Time for Puel to go

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

2 minutes ago, Dames said:

I don’t agree with the first comment. The majority of the time he has to make substituions to rectify his poor tactical decisions from the beginning of the game.

 

Granted the subs have an impact but the real issue is that he has to make them in the first place to clean up his own mess.

I know all Puel outters want to throw the game against Chelsea, but I'm pleased a lot of our best players havent played a full 90 and will be good for Saturday

[Dames]

Just now, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

I know all Puel outters want to throw the game against Chelsea, but I'm pleased a lot of our best players havent played a full 90 and will be good for Saturday

I don’t want us to throw any game but with nothing to play for really in the league  (at the moment) why should we have rested our best players in a cup game we had a very good chance of winning? 

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

1 minute ago, Dames said:

I don’t want us to throw any game but with nothing to play for really in the league  (at the moment) why should we have rested our best players in a cup game we had a very good chance of winning? 

You could say we rested Ricardo and Albrighton and thats it

I know people are saying Vardy isnt injured, but he sure as s*** isnt fully fit

[walkerleeds]

10 minutes ago, Ricey said:

Vardy is not injured. He was rested.

 

Our strongest team does not currently include the likes of Simpson, Choudury, Ghezzal, Iheanacho and Soyuncu.

 

If we’d played our strongest team of course we’d have stood a better chance of winning the game.

 

If Vardy wasn't injured he would have been on the bench. No matter what you think about Puel, in a 90 minute cup game, he is obviously putting our best striker on the bench for at least the last few minutes (and to take a penalty, for that matter).

 

If you do believe he was 'rested' then frankly you're either very silly or absolutely stupid.

 

Simpson, Soyuncu and Hamza played well. No one would have done any better in our current squad. Iheanacho was our only choice up front. Ghezzal for Albrighton is the only one, in hindsight, that was the wrong option.

[Dahnsouff]

I think we also need to realise that our strongest available side failed against a Crystal Palace side on the weekend.....

[Blue Ed]

I'm not for sacking him, but I do think there are some issues that by the looks of how angry he was at the team last night I think he's aware of too.The issues for me are that can be split between Puel issue (style of play ect..) and General mismanagement issues since winning the league.

 

I'll start with the good however, the younger players have noticibly improved under Puel, Gray I think is having a good season and looks a much more mature player and Chilwell in particular. He obviously trusts the younger players and doesn't shy away from putting them straight in. Also when it clicks, we can play some lovely stuff.

 

Now for the not so good...

 

On the general side. We lacking strikers and when Vardy is injured it really affects our game. Puel knows this and I'm hoping that January or the Summer we get a couple in that can do a job. This was coming loosing Ulloa and Slim and we should have been planning to have back-ups in place over the last 2 years

 

Also on the general side- we've not been able to get a quality attacking winger in. Apart from Gray our team is a bit middle heavy at the moment and mean that Madders is asked sometimes to do a wide job, Puel I think knows this and he's definitely trying lots of options on the wings to see if anything clicks, Diabate, Ricardo, Ghezzel and Albrighton have been rotated to try and find that answer.

 

I don't think Puels completely blameless, I think his style of play is defensive and pragmatic which isn't very exciting. I'm not a fan of playing Mendy and Ndidi two defensive mids who when they are not in form don't have the best range of passes and will give the ball away to easily. I would rather see Iborra in there personally,

 

Overall I think Puel has the ability and knows to sort it out and would love to see a striker come through or be bought that can make an impact as a long term under study for Vardy. This time next year if he does stay on if he doesn't find those answers to those issues. I think we'll have to look elsewhere, just hope it's not a rushed appointment or knee jerk reaction.

 

 

 

Edited 19 December 2018 by Blue Ed

[Chown]

Recently transitioned over to Puel out after being on the fence for a while. Boring football and we seem to now just be sleepwalking through games. Fortunately for me I was in the pub nice and early before Fulham so couldn’t remember the majority of the game. I’m going to have to employ a similar tactic on Saturday.

