Rodgers v Puel

[Tom12345]

On 18/08/2019 at 04:55, Wymeswold fox said:

Rodgers genuinely seems to care about the players and wants to develop and integrate them.

After reading some reports about him at the club, am not convinced that Puel did either of these and certain players became frustrated.

I think to be fair change takes time. He inherited a team that had an ultra ego having won the league a few years back under a certain counter attacking style. Ranieri saw the need to change the next season, but he failed to change the players’ mindset and style which was difficult to do at the time. Shakey then came in and tried to reverse the change but in the end it was also unsuccessful for the club (other teams knew how to play us especially as we lost the engine in the middle - ie. Kante). Ranieri was right after all.

 

A change was needed and Puel was appointed. On the whole, he recruited the right players, tried to change our playing style to be more of what it is today, and he gave youth a chance (Chilwell and the like who were more unknowns back then but he took a chance on them).  He didnt just go and recruited “his” players. He tried to change Vardy for example. But change is hard, and it takes a toll on relationship and respect when things dont go your way. Frustration grew. Plus he had language barrier which didnt help. He took us as far as he could in the circumstances and it was the right thing to do for the club to bring in someone new to carry on the revolution.

 

Rodgers was obviously a great choice but let’s not forget he has all the benefits of the changes that Puel already made. He may not have commanded the same instant respect by the players had they not went through a more humble period after winning the league. I hope Rodgers succeeds.

 

Just like you need different sorts of executives to lead a company throughtout different phases (eg. a CEO for a startup requires very different skills to lead and manage a big but stable business), the same was true for us. So yes Puel needed to go but I hope we can all appreciate more the work he did.

Edited 21 August 2019 by Tom12345

[weller54]

14 minutes ago, Tom12345 said:

I think to be fair change takes time. He inherited a team that had an ultra ego having won the league a few years back under a certain counter attacking style. Ranieri saw the need to change the next season, but he failed to change the players’ mindset and style which was difficult to do at the time. Shakey then came in and tried to reverse the change but in the end it was also unsuccessful for the club (other teams knew how to play us especially as we lost the engine in the middle - ie. Kante). Ranieri was right after all.

 

A change was needed and Puel was appointed. On the whole, he recruited the right players, tried to change our playing style to be more of what it is today, and he gave youth a chance (Chilwell and the like who were more unknowns back then but he took a chance on them).  He didnt just go and recruited “his” players. He tried to change Vardy for example. But change is hard, and it takes a toll on relationship and respect when things dont go your way. Frustration grew. Plus he had language barrier which didnt help. He took us as far as he could in the circumstances and it was the right thing to do for the club to bring in someone new to carry on the revolution.

 

Rodgers was obviously a great choice but let’s not forget he has all the benefits of the changes that Puel already made. He may not have commanded the same instant respect by the players had they not went through a more humble period after winning the league. I hope Rodgers succeeds.

 

Just like you need different sorts of executives to lead a company throughtout different phases (eg. a CEO for a startup requires very different skills to lead and manage a big but stable business), the same was true for us. So yes Puel needed to go but I hope we can all appreciate more the work he did.

How are you Claude? 

[Tom12345]

2 minutes ago, weller54 said:

How are you Claude? 

I have no idea. You’ve got to ask him.

[volpeazzurro]

25 minutes ago, Tom12345 said:

I think to be fair change takes time. He inherited a team that had an ultra ego having won the league a few years back under a certain counter attacking style. Ranieri saw the need to change the next season, but he failed to change the players’ mindset and style which was difficult to do at the time. Shakey then came in and tried to reverse the change but in the end it was also unsuccessful for the club (other teams knew how to play us especially as we lost the engine in the middle - ie. Kante). Ranieri was right after all.

