Claude Puel and the recruitment in 2018

[Guy]

As unpopular as though he was for his two seasons with us (including overseeing that troubled time of it after the Vichai helicopter tragedy), I still think Puel deserves some credit for the way things have gone at the club since his expected sacking two years ago and when Rodgers first stepped in...not least after yesterday's amazing FA Cup success against all odds!

 

Lest we forget then without Puel being here when he was then without him there would've been no Tielemans to score that brilliant winner yesterday of course - and indeed no Fofana that we bought from his present club St Etienne for a bargain price under everybody else's nose...even though what we paid for him was big money to a team in the French top league. 

 

I'm by no means saying that Puel was totally instrumental in all of this and that our recruitment guys also helped massively in securing these deals financially and in their skilled negotiations. Also nobody at the time could have ever foreseen the player exchange of Tielemans with the ill fated Adrian Silva going the other way to Monaco working out in the brilliant way that it has since done.

 

So looking back, it was a harsh time Puel had for his reasonably decent tenure at our club re league finish positions. The football was a bit dull and ponderous, even if sometimes great on our better days when it worked - like with the back to back wins over Man City and Chelsea in December 2017! I appreciate he took the domestic cups too lightly - ie Man City in the quarter finals of the league cup with the team fielded and most of all, Newport away in 2019, in the competition that we won yesterday at last! Also for things like dropping Vardy for one or two games on a matter of principal. Even so his legacy before Rodgers was a wee bit similar to Pearson's before Ranieiri - when we pulled off the greatest miracle of all of course! Just saying! 

 

Edited 16 May 2021 by Guy

[M0901]

1 hour ago, Guy said:

As unpopular as though he was for his two seasons with us (including overseeing that troubled time of it after the Vichai helicopter tragedy), I still think Puel deserves some credit for the way things have gone at the club since his expected sacking two years ago and when Rodgers first stepped in...not least after yesterday's amazing FA Cup success against all odds!

 

Lest we forget then without Puel being here when he was then without him there would've been no Tielemans to score that brilliant winner yesterday of course - and indeed no Fofana that we bought from his present club St Etienne for a bargain price under everybody else's nose...even though what we paid for him was big money to a team in the French top league. 

 

I'm by no means saying that Puel was totally instrumental in all of this and that our recruitment guys also helped massively in securing these deals financially and in their skilled negotiations. Also nobody at the time could have ever foreseen the player exchange of Tielemans with the ill fated Adrian Silva going the other way to Monaco working out in the brilliant way that it has since done.

 

So looking back, it was a harsh time Puel had for his reasonably decent tenure at our club re league finish positions. The football was a bit dull and ponderous, even if sometimes great on our better days when it worked - like with the back to back wins over Man City and Chelsea in December 2017! I appreciate he took the domestic cups too lightly - ie Man City in the quarter finals of the league cup with the team fielded and most of all, Newport away in 2019, in the competition that we won yesterday at last! Also for things like dropping Varcy for one or two game son a matter of principal. Even so his legacy before Rodgers was a wee bit similar to Pearson's before Ranieiri - when we pulled off the greatest miracle of all of course! Just saying! 

 

I’d have Puel as a scout here to be honest. He has an eye for a good player!

[Spudulike]

[nnfox]

He was part of building a brighter future and done through a difficult period.  Did what needed doing.  Honestly, Spurs and Arsenal could do worse than look at him.

[winteriscoming]

Would also mention Ricardo as Puel worked with him at Nice. 

[Daggers]

Hmm - but still, £40M on a single player?

 

For the same cash we could have bought 193 Barry Hayles.

[David Hankey]

Like many former managers of the years he played a part as you would expect him to. For whatever reason he wasn't an outstanding manager.

[Xen]

Puel was the necessary fall guy for that period. We needed someone to come in, make the difficult decisions to cut some deadwood, change our style a bit and bring in a few players who were capable of pushing us on to the next level (even if his tactics didn't allow that to be fulfilled). For that kind of thing he did well, but unfortunately that didn't translate at all to the on-pitch performance and he wasn't the right fit for us. Still, can thank him for bringing in Ricardo and playing a part in getting Tielemans here (even if it was too late to save his job).

 

Did a good job in some respects under some difficult circumstances, but a terrible job in others. Rodgers wouldn't have touched us if we'd tried to go in for him after Shakey, but Puel transitioned us nicely into a better foundation for Rodgers to take over. 

 

A transitional manager in a transitional period for the club. Nothing more, nothing less. 

[Koke]

You just opened a can of worms by simply acknowledging Puel did one good thing. Good luck pal.

[Gazza M]

Ricardo, Soyuncu, Tielemans obvious gems he got here in his time. Obviously Youri on a loan. 

Benkovic and Ghezall off set that though as turned in to rubbish. Hit and miss which sums up his time here. 

[ousefox]

Got some good players in but always hard to know how much the manager does that these days.

 

He was the most boring manager we've ever had at this club though. At least when we were shit it was exciting! We were unwatchable for so many games and he definitely could have got so much more out of the players be had. Brendan has done just that.

[KrefelderFox666]

I have always respected him for what he did and didn't join the majority to bash him. I agree that his time was well over before he got sacked but he was instrumental to out upturn. He did the recruitment and changed our playing style which no one before him did. Rodgers took over a good squad that needed good man management and tactical fine tuning. Puel alone or Rodgers alone were not the key to success, it was the combination between them. Fantastic few years for the club, long may it continue...

[Duquesne Whistle]

Puel dealt with the extremely difficult circumstances following the terrible helicopter crash with the utmost dignity on behalf of himself and the club. Many would have found that pressure unbearable. We owe him a debt of gratitude for that alone.