[Rusko187]

23 minutes ago, walkerleeds said:

 

If Vardy wasn't injured he would have been on the bench. No matter what you think about Puel, in a 90 minute cup game, he is obviously putting our best striker on the bench for at least the last few minutes (and to take a penalty, for that matter).

 

If you do believe he was 'rested' then frankly you're either very silly or absolutely stupid.

 

Simpson, Soyuncu and Hamza played well. No one would have done any better in our current squad. Iheanacho was our only choice up front. Ghezzal for Albrighton is the only one, in hindsight, that was the wrong option.

Puel even said in his interview he wasn't injured and that he was tired.

 

Point being is he could have been benched for the game and in the event of a possible win (i.e. last night) you could have brought him on in the last 10 minutes. That way instead of subbing a striker for a right back we could have perhaps altered and brought on Vardy to support Nacho.

 

Another thing that really bugs me, Puel persists with 1 up top but clearly doesn't work for any of our strikers... why is he so blind to seeing what has been effective for us.

[UpTheLeagueFox]

24 minutes ago, Rusko187 said:

Another thing that really bugs me, Puel persists with 1 up top but clearly doesn't work for any of our strikers... why is he so blind to seeing what has been effective for us.

He has HIS way. He refuses to budge on that.

He could be getting more out of these players by tweaking his 'masterplan'.

Too stubborn for me.

[Matt]

1 hour ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

You could say we rested Ricardo and Albrighton and thats it

I know people are saying Vardy isnt injured, but he sure as s*** isnt fully fit

 

So why did we play him last Saturday and no doubt he'll be playing this Saturday?

 

By playing him last Saturday and it remains to be seen if he'll be playing this Saturday but I think he will all we are prolonging and arguably making the injury worse under your narative.

 

You can't have it both way i'm afraid, he either injured/not fit and sits out last Saturday/last night/this Saturday or he doesn't and there is no question over his fitness.

 

1 hour ago, walkerleeds said:

 

If Vardy wasn't injured he would have been on the bench. No matter what you think about Puel, in a 90 minute cup game, he is obviously putting our best striker on the bench for at least the last few minutes (and to take a penalty, for that matter).

 

If you do believe he was 'rested' then frankly you're either very silly or absolutely stupid.

 

Simpson, Soyuncu and Hamza played well. No one would have done any better in our current squad. Iheanacho was our only choice up front. Ghezzal for Albrighton is the only one, in hindsight, that was the wrong option.

 

"Lost in translation" I guess then.

[The Doctor]

1 minute ago, Matt said:

 

So why did we play him last Saturday and no doubt he'll be playing this Saturday?

 

By playing him last Saturday and it remains to be seen if he'll be playing this Saturday but I think he will all we are prolonging and arguably making the injury worse under your narative.

 

You can't have it both way i'm afraid, he either injured/not fit and sits out last Saturday/last night/this Saturday or he doesn't and there is no question over his fitness.

 

 

"Lost in translation" I guess then.

Do you not understand the how fitness works? Is he fully fit? No. Is he fit enough to be eased back into the team? Yes. You don't play a player 90+ minutes in every game straight back from injury when we've got 6 games in 17 days. You ease them back in with a few games.

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

3 minutes ago, Matt said:

 

So why did we play him last Saturday and no doubt he'll be playing this Saturday?

 

By playing him last Saturday and it remains to be seen if he'll be playing this Saturday but I think he will all we are prolonging and arguably making the injury worse under your narative.

 

You can't have it both way i'm afraid, he either injured/not fit and sits out last Saturday/last night/this Saturday or he doesn't and there is no question over his fitness.

 

 

"Lost in translation" I guess then.

Tired/injured/recovering from injury

 

 

Can you not see how you are nitpicking with the words used?

 

If he played yesterday there would clearly be high risk according to club club assessment of his fitness

 

Saying its anything other than that is conjecture

[Matt]

10 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

Do you not understand the how fitness works? Is he fully fit? No. Is he fit enough to be eased back into the team? Yes. You don't play a player 90+ minutes in every game straight back from injury when we've got 6 games in 17 days. You ease them back in with a few games.

