Sing for Claude

[Voll Blau]

He's led a team to victory days after a horrific and very public tragedy which killed his boss, flown half way round the world and back for the funeral of said boss while still trying to run a functioning football team - who are yet to lose since the tragedy happened.

 

And yet, AND YET, the important thing seems to be for a few vain cvnts on here to keep up the criticism just so they can tell everyone "I was right all along about him". Good on you lads. Heroes every one. 

Edited 11 November 2018 by Voll Blau

[Freeman's Wharfer]

1 hour ago, volpeazzurro said:

Really?  Are we counting Chilwell and Pereira as defensive now just to fit your theory? Those two with Vardy, Gray, Ghezzal and Allbrighton make 6 attacking players? Many teams employ two more defensive minded midfielders. If we'd scored a few more of those 22 shots would it still have been a defensive line up or merely ruined your day because it would have spoilt the opportunity to have a dig?

 

As has been pointed out, all those shots and no goals may equal poor finishing or sometimes just a bit of bad luck on the day. Difficult circumstances with some emotionally drained players who did well under the circumstances for me on the day. Allbrighton also carrying an injury and hadn't trained all week. Maguire and Maddison injured and who knows other than the manager why others possibly weren't picked (people quick to jump on the anti Puel bandwagon re Albrighton until he explained why)! We're rebuilding and some of the players might just not be up to the job in the long term. Just because a team is lower than you in the table doesn't give you the automatic right or expectation that you should win.

 

Yesterday after all that's happened was not a day to be whining about football like a bunch of big girls blouses and know it all football experts ... lest we forget.

Yes I am, they are defenders playing in a back four.

 

Ok they might be more attacking defenders than those like Simpson but it doesn't take away from the fact that first and foremost they are defenders and we had four of them behind Ndidi and Mendy.

 

Next you'll be telling me not to count Maguire as a defender because he makes forays forward... 

[Freeman's Wharfer]

55 minutes ago, Voll Blau said:

He's led a team to victory days after a horrific and very public tragedy which killed his boss, flown half way round the world and back for the funeral of said boss while still trying to run a functioning football team - who are yet to lose since the tragedy happened.

 

And yet, AND YET, the important thing seems to be for a few vain cvnts on here to keep up the criticism just so they can tell everyone "I was right all along about him". Good on you lads. Heroes every one. 

We've played Cardiff who will be fighting relegation all season and a really poor Burnley side who the likes of West Ham have been ripping open (the same West Ham that we couldn't beat at home even with an extra man).

 

It's not about being right all along. It's about being pragmatic and taking the emotion out of the equation and assessing things in the context of the last 12 months rather than the last 12 days.

 

Out of interest, when does the accident stop being a factor? Like when will we be able to assess the football we see played before us without attributing it to the accident? One week? One month? One year?

 

Might be worth us all trying to agree some ground rules here so I don't look like I'm just trying to prove I'm right when we've just failed to beat a poor Southampton side at home in January or something.

[Max Wall]

16 minutes ago, Freeman's Wharfer said:

We've played Cardiff who will be fighting relegation all season and a really poor Burnley side who the likes of West Ham have been ripping open (the same West Ham that we couldn't beat at home even with an extra man).

 

It's not about being right all along. It's about being pragmatic and taking the emotion out of the equation and assessing things in the context of the last 12 months rather than the last 12 days.

 

Out of interest, when does the accident stop being a factor? Like when will we be able to assess the football we see played before us without attributing it to the accident? One week? One month? One year?

 

Might be worth us all trying to agree some ground rules here so I don't look like I'm just trying to prove I'm right when we've just failed to beat a poor Southampton side at home in January or something.

The problem with looking at it like that is, how can you take the emotion out of the last couple of weeks?

In my view, to have done what the players have over the course of those games, calling it miraculous would be over dramatic but it's a pretty incredible feat. Bags of emotional energy expended recently, coupled with long distance travel. They've done well to complete 180 minutes, let alone take 4 points from 6.

