Playing to your strengths

[cal21212121]

17 minutes ago, Foxxed said:

If we always played to strengths we would have converted Chilwell into a winger this time last year when his defending was appalling. I'm not against playing to strengths but it must go hand in hand in pushing players out of their comfort zone and developing them - the same goes for our tactics.

Chilwell doesn't make a good winger, he has no end product. He was a good defensive option when played ahead of Fuchs for a while, but I'd hardly say playing him on the wing is his strength.

He's better at defending now so he can focus on his attacking play. This season at least he can put a good dead ball in, now he just needs to learn how to do that with a moving ball.

[Lionheart10]

Whilst Vardy is here we have no option but to play to his strengths as he is our only Centre Forward,something that Puel just wasn't having and something that Brendan realises.He probably also realises that if you don't have Vardy on your side as a Manager then you are F***ed.

[Foxxed]

1 hour ago, cal21212121 said:

Chilwell doesn't make a good winger, he has no end product. He was a good defensive option when played ahead of Fuchs for a while, but I'd hardly say playing him on the wing is his strength.

He's better at defending now so he can focus on his attacking play. This season at least he can put a good dead ball in, now he just needs to learn how to do that with a moving ball.

My point is his defending was not the team's strength. He was making silly mistakes, mistakes Fuchs would not have made, but we developed him and he and the team's tactics flourished. Overall playing to strengths is good but if you don't try to develop then you become predictable and one dimensional.

[Crispin LA]

The build up to Vardy's goal when we lost 3-1 to Tottenham last month was amazing, the passing was like Barcelona playing, doubt we will play like that now. 

[cal21212121]

5 minutes ago, Foxxed said:

My point is his defending was not the team's strength. He was making silly mistakes, mistakes Fuchs would not have made, but we developed him and he and the team's tactics flourished. Overall playing to strengths is good but if you don't try to develop then you become predictable and one dimensional

I see what you mean, but you can play to the strengths of the team and continue to develop, or develop in different ways. The two don't have to be mutually exclusive. For example we never really played it out from the back under Pearson or Ranieri, but we got the best out of Vardy and other key attacking players, but under Puel we tried to develop the ability and style to play out from the back, Maguire, Evans and Ricardo being key to that over Simpson, Wes and Huth. That development was at the detriment of players like Vardy, Maddison, or anyone going forward because the vertical progression was just too slow. But now under Rodgers we're continuing to develop the playing out from the back, but our attacking players are flourishing so we are playing to our strengths as a team whilst personal are being developed (all these young players in our squad improving). All this can be applied to many of our players and has in other threads, the impact on Ndidi being the most prominent.

[Koke]

Our first 8 results when Puel arrived 

 

City 2-0 Everton 

Stoke 2-2 City 

City 0-2 Man City

West Ham 1-1 City 

City 2-1 Spurs 

City 1-0 Burnley 

Newcastle 2-3 City

Southampton 1-4 City 

 

It ended sour with Puel but he had an equally impressive start as Brendan. I think Brendan will succeed here but I'm waiting til next season for full context. I actually think Puel and Brendan are so much more similar than people think. The folks who were anti Puel militants must have mixed emotions about Rodgers  

[NotTheMarketLeader]

21 hours ago, smitha said:

The difference in performances since Brendan arrived has been so impressive and you can see he is a good tactition. For me the major factor in the improvement is that he is playing a system that suits the strengths of the players, it is no coincidence that Wilf has suddenly turned into a beast, Vardy is looking like his old self and Maddison is showing signs of his early season form.

 

All to often managers try to turn players into roles or systems that are not suited to them and have the stubbornness to continue until the inevitable happens. Brendan has implemented good tactics, played players in their best positions, given them some love and hey-ho we look like a team going places again.

 

What has impressed me is that in his first game he played Barnes closer to Vardy to give him more support, a role that did not really work which he addmited, ever since Barnes has been back on the wing and looks like the real deal. He saw it didn't work did not percivere for weeks and changed it to benefit not only the team but the player. His man management skills are second to none you could see it after the game yesterday, despite not playing many minutes recently even Wes was happy and the embrace with the gaffer was great to see, as it was with all the players.

