Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Very much admire the job Puel did for us but ultimately, as many have said, he wasn't the man to take us forward.

 

The worry for me was always that, on an individual level, players were playing 6s and 7s out of 10 every week, and yet as a whole the team was struggling massively. That final Palace humiliation was the prime example, no one appeared to play awfully, yet we lost 4-1. That indicated that the management was the problem and not the quality of the players, which Brendan is proving now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MC Prussian said:

In what way were we arrogant (during his stint)?

You may well not have been, but plenty were towards the end. However, arrogance is often our default position - just read football forums!

 

However, my point was a broader one - that when we see someone who is a bit more like us than we care to admit, we don't like it. So it was more a sociological observation than anything specific. I hope this answers you better.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

What was the team back when Shakespeare was sacked? Something along the lines of: 

 

                   Schmeichel 

Simpson Morgan Maguire Fuchs 

Mahrez    ndidi     Iborra Albrighton 

                       Okazaki 

                        Vardy

 

Can anyone honestly say Rodgers would've been interested in taking over that heavily aging squad? Compare that to what Puel left:

 

                  Schmeichel 

Ricardo Evans Maguire Chilwell 

            Tielemans     Ndidi

  Gray            Maddison       Barnes 

                         Vardy 

 

The age of 7 of starting 11s ages were reduced massively while also bringing in more technical players capable of playing the possession football that Brendan wants. 

 

Simpson 32-> Ricardo 26

Morgan 35 -> Evans 31

Fuchs 33 -> Chilwell 22

Iborra 31 -> Tielemans 22

Mahrez 28 -> Gray 23

Okazaki 33 -> Maddison 23

Albrighton 30 -> Barnes 21

 

Brendan is a superior manager that were lucky to have at our club but he wouldn't be wasting his time on that first squad. The second squad however is full of youth, potential and players that fit Rodgers system. In my opinion our owners have played an absolute blinder with both managers, one to build the foundations of a great team and one to finish it off and win trophies. 

 

Anyway, I'm bored of talking about Puel. Hopefully as a fan base we can move on and get on with enjoying what is probably going to be the greatest period in our clubs history! :brendan:

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s easy to malign Puel, and to be honest,  a lot of the criticism is valid. 

 

However, I think history will treat him kindly, acknowledging the role he played in setting the foundations, allowing this team to flourish. 

 

When you think about it, its amazing how many managers are sacked (after building the foundations) and replaced by a manager who them reaps the benefits. 

 

Timing is everything!!!!

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Rodgers has been great for us but Claude for all his faults played a very big part in setting the foundation for our current position. We beat the Likes of Spurs, Arsenal, Chelsea, Man City in his reign. Any comparisons with Taylor, Levein, Holloway et al are highly unfair. 

 

Hope he does well in France. The league might just suit him more.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Glorious Leicester Fan said:

It’s easy to malign Puel, and to be honest,  a lot of the criticism is valid. 

 

However, I think history will treat him kindly, acknowledging the role he played in setting the foundations, allowing this team to flourish. 

 

When you think about it, its amazing how many managers are sacked (after building the foundations) and replaced by a manager who them reaps the benefits. 

 

Timing is everything!!!!

Sums it up for me. 

 

We don't know how much the club wanted a manager who would look to bring in the youth, or whether they were just impressed by the way he came across in the interview. Nor do we know if the vision was for him to take the team on after building it. 

 

Either way he showed poor, very poor communication and man management skills with the team, fans and media (most of the time) absolutely vital to bring success out of a team in any walk of life. 

 

As an interim he did the job, but I'd argue we could put a wad of cash in front of a lot of managers to come in, dismantle and rebuild with youth. The hard part is getting enough points on the board. He wouldn't have been able to go on and achieve that, in my opinion, because of his failings. 

 

Did what was required, but this wasn't Pearson level infrastructure. He shouldn't be heralded as some all insightful transitional genius. Neither should he be ridiculed. 

 

Basically, for the English game at least, he's bang average. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did a great job for us- came in to work with an old squad, blindly trying to play counter attacking football, unable to string 3 passes together and hovering around the relegation zone. Left us with a young, immensely talented group who play passing football.

 

Say what you like about his tactics and man-management (and post-match interviews, if that's your thing)- he had his faults and the time was right to sack him, in my opinion- but I'll always give managers a bit more time when I can see that they're building and improving the squad rather than papering over cracks and focusing on short-term results. Anyone putting him in the same bracket as Taylor is a complete tool.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, TheCryptoPoet said:

Sums it up for me. 

