Puel Gone - Official

[Steve Earle]

1 hour ago, Fox92 said:

And Evans. And Maddison. 

And Ghezzal  

[sacreblueits442]

10 hours ago, Vindaloo FOX said:

Good luck to him, had the right idea here, bring in the youth and keep the ball more but sadly his style of football became dull and boring.

 

Not speaking English well must have not helped.

... still can not understand people saying this.!! 

  Football is universal, there is no reason why you can't communicate what you want your players to do on the pitch. 

  The real problem was his team set up and how his inflexible approach grated on the supporters. The same problems that prevailed with Puel are what we are at present experiencing at times with Rodgers. Playing in a system with players in the wrong position, will naturally impact on the ability of the team to perform.

This is not a language problem, just a matter of football philosophy! 

[SouthStandUpperTier]

2 minutes ago, sacreblueits442 said:

... still can not understand people saying this.!! 

  Football is universal, there is no reason why you can't communicate what you want your players to do on the pitch. 

  The real problem was his team set up and how his inflexible approach grated on the supporters. The same problems that prevailed with Puel are what we are at present experiencing at times with Rodgers. Playing in a system with players in the wrong position, will naturally impact on the ability of the team to perform.

This is not a language problem, just a matter of football philosophy! 

Precisely. Puel's English was no worse than Ranieri's. Probably a little better. But what was being said sounded more inspiring/convincing coming from Ranieri.

[deep blue]

7 hours ago, Dan LCFC said:

Puel is so much more suited to being a director of football over a manager it's ridiculous.

Absolutely agree with this. It's a shame there isn't a job out there for him in that capacity.

[Paninistickers]

It's worth remembering the situation he arrived at; car crash horror football with the likeable - but out of his depth - Shakespeare.

 

Within weeks Claude had created a template for the team we are viewed as now; young progressive tactically astute team.

 

That's helluva shift from the direction of travel we were on

 

 

[SheppyFox]

I still like him and wish him well, we wouldn’t be where we are now without him.

[AKCJ]

25 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

It's worth remembering the situation he arrived at; car crash horror football with the likeable - but out of his depth - Shakespeare.

 

Within weeks Claude had created a template for the team we are viewed as now; young progressive tactically astute team.

 

That's helluva shift from the direction of travel we were on

 

 

You're right, Puel did turn things around very quickly.

 

But then the team became worse and worse to watch to the point that scratching your eyes out would have been preferable to an afternoon down the KP.

 

The last 5 months was unbearable.

[Koke]

28 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

It's worth remembering the situation he arrived at; car crash horror football with the likeable - but out of his depth - Shakespeare.

 

 

I think Puel's critics often forgot this. 

 

Cast your mind back to the 1-1 home game v WBA that got Shakespeare sacked. Horrific anti football that was gonna lead us to 16th in the league. 

[AKCJ]

34 minutes ago, Koke said:

 

I think Puel's critics often forgot this. 

 

Cast your mind back to the 1-1 home game v WBA that got Shakespeare sacked. Horrific anti football that was gonna lead us to 16th in the league. 

 

The 1-1 against West Brom was nothing compared to the likes of 1-4 Palace, 0-1 Newcastle, 0-0 Southampton, 1-2 Newcastle, 0-3 Palace, 0-1 Cardiff, 1-2 Southampton etc etc.

 

Shakespeare's footie was very poor, but Puel's football was next level shite.

[Ian Nacho]

Just like Pearson built the foundations for Ranieri, Puel has laid the foundations for Rodgers.

[Dan]

4 hours ago, ALC Fox said:

A great, famous old club. Do they still hold the record number of top tier French titles?

 

I wish him well. We seem to put a lot of emphasis on charisma with our football managers, I wonder if it's the same in France and I wonder if Claude actually comes across as more charismatic in French than he does in English.

 

He did a lot of good work here, laying the foundations for what Rodgers is doing now. I was disappointed with his sacking at first but I accept now that it was the right decision. Not least for how he was using Vardy, who has proven that he is still at the peak of his powers aged 32.

I'd heard a French based journalist say he's considered dull over there as well. The language barrier only makes it worse but he's not a charismatic person.

[Dan]

3 hours ago, Koke said:

 

I think Puel's critics often forgot this. 

 

Cast your mind back to the 1-1 home game v WBA that got Shakespeare sacked. Horrific anti football that was gonna lead us to 16th in the league. 

That kind of result and performance was exactly the norm under Puel as well though. You've got to be honest. Our home form, particularly against struggling sides was an embarrassment.

[The Horse's Mouth]

2 hours ago, Ian Nacho said:

Just like Pearson built the foundations for Ranieri, Puel has laid the foundations for Rodgers.

we were actually good when pearson left though

[UpTheLeagueFox]

14 hours ago, Deeg67 said:

Puel did all the necessary dirty work for the next manager.

Not this bolllocks again please!

Dirty work! Shut up.

 

6 hours ago, Corky said:

And just as Geoff Peters starts his new role as the French Football Reporter at TalkSport.

What timing.

