Claude Puel and the recruitment in 2018

[PhillippaT]

As I've said before, at the time, given the squad we had, we needed a butcher - someone to come in and sort them out into a reasonable team of players, getting rid of the chaff, and helping with a few others being added to then help create the necessary recipe for further rebuilding and success.  Unfortunately for Puel he wasn't a skilled enough chef to then get things cooking quickly enough - the PL heats up too fast for that - so he had to leave to be replaced by Brendan, who, hopefully obviously by now, seems to the the chef we needed, (that we probably hoped Puel could have been, but wasn't).

[Webbo]

I'll give him a bit of credit for Youri and Ricky, but as a manager he was crap. Not the worst we've ever had but nothing like as good as some people are trying to imply. 

[jayfox26]

13 hours 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 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! 

 

Totally agree, although there are many on here that say Puel was our worst ever manager. He obviously is nowhere near our worst ever manager but there are some strange folk on this forum. His signings were good, the football often wasn't and the results were mediocre. He did a decent job and helped lay a few foundations for Brendan. Not a great manager but nowhere near our worst. 

[Koke]

8 hours ago, UpTheLeagueFox said:

My first thought at the final whistle yesterday was: "I do hope Claude gets the credit he clearly deserves for the big part he played in all this..."

.

.

.

.

.

.

On a serious note, I'm far too ecstatic with the FA Cup win to get deep into the debate about Puel (or some of the ridiculous revisionism in this thread) but I will say there has never been a Leicester manager more despised by players and staff in my 30+ years reporting on the club.

Have a lovely week, everyone x

 

Still doesn't mean be didn't do *some* good things. Both things can be true. He can be despised but also done XYZ good.  You hate him because the players hate him. The rest of us look other things in balance. But looking a this thread I'm glad most people don't have blinkers on and can analyse his tenure objectively.

 

Edited 17 May 2021 by Koke

[Nick]

46 minutes ago, Koke said:

 

Still doesn't mean be didn't do *some* good things. Both things can be true. He can be despised but also done XYZ good.  You hate him because the players hate him. The rest of us look other things in balance. But looking a this thread I'm glad most people don't have blinkers on and can analyse his tenure objectively.

 

Exactly. Hitler for instance was very fond of his dogs. Albeit before he shot them but I feel he never really gets the recognition for how much he cared for them.

 

[Koke]

8 minutes ago, Nick said:

Exactly. Hitler for instance was very fond of his dogs. Albeit before he shot them but I feel he never really gets the recognition for how much he cared for them.

 

 

 

Funnily enough I was gonna use Trump as an example of being so hated but I thought it's a bit harsh to compare Puel to Trump, but you took it up a notch  

 

[HighPeakFox]

12 minutes ago, Nick said:

Exactly. Hitler for instance was very fond of his dogs. Albeit before he shot them but I feel he never really gets the recognition for how much he cared for them.

 

Mr Godwin says 'Good morning'  

[Nick]

3 minutes ago, HighPeakFox said:

Mr Godwin says 'Good morning'  

Ah no, you’ve misinterpreted there... The example is backing up his point that you can still despise somebody but note their contribution. 

 

There is is absolutely no intention of a comparative being laid out here as in Godwin’s rhetoric.

 

Just thought I’d clear that up before I get labelled a Puel Nazi again.

 

[HighPeakFox]

Just now, Nick said:

Ah no, you’ve misinterpreted there... The example is backing up his point that you can still despise somebody but note their contribution. 

 

There is is absolutely no intention of a comparative being laid out here as in Godwin’s rhetoric.

 

Just thought I’d clear that up before I get labelled a Puel Nazi again.

 

The thought never crossed my mind...

[Le Renard]

Working in France for a number of years I can understand why Puel never connected with the British players!  It has more to do with the working mentality, it is the opposite to us Brits, the French have no time for sensitivity or diplomacy in the work place, they call a spade a spade!   Trust me I've been scarred by it and now I have the skin of a rhino.   This is probably why his treatment of Andy King seemed a bit harsh, but Puel was just being French!  Looking back Puel was probably the right man to do the dirty work for Rodgers.

[Sharpe's Fox]

A toxic man and an awful manager. Putting aside that we know that the coaches at the club have minimum input to the recruitment policy at the club, any "good" you do at a institution or company is immediately outweighed by how you treat human beings and inspire (in this case alienate) the collective. The fact is Puel was despised by the people who work under him whom he treated like shit including a club legend who would go onto win the Golden Boot a year later. Can't believe some posters are still defending this cretin after we know what we know now.

[MarriedaLeicesterGirl]

Had some good recruitment and got the best out of Gray. (He was certainly right about Fofana.)

 

He was awful, though, and said we'd never compete not only against the big 6, but Everton, West Ham, and Wolves. 

 

Just toxic to the players and fans.

