Puel interview

[Gamble92]

13 minutes ago, hackneyfox said:

Doubtful, he's given Morgan an extra year and clearly believes Vardy is our main striker for the next two years at least.

Unless he's had a quiet word and they have accepted it from him but not from Claudio or Claude.

I think its more that hes actually respected as someone bigger than even the big time charlies in the dressing room.

[Gamble92]

3 minutes ago, Izzy said:

Now you're just being stoopid 

That fire had alot of intensiteeeee

[Babylon]

2 hours ago, Foxxed said:

It's a shame that his 'construction' didn't coincide with better results and that he didn't manage to lessen the resentment from the older players. I hope Rodgers can continue to help us develop technically. I feel like Rodgers'll manage to get the older players on side better.

Most of the older players will be out of the door in the summer, there aren't many left to keep on board.

[Tuna]

After we thrashed Southampton 4-1 I thought we'd got ourselves a world class manager.

 

Nice man, his calm and measured leadership was needed in the wake of Vichai's death, and that will never be forgotten.

 

Ultimately results were not good enough and he had to go. He'll definitely be a success elsewhere, I'm sure of it.

[Stoopid]

9 minutes ago, Izzy said:

Now you're just being stoopid 

That's what I'm here for.

[AKCJ]

I don't hate the bloke.

 

Just absolutely delighted he's no longer our manager.

 

Pretty sure we'll look back on his time as manager with a sense of "thank **** he brought these players in" but I couldn't stand watching us play his football.

 

Puel may have been the man to get the players in, but he certainly wasn't the man to take us forward. I firmly believe that Brendan is that man though, getting him in with the chance to view his team was a masterstroke by the board IMO.

[Freeman's Wharfer]

He did the job of changing the style and refreshing the squad (as any manager would have had to do) but I always said there was no reason why another manager couldn’t have been doing that playing a less cautious style and with more personality than dish cloth.

 

Would anyone say that had Rodgers have come in post-Shakespeare that he’d have transformed us in such an overly-defensive/cautious manner?

 

Puel changed the style and the playing squad but he also sucked the life out of us. We let him continue for far too long as evidenced by the fact that we probably could have had 7th wrapped up had Rodgers had an extra month or two to work with this group.

[SouthStandUpperTier]

31 minutes ago, AKCJ said:

I don't hate the bloke.

 

Just absolutely delighted he's no longer our manager.

 

Pretty sure we'll look back on his time as manager with a sense of "thank **** he brought these players in" but I couldn't stand watching us play his football.

 

Puel may have been the man to get the players in, but he certainly wasn't the man to take us forward. I firmly believe that Brendan is that man though, getting him in with the chance to view his team was a masterstroke by the board IMO.

The performance against Newcastle was straight out of the Puel playbook though. Let's just hope that was a one-off aberration, although I think BR's style (on the pitch) is quite similar to Puel's. More than the Puel-outers would feel comfortable admitting to.

[Koke]

14 minutes ago, Freeman's Wharfer said:

Would anyone say that had Rodgers have come in post-Shakespeare that he’d have transformed us in such an overly-defensive/cautious manner?

 

 

We will nver know but I doubt it. Right now Rodgers have 2 attacking full backs, a #10, 5 CBs, Tielemans and Barnes  Puel didn't have any of that when he arrived. So if Rodgers came post Shakespeare he would produce equally inconsistent results and heavy defeats like Puel did. 

 

Rodgers and Puel are actually more similar than people think. They just inherited 2 completely different teams.

[Bossman Blessed It]

 ''It was an ageing team that needed to be regenerated. Today it is the second youngest team in England with great players for the future.”

 

I think this quote epitomises Puel's importance to us as a football. Without him we could easily still be looking at an old squad with nowhere near the future we have - nor the ability to bring in a manager like Rodgers. Despite his pitfalls, he seems to be the perfect manager when a style change is needed. I imagine teams like Stoke and Villa, who had similar issues with a style that once worked, would have benefited greatly too. I for one, am glad he's gone, as he took us as far as he could, however I think our next 5 years as a club will revolve around the changes he made in his time here. 

[UniFox21]

What is lovely from that interview is he's clearly proud of what he achieved here. The fact he's come away and is happy with the team and philosophy he's built. He's built us a brilliant team for the future

[AKCJ]

8 minutes ago, Koke said:

 

We will nver know but I doubt it. Right now Rodgers have 2 attacking full backs, a #10, 5 CBs, Tielemans and Barnes  Puel didn't have any of that when he arrived. So if Rodgers came post Shakespeare he would produce equally inconsistent results and heavy defeats like Puel did. 

 

Rodgers and Puel are actually more similar than people think. They just inherited 2 completely different teams.

I can accept games where we struggle to break sides down now and then.

 

Just couldn't hack it happening every week.

[Ted Maul]

14 minutes ago, Freeman's Wharfer said:

He did the job of changing the style and refreshing the squad (as any manager would have had to do) but I always said there was no reason why another manager couldn’t have been doing that playing a less cautious style and with more personality than dish cloth.