Given the situation, criticising them for not beating 'a pretty poor Burnley' seems incredibly harsh to me.

[LCCFox96]

Given everything that's happened off the pitch, regardless of the standard of the opposition, 4 points out of 6 is a very credible return. You could also argue we were worthy of the win yesterday but it just wasn't to be. 

 

Claude has conducted himself with composure, respect and class over the last few weeks. Any criticism aimed at him over the Cardiff and Burnley games is grossly unfair.

[sylofox]

I did wonder how long the knobheads would stay away. Suppose we now have the answer. 

 

But you have to agree with them. It's Puel's fault for telling players to shoot along the floor. As for telling them to hit the woodwork that's just genius. 

[weller54]

3 hours ago, Swan Lesta said:

Ah difficult week again so we can’t talk about the actual football ? 

That's not what I meant. 

Yesterday wasn't the day for over analysing the players that's all. 

[volpeazzurro]

1 hour ago, Freeman's Wharfer said:

Yes I am, they are defenders playing in a back four.

 

Ok they might be more attacking defenders than those like Simpson but it doesn't take away from the fact that first and foremost they are defenders and we had four of them behind Ndidi and Mendy.

 

Next you'll be telling me not to count Maguire as a defender because he makes forays forward... 

Surely it's not the position, it's the way full backs are employed eg Ranieri's choice of more traditional fullbacks compared to the duties of the present two. I can't remember Simpson joining the attack as much as Pereira can you? Two completely different types of full back and whilst Fuchs was more proactive in that area of work than Simpson, he was hardly given the same licence to roam and assist the attack compared to Puel's use of Chilwell. If you were to invoke the names of Carlos and Cafu do you automatically think of defending or do you recognise that they were defenders who assisted in attack as a main stay of there job?  Trippier, Walker, Rose, are they renowned more for their attacking play and prowess or defending? You don't need to employ a 352 to use wing backs either and if using a 442, that is why sometimes two more defensively minded midfielders are employed. Now, Chilwell and Pereira are no Cafu or Carlos but neither were the latter bought from the pound shop. The mere fact that so many chances to shoot were made yesterday bears witness to the fact we were attacking per say (compared with only one posdibly two Burnley opportunites). The fact we didn't score denotes different issues and it remains still that all things considered it was a difficult day.

Edited 11 November 2018 by volpeazzurro

[lgfualol]

1 hour ago, Freeman's Wharfer said:

We've played Cardiff who will be fighting relegation all season and a really poor Burnley side who the likes of West Ham have been ripping open (the same West Ham that we couldn't beat at home even with an extra man).

 

 

We ripped Burnley apart constantly.

 

When is Puel going to stop being blamed for terrible finishing? Vardy has had abysmal shooting for a while, Ghezzal came really close, Gray had a 1v1 most would finish and Albrighton got good chances but put them straight at the keeper. 11 corners. 

 

Personally dont think Puel asked them to miss.

[Freeman's Wharfer]

I'll ask this question again as I'm genuinely interested to hear people's responses...

 

When does the accident stop being a factor? When will we be able to assess the football we see played before us without attributing it to the accident? One week? One month? One year?

[FilbertFrog]

Anyone slagging this man off needs to leave their season tickets at the gate and go follow basketball 

 

is he perfect ? NO 

is he doing a good job ? YES 

can we improve ? Of course 

do we need a song for him ? Yes 

 

to the tune of Spandau’s of Gold 

 

Claude Claude Always believe in Puel 
you've got the power to know
you're indestructible
always believe in

Claude PUuuuueeeLLLL
 

[FilbertFrog]

8 minutes ago, Freeman's Wharfer said:

I'll ask this question again as I'm genuinely interested to hear people's responses...

 

When does the accident stop being a factor? When will we be able to assess the football we see played before us without attributing it to the accident? One week? One month? One year?

I’ll bounce the question back ....

 

you give us your blinkered thoughts on WHEN ? 

[Guest Markyblue]

9 minutes ago, Freeman's Wharfer said:

I'll ask this question again as I'm genuinely interested to hear people's responses...