[Guest ttfn]

The responses to this thread are more boring and predictable than some of our attacking play whilst Puel was manager.

 

Not everything is black and white. People can be good at some stuff but not good at others.

[Unabomber]

10 hours ago, StriderHiryu said:

IMO Puel gets too much credit for recruitment. The person who *should* get credit for our recruitment is John Rudkin, our Director of Football. He had a long term strategy of what the club wanted to achieve over a long period of time after making mistakes in the 2016 window. He authorised signings that would add value to the club no matter who the manager was, something he realised he needed to do after Craig Shakespeare was given the boot. Puel definitely had a large part to play in convincing Ricardo and Tielemans to sign, as well as Maddison (I believe he called him up and told him he would give him the 10 shirt). But Iheanacho, Maguire, Soyuncu were all Rudkin signings.

 

The way our club is run, the DOF is responsible for signing the players, the manager is more of a head coach. That doesn't mean the manager doesn't get a say in our signings, but ultimately the DOF makes the deals. The DOF also plans for the long term, it was rumoured that Rodgers had been courted at the end of the 17/18 season after the home loss on the final day, but we knew Rodgers wouldn't be available till later on so waited before pulling the trigger.

 

Puel does deserve credit for the following:

- Getting rid of players that no longer suitable for us, despite being club legends; Simpson, Ulloa, King, James, Huth, Okazaki, etc. He did it the wrong way, but he did phase those players out.

- He blooded young players like Harvey Barnes and Ben Chilwell. Gray gots tons of game time too, even though he was sold later. Hamza Choudhury got given his debut too.

- Changed our style of play to possession football. It was horrendous at times, but we started playing out from the back under his tenure. We stopped just kicking it long every time.

 

I've got nothing against Puel, in fact I was behind him till nearly the end. He did a job for us and was not the worst. But Rodgers shows what a top manager could do with our squad.

 

But remember that Rudkin, once despised and hated on these forums pulled the ultimate redemption arc. He's actually a legend in my book, he stays in the shadows and lets the talking be done by club results. One of the best DOF's in European football!

 

 

Cheers John

[Koke]

7 minutes ago, ttfn said:

 

Not everything is black and white. People can be good at some stuff but not good at others.

 

Could rep this a million times.

[Koke]

37 minutes ago, Le Renard said:

Working in France for a number of years I can understand why Puel never connected with the British players!  It has more to do with the working mentality, it is the opposite to us Brits, the French have no time for sensitivity or diplomacy in the work place, they call a spade a spade!   Trust me I've been scarred by it and now I have the skin of a rhino.   This is probably why his treatment of Andy King seemed a bit harsh, but Puel was just being French!  Looking back Puel was probably the right man to do the dirty work for Rodgers.

 

Wenger and Houllier were pretty successful in England. But I see your point. There are far more Spanish, Italian & German managers in the Premier League than French. Can only think of Wenger, Houllier,n Garde and Puel. I can name at least 10 Italian managers on top of my head.

[filbertway]

12 hours ago, BenTheFox said:

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. 

I think even now, if Mendy plays instead of Tielemans for a whole season then we're gonna be finishing mid table. We instantly looking more dangerous when Youri came in on loan, I think we lost to Spurs a few games after he arrived but it was the best I had seen us play in ages.

 

Great eye for a player and was fundamental in transforming us from a kick and rush team into a team that could play football and start building to be regulars in Europe and playing for Trophies. His negatives were that he seemed to annoy some pretty important characters and played unbelievably dull football. Although, when your midfield 2 is Ndidi and Mendy, you're going to look unbelievably dull.

[Babylon]

37 minutes ago, MarriedaLeicesterGirl said:

Had some good recruitment and got the best out of Gray. (He was certainly right about Fofana.)

 

He was awful, though, and said we'd never compete not only against the big 6, but Everton, West Ham, and Wolves. 

 

Just toxic to the players and fans.

No he didn't. He said we could if we bought talented young players and let them develop... guess what, that's what we've done. Let's not forget this was when West Ham, Everton and Wolves were pumping in massive money on players. 

 

Puel said the truth was they couldn’t go out and compete with the top clubs in the Premier League for ready-made players, but instead were invested in youth they feel they can develop themselves.

“The question is how can we perform at this club? Do we have the same possibilities and money as Liverpool, Man City, Arsenal, Chelsea, or Everton, West Ham or Wolves? Do we have same possibilities? No,” said Puel.

“How can we compete against these teams? We can’t buy the same players, experienced and consistent with a fantastic level.

“We can perform if we can take some talented players, younger and develop them.

“Perhaps we have success. Then we keep them and in three to four years we can compete with the great teams. For me it is the only project we can have.

