Puel & Pearson one in the same?

[The Horse's Mouth]

Was originally going to make a poll, asking whether Puel has been more divisive than Pearson here, but got thinking about how very similar their reigns have been so far(mainly Pearson's second reign). Both have had very similar jobs to do and have had similar approaches, Pearson arrived and immediately started to get the dead wood out of the squad, clashed heads with the marquee signings in Beckford and Mills early on and quickly phased them out. Similar to Puel, he's clearly clashed with Vardy (albeit a much better asset than those other two mentioned) and has phased out King & Simpson quite aggressively. Both have had a somewhat similar emphasis on youth and both have brought through a defender from the academy into the starting eleven, both being local lads. Both were quite divisive during their reigns. Both also drew critcisims for their interviews with the press(even though Pearson's certainly got more interesting in the prem season) and also both seem to be quite stubborn in their approach to football matches.the only real thing they mainly differ on is their tactical approach, Nige someone who liked to stick with plan A and Puel a man with plans from A-Z. 

[davieG]

I wouldn't have said he's clashed with Vardy just that he needs him to play a more expansive game and I believe Vardy must realise that because no other team is available to him that plays 'his' way paying his wages. He also recently agreed a new lucrative long term contract under Puel.

 

I also wouldn't compare King and Simpson with Beckford and Mills more like Slimani, Musa ans Ulloa.

 

But yeah there are similarities but I don't think they're as close as you suggest with many subtle differences.

[pleatout]

Sorry to go off topic and be massively pedantic but what does "one in the same" mean?  I assume you mean "one AND the same"

 

[Tringfox]

1 minute ago, pleatout said:

Sorry to go off topic and be massively pedantic but what does "one in the same" mean?  I assume you mean "one AND the same"

 

If you hadn’t of told us we would never of known!! Thanks Holmes!

[pleatout]

you're welcome

 

[Tringfox]

11 minutes ago, pleatout said:

you're welcome

 

Any comments to make about the post or just the grammar and typing mistakes?

[Fox92]

Pearson did two massive rebuilds here.

 

The second time wasn't plain sailing. He didn't turn is into Champions overnight. He needed, and had, time and we put in some awful performances. I remember Barnsley away are we were hammered. In the end, it worked out, he was given time to build us into Champions and time is the key.

 

I think people seem to forget this. Puel ain't going to completely change our personnel and style of play and it all work in less than 2 years.

[l444ry]

False comparisons? Pearson cleared the decks at a far lower level. Wouldn't want to belittle his achievements at City but he had a dream job at a dream club with dream owners. Ain't done much elsewhere.  

[shailen]

Difference is that we were going nowhere before Pearson and he had to rebuild aggressively whereas we are probably at the highest realistic level we can be currently and were when Puel took over. 

 

He is trying to take us to that next level where we dominate the opposition with patient possession like Man City but we could end up playing ourselves into relegation. Saturday was a perfect example of why we are suited to be a counter attacking team - we have bags of pace and an intelligent forward like Vardy with blistering pace. 

 

I think personally the counter attack suits our style of play. Against those teams that will sit off us we should attack and try more riskier penetrating passes. Drinkwater and others did that a lot in our title winning season and its no coincidence that everyone is calling for Albrighton to be in the team as he always does this consistently. 

[SheppyFox]

Sort of. As for vardy, as he himself has said, he’ll have to improve and adapt because there aren’t many top teams that don’t play possession football, and we want to be a top team, I think.

[davieG]

4 minutes ago, shailen said:

Difference is that we were going nowhere before Pearson and he had to rebuild aggressively whereas we are probably at the highest realistic level we can be currently and were when Puel took over. 

 

He is trying to take us to that next level where we dominate the opposition with patient possession like Man City but we could end up playing ourselves into relegation. Saturday was a perfect example of why we are suited to be a counter attacking team - we have bags of pace and an intelligent forward like Vardy with blistering pace. 

 

I think personally the counter attack suits our style of play. Against those teams that will sit off us we should attack and try more riskier penetrating passes. Drinkwater and others did that a lot in our title winning season and its no coincidence that everyone is calling for Albrighton to be in the team as he always does this consistently. 

I don't believe we purposely set out to rely on counter attacks it's just inevitable when you play teams that are better at passing  and able to keep the ball more hence pushing you back and then relying on the break. I'm sure we would have loved to have spent more time in possession and in Chelsea's half but we're not yet good enough to maintain possession. 

 

Ideally you want a team that combines/can play both ways that is good with possession but capable of counter attacking from a defensive position. Hopefully as we improve our passing and if we maintain our speedy players we'll progress towards that.

 

Football's never really been any different to that with teams that have top notch players.

[AKCJ]

15 minutes ago, shailen said:

Difference is that we were going nowhere before Pearson and he had to rebuild aggressively whereas we are probably at the highest realistic level we can be currently and were when Puel took over. 

 

He is trying to take us to that next level where we dominate the opposition with patient possession like Man City but we could end up playing ourselves into relegation. Saturday was a perfect example of why we are suited to be a counter attacking team - we have bags of pace and an intelligent forward like Vardy with blistering pace. 