 

When does the accident stop being a factor? When will we be able to assess the football we see played before us without attributing it to the accident? One week? One month? One year?

Probably when us and the players have stopped grieving.  And also when they have a game when they have not just travelled half way round the world and missed 2 days training. You want to discuss the matches fine,but lets at least start on a level playing field ffs.

[The Doctor]

15 minutes ago, Freeman's Wharfer said:

I'll ask this question again as I'm genuinely interested to hear people's responses...

 

When does the accident stop being a factor? When will we be able to assess the football we see played before us without attributing it to the accident? One week? One month? One year?

Weird question to ask when we played very well yesterday and deserved the win but for finishing - Puel can't make Ghezzal head lower, Vardy not find the only spot on the line it could be blocked or Gray not miss a 1v1 - and didn't have a full weeks training, instead doing a 12000 mile round trip in 36 hours...

[Freeman's Wharfer]

23 minutes ago, FilbertFrog said:

I’ll bounce the question back ....

 

you give us your blinkered thoughts on WHEN ? 

I would say that we have an international weekend now which provides a good stop gap for everyone to recover mentally and physically from the last two weeks.

 

So start of December onwards for me. If we're not taking a good points tally off the likes of Watford, Fulham, Palace and Cardiff in December then I'd be concerned.

[Freeman's Wharfer]

23 minutes ago, Markyblue said:

Probably when us and the players have stopped grieving.  And also when they have a game when they have not just travelled half way round the world and missed 2 days training. You want to discuss the matches fine,but lets at least start on a level playing field ffs.

That's absolutely fine. To be clear I'm not judging based on one game - I'm looking across the previous 12 months.

 

Not expecting people to say that we should be judging his suitability on just the Burnley game - let's not forget this thread was about singing a chant for him because he's handled the last couple of weeks well and a couple of us have simply said we don't believe he should be supported above what he has so far simply because of this - but just interested to know how long people think that accident should be a factor.

 

So what do you reckon? Should we wipe the slate clean pre-accident and just judge from now onwards? Or when are we able to look across a prolonged period of results and assess without the accident clouding judgement?

[winteriscoming]

I do like Claude and what hes trying to do. Develop youth and it is working. What I do take issue with is the strange subs in games. Yesterday he took Albrighton off who I thought was having a decent game and brought inechecho on who did nothing. His insistance of playing wes who is clearly past it. 

[lifted*fox]

1 hour ago, Freeman's Wharfer said:

I'll ask this question again as I'm genuinely interested to hear people's responses...

 

When does the accident stop being a factor? When will we be able to assess the football we see played before us without attributing it to the accident? One week? One month? One year?

 

You're really not covering yourself in glory here at all. 

 

The accident will be a factor for as long as it takes for the players and staff to get it out of their system. It's your job as a fan to support them for as long as it takes. 

 

The accident isn't even anything to do with what you're arguing. You're arguing that we set up negatively against Burnley and that is point blank incorrect. We did not. We looked dangerous for the first thirty and we looked ****ing knackered but still trying to get forward as much as possible afterwards. The bench is decimated and as far as I can see Puel played as many of our attacking players as possible. 

 

The fact you're choosing to ignore the emotion, the 12,000 mile round trip and the occasion says more about you than it does the performance. I'm happy to talk about the football right now, irrespective of the accident BUT I'm absolutely taking the accident into consideration as it happened just 14 ****ing days ago. 

 

Whatever, carry on arguing but you're only making yourself look stupid at this point - and that's said with no animosity at all - I'm just calling it as it is. 

[Max Wall]

48 minutes ago, Freeman's Wharfer said:

That's absolutely fine. To be clear I'm not judging based on one game - I'm looking across the previous 12 months.

 

Not expecting people to say that we should be judging his suitability on just the Burnley game - let's not forget this thread was about singing a chant for him because he's handled the last couple of weeks well and a couple of us have simply said we don't believe he should be supported above what he has so far simply because of this - but just interested to know how long people think that accident should be a factor.

