Leicester City manager records since returning in 2014.

[LCFC hub]

**THIS IS NOT A PUEL OUT THREAD**

 

All this Puel in and out BS got me thinking about how good or bad his record actually is. 

 

I thought the best way would be to take a look at each of the managers records since we've been back in the Premier League. 

 

Some may say that it is unfair, as there are so many variables etc. 

 

Such as the squad we had when we were promoted didn't have a lot of Premier League experience. 

 

The squad we have now is much better and experienced for example, with strength in depth. 

 

Yet we do have a lot of young players in our squad and team so that can have a factor. 

 

Still, I find it interested. Here are my findings:

 

Nigel Pearson: Games - 38 Win - 11 Draw - 8 Lost - 9 Avg.Pts per game - 1.07

 

Claudio Ranieri: Games - 63 Win - 28 Draw - 17 Lost - 18 Avg.Pts per game - 1.61

 

Craig Shakespeare: Games - 21 Win - 9 Draw - 5 Lost - 7 Avg.Pts per game - 1.52

 

Claude Puel: Games - 34 Win - 12 Draw - 8 Lost - 14 Avg.Pts per game - 1.29

 

Overall Leicester City since returning back in Prem: 

Games - 157 Win - 61 Draw - 39 Lost - 57 Avg.Pts per game - 1.41

 

However take that title winning season out though and it looks like this... 

Games - 119 Win - 38 Draw - 27 Lost - 54

Avg.Pts per game - 1.18

 

If you average these points out over a 38 game season you come out with 53/54 points including the title winning season, 43/44 points if you take that season out. 

 

That isn't that great really. Realistically we all know the title winning season was a fluke so take that out and we really are only a mid table team. So, are we all expecting too much atm? 

Edited 19 September 2018 by 80's fox
Missed info

[Papasmurf]

In before it becomes a Puel out thread.

[WigstonWanderer]

6 minutes ago, 80's fox said:

**THIS IS NOT A PUEL OUT THREAD**

 

All this Puel in and out BS got me thinking about how good or bad his record actually is. 

 

I thought the best way would be to take a look at each of the managers records since we've been back in the Premier League. 

 

Some may say that it is unfair, as there are so many variables etc. 

 

Such as the squad we had when we were promoted didn't have a lot of Premier League experience. 

 

The squad we have now is much better and experienced for example, with strength in depth. 

 

Yet we do have a lot of young players in our squad and team so that can have a factor. 

 

Still, I find it interested. Here are my findings:

 

Nigel Pearson: Games - 38 Win - Draw - Lost - Avg.Pts per game - 

 

Claudio Ranieri: Games - 63 Win - 28 Draw - 17 Lost - 18 Avg.Pts per game - 1.61

 

Craig Shakespeare: Games - 21 Win - 9 Draw - 5 Lost - 7 Avg.Pts per game - 1.52

 

Claude Puel: Games - 34 Win - 12 Draw - 8 Lost - 14 Avg.Pts per game - 1.29

 

Overall Leicester City since returning back in Prem: 

Games - 157 Win - 61 Draw - 39 Lost - 57 Avg.Pts per game - 1.41

 

However take that title winning season out though and it looks like this... 

Games - 119 Win - 38 Draw - 27 Lost - 54

Avg.Pts per game - 1.18

 

If you average these points out over a 38 game season you come out with 53/54 points including the title winning season, 43/44 points if you take that season out. 

 

That isn't that great really. Realistically we all know the title winning season was a fluke so take that out and we really are only a mid table team. So, are we all expecting too much atm? 

Improbable maybe, but surely not a fluke to win by 10 points. Not the right word.

 

BTW where are Pearson’s stats?

Edited 19 September 2018 by WigstonWanderer

[The Doctor]

Man big Nige was so great his results can't be expressed in standard mathematics

[STUHILL]

10 minutes ago, Papasmurf said:

In before it becomes a Puel out thread.

Those stats aren't doing him any favours!

 

I think people are getting a bit caught up in the whole 'Why should we expect better than mid-table' thing.

 

I'm OK with finishing comfortably mid-table for a few seasons, as I think keeping our Premier League status and all the riches that comes with that, is vitally important to our long-term stability.

