Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Tom12345

Rodgers v Puel

Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, Koke said:

 

But he did though....

 

We know you don't like the guy but surely you have to concede that he did some good for the club. Compare the team Rodgers inherited from Puel to the team Puel inherited from Shakespeare. 

 

Your views are normally fair and balanced but I'm afraid you're having a complete mare regarding Puel. 

 

 

I'd say Geoff probably knows more about what went on behind the scenes than the average fan like us. You only have to read that interview with Andy King and the interview Vardy gave last christmas to understand the sheer toxic environment he was creating. 

 

He's got the people skills of a dead badger, a god awful man manager. One of the worst out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, UpTheLeagueFox said:

I said he didn't do "most of the groundwork" for Rodgers (unlike the huge amount Pearson ultimately did for Ranieri). I didn't say he didn't do ANYTHING good for the club. Unfortunately any good stuff is significantly outweighed by the really bad stuff.

 

Players/staff were privately expressing their disquiet even before the end of the 17/18 season. The problems didn't take long to surface. I'm in a fortunate position through my job to be told things (some off the record of course) and there were deep, deep problems which affected many areas. Trust me, players were leaking all kinds of stuff but couldn't say anything publicly.

 

Then Vardy alluded to things. Huth (who'd left) was pretty brutal and there was no reason for him to lie. As was Kasper's dad and it was clear he knew the score. I was very surprised Andy King went in two footed - while still a club employee but after Puel had gone - because he's as far from a troublemaker as possible. That tells you something.

 

I and others in the media (who were regularly kept in the loop) were reporting what we could without breaking confidences. I got plenty of stick on here and social media (as did other journalists) from fans - we are fair game, I get that - who thought we had agendas and there was maybe one bad egg, a disaffected player etc, stirring the pot. This was widespread and from all areas. 

 

Still surprises me how some fans go "yeah but he got A, B and C right" while seemingly ignoring the significant "D to Z" he got so horribly wrong.

 

Anyway, he's gone and thank fook for that. You won't find many within the players/staff who shed a tear for his departure.

Yeah I heard from a few others at the time just how bad it was, but fans refuse to believe it at the time. Pig of a man.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

There's not a lot in it between Rodgers first 14 games and Puel's, that was the only real time I thought we looked even remotely impressive under Puel. We've got 25 points so far under Rodgers and Puel got 22 in those opening 14 games. Things started to take a turn a few games after for him and we ended that season an absolute disgrace for most of it. 

 

Our last four managers have had similar starts. I think all four had between 15-17 points after 8 games but only Ranieri kept it going. Rodgers has done well beyond that and the club seems settled and enjoying itself, long may that continue.

 

Hopefully Puel will be forgotten soon and we don't need to be reminded of his style every time we pass it backwards. Rodgers has been here long enough to stamp his own style on the squad.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

I said he didn't do "most of the groundwork" for Rodgers (unlike the huge amount Pearson ultimately did for Ranieri). I didn't say he didn't do ANYTHING good for the club. Unfortunately any good stuff is significantly outweighed by the really bad stuff.

 

Players/staff were privately expressing their disquiet even before the end of the 17/18 season. The problems didn't take long to surface. I'm in a fortunate position through my job to be told things (some off the record of course) and there were deep, deep problems which affected many areas. Trust me, players were leaking all kinds of stuff but couldn't say anything publicly.

 

Then Vardy alluded to things. Huth (who'd left) was pretty brutal and there was no reason for him to lie. As was Kasper's dad and it was clear he knew the score. I was very surprised Andy King went in two footed - while still a club employee but after Puel had gone - because he's as far from a troublemaker as possible. That tells you something.

 

I and others in the media (who were regularly kept in the loop) were reporting what we could without breaking confidences. I got plenty of stick on here and social media (as did other journalists) from fans - we are fair game, I get that - who thought we had agendas and there was maybe one bad egg, a disaffected player etc, stirring the pot. This was widespread and from all areas. 

 

Still surprises me how some fans go "yeah but he got A, B and C right" while seemingly ignoring the significant "D to Z" he got so horribly wrong.

 

Anyway, he's gone and thank fook for that. You won't find many within the players/staff who shed a tear for his departure.