 

A change was needed and Puel was appointed. On the whole, he recruited the right players, tried to change our playing style to be more of what it is today, and he gave youth a chance (Chilwell and the like who were more unknowns back then but he took a chance on them).  He didnt just go and recruited “his” players. He tried to change Vardy for example. But change is hard, and it takes a toll on relationship and respect when things dont go your way. Frustration grew. Plus he had language barrier which didnt help. He took us as far as he could in the circumstances and it was the right thing to do for the club to bring in someone new to carry on the revolution.

 

Rodgers was obviously a great choice but let’s not forget he has all the benefits of the changes that Puel already made. He may not have commanded the same instant respect by the players had they not went through a more humble period after winning the league. I hope Rodgers succeeds.

 

Just like you need different sorts of executives to lead a company throughtout different phases (eg. a CEO for a startup requires very different skills to lead and manage a big but stable business), the same was true for us. So yes Puel needed to go but I hope we can all appreciate more the work he did.

I think that's a very fair assessment of it. Like it or not, changes needed to be made and the axe had to fall at times. It can't have been pleasant for the players or Puel and nobody in that situation is ever going to be Mr Popular. From what we've heard, ie King,  there were perhaps things that undoubtedly could have been done better.

 

Rodgers too is already trying new things these last two opening games as well as trying to integrate new players. Some already don't agree but that will always be the case if we don't win but doesn't mean we're right either. Sometimes we pigeon hole a player in a particular player and formation (I'm guilty of this) but a manager may see a bigger picture and think he can get better out of that player elsewhere given time (think of the winger Henri at Arsenal). Time will tell whether Rodgers will be a hero or zero to supporters or whether our new signings make the grade. Patience is required in the first instance for all of them at the moment though I think (well at least for a couple of more weeks 😄).

[HighPeakFox]

42 minutes ago, weller54 said:

How are you Claude? 

Are you always this dismissively unfunny in the face of someone trying to make a very good, balanced post?

[Koke]

Puel gave Hamza his full debut, gave Barnes a route into the first team, signed Maddison, persisted with Chilwell when half the people here wanted him flogged to Derby or something, not to mention guys like Ricardo, Maguire, Tielemans etc. Nobody can tell me the younger lads didn't like him or respect him. I dont care how much of an ITK you are. 

 

The older lads obviously had an axe to grind, and understandably so.

 

 

Edited 21 August 2019 by Koke

[Bob Hazels shorts]

The guy was a joke and got far more respect by some than he every deserved.

 

Credited for introducing younger players for those past their ‘best before’ Hardly going to play older ones!!

 

Whilst many believe brining Harvey back from West Brom I think it was nuts and a panic.

 

The Guy was on fire, on for player of the season, part of a promotion side likely, cementing a style that suited him.

Fact is he was taken back on the eve of a massive game.

 

Looked lively but a bit lost when introduced and predictably dropped when Albrighton fit.

 

He and we would’ve benefited from him finishing his footie education.

[Foxhateram]

1 hour ago, Tom12345 said:

I think to be fair change takes time. He inherited a team that had an ultra ego having won the league a few years back under a certain counter attacking style. Ranieri saw the need to change the next season, but he failed to change the players’ mindset and style which was difficult to do at the time. Shakey then came in and tried to reverse the change but in the end it was also unsuccessful for the club (other teams knew how to play us especially as we lost the engine in the middle - ie. Kante). Ranieri was right after all.

 

A change was needed and Puel was appointed. On the whole, he recruited the right players, tried to change our playing style to be more of what it is today, and he gave youth a chance (Chilwell and the like who were more unknowns back then but he took a chance on them).  He didnt just go and recruited “his” players. He tried to change Vardy for example. But change is hard, and it takes a toll on relationship and respect when things dont go your way. Frustration grew. Plus he had language barrier which didnt help. He took us as far as he could in the circumstances and it was the right thing to do for the club to bring in someone new to carry on the revolution.

 

Rodgers was obviously a great choice but let’s not forget he has all the benefits of the changes that Puel already made. He may not have commanded the same instant respect by the players had they not went through a more humble period after winning the league. I hope Rodgers succeeds.

