Puel interview

[MC Prussian]

Look, I can admire his tactical nous and theoretical knowledge of football.

On the pitch, however, he failed.

There was this eerie resemblance to his time at Southampton and that to me showed how little he was willing to change his approach in the Premier League.

Add to that his bland public persona and his simple English, which leads me to conclude he wasn't able to get his message across to either players, fans or club responsibles the way it should've been. Also question marks over his people and motivational skills.

 

I have no ill feelings towards Puel, I'm simply glad he's gone. The L'Equipe article is a bit of a whitewash, too. I can understand it's also a way for him to portray himself in a more positive light in order to attract interest from potential future employers (which is all right with me).

 

Yet no word on his failures in the cup(s), no self-reflection about the FA Cup exit at Newport, the fact that we did play turgid football so often, were half-asleep in the opening few minutes of many, many matches, were at times utterly impotent up front and held on to this pitiful 4-2-3-1 bound to fail with the players at our disposal. Also, until his sacking, this season came across as a carbon copy of his first one at LCFC, as initially positive results turned to more and more losses as the season progressed.

 

I understand that our downfall in the league following the title win started pretty much immediately afterwards, the Champions League was able to cover the cracks for a short while, keeping the positivity up, but Ranieri and Shakespeare could not halt the decline. As a consequence, I acknowledge that Puel wasn't completely responsible for all that was bad at the club after May 2016, but to me he made many things even worse, he was the embodiment of disappointment.

Whether he lay the foundations for a healthier future of the club remains to be seen, because when it comes to pushing youth players, the same could be said about Shakespeare.

 

I wish him well, but would also urge him to try to adapt to other countries with as much passion as he has for the game itself.

 

 

Edited 18 April 2019 by MC Prussian

[Dan LCFC]

12 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.

Puel had two games with Tielemans and we lost 3-1 and 4-1. It really isn't that simple. There's a lot more to it than that.

[Babylon]

18 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

On the pitch, however, he failed.

Not really. Our position was one of always being comfortable, a top 10 finish and three quarter finals. It's not a total failure, failure to entertain people sure. But other than the last few months it was just average and comfortable. 

[Stoopid]

Claude might not have had time to build his vision  - who knows?

But he did have time enough in England to adapt to the language a lot better than he did.

This is not a trivial point. It points to an inflexibility of mind that amounts to stubbornness. 

He's clearly an intelligent man, so it's not that - but to still need an interpreter in interviews after three years living in the country - slightly embarrassing I felt. 

And, as I say, indicative of an inflexibility that, in the end, probably did for him.

 

 

[UpTheLeagueFox]

13 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. 

 

10 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

 

4 hours ago, LestaAl said:

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.

 

1 hour ago, somebum said:

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.

 

1 hour ago, MC Prussian said:

Look, I can admire his tactical nous and theoretical knowledge of football.

On the pitch, however, he failed.

There was this eerie resemblance to his time at Southampton and that to me showed how little he was willing to change his approach in the Premier League.

Add to that his bland public persona and his simple English, which leads me to conclude he wasn't able to get his message across to either players, fans or club responsibles the way it should've been. Also question marks over his people and motivational skills.

I have no ill feelings towards Puel, I'm simply glad he's gone.

All this negativiteeee against Claude ... you people and your ridiculous agendas !!!!!!

Can't you see all the great work he did, the 'dirty work' he did ...

Erm, all that great work, like....

CHANGING OUR TITLE WINNING FULL BACKS

Maybe we should crowd fund for a CP statue.

[turtmcfly]

11 hours ago, UpTheLeagueFox said:

All this negativiteeee against Claude ... you people and your ridiculous agendas !!!!!!

Can't you see all the great work he did, the 'dirty work' he did ...

Erm, all that great work, like....

CHANGING OUR TITLE WINNING FULL BACKS

 Maybe we should crowd fund for a CP statue.

 

 

You're either suggesting that was the only thing he did, or doing it was a mistake. I strongly disagree with either reading, but regardless it seems too minor a complaint to employ caps lock.

 

The tone of your post, two months after he left, certainly suggests that a personal animosity towards Puel is colouring (and I assume has coloured) your appraisal of his abilities. 

 

 

Edited 17 April 2019 by turtmcfly

[Ric Flair]

1 hour ago, Dan LCFC said:

Puel had two games with Tielemans and we lost 3-1 and 4-1. It really isn't that simple. There's a lot more to it than that.

Yes but we looked good in spells and should have won...………

 

The fact there were a few other occasions where we looked very good going forward until we reached the end product stage and were a disgrace and this usually led to us being exposed at the back and comfortably beaten, leaving us baffled and bemused. What a combo!!