 

With a couple of obvious exceptions, his recruitment was pretty damn good too.

[Guest StevieLynex]

1 hour ago, Daggers said:

Hmm - but still, £40M on a single player?

 

For the same cash we could have bought 193 Barry Hayles.

At least Ghezzal was a bargain, and a sound investment

[NaijaFox]

1 hour ago, Koke said:

You just opened a can of worms by simply acknowledging Puel did one good thing. Good luck pal.

LOL! 

 

Unfortunately, any good he did was offset by the Puel Gruel he served on the pitch.

 

You have to doff your hat to him for his eye in spotting talent. When he fought the St. Etienne board and told them to rebuff our advances because Fofana would go from a 30m player to 50m by the end of this season, I thought he was being unnecessarily petty but got to say he had it bang on! 

Edited 16 May 2021 by NaijaFox

[SheppyFox]

He’s been involved in the development of some of the best players in the world. We wouldn’t be where we are without him.

[Matt]

I was one of the most staunch Puel outers on here but I was saying yesterday if you cannot see the work he did off the field and how Rodgers has benefitted from the work Puel did you are an ostrich.

 

He had to go and was here arguably far too long. he stunk the place out, the style of football was genuinely getting me down, it was disgusting but things he put in place did have a big part to play in moving us forward.

 

I remember a few people suggesting at the time he was bought in to do the dirty work and I think they were right.

[Xen]

33 minutes ago, ousefox said:

Got some good players in but always hard to know how much the manager does that these days.

 

He was the most boring manager we've ever had at this club though. At least when we were shit it was exciting! We were unwatchable for so many games and he definitely could have got so much more out of the players be had. Brendan has done just that.

In fairness, Ricardo at least signed specifically because of Puel - he'd been given his big chance under him at Nice and it definitely played a big role in him signing for us. The same can be said for Ghezzal though, and we know how that turned out...

 

Even putting results aside, as you say he had us playing utterly abysmal football from an entertainment point of view, which certainly wouldn't have got us the global audience that the Thais craved. If we'd kept him on we'd have been solidly mid-table every season with nothing to be excited about, no real cup runs, just year after year of mediocrity. Some people have a voice you could fall asleep listening to; Puel's interviews were more like a voice you couldn't stay awake to even if you tried. Hopefully for the St Etienne fans' sake, he's not quite as dull in his native language...

[Paninistickers]

6 minutes ago, NaijaFox said:

LOL! 

 

Unfortunately, any good he did was offset by the Puel Gruel he served on the pitch.

 

You have to doff your hate for his eye in spotting talent. When he fought the St. Etienne board and told them to rebuff our advances because Fofana would go from a 30m player to 50m by the end of this season, I thought he was being unnecessarily petty but got to say he had it bang on! 

I read it that Puel played a shrewd business move by resisting the move for Fofana and then fabricating that west ham wanted him. He knew the right buttons to press in order to squeeze an extra 7/8m for his club. Fair play. 

 

For his many many faults (most of which revolved around his communication skills, ie lack of)  he turned around at absolute shambles that Shakespeare had curated and in double quick time, created a possession based, more tactically aware team. Albeit one that disliked and disrespected him. 

 

 

[BenTheFox]

I tend to agree. It's also worth noting that Rodgers would not have come to us after Shakespeare was sacked and not just because he hadn't been at Celtic for long at that time. 

[BenTheFox]

4 minutes ago, BenTheFox said:

I tend to agree. It's also worth noting that Rodgers would not have come to us after Shakespeare was sacked and not just because he hadn't been at Celtic for long at that time. 

And even if he did, it would have taken him much longer to implement his style. 

[KingsX]

10 minutes ago, NaijaFox said:

Unfortunately, any good he did was offset by the Puel Gruel he served on the pitch.

 

You have to doff your hate

 

nice Freudian slip! 

 

1 hour ago, Koke said:

You just opened a can of worms by simply acknowledging Puel did one good thing. Good luck pal.

 

calling @UpTheLeagueFox  ...

 

[BenTheFox]

Generally speaking he underacheived with the players he had, but he does not deserve to go down as one of our wirst ever managers, which I have seen banded about. 

[BenTheFox]

1 hour ago, ousefox said:

Got some good players in but always hard to know how much the manager does that these days.

 

He was the most boring manager we've ever had at this club though. At least when we were shit it was exciting! We were unwatchable for so many games and he definitely could have got so much more out of the players be had. Brendan has done just that.

That much is true. He did some good while he was here but no one made me enjoy supporting Leicester less than him. Going to home games against mid-table/bottom-half teams felt pointless. 

[Blue ROI]

12 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

I read it that Puel played a shrewd business move by resisting the move for Fofana and then fabricating that west ham wanted him. He knew the right buttons to press in order to squeeze an extra 7/8m for his club. Fair play. 

 

For his many many faults (most of which revolved around his communication skills, ie lack of)  he turned around at absolute shambles that Shakespeare had curated and in double quick time, created a possession based, more tactically aware team. Albeit one that disliked and disrespected him. 

 

 

I wouldn't call Shakey's time at the club a shambles by any means.

 

We needed  that New Manager Bounce badly at the time. It fell apart for him with Spurs and Bournemouth at the very end of 16/17 but if Cl;audio was still there we could have ended up in turmoil.

 

Right to end it when we did but he served us well overall no doubt about it.

 

Claude's alright in my book too. Identified the defence needed sorting and we got Evans and Ricardo in.

 

As for Ghezzal and Benkovic well Pearson and Rodgers made a few less than stellar signings too don't forget.