 

However, that doesn't mean that we can't raise some of the warning signs that many of us are seeing and therefore question whether Puel is indeed the right man for the long-term. 

 

At the moment he is getting some basics wrong and he needs to address those quickly, otherwise that already poor stat above, will only continue or even get worse. 

Edited 19 September 2018 by STUHILL

[LCFC hub]

9 minutes ago, WigstonWanderer said:

Improbable maybe, but surely not a fluke to win by 10 points. Not the right word.

 

BTW where are Pearson’s stats?

Maybe, not the right word because we won by 10 points. However, it was a one off. 

Pearson stats are above Ranieris

[LCFC hub]

4 minutes ago, STUHILL said:

Those stats aren't doing him any favours!

 

I think people are getting a bit caught up in the whole 'Why should we expect better than mid-table' thing.

 

I'm OK with finishing comfortably mid-table for a few seasons, as I think keeping our Premier League status and all the riches that comes with that, is vitally important to and our long-term stability.

 

However, that doesn't mean that we can't raise some of the warning signs that many of us our seeing and therefore question whether Puel is indeed the right man for the long-term. 

 

At the moment he is getting some basics wrong and he needs to address those quickly, otherwise that already poor stat above, will only continue or even get worse. 

If we are able to evolve in the way he is trying, as in better on the ball then I would take mid table this season at least. 

 

I am Puel in, but those stats do not look good tbh. 

[ozleicester]

The title wasnt a fluke, we were the best team in the league that year

[urban.spaceman]

5 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

The title wasnt a fluke, we were the best team in the league that year

80's fox OUT.

[urban.spaceman]

25 minutes ago, 80's fox said:

Realistically we all know the title winning season was a fluke

1

MODS!

[davieG]

16 minutes ago, 80's fox said:

Pearson stats are above Ranieris

There's no numbers in there.

 

Irrespective of your intentions and I'm not sure what they are this will become yet another Puel bashing topic.

[WigstonWanderer]

29 minutes ago, 80's fox said:

Maybe, not the right word because we won by 10 points. However, it was a one off. 

Pearson stats are above Ranieris

Pearson stats aren’t showing on my iPad.

[urban.spaceman]

27 minutes ago, 80's fox said:

**THIS IS NOT A PUEL OUT THREAD**

 

All this Puel in and out BS got me thinking about how good or bad his record actually is. 

 

I thought the best way would be to take a look at each of the managers records since we've been back in the Premier League. 

 

Some may say that it is unfair, as there are so many variables etc. 

 

Such as the squad we had when we were promoted didn't have a lot of Premier League experience. 

 

The squad we have now is much better and experienced for example, with strength in depth. 

 

Yet we do have a lot of young players in our squad and team so that can have a factor. 

 

Still, I find it interested. Here are my findings:

 

Nigel Pearson: Games - 38 Win - Draw - Lost - Avg.Pts per game - 

 

Claudio Ranieri: Games - 63 Win - 28 Draw - 17 Lost - 18 Avg.Pts per game - 1.61

 

Craig Shakespeare: Games - 21 Win - 9 Draw - 5 Lost - 7 Avg.Pts per game - 1.52

 

Claude Puel: Games - 34 Win - 12 Draw - 8 Lost - 14 Avg.Pts per game - 1.29

 

Overall Leicester City since returning back in Prem: 

Games - 157 Win - 61 Draw - 39 Lost - 57 Avg.Pts per game - 1.41

 

However take that title winning season out though and it looks like this... 

Games - 119 Win - 38 Draw - 27 Lost - 54

Avg.Pts per game - 1.18

 

If you average these points out over a 38 game season you come out with 53/54 points including the title winning season, 43/44 points if you take that season out. 

 

That isn't that great really. Realistically we all know the title winning season was a fluke so take that out and we really are only a mid table team. So, are we all expecting too much atm? 

Context matters. Pearson's season came at the end of a 6ish year project to build a team capable of getting promotion; despite a blistering start we couldn't buy a win for 6 months. We never lost by more than 2 goals though, and despite the football being turgid and us being at the bottom of the league I still felt at the end of the day that we could survive. Then came the last 10 games and we were outstanding - statistically one of the best teams in Europe at the time.