[Nicolo Barella]

Jesus are people still hating on Puel? He's history, he did some good things, he wasn't good enough. That's it isn't it?

[Ted Maul]

1 minute ago, Nicolo Barella said:

Jesus are people still hating on Puel? He's history, he did some good things, he wasn't good enough. That's it isn't it?

Debatable, apparently.

[Dan LCFC]

24 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

Yes but we looked good in spells and should have won...………

 

The fact there were a few other occasions where we looked very good going forward until we reached the end product stage and were a disgrace and this usually led to us being exposed at the back and comfortably beaten, leaving us baffled and bemused. What a combo!!

To be honest at Tottenham we should've done but the points you've made are spot on that we ultimately could never turn in the complete performance. If we did attack well, the defence would fall apart and we'd ultimately achieve nothing.

 

I cannot remember us turning in a 90 minutes at home under Puel as good as the win over Bournemouth the other week. Solid at the back by and large but dangerous going forward too.

 

Sign of a poorly coached team in my eyes that we couldn't put both together.

 

Puel didn't have Tielemans for long but as far as I'm concerned there were too many players he just didn't get a tune out of and the squad he had was capable of better football.

 

He's a good squad builder (and I'm sure he wasn't fully happy by the time he'd gone) but he was lacking in too many other areas.

[Ian S]

21 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.

Never in your wildest dreams.

[elvisfmcfly]

Terrible manager 

[elvisfmcfly]

9 hours ago, Babylon said:

Not really. Our position was one of always being comfortable, a top 10 finish and three quarter finals. It's not a total failure, failure to entertain people sure. But other than the last few months it was just average and comfortable. 

We wouldn’t have finished top 10 under Puel no chance! 

[winteriscoming]

9 hours ago, somebum said:

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.

 

 

Don’t want to come across as puels biggest fan but realistically did he fail at both Southampton and here. I’ll admit at times the football wasn’t the greatest to watch but 2 top 10 finishes and a cup final which Southampton should of won. Yes I’ll admit he did seem to be losing the plot towards the end but certainly not the worst manager we’ve had. Given the difficult circumstances and bringing youth through he did well imo. Defiantly left us in a better position than when he took over. 

[knitro]

I guess a broader question to think about is the following:

 

Say a manager has a 4 year plan for a team to grow into sustainable success. What if it went something along this:

 

Season 1 - stop the bleeding - this may require a more conservative (potentially boring) approach to play

Season 2 - steady the ship - this is a continuation of season 1, includes unloading poor fitting or under-performing/not good enough players and adding a few key roles for the next evolution of tactics, but again they generally favor safe over exciting

Season 3 - build on season 2, more pieces in place for our push forward (the pieces on the younger side so they can be here through continued success), tactics get more expansive (players have been learning them for two season now)

Season 4 - build on season 3, almost all pieces are in place - we're challenging towards the top

 

This is obviously a simplification, but generally speaking you can certainly remake a squad almost entirely in four years time so it's a realistic time table, but it's also fair to say this approach in the modern era is pretty risky personally as something that takes 'that long' to come to fruition would never be allowed if part of the process is demotion or relegation threats, right? 

 

Well that's the realization I think most managers have, "I may want to do it exactly as I envision, but there may have to be deviations from this approach to address the now" - this is why you see stop-gap signings, old hands preferred over prospects and tactics that better suit current personnel vs where we want to be. Visions get lost in this mire, as ambitions are blunted, phases are rushed through and you end up in an ugly no man's land of the past and future. To me this is why mid-table clubs never really challenge - they're always contending with 2-3 of the last regimes, while trying to sort out a current one and thinking about the next one. It's like building a tall building where the architects complete a floor then burn the blueprints. 

 

A unified vision, growing pains and all, over multiple seasons is required to make substantive changes in a club. Yes, yes, the biggest clubs have the most money and star power, but we're talking about 100 or so players in the world that you don't have access to - there's plenty out there which in the proper situation can thrive. 

 

For that I sort of applaud Puel's stubborness - he had a grand vision, he had a pathway to it - damn the torpedoes he was going to try and it do it his way or get sacked trying. Sometimes you play and lose the game. He didn't do enough in the 'now' to protect the grander view - I'm not saying it was going to be achieved but I like that he went for it. 

[Ted Maul]

50 minutes ago, elvisfmcfly said:

We wouldn’t have finished top 10 under Puel no chance! 

Absolutely no chance whatsoever. It's not as if he did it 2 seasons in a row previously.

[elvisfmcfly]

44 minutes ago, Ted Maul said:

Absolutely no chance whatsoever. It's not as if he did it 2 seasons in a row previously.