Yes, I accept all of this. I'm not sad he's gone. I am sorry that you get attacked for trying to report with integrity, when (for me anyway) I was arguing against foul posts from others on this subject, rather than ever feeling you had an 'agenda'. You probably ended up defending your position when it wasn't necessary - I can only speak for myself on this of course.

 

I would also argue against foul posts, even if they were purportedly people whose basic position I was in agreement with. There's ways of expressing opinion, whatever it might be.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We were heading one way before puel came in, the championship. An average, ageing, workman like counter attacking team that struggled to pass the ball more than 5 or 6 times without hoofing it for forward, with one potential world class player who created pretty much everything for us. 

 

Yes he was boring and the football ball was shite most of the time but he did plenty of good things. 

 

- Phase out players who were not good enough (Simpson, Morgan, Okazaki) players who seemed to play every week despite how they played.

 

- We were never in any danger of relegation, unlike the last 3 managers who all had us in the bottom 3 or 4 at some point. Don’t think puel ever had us lower than 13th.

 

- Tranfers were pretty much all hits under Claude and he will be partly responsible for making the club a lot of money.

 

- Youth, the idea that young players should come to Lcfc, because they will be played, very different to the previous managers since Pearson.

 

 

Edited by Meat and 2 veg
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 03/09/2019 at 07:27, ranxerox said:

Rodgers had a pretty big axe job to take on when we hired him. In addition he had the unenviable task of taking over from Dalglish who was let go despite being a club legend and fan favourite. Rodgers cleared out a lot of deadwood and some egos, and he got the players to buy into his system. He also did a great job of getting the best out of Suarez (no easy task) including after Suarez tried to force through a transfer move to Arsenal, which was as big a test of anyone’s man management skills as there is. He was instrumental in developing Raheem Sterling even while falling short in keeping him at the club. Steven Gerrard made it publicly clear on several occasions he really respected Rodgers as a manager in a way that went beyond mere lip service. 

 

His downfall was in the transfer market, the owners wanted a DOF from day one but Rodgers refused and made that a condition of being hired. He and the club eventually battled over signings and several of Brendan’s choices were abject failures. Club initiated signings tended to sit on the bench or end up out on loan. That friction became a real distraction culminating in the disastrous signings of Balotelli (club enforced) and Benteke (Rodgers signing but not really his type of player). 

 

His other major weakness was a was a lack of the mythical “plan B” against the parked bus. But that’s the main challenge for most “attacking” teams isn’t it. Often it seems the only guaranteed solution for plan B is quality on the pitch, and for the players to have belief in themselves. 

 

 

All in all a great overview of Rodgers time at Liverpool. Thank You.:scarf:

Your incorrect about the "DOF from day one" stuff and if you want to discuss it further or have inside knowledge we can discuss it.

If your on RAWK and you see "Phase Of Play" tell him that I miss him. And Brendan misses him too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, ranxerox said:

Ha ha the “blarney” definitely was an ongoing irritation to many fans me included. It’s just part of the package that comes with Rodgers. Not sure if he’s learned his lessons or not in that regard. 

 

Rodgers made the fatal mistake of being nice and trying to help fans understand what he was doing tactically with the club.

An axe which a portion of fans used to club him over the head with. He learned from that error at Celtic/Leicester by giving boilerplate interviews and never really extending himself in that way again. To our detriment as I really enjoy learning about the game on a deeper level. See phase of play/RAWK

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 03/09/2019 at 17:21, volpeazzurro said:

I think that's quite a fair assessment from me being an Liverpool outsiders point of view. When Sanchez went however, it did go a bit tits up and, as you say, his nous in the transfer market was questionable, as it was at Celtic with his mate Congerton. I do think the axe at Leicester was far more difficult however for a variety of reasons. I also thought that there was bad blood between Gerrard and Rodgers that was rather public at the time? 

 

For me, and I'm sure I'm in the minority, the jury is still out. Sometimes you just can't help but get a whiff of  bullshit compared with someone like Guadiola who wreaks of knowledge and class. He's been more than a bit fortunate with what he's inherited here which I think was cleverly calculated by him. I also think he left Celtic at the right time and don't overate his achievements there. I think that currently we are where we are due to the quality of our players and not necessarily by his tactical nous. But, blarney or not, our players do appear to like and believe in him which is a huge part of the battle in fairness so time will tell.