Finished 14th.

 

Claudio came in and reluctantly signed Kante with Walsh's insistence. We were more disciplined, free-scoring but leaking goals, until we properly clicked around October and were literally unbeatable with an experienced and solid back four protected by the Kante twins in front, and an irrepressable attacking force. Claudio got absolutely everything right.

Champions.

 

The following season we lost Kante, and then his replacement Mendy got a long-term injury that he's only just recovered from. Claudio tried to develop us further but sadly got everything wrong. We went on a run almost worse than anything we'd endured under Pearson - we didn't score a league goal for TWO months. The players were disenfranchised and not doing their jobs to the standards they were the previous season. Claudio sadly had to go. Shakespeare reverted back to what we knew and kept it simple - 6 straight wins (a PL record for an English manager) and an extension to our European tour were followed by volatile form amid countless injuries.

Finished 12th, though a disallowed goal on the last day could have seen us finishing 9th.

 

I still feel it was a mistake to give him the job full-time; after a decent summer we saw Shakey's ineptitude as a manager as he stuck to the system we knew (and by now, which everyone else knew too) and showed no real signs of developing the squad or our style of play. Claude came in and did very well in his first couple of months. Our form was then dreadful for quite a time after that, with suspensions and injuries galore as the players struggled and mostly failed to adapt to his system. Half a dozen players had an eye on the World Cup too. And Mahrez was sulking for a large portion of the season.

Finished 9th.

 

I'm very willing to be patient as we develop. Puel has a proven track record of developing clubs and I believe that given time, he will move us up a notch. 

 

TL;DR:

 

PUEL OUT.

[LCFC hub]

24 minutes ago, davieG said:

There's no numbers in there.

 

Irrespective of your intentions and I'm not sure what they are this will become yet another Puel bashing topic.

Ah it seems I may have missed them out. I'll have to edit that. 

 

My intentions were not to become a Puel bashing. Just to see how he compares irrespective of my opinion. 

 

I believe he is doing good things, although it is frustrating 

[LCFC hub]

2 hours ago, 80's fox said:

**THIS IS NOT A PUEL OUT THREAD**

 

All this Puel in and out BS got me thinking about how good or bad his record actually is. 

 

I thought the best way would be to take a look at each of the managers records since we've been back in the Premier League. 

 

Some may say that it is unfair, as there are so many variables etc. 

 

Such as the squad we had when we were promoted didn't have a lot of Premier League experience. 

 

The squad we have now is much better and experienced for example, with strength in depth. 

 

Yet we do have a lot of young players in our squad and team so that can have a factor. 

 

Still, I find it interested. Here are my findings:

 

Nigel Pearson: Games - 38 Win - 11 Draw - 8 Lost - 9 Avg.Pts per game - 1.07

 

Claudio Ranieri: Games - 63 Win - 28 Draw - 17 Lost - 18 Avg.Pts per game - 1.61

 

Craig Shakespeare: Games - 21 Win - 9 Draw - 5 Lost - 7 Avg.Pts per game - 1.52

 

Claude Puel: Games - 34 Win - 12 Draw - 8 Lost - 14 Avg.Pts per game - 1.29

 

Overall Leicester City since returning back in Prem: 

Games - 157 Win - 61 Draw - 39 Lost - 57 Avg.Pts per game - 1.41

 

However take that title winning season out though and it looks like this... 

Games - 119 Win - 38 Draw - 27 Lost - 54

Avg.Pts per game - 1.18

 

If you average these points out over a 38 game season you come out with 53/54 points including the title winning season, 43/44 points if you take that season out. 

 

That isn't that great really. Realistically we all know the title winning season was a fluke so take that out and we really are only a mid table team. So, are we all expecting too much atm? 

Apologies all, info now added for Pearson 

[l444ry]

Stats can mean all thing to everyone. Comparisons don't take into account the state of the club/team at the time. All that can be said with certainty is that the current manager has probably been given the most resources of any in this club's history. 

[KingsX]

2 hours ago, 80's fox said:

**THIS IS NOT A PUEL OUT THREAD**

 

** THIS IS NOT A BROKEN WINDOW **

 

 

** AND THIS IS NOT A DEAD DUCK **

 

 

    ... but we all know what's coming.

