with Wes out this week). A lot of opposition fans would be drooling to have our players and our league position.

 

Too many FTers have unrealistic expectations or a mental sickness.

 

Instead of banning posters Mark should ban topics like PUEL OUT until the end of the season.

He's had ages to implement this new system with 7-8 of the starting XI. The longer he's here, the worse we seem to be getting. I knew Mahrez would be a massive miss but I didn't think we could physically get any worse at defending but we have. This is nothing to do with players learning a new approach, we are simply unbalanced at the minute and Puel has to change it. 

[STUHILL]

9 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

He's had ages to implement this new system with 7-8 of the starting XI. The longer he's here, the worse we seem to be getting. I knew Mahrez would be a massive miss but I didn't think we could physically get any worse at defending but we have. This is nothing to do with players learning a new approach, we are simply unbalanced at the minute and Puel has to change it. 

Agreed. Puel acknowledging this and changing it this weekend, would get a big thumbs up from me! 

 

If he doesn't, then that's a big red flag and will only wave more the longer he doesn't acknowledge and change it

[Jimmy]

Just now, STUHILL said:

Agreed. Puel acknowledging this and changing it this weekend, would get a big thumbs up from me! 

 

If he doesn't, then that's a big red flag and will only wave more the longer he doesn't acknowledge and change it

which is the argument people used against playing Chilwell last season...

[STUHILL]

3 minutes ago, Jimmy said:

which is the argument people used against playing Chilwell last season...

Not an argument I used, but you could suggest stubbornly sticking with Wes hasn't served us as well as Chilwell. 

 

Examples for both sides really. 

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

He's had ages to implement this new system with 7-8 of the starting XI. The longer he's here, the worse we seem to be getting. I knew Mahrez would be a massive miss but I didn't think we could physically get any worse at defending but we have. This is nothing to do with players learning a new approach, we are simply unbalanced at the minute and Puel has to change it. 

 

So changing a third of the team doesn't make a difference? in that case changing one player won't either.

 

Ghezzal is a far better defender than Mahrez so not sure what you mean there either.

 

I think you, like many on here, simply don't like Puel. That's your perogative. 

[Jimmy]

4 minutes ago, STUHILL said:

Not an argument I used, but you could suggest stubbornly sticking with Wes hasn't served us as well as Chilwell. 

 

Examples for both sides really. 

a manager who is consistently under-pressure is going to be less inclined to drop his captain, who knows full well that even fans who are wanting Wes dropped would use it as a stick to beat him with when we lose

[STUHILL]

Just now, Jimmy said:

a manager who is consistently under-pressure is going to be less inclined to drop his captain, who knows full well that even fans who are wanting Wes dropped would use it as a stick to beat him with when we lose

My point was, you have to take each example differently. Just because Puel stuck with Chilwell at LB over Fuchs and now Chilwell is doing well, does not mean that we should all accept he is always right. Chilwell has done OK so far this season, but so did Gray in the first couple of games. I still think Chilwell is a weakness defensively and actually Puel isn't getting the best out of his abilities because of the system he is stubbornly sticking to. 

 

I want a manager to be flexible and change things when the evidence suggest you should. Wenger's eventual downfall was because he stubbornly refused to change things. Coincidence that Wenger was a mentor to Puel... 

 

[LinekersApples]

4-4-2 with Slimani or Ulloa up top 

[Ric Flair]

52 minutes ago, FIF said:

 

So changing a third of the team doesn't make a difference? in that case changing one player won't either.

 

Ghezzal is a far better defender than Mahrez so not sure what you mean there either.

 

I think you, like many on here, simply don't like Puel. That's your perogative. 

The new players are Pereira who has played under Puel before, Maddison who looks a shining light and Ghezzal who so far looks a tidy team player. Yet we have a soft underbelly and are underperforming. Pereira has had a hand in several goals both for and against but I'm looking at the likes of Morgan, Maguire, Ndidi and Gray and wondering if they're performing well enough. What else explains our woeful defence, as you say Ghezzal looks defensively shrewd but we are still being carved open.

 

I've tried to like Puel, his plans are for the most part agreeable but ultimately it's all been a load of hot guff at the minute and resulted in the square root of fcuk all. I'm bored of the local media and the club peddling this bright future when there's little to show for it when the whistle blows. Time he got results or he goes.

[Jimmy]

apparently the Mercury and saying Maguire like Kane has England World cup syndrome, in other words he's ****ed and needs a holiday, after being rushed back and then playing both England games.

 

Personally I wouldn't be too upset if Wilf sat out the odd game for a more controlled Silva or Iborra on occasion

[winteriscoming]

Let me start by saying I'm against sacking puel. However some of his decisions are bizarre and he's not helping himself. Imo a minium of 4 points is required in the next 2 games. 