 

Would anyone say that had Rodgers have come in post-Shakespeare that he’d have transformed us in such an overly-defensive/cautious manner?

 

Puel changed the style and the playing squad but he also sucked the life out of us. We let him continue for far too long as evidenced by the fact that we probably could have had 7th wrapped up had Rodgers had an extra month or two to work with this group.

If it's so easy to guide a club through a transitional period and evolve, why do so many managers fail in their attempts?

 

Sure, there are managers out there who could have done it. However, not many would have taken the job and there are many more who would have been a disaster.

 

Rodgers would never have come here when Puel did, we were shite and it would have been too much of a difficult job for most to take. Puel deserves credit for the fact that we're such an attractive proposition now.

[StanSP]

4 hours ago, Fox 4 Life said:

The Premier League is very demanding on the results, the concept of construction does not exist there. 

This in itself just emphasises the job he had to do at the club, if nothing else. It's totally true. People crave and desire instant success but for clubs like ours it isn't at all possible. Or even for many bigger clubs it's extremely hard. So the pressure is immense at the easiest of times let alone coming in to the club and instil your own philosophies. 

 

I don't envy him at all for the position he was in or begrudge how he might feel after being sacked but he still seems fairly humble and accepting it's part of the job and just didn't work out for him. Maybe the club realised the ageing squad and understood it needed some regeneration but at the same time wanted some successful results but in the end Puel did have to go.

 

Despite the negativity aimed his way we have a hell of a lot to thank him for with developing and purchasing the youth he did in his time. If nothing else, we can thank him for how much we appreciate attacking football if we didn't before! 

[Haywood_6]

34 minutes ago, Bossman Blessed It said:

 ''It was an ageing team that needed to be regenerated. Today it is the second youngest team in England with great players for the future.”

 

I think this quote epitomises Puel's importance to us as a football. Without him we could easily still be looking at an old squad with nowhere near the future we have - nor the ability to bring in a manager like Rodgers. Despite his pitfalls, he seems to be the perfect manager when a style change is needed. I imagine teams like Stoke and Villa, who had similar issues with a style that once worked, would have benefited greatly too. I for one, am glad he's gone, as he took us as far as he could, however I think our next 5 years as a club will revolve around the changes he made in his time here. 

2

Does anyone know who is the first youngest? And is this just referring to the prem?

[Rigga]

The slow style was awful to watch..Enough to put some off going to matches.

 

his failure to acknowledge we needed to strengthen in some areas (target man) especially when his play was centred around delivery into the box was more than strange..

 

Topped off by dropping Vardy for Gray...His time was up..

[Ric Flair]

If a manager like Nigel Pearson who built tangible success can divide opinion between our fans, is it any surprise that many can't see the good things that Claude Puel did here?

 

There are so many contradictions with Puel that I said many times during his reign that I was so torn on him even if when he was appointed I was one of the very few who thought he would do well here. In between matches, or in pre-season it was very easy to gain confidence and belief in Puel because you could kid yourselves that he was doing things for a long term project. The problem is football has to actually be played on grass and invariably when we did it left an increasingly large section of fans baffled and appalled.

 

I enjoyed the football under him to start, he managed to blend the counter attacking football we were and still are good at, with retaining possession when we needed to and it seemed to be an encouraging change.

 

I'm not sure what happened in that latter part of the 2017/18 season but from about February onwards we were arsehole at home vs a lot of mediocre teams. Was it the disruption of Mahrez or was it the honeymoon period was over and the longer he was here, the less sure the players were of what he was trying to implement. Lost in translation was a big thing, he seemed unable to convey his methods to players, fans and media alike. Youri Tielemans made an alarming statement that even in the 2 weeks he was here whilst Puel was, that players were confused and he had the bonus of being able to talk in French with Claude. That in itself highlighted the problems that occurred.

 

His methods were also clearly at odds with senior players, I cant remember where I read it but we were warned that Puel was only effective with younger players where he could enforce his way of managing without the resistance that comes from experienced and senior players. If theres one club where this was always going to be a problem, its ours. We achieved the unthinkable only a couple of years previous and our players are regarded as legends by fans, the club and the owners. The owners who unlike many others treated the players with respect and humility that encouraged and fostered a unique bond. As a by product it does make you wonder the frustrating and difficult position each party will have found themselves in. It's all well and good clearing out the old guard, but if the powers above aren't also on board with it then it's never going to work. Vardy was the prime example, he was given a new 4 year deal as the best paid player in the history of the club and yet Puel was already making noises that we had to plan for life after him. A brave and stupid thing to do. Rodgers has systematically tried to pick his battles by getting the senior players on board and instantly has gotten a return from them. Short sighted? Sometimes a long term vision has to be done in stages and I cant imagine Puel was told he had to dismantle all seniority at the club but Rodgers has since been told he can do what he wants. Puel just struggled to work with certain players, like I said we were warned.