[LCFC hub]

42 minutes ago, KingsX said:

 

** THIS IS NOT A BROKEN WINDOW **

 

 

** AND THIS IS NOT A DEAD DUCK **

 

 

    ... but we all know what's coming.

Now now!! 

[Lambert09]

I cant be the only person who doesnt know if they are Puel in or Puel out... he's the most conflicting manager we've had for me.  Everytime he seems to get things moving in the right direction we soon take a step in the opposite direction.  Slow progression or slow deterioration... I honestly cant tell right now.  

 

 

[Great Boos Up]

Puel in/Puel out. Pearsonite or not. I love Claudio/get rid. @80's foxhas a good point. We do expect too much and have gained a reputation worse than Chelsea of pressing the sack button. The title winning season was a statistical fluke. A wonderful thing. If it wasn't we would all be millionaires. We are a strange lot. In fact I can't seriously talk about the game anymore to someone who doesn't  supported Leicester. We are that...bizarre

[WigstonWanderer]

8 hours ago, 80's fox said:

**THIS IS NOT A PUEL OUT THREAD**

 

All this Puel in and out BS got me thinking about how good or bad his record actually is. 

 

I thought the best way would be to take a look at each of the managers records since we've been back in the Premier League. 

 

Some may say that it is unfair, as there are so many variables etc. 

 

Such as the squad we had when we were promoted didn't have a lot of Premier League experience. 

 

The squad we have now is much better and experienced for example, with strength in depth. 

 

Yet we do have a lot of young players in our squad and team so that can have a factor. 

 

Still, I find it interested. Here are my findings:

 

Nigel Pearson: Games - 38 Win - 11 Draw - 8 Lost - 9 Avg.Pts per game - 1.07

 

Claudio Ranieri: Games - 63 Win - 28 Draw - 17 Lost - 18 Avg.Pts per game - 1.61

 

Craig Shakespeare: Games - 21 Win - 9 Draw - 5 Lost - 7 Avg.Pts per game - 1.52

 

Claude Puel: Games - 34 Win - 12 Draw - 8 Lost - 14 Avg.Pts per game - 1.29

 

Overall Leicester City since returning back in Prem: 

Games - 157 Win - 61 Draw - 39 Lost - 57 Avg.Pts per game - 1.41

 

However take that title winning season out though and it looks like this... 

Games - 119 Win - 38 Draw - 27 Lost - 54

Avg.Pts per game - 1.18

 

If you average these points out over a 38 game season you come out with 53/54 points including the title winning season, 43/44 points if you take that season out. 

 

That isn't that great really. Realistically we all know the title winning season was a fluke so take that out and we really are only a mid table team. So, are we all expecting too much atm? 

Pearson losses should be 19, not 9 I think.

[oadby.fox]

2 minutes ago, WigstonWanderer said:

Pearson losses should be 19, not 9 I think.

Yes - that does not add up to 38

[soulieoldie]

23 hours ago, WigstonWanderer said:

Pearson losses should be 19, not 9 I think.

also 38 + 63+21+34 games doesn’t add up to 157. The same with the losses 9 + 18 + 7 + 14 doesn’t add up to 57. So not accurate stats then. 

[desertfox2]

My head hurts. Pearson good but his son bad. Ranieri very good but then bad. All other managers in between good then bad. Puel... Good if we beat Huddersfield bad if we don't. 

 

Just had a Google search and not even including interim managers we have had 33 managers in 32 years if you count Pearson twice. Only used that as a reference point for age reasons. Strange but true.we are more trigger happy than Putin.

 

It's got to be about time we have a long term project. We need a board (not the owners, who are great) that either go all in with Puel or get rid and get someone in that we back for 3-4 years. 

Edited 20 September 2018 by desertfox2
Puel

[ozleicester]

This is from 14/15 but id suggest its even worse now...

 

The average tenure of a manager in the professional game in England has dropped to just 1.23 years - with the Championship the hardest league in which to keep your job.

 

The League Managers' Association has revealed that in the Championship, where there were 20 dismissals in the recently-completed season, the average spell in charge is just 0.86 years.