Puel interview

[Deeg67]

Puel puts me in mind of what Jane O'Reilly famously said about George H.W. Bush: "He reminds me of every woman's first husband".  Puel is stolid, a bit dour, serious and responsible but not much fun at parties.  But you know when he says he's working late, he's actually working late.

 

There's an element of "be careful what you wish for" with the Rodgers appointment.  He's the anti-Puel, the knee-jerk reaction - glib, glamorous, charming, relentlessly self-promoting and silver (and forked) tongued.  He whisks you off your feet, at first everything feels like a dream and nothing feels impossible.  But his head gets turned by every younger and prettier woman he sees, sometimes he gets caught in a web of his own exaggerations, and one day he goes to the store for a pack of cigarettes and never comes back.  And once the initial heartbreak wears off, she realizes that was the best thing he ever did for her.

[Dan LCFC]

I've got to hand it to him that's actually a really decent interview. I always did think even despite wanting him out by the end that he did have some good ideas and that he wasn't scared to make tough decisions. I think regardless of your thoughts of him that takes some kind of strength.

 

The problem with him was that I think he tried to do a bit too much a bit too soon, and that the long-term planning is ultimately fruitless if your results and performances in the short-term aren't good enough. People lose belief in what you're trying to do. I also think this mixed with his general lack of charisma and the football being ultimately drab for far too long meant he was on a bit of a hiding to nothing.

 

He also shot himself in the foot by naming a weakened team against a very beatable, also weakened Man City team in the League Cup quarter finals early on in his tenure, and then shot that exact bullet through his foot again a year later. You always had the sense of missed opportunities with him.

 

He is absolutely spot on when it comes to the point about not getting time in England. That's not something unique to England but I do think over here it's probably as bad as anywhere and for that reason he'll never be a great fit.

 

He's a bit of a conundrum really.

[Dr The Singh]

He blew it, he couldn't see the wood from the tree's.  Too often he made poor decisions and the same mistakes.

 

I've no grief with him but I also don't give a shit about about him, he has led the the club, so he is now dead to me

[Biggles22]

29 minutes ago, Dr The Singh said:

He blew it, he couldn't see the wood from the tree's.  Too often he made poor decisions and the same mistakes.

 

I've no grief with him but I also don't give a shit about about him, he has led the the club, so he is now dead to me

Either he spurned your advances or you’re between seven and ten. Either way, your vitriolic comment suggests you do have some lingering “grief” with him. Time to move on. 

[Dr The Singh]

1 minute ago, Biggles22 said:

Either he spurned your advances or you’re between seven and ten. Either way, your vitriolic comment suggests you do have some lingering “grief” with him. Time to move on. 

, really! Sounds like your still in love with him, did he spurn your advances too.  Time to move on you say, looks like like your struggling to.

[trabuch]

38 minutes ago, Dr The Singh said:

, really! Sounds like your still in love with him, did he spurn your advances too.  Time to move on you say, looks like like your struggling to.

 

[Paninistickers]

6 hours ago, Deeg67 said:

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.

I think playing Huddersfield, Fulham, Brighton and s woeful Bournemouth aided our upturn more than anything

[Deeg67]

23 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

I think playing Huddersfield, Fulham, Brighton and s woeful Bournemouth aided our upturn more than anything

Yeah, that too.

[Ric Flair]

7 hours ago, Deeg67 said:

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.

We were ripped apart 3-1 and 4-1 with Tielemans, in Puel's last two games. We started to play some more expansive football but there was still no collective effort to be aggressive in the final third without the ball and it was very easy to just play around us. Both games we started very well but like the Wolves game and others, we seemed incapable of any sort of defensive shape as well as being committed to attacking in numbers. 

[Ric Flair]

1 hour ago, Paninistickers said:

I think playing Huddersfield, Fulham, Brighton and s woeful Bournemouth aided our upturn more than anything

 

39 minutes ago, Deeg67 said:

Yeah, that too.

Yes, because we did ever so well in those sorts of fixtures under Puel didnt we? The very same games we couldnt buy a win in for months and months. Astonishing.

[Deeg67]

5 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

We were ripped apart 3-1 and 4-1 with Tielemans, in Puel's last two games. We started to play some more expansive football but there was still no collective effort to be aggressive in the final third without the ball and it was very easy to just play around us. Both games we started very well but like the Wolves game and others, we seemed incapable of any sort of defensive shape as well as being committed to attacking in numbers. 

It's astonishing to me that anyone could say we were "ripped apart" in the Spurs match.  We bossed them on their own ground - it was only atrocious finishing that kept us from winning that match.

[Ric Flair]

Just now, Deeg67 said:

It's astonishing to me that anyone could say we were "ripped apart" in the Spurs match.  We bossed them on their own ground - it was only atrocious finishing that kept us from winning that match.

We did play some superb football but the manner in which they got their goals which we saw happen to us a number of times was galling. As I have said, there seemed to always be a price for us trying to play expansive football whereby we'd end up going behind and that would be that. We were neither good defensively or good going forward, our end product in the final 3rd was farcical under Puel. Maybe it would have improved eventually with Tielemans, it would do as he's class but would the team as a whole have been able to commit to being more attacking without it effecting the defence? Rodgers seems intent on that being the only way to operate, Puel was all about maintaining shape and working openings by moments of individual magic. They sadly rarely came as Maddison lost form and Vardy became increasingly isolated and disillusioned. 