 Your post is qualiteeee 

 

2 hours ago, Ian Nacho said:

Just like Pearson built the foundations for Ranieri, Puel has laid the foundations for Rodgers.

What Puel did for Rodgers doesn't even come close to what Pearson did for Ranieri. Not even in the same stratosphere. Please stop this utter nonsense.

[Stadt]

There’s some weird revisionism in this thread, even coming from somebody that stuck up for him for most of his tenure. The crux is that he improved the squad via transfers and gave younger players minutes but he’s a terrible coach and man manager. We were mostly fine off the pitch, but usually average and often abysmal on it.

 

He did some good for the club but his managerial style didn’t match our ambition. We never looked more than the sum of our parts and now we do, Rodgers is confident and ambitious; Puel wasn’t.

 

Saint Etienne is a great move for him anyway.

[KingsX]

11 hours ago, Dan LCFC said:

Puel is so much more suited to being a director of football over a manager it's ridiculous.

 

Now there's a thought 

 

[HighPeakFox]

Are we banned from not agreeing with you @UpTheLeagueFox?

 

There has to be room for nuance. 

[That_Dude]

9 minutes ago, HighPeakFox said:

Are we banned from not agreeing with you @UpTheLeagueFox?

 

There has to be room for nuance. 

His personal dislike of Puel is astonishing. The latter deserved to go but I have yet to see an ounce of objectivity from him on that matter. 

[Tom12345]

9 hours ago, Cujek said:

Fair play a d good luck to him. 

 

When he came I felt positive and thought Southampton were pretty ungreatful for how they had treated considering they finished 7th and got to a cup final. 

 

I gave him every chance and defending him stoutly. 

 

But it became apparent that he had no real idea on football matters, he had no idea how to use the players at his disposal and we witnessed some of the worst football since David Pleat. 

 

He had to go and we had to find a manager to take us forward not backwards as Puell was seemingly doing. 

 

Maybe given more time, a few more windows he would have a team that could understand what he was trying to,  but in this game you cannot afford to go backwards for to long. 

 

I have no ill feeling towards him, but I am so happy we do not have to watch his turgid brand of football. 

Performance was inconsistent but to be fair there were glimpses of greatness - we did beat top teams including an incredible 2018 December run. That was what was so frustrating with him. He brought in great players (tick), he persisted with youth (tick), he introduced passing (tick), but he forgot about counter attacking football too much (cross) and insisted on playing Ndidi in role that didnt suit him and resulted in him breaking up plays far too often (cross). Rodgers came in and is improving our passing play, improved Ndidi’s contribution (in fairness based on Puel’s work on him), improving mentality, and improving squad happiness.

 

Puel wasn’t bad, but he had done all he could here and it was time for him to move on. Without him, Rodgers would not be here and Leicester would not be where it is today. Give him some credit.

[Spudulike]

I have no ill feeling towards Claude Puel given how he conducted himself in the aftermath of that dark October night. 

[Dan]

In fairness to Geoff I do think he probably knows the odd thing most of us don't. Reading between the lines a bit here. If King, the most mild-mannered player I can remember here publicly badmouths him then there was something seriously wrong.

 

His recruitment was very good but beyond that he was poor. His man management was clearly a real problem.

[Vindaloo FOX]

48 minutes ago, Spudulike said:

I have no ill feeling towards Claude Puel given how he conducted himself in the aftermath of that dark October night. 

Agree the man helped the team get over one of the darkest days this club has ever seen, for that we must thank him.

[Guest Cujek]

1 hour ago, Tom12345 said:

Performance was inconsistent but to be fair there were glimpses of greatness - we did beat top teams including an incredible 2018 December run. That was what was so frustrating with him. He brought in great players (tick), he persisted with youth (tick), he introduced passing (tick), but he forgot about counter attacking football too much (cross) and insisted on playing Ndidi in role that didnt suit him and resulted in him breaking up plays far too often (cross). Rodgers came in and is improving our passing play, improved Ndidi’s contribution (in fairness based on Puel’s work on him), improving mentality, and improving squad happiness.

 

Puel wasn’t bad, but he had done all he could here and it was time for him to move on. Without him, Rodgers would not be here and Leicester would not be where it is today. Give him some credit.

I did give him some credit. 

 

 

[That_Dude]

10 minutes ago, Dan LCFC said:

In fairness to Geoff I do think he probably knows the odd thing most of us don't. Reading between the lines a bit here. If King, the most mild-mannered player I can remember here publicly badmouths him then there was something seriously wrong.

 

His recruitment was very good but beyond that he was poor. His man management was clearly a real problem.

He wasn't charismatic , his man management was bad, there is no doubt about it now, and the performances at home weren't great. That's something everyone can agree on.

 

What I don't get is the sheer animosity of some towards him and the refusal to acknowledge the good things he did (not a dig at you of course).

 

 

[The Horse's Mouth]

1 hour ago, That_Dude said:

His personal dislike of Puel is astonishing. The latter deserved to go but I have yet to see an ounce of objectivity from him on that matter. 

Puel probably thought he was a bit of a willy puller and didnt give him much interviews, Puel's Geoff Peters, is Pearson's Stringer