 

Just like you need different sorts of executives to lead a company throughtout different phases (eg. a CEO for a startup requires very different skills to lead and manage a big but stable business), the same was true for us. So yes Puel needed to go but I hope we can all appreciate more the work he did.

The style we played wasn't unsuccessful because teams knew how to play us, it became unsuccessful because we lost our box to box midfielder. If we had replaced Kante with another box to box midfielder we could have continued to play the counter attacking style. Ranieri chose to buy personnel (poorly) to try and change our style completely, and wasted a lot of money in the process. He was rightfully sent packing. 

 

Other teams in the league still play that way and are doing well. Wolves for example, Villa will do the same this season (as that is how they've been playing in the championship, they'll do ok I think), Burnley, etc all play this way too (although admittedly to less effect, as their personel is not as strong). 

 

Personally I don't think the way we've played the first 2 games is particularly effective. We've struggled to create clear chances and teams have easily stifled our attacks. I would say teams are finding it easier to nullify our current style, than when we used to release Vardy and Mahrez on a fast counter. (Before you say it, a direct penetrative pass, is not hoofball). I hate to see us passing the ball backwards and slowing down our attacks. We have some of the fastest players in this league in our team, yet we never play a ball that gets any of them on the run. We're so concerned about keeping the ball (even the crowd) that we don't take the risky pass or the forward run, which means 9/10 attacks just end up back with the back 4. 

[Foxhateram]

34 minutes ago, Koke said:

Puel gave Hamza his full debut, gave Barnes a route into the first team, signed Maddison, persisted with Chilwell when half the people here wanted him flogged to Derby or something, not to mention guys like Ricardo, Maguire, Tielemans etc. Nobody can tell me the younger lads didn't like him or respect him. I dont care how much of an ITK you are. 

 

The older lads obviously had an axe to grind, and understandably so.

 

 

Chilly and Madders have been quoted as not liking him very much in several articles. The guy clearly had no respect on the training ground and from King's article (never one to complain at all) he was just a bit of tool.

 

Those players were breaking through no matter what manager was in charge, 1) we had no other decent options. 2) They make our academy look good, which was one of Vichai's priorities. 

 

He turned our fast counter attacking team. Into a lethargic, slow bus and when the players revolted and asked to change the style he was too stubborn to change his ways. 

 

I stand by the fact that we've gone backwards since 15/16 in terms of our style ( not in personel or as a club), we spent years in the lower leagues under Pearson building a style of play that was different to what others were doing. When we hit the premier League we actually stepped away from it, falling down the league as a result, until for what ever reason, those last few games, we decided to just go for it and do it our way. It was then our way that won us the league. 

 

We've lost our identity a little and I feel it is that loss of identity that has made us stagnate a little. 

 

We need to be more direct, we need to be faster on the build up, we need to play those penetrative passes. Possession back and forth halfway up the pitch is not going to lead to goals. 

 

It is a really frustrating factor for me, we have the faster striker in the country up top, and some of the fastest wingers too. Yet we literally never play them in behind, not once in almost as long as I can remember. Teams stifle us easily by sitting back, they know we're not going to play a penetrative or risky pass so they just let us come at them. Then score on the counter ( wait, that sounds familiar). 

 

Let teams attack us, let them feel like they've got a chance of scoring, then as soon as that ball breaks, release Vardy, Gray, Barnes or Madders with their lightning pace. 

[HighPeakFox]

15 minutes ago, Foxhateram said:

Personally I don't think the way we've played the first 2 games is particularly effective. We've struggled to create clear chances and teams have easily stifled our attacks. 

Did you actually watch the 2nd half of Chelsea? I have a lot of time for a lot of what you said, because it comes from a sincere thought process, but to say this is to just write off a fantastic dominant performance where chances WERE created away to a European winner.

