Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Tom12345

Rodgers v Puel

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, brookfox said:

Now starring in “Two managers no cup” it’s Puel and Rogers!

I appreciated the effort that went into this even if nobody else did.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand these "Puel" signings, we have an excellent recruitment team which do fantastic work in place but they get no credit for the signings we make, instead they are considered "Puel" signings?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Rusko187 said:

I don't understand these "Puel" signings, we have an excellent recruitment team which do fantastic work in place but they get no credit for the signings we make, instead they are considered "Puel" signings?

 

I think players like Ghezzel (was in a Puel team before) and Diabete (Puels son scouted him, played in same team) are "Puel" signings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, blue army 1988 said:

I think players like Ghezzel (was in a Puel team before) and Diabete (Puels son scouted him, played in same team) are "Puel" signings.

Yep and both terrible. 

 

Ricardo and Youri, are they Puel sining or not? I think not, as we had been linked to them in previous years, definitely Ricardo anyway. 

 

Brendan is streets ahead of Puel, coaching, man management, tactics. The lot. Happy days. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rusko187 said:

I don't understand these "Puel" signings, we have an excellent recruitment team which do fantastic work in place but they get no credit for the signings we make, instead they are considered "Puel" signings?

 

Because we perform poorly for the past 2 season prior. Spend huge on aging player like Slimani and Iborra, or peak player like Silva but didn't work well. 

Except Maguire of course. 

 

During Puel tenure, we spend huge on younger player. Coincidentally, Puel is well known for his preference for youth. 

 

Coincidentally also, there's a plan for those youth like Chilwell and Gray getting minutes, Benkovic get loaned out. Instead of before, when Gray and Kaputska Signed, they are neither play or sent for loan. We brought them without any plan. 

 

The likes of Ricardo and Madisson were talking about the coach as soon as they joined. The previous signing didn't. 

 

It's either Puel really have input on recruitment team or those all are just coincidentally happen during his tenure. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Puel did 2 mistakes, He didnt play Vardy correctly or not at all and he played Mendy. Mendy and Ndidi was painful to watch, said it countless times. Tili and Maddison in the middle is so much more creative and that builds the better brand of football.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, deanolegend1989 said:

Puel did 2 mistakes, He didnt play Vardy correctly or not at all and he played Mendy. Mendy and Ndidi was painful to watch, said it countless times. Tili and Maddison in the middle is so much more creative and that builds the better brand of football.

Your 2nd point is correct in the sense be played 2 defensive midfielders; but Tielemans didn't sign until basically the end of Puels reign, so any comparison is pointless

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't why we're comparing the two, they are chalk and cheese. Puel was dull and uninspiring where Brendan is a breath of fresh air telling the players how he wants thr game played and letting them get on with it. The record speaks for itself.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Puel had fans on his back from the start had no chance. He played 2 defensive midfielders fans go mad Rodgers does it and they love it!

He made some very good signings, got players to extend contracts and brought through youth. Some games were poor but also some decent ones, our first 4 ganes this season have been pretty boring lots of sideways/backwards  passing, game on saturday was loads better i think we had more shots on target in that game than we did in the previous 4 combined, we were crying out for width and had it on saturday made a difference.

Puel lost Vardy which cost him his job, a brave or stupid man to drop him, but who knows what went on?

Overall Rodgers is a upgrade but seems to play similar style to Puel but alot better at man management.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rogers record after 14 League games.


Won - 7
Draw - 4
Lost - 3
Goals - 23
Conceded - 12
Points - 25

 

Despite his flaws, Puel deserves credit for laying some solid foundations.

Rogers deserves praise for the way he's building on those foundations.

 

If you're not feeling optimistic right now as a Leicester fan you should be having words with yourself.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Anglodanglo said:

 

Despite his flaws, X deserves credit for laying some solid foundations.

Y deserves praise for the way he's building on those foundations.

 

 

Sure I’ve seen this before, just can’t remember when and who?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 30/08/2019 at 14:33, Foxhateram said:

Yep and both terrible. 

 

Ricardo and Youri, are they Puel sining or not? I think not, as we had been linked to them in previous years, definitely Ricardo anyway. 

 

Brendan is streets ahead of Puel, coaching, man management, tactics. The lot. Happy days. 

Lol, shite signing=Puel, good signings=nah, the recruitment department did a good job.

 

Yes, yes they are. We'd never got them without him. Diabaté was worth a punt for 1M and Ghezzal was a panic buy, but all the other signings under his tenure were great.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, deanolegend1989 said:

Puel did 2 mistakes, He didnt play Vardy correctly or not at all and he played Mendy. Mendy and Ndidi was painful to watch, said it countless times. Tili and Maddison in the middle is so much more creative and that builds the better brand of football.