 

So what do you reckon? Should we wipe the slate clean pre-accident and just judge from now onwards? Or when are we able to look across a prolonged period of results and assess without the accident clouding judgement?

I can't totally understand your side of the argument. I was Puel in before recent events and remain so. That doesn't detract from some of his failings though.

I think he deserves to be supported over his handling of the last two weeks regardless of whether you actually want him in or out. I'm not going to pontificate over how he's done recently any further as plenty has been said on this forum about it already.

I do find it slightly strange that some think Puel doesn't deserve a chant singing in respect/as a thank you, for handling these events so well. That just seems churlish in the extreme but everyone has their opinion.

 

I'd like to think that all supporters could get behind him right now.

 

Let's face facts, you mentioned a good points tally from the games against Watford, Fulham, Palace and Cardiff coming up. I think everyone would like a good points tally against these teams. If we're playing badly and not gaining points, more people will call his position into question anyway. That is regardless of whether we 'wipe the slate clean from now', as you put it. These posts have cropped up in this thread after they've taken 4 points from 6 in a pretty difficult period.

 

It's a pretty sad fact of life that even something like this tragic event can't unite supporters behind their manager. I wouldn't ask for 6 months, just get behind him now rather than look forward to matches we may or may not lose in December.

Edited 11 November 2018 by Max Wall

[fuchsntf]

25 minutes ago, Freeman's Wharfer said:

That's absolutely fine. To be clear I'm not judging based on one game - I'm looking across the previous 12 months.

 

Not expecting people to say that we should be judging his suitability on just the Burnley game - let's not forget this thread was about singing a chant for him because he's handled the last couple of weeks well and a couple of us have simply said we don't believe he should be supported above what he has so far simply because of this - but just interested to know how long people think that accident should be a factor.

 

So what do you reckon? Should we wipe the slate clean pre-accident and just judge from now onwards? Or when are we able to look across a prolonged period of results and assess without the accident clouding judgement?

The when is for the Individual...

But,it seem you and a few more,are out looking to pounce on everything that doesn't fit to your own ideas of what Puel isn't doing right!!!

Even in criticism you have to take in the positives,just like in the plaudits,one looks into the negatives....It's sport and rightly there should be

analyse,discussion and judgement.

You speak of the last 12 months...there I believe you are totally wrong,Puels mandate was to consolidate,and slowly bring in his ideas 

to the fore, and have the hard task of sorting out the base squad for the next 2 seasons with an easy carte Blanche. 

We have the players we have,even with players brought in,time will be needed for any manager,but the calibre of his first choice 12-16 players

is still not yet "his" choice,but he took the task on,and he should be answerable,for the direction and all round performances .

 

I for one see vast improvement,to how we could of been. We were in a downward spiral,we were turgid more so than not...

we haven't made big steps,but we have more "all round improvements" Puels tenure for me started this season,not to produce

a well oiled cog,but to get the direction right...I

again posters jump on new blooded players,forgetting easily!!! It takes awhile for all players to bed in....

I held back on Chilwell,Gray...but like I posted last season,the future will be their judge!!!

our quality of performances have improved,so please don't argue on that account,turgid has been thrown out.

it seems so me posters want an immediate top 5 chasing team....get out of here!! It ain't going to happen,it never has!!

It takes time of twists and turns...

 

All the negative posters,would have us relegated first with their choices....so accept the hard course it's going to take!!!

 

 

 

 

[volpeazzurro]

1 hour ago, Freeman's Wharfer said:

I'll ask this question again as I'm genuinely interested to hear people's responses...

 

When does the accident stop being a factor? When will we be able to assess the football we see played before us without attributing it to the accident? One week? One month? One year?

Personally I think we've had that terrible fortnight now and all that went with it, there's now an international break, so after that, though everybody deals with things differently I would think things like training and day to day life should be reasonably back to normal for the players. For Top, it's now when the distraction of media and funerals are over that the grieving begins. The players however have to be professional like we would be going back to work after a bereavement. However, I feel that they've all been very professional on and off the field throughout. 