[murphy]

Puel         v   Wolves (h) + Chelsea (a) = 6pts

Rodgers   v   Wolves (h) + Chelsea (a) = 2pts  

 

 

Come home Claude!  

[Gubbins]

15 minutes ago, Foxhateram said:

Chilly and Madders have been quoted as not liking him very much in several articles. The guy clearly had no respect on the training ground and from King's article (never one to complain at all) he was just a bit of tool.

 

Those players were breaking through no matter what manager was in charge, 1) we had no other decent options. 2) They make our academy look good, which was one of Vichai's priorities. 

 

He turned our fast counter attacking team. Into a lethargic, slow bus and when the players revolted and asked to change the style he was too stubborn to change his ways. 

 

I stand by the fact that we've gone backwards since 15/16 in terms of our style ( not in personel or as a club), we spent years in the lower leagues under Pearson building a style of play that was different to what others were doing. When we hit the premier League we actually stepped away from it, falling down the league as a result, until for what ever reason, those last few games, we decided to just go for it and do it our way. It was then our way that won us the league. 

 

We've lost our identity a little and I feel it is that loss of identity that has made us stagnate a little. 

 

We need to be more direct, we need to be faster on the build up, we need to play those penetrative passes. Possession back and forth halfway up the pitch is not going to lead to goals. 

 

It is a really frustrating factor for me, we have the faster striker in the country up top, and some of the fastest wingers too. Yet we literally never play them in behind, not once in almost as long as I can remember. Teams stifle us easily by sitting back, they know we're not going to play a penetrative or risky pass so they just let us come at them. Then score on the counter ( wait, that sounds familiar). 

 

Let teams attack us, let them feel like they've got a chance of scoring, then as soon as that ball breaks, release Vardy, Gray, Barnes or Madders with their lightning pace. 

We were in no way a fast counter attacking team when Puel took over. We were a ropey, one dimensional hoof ball team who could barely complete 3 passes before giving it back to the opponent and who's primary tactic was to frantically defend for our lives most of the game before hitting it long in the hope that Vardy would get on the end of it. 

You're also ignoring that we did score a fair number of goals on the counter attack under Puel and that allowing the opposition to constantly attack you in the hope of a break away when you have Chilwell, Maguire and Ricardo in your defence is going to eventually lead to you conceding.

[bmt]

57 minutes ago, Bob Hazels shorts said:

The guy was a joke and got far more respect by some than he every deserved.

 

Credited for introducing younger players for those past their ‘best before’ Hardly going to play older ones!!

 

Whilst many believe brining Harvey back from West Brom I think it was nuts and a panic.

 

The Guy was on fire, on for player of the season, part of a promotion side likely, cementing a style that suited him.

Fact is he was taken back on the eve of a massive game.

 

Looked lively but a bit lost when introduced and predictably dropped when Albrighton fit.

 

He and we would’ve benefited from him finishing his footie education.

While this maybe true (re. Hamza) it’s very easy to say in hindsight. Everyone I know thought it was the right decision at the time, myself included. 

 

 

Puel obviously had a lot of faults which were unforgivable but he has to take some credit for the squad age change etc. It’s not just a case of playing the younger lads but more that there wasn’t a noticeable drop in results (let’s see how Chelsea do this season if they persist with youngsters for example).

[Babylon]

47 minutes ago, Foxhateram said:

Chilly and Madders have been quoted as not liking him very much in several articles. The guy clearly had no respect on the training ground and from King's article (never one to complain at all) he was just a bit of tool.

Have they? You can try reading between the lines and filling in the gaps but only King has come out and said anything really. Plus, I'm afraid King let himself down in his article, because he just came across as bitter with his comments about "I'm a league winner, who are you to come in here and say I'm not wanted" or along those lines. Well Andy, he's the manager mate and that's his job. Pull might have been a tool, but there were a huge number of bitter players down there more than happy I'm sure to help add fuel to any fire of doubt about Puel. 