Well yea, Puel didn't have Youri in the first half the season. So who should he have played in your opinion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, That_Dude said:

Well yea, Puel didn't have Youri in the first half the season. So who should he have played in your opinion?

Exactly,  you can only play the players you've got and when Puel arrived he had a right mixed bunch to be fair and some with some questionable egos/attitudes. Whilst what happened may well have been for the best, I wonder how Rodgers would have coped with the same situation and whether the players would have acted the same towards him whilst he was completing a big axe job. In fact without the players we had when he arrived and the promise of money to spend I'd doubt he'd have come in the same circumstances. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, That_Dude said:

Well yea, Puel didn't have Youri in the first half the season. So who should he have played in your opinion?

Silva or King could have been better options in a 433 with Ndidi holding and Maddison partnering either of those two.

 

I say could because we never really saw it tried, but it may have also been shite, who knows. 

Edited by pmcla26

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 17/08/2019 at 14:25, That_Dude said:

Nah, people wanted him out before he even managed one game and kept on hating until he was finally gone. Anything against him was fair game.

 

He's had his faults, has been rightly sacked at the end, and I do think that BR is a better manager but boy, the level of irrational hatred was absolutely embarrassing.

I defended the bloke until the end, but honestly, after hearing how he treated Andy King I'm not even slightly surprised the players weren't performing for him. Glad he's gone - sounds like a bit of a Berkley Hunt in truth, and there's no way you're going to command a dressing room by completely freezing out a club legend who we all know was a positive influence on the squad without so much as having the courtesy to tell them why. 

:plancque:

 

I agree that the style of football is similar, but there are subtle differences, not least the high press we're carrying out well and which is giving us the edge in games against teams we may have lost against before Rodgers came in. I look to that win at Sheffield United in particular - it wasn't vintage, but we matched their "intensiteeeee" which let our quality eventually shine through with two cracking strikes.

Oh, and maybe this is an unfair observation and muddied by the malaise that set in around Puel, but I really feel like Rodgers is more willing to play to players' strengths, as we saw on Saturday with that vintage first Vardy goal, and the cracking ball through against Sheff Utd.

 

The only times that sort of move happened on a regular basis under Puel were in the early days of his tenure, before he tried to force a laboured build-up on the whole attacking line-up. We seem to have a perfect mix of both in our forward line now - we're more measured in our build-up a la Puel, but we're mixing that with the last-man through balls where we can against expansive sides, which was a rare treat through Claude's tenure but is now allowing Vardy to score the hatful of goals we know he's capable of. We still struggle against teams that sit deep, but I feel that with a few tweaks and more emphasis on being clinical with set pieces, we could be a real unit regardless of the opposition.

 

Honestly, you could boil it down to "Rodgers lets Jamie Vardy be Jamie Vardy" as the one difference - and it's a massive one for our fortunes in front of goal.
 :vardy:

Edited by OntarioFox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We'd have played 4-2-3-1 against Bournemouth on Saturday under Puel with Mendy and Ndidi in defensive midfield.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, volpeazzurro said:

Whilst what happened may well have been for the best, I wonder how Rodgers would have coped with the same situation and whether the players would have acted the same towards him whilst he was completing a big axe job.

I think a quick look at how Simpson and Okazaki departed is enough to tell me that he'd have handled it better. He gave them the due respect they deserved, and a proper send-off against Chelsea while being honest enough to show them the door in the close season after limited minutes.

 

Meanwhile, he's assessed Fuchs - another player on the ropes - and decided he's been worth convincing to stay another year, which has proved a shrewd decision while Chilwell has been out. Bloke's been a revelation and is most certainly back in the fold at a point when most of us thought he was finished in a blue shirt.

Edited by OntarioFox
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, pmcla26 said:

Silva or King could have been better options in a 433 with Ndidi holding and Maddison partnering either of those two.

 

I say could because we never really saw it tried, but it may have also been shite, who knows. 

I love King but he never really was an option anymore and Puel went the youth way anyway. Silva is a tricky one. His spell here has been a nightmare but I frankly never was convinced that he'd make in the PL. Too physical, too fast for him. There was something about a clause in his contract, that wouldn't let us play him more for financial reasons (take it with a grain of salt, it was mentioned here and there, I can't remember the exact terms). Rodgers didn't rate him either and sent him on loan again.

 

Do not also forget that we were leaking goals like there is no tomorrow, the back four needed protection and it was Puel's first priority, giving us some solidity and confidence. Hence the two 2DMs. Was it ideal and pleasing to the eye? No, not by any stretch but it worked, especially given the circumstances and the lack of any real alternative. People just forget how bad we were as he took over.

 

1 hour ago, volpeazzurro said:

Exactly,  you can only play the players you've got and when Puel arrived he had a right mixed bunch to be fair and some with some questionable egos/attitudes. Whilst what happened may well have been for the best, I wonder how Rodgers would have coped with the same situation and whether the players would have acted the same towards him whilst he was completing a big axe job. In fact without the players we had when he arrived and the promise of money to spend I'd doubt he'd have come in the same circumstances. 