 

The summer is going to be exciting with potential new arrivals hopefully not too many that it effects the development of the younger players. There are a couple of big decisions to be made, for me I would love to have Tielemans permanently. Luckily we have got rid of most of the dead wood but I'm interested to see what happens to Slimani and Silva . I was so excited by there arrival like so many but both have been a disappointment for various reasons (Slimani doing himself no favours at present), what are people's views on what will happen with them, will Brendan be able to work his magic on them or are they surplus to requirements, did we play to their strengths or were they just bad signings? Does anyone know how long left they have on their contracts?

Agreed. 

 

Still baffled why the stubborn ones / those who can’t see the wood for the trees / know nothing about the game despite watching it for years on here, thought Puel was a manager we should hang on to. ??‍♂️ ?

[WestLothianFox]

23 hours ago, Strokes said:

I was and remain a fan of Puel, I think he was hard done too by our fans. However I’m not going to to let affect the way I judge Rodgers. Who for me has so far done everything important right. My main gripe in releasing Puel, was I wasn’t confident we couldn’t get an adequate replacement but that fear is quickly being eradicated with every game I watch under Rodgers. He is just fine tuning what was already put in place for him, it very much reminds me of when Claudio graced our fine club. I’d kill for ounce of the same success, long may the positivity continue.

I will volunteer my wife if you want a victim. 

 

[NotTheMarketLeader]

On 18/03/2019 at 12:04, Crispin LA said:

The build up to Vardy's goal when we lost 3-1 to Tottenham last month was amazing, the passing was like Barcelona playing, doubt we will play like that now. 

Thank god. 

 

One decent move to score a goal in 16 months.

[NotTheMarketLeader]

On 18/03/2019 at 15:41, Koke said:

Our first 8 results when Puel arrived 

 

City 2-0 Everton 

Stoke 2-2 City 

City 0-2 Man City

West Ham 1-1 City 

City 2-1 Spurs 

City 1-0 Burnley 

Newcastle 2-3 City

Southampton 1-4 City 

 

It ended sour with Puel but he had an equally impressive start as Brendan. I think Brendan will succeed here but I'm waiting til next season for full context. I actually think Puel and Brendan are so much more similar than people think. The folks who were anti Puel militants must have mixed emotions about Rodgers  

What Rodgers does or doesn’t do, should be irrelevant when we view Puel’s era.

 

The latter can quite easily be summed up in the the round as very poor entertainment allied with results that were not good enough.

 

Your above post to me seems to be you attempting to justify your Puel In stance which, as with most of your type flied in the face of reality. Or have I got the wrong end of the stick? 

 

Yes he started well but was justifiably sacked as he wasn’t doing his job properly; aka you were wrong about Puel. 

 

What exactly is your stance re: Rodgers? - just so we know. Do you think he will a good appointment ? 

 

You seem to want to judge the two on their first 8 games not the 16 months Puel had and failed with ffs.

 

And while passing the football maybe a common denominator, there are many more positive attributes in Rodgers that should see him more successful than Puel. That seems clear to me.

[Koke]

10 hours ago, NotTheMarketLeader said:

What Rodgers does or doesn’t do, should be irrelevant when we view Puel’s era.

 

The latter can quite easily be summed up in the the round as very poor entertainment allied with results that were not good enough.

 

Your above post to me seems to be you attempting to justify your Puel In stance which, as with most of your type flied in the face of reality. Or have I got the wrong end of the stick? 

 

Yes he started well but was justifiably sacked as he wasn’t doing his job properly; aka you were wrong about Puel. 

 

What exactly is your stance re: Rodgers? - just so we know. Do you think he will a good appointment ? 

 

You seem to want to judge the two on their first 8 games not the 16 months Puel had and failed with ffs.

 

And while passing the football maybe a common denominator, there are many more positive attributes in Rodgers that should see him more successful than Puel. That seems clear to me.

 

Puel was living on borrowed time, and in the end he signed his own death warrant and had to go (if not now, at least in the summer). His position had become untenable and the atmosphere became toxic and poisonous.

 

The reality of Puel is he had positives and negatives, and his time here will get a grade of 6.5/10 from me. A lot of people want to diminish his contribution to the club. 

 

I'm 100% supporter of Brendan. I think he is an excellent appointment. Rodgers has the advantage of taking over Puel, who did a lot of donkey work. Had he taken over Shakespeare/Ranieri he would encounter the same problems Puel did i.e. ageing squad, overpaid players, huge wage bill, a very archaic style of football etc. 

 

I fully support Rodgers, and I'm convinced the same fans who backed Puel til the end will back Rodgers til the end even if it doesn't go great and after many have turned against him.