 

47 minutes ago, Foxhateram said:

Those players were breaking through no matter what manager was in charge, 1) we had no other decent options. 2) They make our academy look good, which was one of Vichai's priorities. 

So why didn't they? Why did it take Puel to play them? Do you think it's a coincidence that a manager renowned for giving young players minutes, suddenly buys and plays loads of youngsters. There are loads of managers out there who load there team with old players and will just keep plodding along and not wanting to progress. So to suggest the transition would have happened the same under anyone is just untrue. 

 

47 minutes ago, Foxhateram said:

He turned our fast counter attacking team. Into a lethargic, slow bus and when the players revolted and asked to change the style he was too stubborn to change his ways.  

It's funny how people seems to totally ignore the what, 18 months before he arrived. We were a total bag of shite and got into the bottom 3 twice, losing two managers their jobs. 

 

[SuperMike]

Goodness! - I had forgot that there are those on here who still hanker after those heady days of defeats, division and dire football - under their hero - Claude the Fraud. They even say he championed young players - naive - he never once gave a debut to a teenager, and the two twenty-year-olds (Barnes and Hamza) had both played for league clubs whilst on loan. But lets not let facts get in the way of undying love!

[jayfox26]

Puel had the right ideas and his transfers were decent apart from Diabate and Ghezzal but he just couldnt seem to get his ideas across onto the pitch. The language barrier didn't help and he also didn't seem to change things to any affect when things weren't going right. Brendan made changes at ht against Chelsea after a poor 1st half and we ended up nearly winning the game. The key to a top manager is getting it right most of the time and when it doesn't quite go right be able to make the necessary changes. Hopefully Brendan can do this. Far too early after 2 tough games to judge Brendan or how our season will pan out 

[Paninistickers]

I thought Kingy's interview gave a lot away when he admitted (in so many words) despite everything else,  that some of what Claude was trying to do as a coach was right.

 

The biggest downfall for Claude was his tactical set up was tailor made for away matches.... Dominate possession, time waste, frustrate, let the home fans get agitated, home team huffs and puffs forward and we were devastating on the counter.

 

It was unfortunately not something that was useful - or palatable - for home games.

[HighPeakFox]

1 hour ago, SuperMike said:

Goodness! - I had forgot that there are those on here who still hanker after those heady days of defeats, division and dire football - under their hero - Claude the Fraud. They even say he championed young players - naive - he never once gave a debut to a teenager, and the two twenty-year-olds (Barnes and Hamza) had both played for league clubs whilst on loan. But lets not let facts get in the way of undying love!

Name one poster hankering to have Puel back. One. Go on, I challenge you, because I don't think you'll find one.

[That_Dude]

4 hours ago, Foxhateram said:

Chilly and Madders have been quoted as not liking him very much in several articles. The guy clearly had no respect on the training ground and from King's article (never one to complain at all) he was just a bit of tool.

 

Those players were breaking through no matter what manager was in charge, 1) we had no other decent options. 2) They make our academy look good, which was one of Vichai's priorities. 

 

He turned our fast counter attacking team. Into a lethargic, slow bus and when the players revolted and asked to change the style he was too stubborn to change his ways. 

 

I stand by the fact that we've gone backwards since 15/16 in terms of our style ( not in personel or as a club), we spent years in the lower leagues under Pearson building a style of play that was different to what others were doing. When we hit the premier League we actually stepped away from it, falling down the league as a result, until for what ever reason, those last few games, we decided to just go for it and do it our way. It was then our way that won us the league. 

 

We've lost our identity a little and I feel it is that loss of identity that has made us stagnate a little. 

 

We need to be more direct, we need to be faster on the build up, we need to play those penetrative passes. Possession back and forth halfway up the pitch is not going to lead to goals. 

 

It is a really frustrating factor for me, we have the faster striker in the country up top, and some of the fastest wingers too. Yet we literally never play them in behind, not once in almost as long as I can remember. Teams stifle us easily by sitting back, they know we're not going to play a penetrative or risky pass so they just let us come at them. Then score on the counter ( wait, that sounds familiar). 