 

We don't know how much the club wanted a manager who would look to bring in the youth, or whether they were just impressed by the way he came across in the interview. Nor do we know if the vision was for him to take the team on after building it. 

 

Either way he showed poor, very poor communication and man management skills with the team, fans and media (most of the time) absolutely vital to bring success out of a team in any walk of life. 

 

As an interim he did the job, but I'd argue we could put a wad of cash in front of a lot of managers to come in, dismantle and rebuild with youth. The hard part is getting enough points on the board. He wouldn't have been able to go on and achieve that, in my opinion, because of his failings. 

 

Did what was required, but this wasn't Pearson level infrastructure. He shouldn't be heralded as some all insightful transitional genius. Neither should he be ridiculed. 

 

Basically, for the English game at least, he's bang average. 

I think this is a fair assessment. On a broader issue, I think our strength is founded on the principle that the building of our team has been a process, rather than a constant discussion upheaval.

  

What I mean is that each of the  last few mangers have all contributed towards building this current team (not sure out of design or financial restrictions). They all work on the terms dictated by the club.

 

Many of the ‘big’ clubs, don’t do this. Take Man U. Each manger is given an obscene amount of money and always radically changes the shape of the team. Good players are sold at a whim and endless stream of players are brought in. The beast (sponsers/brand) needs constant feeding.

 

Ironically, our strength derives from not being a so called ‘big club’. 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ted Maul said:

Did a great job for us- came in to work with an old squad, blindly trying to play counter attacking football, unable to string 3 passes together and hovering around the relegation zone. Left us with a young, immensely talented group who play passing football.

 

Say what you like about his tactics and man-management (and post-match interviews, if that's your thing)- he had his faults and the time was right to sack him, in my opinion- but I'll always give managers a bit more time when I can see that they're building and improving the squad rather than papering over cracks and focusing on short-term results. Anyone putting him in the same bracket as Taylor is a complete tool.

Spot on. He transformed the team, yes he made some errors but he brought Ricardo, and the young players into the squad and transformed us to a procession team.

 

It didn't work out in the end.

 

He built the foundations of a better team and different style, nothing like Taylor who destroyed a squad and replaced it with 3rd rate league 2 players. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Another interesting interview with Puel:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-7767753/Former-Leicester-City-boss-Claude-Puel-says-Jamie-Vardy-like-child.html

 

Certainly some good signings were made, but none of those signed would have made the progress without Rodgers. What the interview highlights is that if a club brings in a foreign coach, he needs a good command of English to be successful in the longer term 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Puel did some good things and he did highlight the problems - I think he did very little to actually address them though.

 

Last season most of our best results still came when we played a load of DM's and on the counter (Everton, Chelsea, Man City). If a team played deep against us and let us have the ball we were just as clueless at breaking them down and as a result our home form and performances were dreadful. We didn't get any joy with breaking down a deep block until Rodgers came in and changed the system and encouraged the team to play quicker in the final third. I don't think Claude would have adopted the approach we needed.

 

He did help to build a platform but from the sounds of things Rudkin and Vichai had already decided to go in that direction anyway hence why they appointed him. I don't think it was a case of him telling them something that if they were being honest they didn't already know.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 08/12/2019 at 09:51, murphy said:

Put simply, Rodgers would not have looked twice at Shakespeare's ageing hoofball relegation dodgers.

 

I find it very sad that some people are unable, or more likely, unwilling, to acknowledge the work that Puel did in rejuvenating the squad, turning us into a possession team and creating the platform for Rodgers to come in and take us to the next level.

 

What we are seeing now could not have happened without Puel.

 

 

Spot on, good post.

 

In some ways a comparable situation to that which Ranieri found himself in, profiting from the groundwork and foundations built by Pearson and staff in the years prior - one wouldn't have been possible without the other.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Very few managers can claim sole credit or blame for their results.

They are all inheritors of a squad, yet part of the work that must be performed by the incumbent is to judge and act on what was inherited.

People, football fans as much as any, are easily polarised and engage in plenty of revisionism once that manager gets the boot/leaves.

Puel did some good work, some not so good.

It is the same for every manager, it’s just the amount of good/bad that varies.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...