 

As for performance and criticism, we all have a right to our say. I just hope that now in a more family oriented spirit after all the events, it can stay at just that and perhaps it can be a little more tempered and reasoned out than the sometimes the vitreolic extremes of someone being either brilliant or not being worthy of being able to draw breath! We're in 10th spot 3 points off 6th and the club is full of promising young yet unsurprisingly inconsitant kids. We've a lot to be thankful for and a loss or two is not worthy of the total vilification of players and manager and total meltdown every time it hapoens. It's just football.

[Freeman's Wharfer]

27 minutes ago, lifted*fox said:

 

You're really not covering yourself in glory here at all. 

 

The accident will be a factor for as long as it takes for the players and staff to get it out of their system. It's your job as a fan to support them for as long as it takes. 

 

The accident isn't even anything to do with what you're arguing. You're arguing that we set up negatively against Burnley and that is point blank incorrect. We did not. We looked dangerous for the first thirty and we looked ****ing knackered but still trying to get forward as much as possible afterwards. The bench is decimated and as far as I can see Puel played as many of our attacking players as possible. 

 

The fact you're choosing to ignore the emotion, the 12,000 mile round trip and the occasion says more about you than it does the performance. I'm happy to talk about the football right now, irrespective of the accident BUT I'm absolutely taking the accident into consideration as it happened just 14 ****ing days ago. 

 

Whatever, carry on arguing but you're only making yourself look stupid at this point - and that's said with no animosity at all - I'm just calling it as it is. 

You're missing my point here...

 

Should we start to sing Puel's name just because of the last two weeks? No, the merit of singing his name should be based on the whole picture and not just an isolated incident.

 

Did we play well against Burnley? We were ok, should have probably won. Would have had a better chance of winning without a back four and two defensive midfielders for the entire 90 mins (you can still look dangerous against a poor side with a safety-first approach - imagine how dangerous you'd look if you threw caution to the wind even more)

 

Should the last two weeks give Puel a free pass? Absolutely not. We should judge him across the last 12 months and it would be good to clarify when we can start looking at the bigger picture (because like it or not that result yesterday will fit into the bigger picture come the end of December when we're considering points won at home versus the bottom half - which was his big undoing last season)

 

Is either of us right or wrong? No, it's all about opinions. Some will want Puel out based on the approach and the results across a prolonged period, others will think we should settle for safety and 9th-12th. Some will give Puel extra time because of the accident, others will believe he would/should have been sacked for results up to the night of the accident.

 

Am I stupid? Definitely not. I'm not a Puel fan based on what I've seen from him in the last year. I firmly believe anything below 8th is a poor season given the squad we have and resources. I feel we struggle against the poorer teams at home as the approach is the same as for the better teams away. I'm more at the pragmatic end of the scale regarding the accident and feel that after yesterday it's time to get back to move on and get back to normality.

[Livid]

I’ll hold my hands up.

 

A year ago I thought there was no way on earth Chilwell would cut it as a left back let alone an England international but I was wrong he has come on tremendously. That is down to Puel, he stood by him when he was getting slated (including by me), gave him confidence and probably taught him a couple of things.

 

Ricardo is starting to get it. As good as he looks bombing forward I think he’s beginning to understand you can’t do that at will in this league. 

 

A couple of of months ago I didn’t see much progress but the longer the season goes the better we seem to look. It will come. 

[Spudulike]

The chorus from La Marseillaise would fit perfectly....

 

Puel, Puel, Puel, Claude Puel

Puel, Claude Puel.

[Bluetintedspecs]

4 hours ago, Freeman's Wharfer said:

I'll ask this question again as I'm genuinely interested to hear people's responses...

 

When does the accident stop being a factor? When will we be able to assess the football we see played before us without attributing it to the accident? One week? One month? One year?

You need to take a long hard look in the mirror. Shameful you are even thinking this way all things considered.?