 

Let teams attack us, let them feel like they've got a chance of scoring, then as soon as that ball breaks, release Vardy, Gray, Barnes or Madders with their lightning pace. 

That's a by-the-book example of how nostalgia, lack of analytical perspective and personal dislike can alter an objective assessment of a given situation.

[That_Dude]

3 hours ago, SuperMike said:

Goodness! - I had forgot that there are those on here who still hanker after those heady days of defeats, division and dire football - under their hero - Claude the Fraud. They even say he championed young players - naive - he never once gave a debut to a teenager, and the two twenty-year-olds (Barnes and Hamza) had both played for league clubs whilst on loan. But lets not let facts get in the way of undying love!

Grow up.

[HighPeakFox]

Just now, That_Dude said:

Grow up.

You've been kind to him, the whole paragraph was inexcusably childish.

[That_Dude]

1 minute ago, HighPeakFox said:

You've been kind to him, the whole paragraph was inexcusably childish.

The rest of the paragraph isn't even worth mentioning. Nobody can give that drivel any kind of credit.

[abdul_fox]

I think a lot of people forget how bad of a position we were in when Shakey got sacked back in October 2017. Have a look at the squad back then and the style of football we were playing. The 1-1 draw with West Brom epitomised our decline since the title win, just watch the match again in case you guys forgot. Compare our squad then, to now and it becomes obvious that Puel had bought us forward in terms of squad building/squad profile despite his shortcomings which I do accept hence his sacking. 

[KingsX]

6 hours ago, volpeazzurro said:

Like it or not, changes needed to be made and the axe had to fall at times. It can't have been pleasant for the players or Puel and nobody in that situation is ever going to be Mr Popular. From what we've heard, ie King,  there were perhaps things that undoubtedly could have been done better.

 

King’s quote about “who is this guy to kick me out after ten years?” was telling.  (That’s a proof of the player power narrative, even coming from my favorite player.)  Puel’s job was tough, especially following a players’ coach in Shakespeare. 

 

But the total lack of communication King complained most bitterly about -- that’s where Puel turned cold judgment into a hot mess.  It’s the harder, unpopular decisions that most require communication to keep people on side.  There was never going to be consensus on replacing part of the playing staff.  But Puel could have got halfway there, if he believed the “outs” were worth the effort to understand, and demonstrated that fact via 2-way communication.

 

The informal leaders in the workforce can either be your best asset, or a headache.  But if they remain the latter -- as a senior leader, you are failing.

 

I still think Puel left the club better than he found it.  At worst he was a “necessary evil”, and I’m glad he had the toughness needed at a point of wrenching transition.  What I didn’t realize was how much unnecessary collateral damage he was doing.  Rodgers quickly understood that undoing that damage was job one, and he seems to have restored the balance in the changing room. 

[Tom12345]

5 hours ago, Gubbins said:

We were in no way a fast counter attacking team when Puel took over. We were a ropey, one dimensional hoof ball team who could barely complete 3 passes before giving it back to the opponent and who's primary tactic was to frantically defend for our lives most of the game before hitting it long in the hope that Vardy would get on the end of it. 

You're also ignoring that we did score a fair number of goals on the counter attack under Puel and that allowing the opposition to constantly attack you in the hope of a break away when you have Chilwell, Maguire and Ricardo in your defence is going to eventually lead to you conceding.

Yeah, as a result of losing Kante, we resorted to hoof ball much of the time as our defenders (Huth, Morgan and Simpson) just could not get the ball to our midfielders. It was terrible. It was so demotivating for players like Mahrez who saw the ball flew over his head much of the games whilst Vardy could only chase aimlessly.  (Occasionally Mahrez did get the ball and produced some magic.)

 

Something I have almost forgotten and wish I cannot remember.

Edited 21 August 2019 by Tom12345