 

But you chuck him straight in at the deep end for 90 at Palace?

 

10 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

Tired/injured/recovering from injury

 

 

Can you not see how you are nitpicking with the words used?

 

If he played yesterday there would clearly be high risk according to club club assessment of his fitness

 

Saying its anything other than that is conjecture

Quite, but a key word to be used would be management, as I said a full 90 on Saturday? To use a phrase used by The Doctor, "eased back into the team". Ok we were losing, chasing the game but even so surely you'd manage the situation with a big game ahead midweek,

 

Take the Brighton game for example before the last round of the cup v Southampton, Vardy didn't start, it was thought that thinking was to save him for game in midweek v Southampton. Personally i'd have started with him v Brighton, tried to get ahead then take him off, but that is nitpicking and it doesn't necessarily work that way admittedly.

 

Edited 19 December 2018 by Matt

[The Doctor]

1 minute ago, Matt said:

 

But you chuck him straight in at the deep end for 90 at Palace?

 

Quite, but a key word to be used would be management, as I said a full 90 on Saturday? Ok we were losing, chasing the game but even so surely you'd manage the situation with a big game ahead midweek.

 

Take the Brighton game for example before the last round of the cup v Southampton, Vardy didn't start, it was thought that thinking was to save him for game in midweek v Southampton. Personally i'd have started with him v Brighton, tried to get ahead then take him off, but that is nitpicking and it doesn't necessarily work that way.

You bring him back in for Palace, and the plan probably was off after 65 minutes or so but we all know fans would be out for his blood even more if he subs Vardy off while trailing...

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

1 minute ago, Matt said:

 

But you chuck him straight in at the deep end for 90 at Palace?

 

Quite, but a key word to be used would be management, as I said a full 90 on Saturday? Ok we were losing, chasing the game but even so surely you'd manage the situation with a big game ahead midweek.

 

Take the Brighton game for example before the last round of the cup v Southampton, Vardy didn't start, it was thought that thinking was to save him for game in midweek v Southampton. Personally i'd have started with him v Brighton, tried to get ahead then take him off, but that is nitpicking and it doesn't necessarily work that way.

I just think that Puel would have loved to have had Vardy as an option.  Imagine if we could have brought him on after scoring that goal?  We could have pushed on hard for a win, the lift in the stadium would have been massive

 

I really think we would have had him on the bench unless it wasnt sensible to do so

 

Yes we missed him, yes its a shame, no i'm sure its not out of anything other than necessity

[drofmor55]

Up till now found him to be too sterile both in his team tactics and interviews but last night his reaction when Albrighton scored showed a different side to him ...now i'm slowly coming around to him ! .Also thought Guardiola looked quite impressed with our performance last night. With  Hamza,Ndidi,Chilwell still very young and with Benkovic and Barnes to come back i can see us having a very  good side in a season or two. It was always going to be tough transition from the team that won the title but i think with the likes of Morgan,Vardy,Kasper and Albrighton playing their part we are slowly getting there. Ok performances these last few games have been hard to watch but i think we are still going to comfortably finish top 10 this season.

[Hammo]

I sense from reading through posts on this thread and others that the 'Puel in' and 'Puel out' factions are becoming increasingly entrenched in their viewpoint.

 

What I'd really like to know is what would need to happen for fans from either faction to 'turn' - i.e. The Puel ins to change their minds and want him to go, the Puel outs to suddenly want him to stay.

[Rusko187]

Damage has already been done for me, seen nothing in the ways of progression and he's done little to engage with the fan base. He's made us dreary, dull and blunt to watch.

 

Great that he's bringing through youth but he's not the only manager in the world capable of doing this, think we could do far better.

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

3 minutes ago, Hammo said:

I sense from reading through posts on this thread and others that the 'Puel in' and 'Puel out' factions are becoming increasingly entrenched in their viewpoint.