 

I think personally the counter attack suits our style of play. Against those teams that will sit off us we should attack and try more riskier penetrating passes. Drinkwater and others did that a lot in our title winning season and its no coincidence that everyone is calling for Albrighton to be in the team as he always does this consistently. 

Given that he build a title winning side minus Kante this is clearly ****ing bollocks.

[Strokes]

4 minutes ago, AKCJ said:

Given that he build a title winning side minus Kante this is clearly ****ing bollocks.

Nowhere before Pearson, not nowhere with Pearson.

[The Horse's Mouth]

27 minutes ago, shailen said:

Difference is that we were going nowhere before Pearson and he had to rebuild aggressively whereas we are probably at the highest realistic level we can be currently and were when Puel took over. 

 

He is trying to take us to that next level where we dominate the opposition with patient possession like Man City but we could end up playing ourselves into relegation. Saturday was a perfect example of why we are suited to be a counter attacking team - we have bags of pace and an intelligent forward like Vardy with blistering pace. 

 

I think personally the counter attack suits our style of play. Against those teams that will sit off us we should attack and try more riskier penetrating passes. Drinkwater and others did that a lot in our title winning season and its no coincidence that everyone is calling for Albrighton to be in the team as he always does this consistently. 

Let's be fair, Pearson walked into a team mid table with the season largely regarded as a write-off, Puel walked into a relegation battle so needed to steady the ship. Counter only works against sides like Chelsea though, who will press us. There's no point setting up for the counter against a team like Palace or a Cardiff. I don't think he's got the balance right fyi, but at the end of the day we've got no chance of recreating that system so it makes sense to move on to something else, whether that's Puel's brand I don't know. Pearson's job was to get us with England's elite and Puel's is to get us amongst Europe's, there job especially is very similar just on a greater scale for Puel

[AKCJ]

17 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Nowhere before Pearson, not nowhere with Pearson.

Won 7 of the last 9 games but okay.

[Corky]

1 hour ago, Fox92 said:

Pearson did two massive rebuilds here.

 

The second time wasn't plain sailing. He didn't turn is into Champions overnight. He needed, and had, time and we put in some awful performances. I remember Barnsley away are we were hammered. In the end, it worked out, he was given time to build us into Champions and time is the key.

 

I think people seem to forget this. Puel ain't going to completely change our personnel and style of play and it all work in less than 2 years.

It shouldn't be forgotten that for all Pearson's good work, and there was plenty, we had to sit through some horrid games and awful runs of form before the eventual goal was achieved, namely the Championship title and Premier League survival. It wasn't all glorious football and sitting at the top of a league. In fact, the win on Saturday was the sort that Pearson specialised in- tough, gritty away performance and a clinical finish. I think of QPR away in 2013/14 where we survived spells of pressure, Vardy scores a cracker and we hold on.

 

Puel will never have Pearson's popularity but that doesn't mean he can't do a decent job in time. We have the makings of a good side that can be improved and hopefully Puel or the next man can make us better.

[Foxxed]

Both very stubbon. Both needed to move on older players. Pearson, however, seems much more congenial than Puel. I want to say they both want to build a team and think long term but what good manager doesn't?

[Strokes]

1 hour ago, AKCJ said:

Won 7 of the last 9 games but okay.

Have you been drinking?

[Charl91]

11 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Have you been drinking?

 

As in, Pearson did, I believe he is saying. (Great Escape)

[The Doctor]

1 hour ago, AKCJ said:

Won 7 of the last 9 games but okay.

Before Pearson? No we didn't. Before Pearson came back we won 3, drew 2, lost 4 and were 12th in the Championship

[Strokes]

Just now, The Doctor said:

Before Pearson? No we didn't. Before Pearson came back we won 3, drew 2, lost 4 and were 12th in the Championship

Thank you 

I was re-reading it then thinking I was going mad.

[The Doctor]

5 minutes ago, Charl91 said:

 

As in, Pearson did, I believe he is saying. (Great Escape)

 

Which means he doesn't understand the concept of before. People aren't arguing we were going nowhere with Pearson in charge, they're arguing Pearson came in and had to fix a club that had been going nowhere under Sven

[Charl91]

3 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

 

Which means he doesn't understand the concept of before. People aren't arguing we were going nowhere with Pearson in charge, they're arguing Pearson came in and had to fix a club that had been going nowhere under Sven

 

Yeah, you're right - I didn't actually read most of the preceding comments/conversation  

[dmayne7]

2 hours ago, l444ry said:

False comparisons? Pearson cleared the decks at a far lower level. Wouldn't want to belittle his achievements at City but he had a dream job at a dream club with dream owners. Ain't done much elsewhere.  

Apart from the fact he did the same thing at Hull and completely saved them from plummeting down the leagues, cutting wages massively etc.

 

I don't get the comparisons really. Pearson did a great job here and that took time but again, he cut costs and put in place all the building blocks for future successes. I'm not anti Puel but it's crass to put him in the same class as Pearson. His job was a million times easier (now complicated by the Vichai situation)

[lfu]

4 hours ago, Tringfox said:

If you hadn’t of told us we would never of known!! Thanks Holmes!

on that note... 'would have' or 'would've', never 'would of'