Sanchez? Guardiola? Touch of Class :appl:that comment.

There's a reason I don't make questionable comments containing anecdotal evidence about your former manager. It's called respect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ThaiFox said:

We beat Wolves 2-0 under Puel!!

 

3 hours ago, HighPeakFox said:

Shhhhhhhh, you're not to argue with the confident backwards speculation...

and also beat Man City/Chelsea. Unbelievable manager :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, UpTheLeagueFox said:

I didn't say he didn't do ANYTHING good for the club. Unfortunately any good stuff is significantly outweighed by the really bad stuff.

 

Can't agree with this, what did he do in the sense of "bad stuff" that wasn't swept away the second he walked out of the door? The good stuff, such as taking on the unenviable job of sweeping aside a load of title winners past their prime. Bringing in youth talent and putting faith in them when others didn't is surely far more lasting and beneficial to the club long term than anything bad he did? His ideas along with the clubs were perfectly sound... he was just a bit of a dick. 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Babylon said:

Can't agree with this, what did he do in the sense of "bad stuff" that wasn't swept away the second he walked out of the door? The good stuff, such as taking on the unenviable job of sweeping aside a load of title winners past their prime. Bringing in youth talent and putting faith in them when others didn't is surely far more lasting and beneficial to the club long term than anything bad he did? His ideas along with the clubs were perfectly sound... he was just a bit of a dick. 

 

 

Exactly. Taylor did 'really bad stuff' in the space of half a year. Both in terms of on the pitch where we went from good to God awful and off the pitch squandering enough money to eventually put us in admin. Mandaric along with Allen/Megson/Holloway did 'really bad stuff' eventually putting us in the third tier. 

Puel whilst obviously unpopular with a lot of people improved the style of football  from when he first arrived (don't care what people say, was better than Ranieri/Shakespeare's hoofball) and didn't do any damage really to our league position or finances. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Babylon said:

Can't agree with this, what did he do in the sense of "bad stuff" that wasn't swept away the second he walked out of the door? The good stuff, such as taking on the unenviable job of sweeping aside a load of title winners past their prime. Bringing in youth talent and putting faith in them when others didn't is surely far more lasting and beneficial to the club long term than anything bad he did? His ideas along with the clubs were perfectly sound... he was just a bit of a dick. 

 

 

Im as anti puel as anyone but giving youth players a chance is certainly what he got right, and he even gave the club a bit of identity. And the last statement sums it up perfectly.

 

Dropping vardy was ridiculous though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Abrasive fox said:

Im as anti puel as anyone but giving youth players a chance is certainly what he got right, and he even gave the club a bit of identity. And the last statement sums it up perfectly.

 

Dropping vardy was ridiculous though.

Looking back and the how Vardy was playing, it probably wasn't. Seems Vards was perhaps making his feelings known on the pitch at the time because he was an absolute shadow of himself that season. He showed the season before he could do it in Puel's system, but he must have taken his foot off the gas. At no point did we see the sort of performance he gave at Bournemouth in terms of his commitment, chasing etc. If Barnes could finish that day he'd have looked a genius as well.

 

No issue with him being dropped, issue is not having your best player on side with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was listening to Gary Meville talking to Stan Collymore about his time at Valencia. He said there were 2 senior players (1 captain)  who were not having him and didn't get on board with what Neville was doing. Neville said he called Sir Alex, and Sir Alex told him to get rid of them now. Right ****ing now. Neville didn't. Those 2 senior players had a lot of clout and friends in the dressing room and their negativity and poisonous attitude spread to the squad. Neville regret not moving them on. 

 

I'm not saying Vardy and Morgan and Schmeichel are poisonous but Puel probably felt they were working against him and since those guys have a lot of power Puel was obviously not gonna last.

 

Sir Alex and Pep dont play that shit. They dont care how big of a legend you are or if you score 50 goals a season they will get rid of you if you act up or of they feel you are undermining their position.

 

If Brendan falls out with Vardy, Brendan goes. Similar stories came out when Ranieri was sacked of how some senior players were not having him anymore. Maybe @UpTheLeagueFox can confirm the truthfulness of that. Some national journalists were suggesting such.

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...