 

The football this season was painful, especially at home. He had the knack of making us toothless going forward but vulnerable at the back. The amount of times that a bright start to a game where it looked pretty up to the final 3rd of the pitch, only to then be hugely exposed at the back where the two holding midfielders seemed to evaporate leaving Morgan and Maguire to be ran ragged was bizarre. Only the spell over xmas and new year with 3 defensive midfielders did we seem to find a balance, but christ how much protection did we need? It just showed how ineffective it had all become.

 

We couldnt buy a win at home vs dog shit, with less than a quarter of victories at home in over a year is enough to shut this thread down alone. You add in the final two results even with Tielemans and Barnes and it was grim. Rodgers, whether he is benefitting from the new manager bounce or not has been able to blend defending better without it meaning we can only have one person attack the box at any one time. We are scoring goals vs stubborn and defensive teams (Newcastle aside) and many younger and older players are finding their confidence again.

 

Credit to him for Tielemans, Ricardo, Maddison and bringing Barnes back. Partial credit for bringing through Choudhury but then seemingly ignoring him from August to late December when Mendy and Ndidi as a pairing was repeatedly failing. Hats off to him for the improvement in Chilwell for the first half of the season but he is worryingly regressing but that cant be laid on Puel's doorstep. 

 

I wish him all the best in his next job, some of his intentions as a manager are admirable in this impatient and ruthless game. 

[UniFox21]

What I've liked most about this thread is how people are now seeing the dirty work Puel did for us, he had almost the impossible job, so he did eventually fail, but he's made a foundation for which someone else can continue to build.  

[Mr Weller]

Puel would have you believe it was a long term project and if he only had enough time it would’ve come good but there is no evidence this was going to happen.

The truth is he’s lost his way, the plan wasn’t evolving and in fact he was going backwards. Yes he had brought young players on but they weren’t any happier playing for him than the older players.

 

I am sure he is a decent manner and showed promise as a director of football but I think his career at the top level is probably over. He is wedded to a style that’s outdated and he doesn’t seem to recognise it.

[Paninistickers]

my own take on Puel is quite simplistic. The root of his problems was his communication. Even reading his quotes in that article were hard work.

 

I feel he was a football boffin. Quite progressive. analytical. Tactically astute. A bit like a consultant doctor with all the knowledge but rank bad people skills.

 

Add to that his appalling English (and it was appalling), some players were never going to warm to him. Fans certainly weren't.

 

Overall, a.nice guy. I think history will reflect kindly on his short reign here

 

[HighPeakFox]

A lot of very fair assessments here, and a lot in line with how I feel about the interview and Puel's legacy. Onwards and upwards. 

[Deeg67]

The biggest reason for a difference in results under Rodgers vs. Puel is Tielemans, plain and simple. If Tielemans had been here all season Puel would still be the manager and we’d likely be comfortable in 7th.

[BoyJones]

If Puel had made an effort to establish a rapport with the fans, he would probably still be here. 

 

We never sang his name, he had no song and basically appeared not to give two hoots for the paying customer. His disdain for the cups didn't help, sacrificing three quarter finals to the eventual winners. 

 

No, he was the wrong manager and to give him credit for bringing in young players is OTT. For instance, I personally think Gray went backwards under his guidance. I don't wish him I'll, but I am glad he's gone. 

[Gamble92]

33 minutes ago, BoyJones said:

If Puel had made an effort to establish a rapport with the fans, he would probably still be here. 

 

We never sang his name, he had no song and basically appeared not to give two hoots for the paying customer. His disdain for the cups didn't help, sacrificing three quarter finals to the eventual winners. 

 

No, he was the wrong manager and to give him credit for bringing in young players is OTT. For instance, I personally think Gray went backwards under his guidance. I don't wish him I'll, but I am glad he's gone. 

Oh come on

 

He should be given credit for helping the club through this period. Not least through the period of Vichai's death. The press conference alone shown what a great leader he is.

 

It didnt work out. I'm sure we'd agree on the reasons why. But to suggest he shouldn't be given credit for a new style that Brendan will now further implement, bringing through youth and balancing that transition between the old guard and new whilst attempting to manage their egos is mad. He did well but the bad points eventually just couldn't be overlooked. 

[Bezzanator89]

Think there was already a negative stigma surrounding Puel from his time at Southampton, and he was never going to change his approach, that's not his style to bow the whims of the core of the squad and 32,000 fans baying from the stands. Always felt like a when rather than if, regarding his departure, and never felt like a long term appointment.

 

That being said. He did the dirty work behind the scenes, and was an absolute credit to the club during the aftermath of the helicopter crash, he will have my respect for that alone. The young talent he had nurtured during his brief tenure are down to him and we should be thankful. Never warmed to him myself, but never booed. Nothing to gain from it. His style just doesn't suit English football, whereas another's might. Wish him all the best, as despite all the toxicity that surrounded the club in his last days at the club, he has helped build the the foundations for what's to come. Something we should all be thankful for.

 

Thank you Claude. Now Brendan Rodgers, over to you sir.