Yeah that run he had us on when he was sacked we are unlucky not to be in the top 4! We would have finished bottom 6.

[MC Prussian]

23 hours ago, Babylon said:

Not really. Our position was one of always being comfortable, a top 10 finish and three quarter finals. It's not a total failure, failure to entertain people sure. But other than the last few months it was just average and comfortable. 

I'm not saying he failed completely, I acknowledge that he tried to clear out the "deadwood" (Benalouane, Ulloa, Musa, Slimani to some extent with the loan move) plus had to let Mahrez go.

 

He had a relatively healthy basis player-wise, I'm criticizing what he did with that. Football on show was insufferable too often, clunky, static, conceding early goals en masse, dry spells up front, failing to promote alternatives to Vardy (poor Iheanacho), 4-2-3-1 with our players not effective enough (Rodgers promotes a 4-3-3 with more attacking intent).

 

League table-wise, were were once in 7th, and he set a downward spiral in motion that saw us fall down to 12th, as close to 7th as to 18th, with slight fears of relegation coming through.

Wins against Chelsea and Manchester City pulled the wool over people's eyes, we won at Everton in a match between two vastly hungover squads by sheer luck than talent.

Three wins in 13 between early December 2018 and late February 2019, defeats against "lower" teams.

Not good (enough). Calling it "average" is putting a somewhat positive spin on it.

We were getting to a point where we were with him the year before.

In that regard, he failed.

Edited 18 April 2019 by MC Prussian

[Foxxed]

On 16/04/2019 at 16:59, Babylon said:

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

Vardy, Kasper and Morgan are some of the most important figures of the win and the most influencial in the dressing room who know they shocked the world playing their own way. They'll be around next season. And two of those are irreplaceable financially and in terms of impact next season. Rodgers will have to keep at least two of those happy with his selection, tactics and style of play. I have more faith Rodgers will try to accommodate their wishes than I had with Puel.

Edited 18 April 2019 by Foxxed

[Matt]

The bottom line is he didn't get the best out of what he had.

[Babylon]

1 hour ago, MC Prussian said:

I'm not saying he failed completely, I acknowledge that he tried to clear out the "deadwood" (Benalouane, Ulloa, Musa, Slimani to some extent with the loan move) plus had to let Mahrez go.

 

He had a relatively healthy basis player-wise, I'm criticizing what he did with that. Football on show was insufferable too often, clunky, static, conceding early goals en masse, dry spells up front, failing to promote alternatives to Vardy (poor Iheanacho), 4-2-3-1 with our players not effective enough (Rodgers promotes a 4-3-3 with more attacking intent).

 

League table-wise, were were once in 7th, and he set a downward spiral in motion that saw us fall down to 12th, as close to 7th as to 18th, with slight fears of relegation coming through.

Wins against Chelsea and Manchester City pulled the wool over people's eyes, we won at Everton in a match between two vastly hungover squads by sheer luck than talent.

Three wins in 13 between early December 2018 and late February 2019, defeats against "lower" teams.

Not good (enough). Calling it "average" is putting a somewhat positive spin on it.

We were getting to a point where we were with him the year before.

In that regard, he failed.

You are picking a poor spell and saying that's all there was though. We finished top 10 his first season, reached three quarters. The end below average and that's why he got sacked, but you can't judge a whole tenure as failure based on one portion of it. We could have ended up top half still or close enough, we'd pretty much been up there most of his tenure.

[Babylon]

34 minutes ago, Foxxed said:

Vardy, Kasper and Morgan are some of the most important figures of the win and the most influencial in the dressing room who know they shocked the world playing their own way. They'll be around next season. And two of those are irreplaceable financially and in terms of impact next season. Rodgers will have to keep at least two of those happy with his selection, tactics and style of play. I have more faith Rodgers will try to accommodate their wishes than I had with Puel.

It's easier to manage three people, than it is having half your squad sniping at you because they aren't in your plans.

[That_Dude]

On 16/04/2019 at 14:15, Deeg67 said:

Puel took one for the team - he was willing to do the dirty work most managers would never have been willing to do.  He'll never get anything but hate from most "fans" but he's a big part of the reason why the club is set for a potentially excellent run in the next few years.

Exactly. At that time Rodgers wouldn't have touched us with a barge pole. Not that he was the only one.

[filbertway]

I find it quite funny how much people underestimate what Puel did for us. We were well on our way to the championship with a decrepit, expensive and ageing squad that couldn't string 3 passes together.

[UpTheLeagueFox]

3 hours ago, Babylon said:

It's easier to manage three people, than it is having half your squad sniping at you because they aren't in your plans.

A fair few who sniped about Puel privately were first team regulars.