[LestaAl]

Good interview and glad for him that he feels proud of what he achieved while he was here. 

 

However for me he was a poor leader and consequently the team underperformed and as a result the owners sacked him.

 

It’s the same for all managers in that respect in the premiere league and maybe he is better suited to manage in another country.

[UniFox21]

10 hours 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. 

I bet you're fun at parties...

 

Look at the age and players of the squad pre and post-Puel. Now you can't honestly tell me the squad is worse or even equal to what it was at the start. 

2 examples straight away: Ricardo is now in instead of Simpson, Maddison instead of a swap between Shinji and Nacho and the lack of creativity there. 

 

He was here to transition and help rebuild the team, and he did a bloody good job. We've lost some big earners who were squad players in Iborra, Silva (loaned out), Ulloa, Slimani (loaned out). 

 

He never go the style particularly right, but we're a damn better prospect than we were. Give the guy some credit and get off your high horse.

[Simoken]

7 hours ago, Dr The Singh said:

He blew it, he couldn't see the wood from the tree's.  Too often he made poor decisions and the same mistakes.

 

I've no grief with him but I also don't give a shit about about him, he has led the the club, so he is now dead to me

LOL!!!!!!! I can get you some counseling booked in if you want.

[Mark 'expert' Lawrenson]

Probably would of made a good general Manager working behind the scenes rather than coaching us.

[PaddyS]

Nice to hear that he received so many messages from players after he left. It shows some definite respect and/or like for him, contrary to the claims of universal dislike around the club which the whispering campaign tried to have us believe. It makes me feel happier that he'll probably have some good memories of Leicester, and not just think that everyone's a c**t.

[Mr Weller]

11 hours ago, Deeg67 said:

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.

It’s easy to draw this conclusion but it isn’t true. Tielemans is good but as Friday showed we don’t know how to break down opposition that sit back and let us have the ball. Every time this was put to Puel he simply said the players needed to learn the new style but he failed/refused to see what Rodgers saw in one game; players need to move the ball forward quickly so the opposition can’t get into a defensive shape. All too often on Friday, as so often this season, players checked, passed backwards or in neat triangles which is fine to keep possession but hopeless for scoring goals.

 

Puel’s tactical thinking was stuck in a time warp much like Arsene Wenger’s had been. Unless you have Messi in your team it’s too easy to defend against and the Premier League has too many good teams who will do so. In France or Spain there is a huge gap between the top 2-3 teams and everyone else and the best players are used to this problem but over here 10-15 teams can happily sit deep and defend all day if needed.

 

Rodgers clearly understands this and so did Martin O Neil for that matter. In the title winning year we moved the ball really quickly but relied heavily on Kante and Vardy so when the former went we had no replacement. 

 

Puel would make make a good director of football somewhere but in the Premier League he doesn’t have the guile or communication skills to be a great success.

Edited 17 April 2019 by Mr Weller

[Babylon]

24 minutes ago, Mr Weller said:

Every time this was put to Puel he simply said the players needed to learn the new style but he failed/refused to see what Rodgers saw in one game; players need to move the ball forward quickly so the opposition can’t get into a defensive shape.

That's literally what Puel pointed out after every single game, now you can argue nothing ever changed... but you can't say he never said it wasn't the issue. 

[chapero82]

As much as I couldn’t warm to him as our manager you can’t deny that he also did good things at our club,

 

Yes the football was bad but he has set up the foundations to become an even better club!

[RowlattsFox]

Puel did an important job and was not a million miles away from doing an excellent job. Some faults were his, some were the fans impatience and some were certain players not adapting well enough. I wish him well but I can't see him getting another job in England. 

 

Puel, and now Rodgers, have struggled due to the lack of quality depth in the squad. Options from the bench are atrocious. 

[Foxymcoxy]

Very positive overall tenure at the club. He also sounds like he was intetgral in the recruitment and development of the talented young players we will enjoy for years to come. Some people are quick to point out we don't know how influential he was in this, but it sounds like he genuinely was driving it. In the end I think Brendan is right for us to take the next step on the pitch, but we wouldn't have been in such a promising position as a club without Claude, and we should all be grateful for that.

[somebum]

Just covering his arse.

 

His failures at Southampton and here were all his own doing. If what he was trying to do was correct, we would have won more games under him, end of. The 'transition' was a cop out phrase just in case it didn't work. We have a good squad he should have played to their stregnths, he didn't, got the sack for a reason.

 

 

[Dan LCFC]

It's got to be said - I'm not one for creating these roles as an excuse to keep people at the club (like when people couldn't bring themselves to let Ranieri totally go, "move him upstairs" etc...) but you've got to say he'd actually make an excellent director of football. I might be doing him a disservice there but he does seem to tick the boxes.

 

EDIT: Not saying bring him back as a DoF, Puel and Leicester has sailed for good but I think he'd be good at it for someone else.

Edited 17 April 2019 by Dan LCFC

[Ric Flair]

27 minutes ago, Babylon said:

That's literally what Puel pointed out after every single game, now you can argue nothing ever changed... but you can't say he never said it wasn't the issue. 

Classic case of players either not understanding or believing in a managers instructions or the manager was incapable of implementing it. Rodgers carries a lot of hot air and guff with him but he is a very astute coach who absolutely loves improving players and bigging them up. I have been hugely impressed with his ability to get us more aggressive in the final third, I thought it would take much longer than that. I can't wait for these final 4 games, to test ourselves against better sides as well and see what sort of nick we are in.