One name which I'm surprised that hasn't been mentioned is bilic. Not saying I'm giving my support for bilic but could see him taking over if puel went. He would tick the boxes - Prem experience and contacts abroad. 

[Ric Flair]

How much time does Puel need out of interest? What's a reasonable amount of time and how bad does it need to get before he's dragged? It's interesting to see the same posters asking for more time for Puel, like they did with Shakespeare and Ranieri and probably the managers before them too. I'm assuming this isn't decided on a case by case basis, but more of an attitude that managers should be given an infinite amount of time to succeed? 

 

Bar O'Neill, our managers in the modern era who've had even a modicum of success have hit the ground running in Pearson and Ranieri. Every other manager has either started badly and been moved on quickly or after a bright start, plummeted and left eventually with very little fan resistence. Puel after a decent and steady start, ended the season horrificly and even with a full pre-season and backed in the transfer market the slump continues. I'm intrigued why the owners think this regime is worth pursuing over previous others, if they're prepared to bin Ranieri after doing the unthinkable then how on earth are they content with this dog shit?

 

Get him gone.

[Grebfromgrebland]

I think it of that list only Chris Houghton is realistic and that's a long shot

[OhYesNdidi]

38 minutes ago, winteriscoming said:

Let me start by saying I'm against sacking puel. However some of his decisions are bizarre and he's not helping himself. Imo a minium of 4 points is required in the next 2 games. 

One name which I'm surprised that hasn't been mentioned is bilic. Not saying I'm giving my support for bilic but could see him taking over if puel went. He would tick the boxes - Prem experience and contacts abroad. 

Because billic is an awful manager and much worse than puel. 

 

West Ham players were turning up to training, spending a couple of hours in the gym then going home. They were also the un fittest side in the league. 

[Robin JD Popley]

[winteriscoming]

21 minutes ago, OhYesNdidi said:

Because billic is an awful manager and much worse than puel. 

 

West Ham players were turning up to training, spending a couple of hours in the gym then going home. They were also the un fittest side in the league. 

I just can see rudkin going down that path. Not saying I agree with it. 

[Vacamion]

 

I didn't want to vote for any of the managers listed, but wanted to see the poll results, so I picked Warnock, thinking I'll be the only one.

 

11 of us.  

 

 

[Tielemans63]

Howe, Wagner or Benitez for me.

[1972 Fox]

46 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

How much time does Puel need out of interest? What's a reasonable amount of time and how bad does it need to get before he's dragged? It's interesting to see the same posters asking for more time for Puel, like they did with Shakespeare and Ranieri and probably the managers before them too. I'm assuming this isn't decided on a case by case basis, but more of an attitude that managers should be given an infinite amount of time to succeed? 

 

Bar O'Neill, our managers in the modern era who've had even a modicum of success have hit the ground running in Pearson and Ranieri. Every other manager has either started badly and been moved on quickly or after a bright start, plummeted and left eventually with very little fan resistence. Puel after a decent and steady start, ended the season horrificly and even with a full pre-season and backed in the transfer market the slump continues. I'm intrigued why the owners think this regime is worth pursuing over previous others, if they're prepared to bin Ranieri after doing the unthinkable then how on earth are they content with this dog shit?

 

Get him gone.

I'm not in the Puel out camp because I believe he is following the strategy laid out to him by the club (as has been mentioned in another thread) which is medium to long term rather than short term.

 

I also think that Puel fits the steady criteria for Rudkin, in as much as he wouldn't have as much control if we appointed a bigger name as manager. 

[TMELcfc]

1 hour ago, Ric Flair said:

How much time does Puel need out of interest? What's a reasonable amount of time and how bad does it need to get before he's dragged? It's interesting to see the same posters asking for more time for Puel, like they did with Shakespeare and Ranieri and probably the managers before them too. I'm assuming this isn't decided on a case by case basis, but more of an attitude that managers should be given an infinite amount of time to succeed? 

 

Bar O'Neill, our managers in the modern era who've had even a modicum of success have hit the ground running in Pearson and Ranieri. Every other manager has either started badly and been moved on quickly or after a bright start, plummeted and left eventually with very little fan resistence. Puel after a decent and steady start, ended the season horrificly and even with a full pre-season and backed in the transfer market the slump continues. I'm intrigued why the owners think this regime is worth pursuing over previous others, if they're prepared to bin Ranieri after doing the unthinkable then how on earth are they content with this dog shit?

 

Get him gone.

Think Billic is worse at organising a defence than Claude...