 

What I'd really like to know is what would need to happen for fans from either faction to 'turn' - i.e. The Puel ins to change their minds and want him to go, the Puel outs to suddenly want him to stay.

 

To want him gone I would require actual danger of relegation and to feel like the team has lost its fight

[Rusko187]

1 minute ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

 

To want him gone I would require actual danger of relegation and to feel like the team has lost its fight

Next 10 games should provide that for you then.

 

For me to like him? Sensible and consistent team selections, improvement in our playing style, convincing wins against opposing teams in and around our level and the odd upset against teams above us. Personally I think he's got a lot to do to win me over now and I will be honest, it was better the 2nd half but I don't feel that's him turning a corner.

[walkerleeds]

Just now, Matt said:

 

So why did we play him last Saturday and no doubt he'll be playing this Saturday?

 

By playing him last Saturday and it remains to be seen if he'll be playing this Saturday but I think he will all we are prolonging and arguably making the injury worse under your narative.

 

You can't have it both way i'm afraid, he either injured/not fit and sits out last Saturday/last night/this Saturday or he doesn't and there is no question over his fitness.

 

 

"Lost in translation" I guess then.

 

? alright then, not fit enough to play. Either way he wasn't available for selection

[The Doctor]

10 minutes ago, Hammo said:

I sense from reading through posts on this thread and others that the 'Puel in' and 'Puel out' factions are becoming increasingly entrenched in their viewpoint.

 

What I'd really like to know is what would need to happen for fans from either faction to 'turn' - i.e. The Puel ins to change their minds and want him to go, the Puel outs to suddenly want him to stay.

Be in real danger of relegation, which isn't happening, or a clear indication we're lining up a quality replacement and not someone like Big Sam.

[Xen]

3 hours ago, Fox85 said:

Once again I will clarify what I just recently stateted.

 

We would not be able to replace Mahrez.

I just say that one more time.

We would not be able to replace Mahrez.

But we could of got a much better player than gazelle who should be at Sunday league level.

Could of got Anderson we would of choose us over westham at the time.

Anderson cost triple what Ghezzal cost. Higher wages too, probably. With the other business we had already done, we couldn't afford that.

 

For your other suggestions: Shaqiri had Liverpool interest from the beginning so would never have came here. Roberts is at Man City who have messed us about with the Mahrez transfer and buyback clauses for Iheanacho, so there's every chance they did the same here and we walked away.

 

 

Ghezzal was bought as a squad player as an improvement on Diabaté, not as a first team player to replace Mahrez. We'll probably upgrade at some point in the next few seasons, but we needed another player to bolster our wing options and he fit the bill.

[Xen]

15 minutes ago, Hammo said:

I sense from reading through posts on this thread and others that the 'Puel in' and 'Puel out' factions are becoming increasingly entrenched in their viewpoint.

 

What I'd really like to know is what would need to happen for fans from either faction to 'turn' - i.e. The Puel ins to change their minds and want him to go, the Puel outs to suddenly want him to stay.

I've been firmly Puel In, but the last few performances have left me questioning it.

 

If he left now, I wouldn't be dissapointed so long as we have a replacement lined up. Get the right man in instead of Puel and give them the January window, and I'd accept that.

Alternatively, if we go through January without making any attempts to strengthen (particularly ST, though also CM) and results stay the same, then I'll be leaning towards Puel Out.

 

I'd still expect him to see through the end of the season, though.

However, any actual threat of relegation and he has to go. With the state of the league and the squad at his disposal, letting us slip into a relegation battle would be criminal.

 

[The Doctor]

5 minutes ago, Xen said:

Ghezzal was bought as a squad player as an improvement on Diabaté, not as a first team player to replace Mahrez. We'll probably upgrade at some point in the next few seasons, but we needed another player to bolster our wing options and he fit the bill.

Hopefully. I think the big arguement for this is we spent the summer linked to Anderson, Shaqiri, Roberts, Thorgan Hazard etc and Ghezzal turned up out of the blue 4 days before the end of the window. That screams last resort stop gap after your main targets haven't come off