I completely agree with you.

 

I absolutely delighted that we appointed Rodgers to take over, but let's not fool ourselves: he couldn't have chosen a better timing and he knows it. Who culled the herd, phased out ageing players, brought in young, talented players and began the possession based football transition? Who built the solid foundations for this team? Who handled the loss of Mahrez? That french guy, who did the dirty work and got all the hate.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, That_Dude said:

I love King but he never really was an option anymore and Puel went the youth way anyway. Silva is a tricky one. His spell here has been a nightmare but I frankly never was convinced that he'd make in the PL. Too physical, too fast for him. There was something about a clause in his contract, that wouldn't let us play him more for financial reasons (take it with a grain of salt, it was mentioned here and there, I can't remember the exact terms). Rodgers didn't rate him either and sent him on loan again.

 

Do not also forget that we were leaking goals like there is no tomorrow, the back four needed protection and it was Puel's first priority, giving us some solidity and confidence. Hence the two 2DMs. Was it ideal and pleasing to the eye? No, not by any stretch but it worked, especially given the circumstances and the lack of any real alternative. People just forget how bad we were as he took over.

 

I completely agree with you.

 

I absolutely delighted that we appointed Rodgers to take over, but let's not fool ourselves: he couldn't have chosen a better timing and he knows it. Who culled the herd, phased out ageing players, brought in young, talented players and began the possession based football transition? Who built the solid foundations for this team? Who handled the loss of Mahrez? That french guy, who did the dirty work and got all the hate.

Yeah I suppose so regarding King, I just think that maybe he would have been a steady option until Tielemans came in, but Puel clearly didn’t think he was of use. Maybe if the back four was settled like in the last 10 games of the season when Evans came in then it could’ve worked, but with Morgan in the side, you’re right we needed that extra protection.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Puel did a lot of the dirty work that has made Rodgers' job much easier. Puel deserves a lot of credit for that even if he made very few friends in the squad and on our terraces. Just my opinion.

Edited by SydenhamFox
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, pmcla26 said:

Yeah I suppose so regarding King, I just think that maybe he would have been a steady option until Tielemans came in, but Puel clearly didn’t think he was of use. Maybe if the back four was settled like in the last 10 games of the season when Evans came in then it could’ve worked, but with Morgan in the side, you’re right we needed that extra protection.

There was Iborra who did a better job before fading away and I remember people going bonkers when King was in the starting XI. None of the creative midfielders we bought before Tielemans settled in or had a satisfying level of performance and it crippled us massively. A lot here are still underestimating what an impact Tielemans have. 

 

1 hour ago, OntarioFox said:

I think a quick look at how Simpson and Okazaki departed is enough to tell me that he'd have handled it better. He gave them the due respect they deserved, and a proper send-off against Chelsea while being honest enough to show them the door in the close season after limited minutes.

 

Meanwhile, he's assessed Fuchs - another player on the ropes - and decided he's been worth convincing to stay another year, which has proved a shrewd decision while Chilwell has been out. Bloke's been a revelation and is most certainly back in the fold at a point when most of us thought he was finished in a blue shirt.

Yes, Puel should've handled King better. He wasn't there for the last part of the season though, so there is no way to know if he would've given Simpson and Okazaki their well deserved send-off or not. 

 

Rodgers is still miles better than him in terms of man management and indeed plays to the players strengths. Having Fuchs for one more year was a brilliant idea. I'm still sceptical about the 6th place this season, but I do recognize that it could be well within our reach, if we keep this level of performance and the other teams continue their slump. The next game at OT should give us more insight about what to really expect from this team.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is with Puel, we struggled fans were on his back. Then we beat City with a great performance, beat Chelsea at the bridge, then beat Everton away..All 3 we were playing Choudry central and made it horrible to play against. Then he puts Mendy back in and we went sh*t again. Then we got Tilimens and he took Vardy out. He never played our best team, He alianated our best player and consistently played our worst player(Mendy) due to his french connection or something. He was too stubborn and not willing to change his opinion when questioned in the media or by the fans which ultimately led to his sacking.

 

His signings under his tenure were good and hes got us through the clubs worst moment in our entire history with Vichai and helped build us through a couple of seasons of transition from our aging title winners to a new younger team and now Rodgers can build on it. Rodgers is a much better man manager, makes players feel wanted more(Look how Jamie has responded, top goal scorer in England since Rodgers came in), you can tell from his interviews how highly he rates Jamie for example and its not suprising Jamie is firing when you have a manager who believes so much in you.

Puel did ok and maintained a couple of 9th place finishes and built a new squad but it was right to move him on and let someone to take us to the next level.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...