[Xen]

2 hours ago, Koke said:

 

Still doesn't mean be didn't do *some* good things. Both things can be true. He can be despised but also done XYZ good.  You hate him because the players hate him. The rest of us look other things in balance. But looking a this thread I'm glad most people don't have blinkers on and can analyse his tenure objectively.

 

I'd actually argue that he was probably despised because of some of the good things he did, at least in part. 

 

No-one wanted to move on from the title-winning legends and the exciting low-possession counter-attacking style which had done so well for us, but it wasn't sustainable in the long term so someone had to change that. Ranieri tried but failed miserably, Shakey came in to restore morale and 'reset' to the title-winning formula until it completely ran out of steam, then Puel took over and made those tweaks that built the foundation for further improvement. Players might not have liked his methods but it's often the case that the early stages of learning something new are tedious and unrewarding. Similarly with transfers - certain players needed to be phased out for various reasons, but because of the camaraderie and team spirit from the title season no-one would have been able to do that without upsetting the squad. It was a necessary evil, and there are very few managers with the tact and charisma to be able to come in as a new manager and spin that in a way that keeps everyone on their side.

 

There are definitely a few strong characters within our squad who wouldn't take too kindly to his approach - the same kind of players who flourished under Pearson/Rodgers personable, enthusiastic arm-around-the-shoulder style, and the same kind of players who took a disliking towards Ranieri late on in his tenure...

 

That being said, its not hard to believe he was unlikeable for other reasons also. His interviews were terrible, he didn't connect well with the club (aside from after the helicopter crash, where I thought he handled that as best as can be expected), and of course the style - whilst beneficial in the long run - was not entertaining or enjoyable to either watch or play.

[Le Renard]

1 hour ago, Koke said:

 

Wenger and Houllier were pretty successful in England. But I see your point. There are far more Spanish, Italian & German managers in the Premier League than French. Can only think of Wenger, Houllier,n Garde and Puel. I can name at least 10 Italian managers on top of my head.

It is just in my experience in the work place, not a scientific study, but I think with his level of English, it wouldn't have helped matters, and some people find it harder to adapt to other cultures.  

Edited 17 May 2021 by Le Renard

[Fox92]

At the time Puel was a manager we needed. Stabled us, got us up the table and then signed some of our key players. Football was too boring though and ultimately let himself down in cup competitions, especially the FA Cup. He didn't deserve the abuse he got. We were going down under Shakespeare.

[Captain...]

I think most people can recognize Puel did some good things in his time at the club, but he just wasn't a good fit personality wise. You can bring in the best players and be a great tactician but if the players (and fans) think you're a nob then it is never going to work. Tuchel has a similar reputation, albeit with a better record, and Jose has found that in his last 2 appointments. Players are not going to run through brick walls for a manager they don't like.

Edited 17 May 2021 by Captain...

[Guy]

6 hours ago, jayfox26 said:

Totally agree, although there are many on here that say Puel was our worst ever manager. He obviously is nowhere near our worst ever manager but there are some strange folk on this forum. His signings were good, the football often wasn't and the results were mediocre. He did a decent job and helped lay a few foundations for Brendan. Not a great manager but nowhere near our worst. 

His only fault that I could see is that he lacked charisma - that's all really and if you were running a fine tooth comb of criticism on the matter. Yes, he could have got us to play more exciting football overall but as I said in my original post, when we were good under Puel we were very good - sadly not often enough for him to have been kept on for longer than the two seasons he was here for. At the end of the day he wasn't what he was brought in to get us to play pretty. As somebody said about Steve Bruce's time so far at Newcastle, it's no good playing pretty football but then going down a league or two in the process through suffering successive relegations! 

[Guy]

3 hours ago, Xen said:

I'd actually argue that he was probably despised because of some of the good things he did, at least in part. 

 

No-one wanted to move on from the title-winning legends and the exciting low-possession counter-attacking style which had done so well for us, but it wasn't sustainable in the long term so someone had to change that. Ranieri tried but failed miserably, Shakey came in to restore morale and 'reset' to the title-winning formula until it completely ran out of steam, then Puel took over and made those tweaks that built the foundation for further improvement. Players might not have liked his methods but it's often the case that the early stages of learning something new are tedious and unrewarding. Similarly with transfers - certain players needed to be phased out for various reasons, but because of the camaraderie and team spirit from the title season no-one would have been able to do that without upsetting the squad. It was a necessary evil, and there are very few managers with the tact and charisma to be able to come in as a new manager and spin that in a way that keeps everyone on their side.

 

There are definitely a few strong characters within our squad who wouldn't take too kindly to his approach - the same kind of players who flourished under Pearson/Rodgers personable, enthusiastic arm-around-the-shoulder style, and the same kind of players who took a disliking towards Ranieri late on in his tenure...

 

That being said, its not hard to believe he was unlikeable for other reasons also. His interviews were terrible, he didn't connect well with the club (aside from after the helicopter crash, where I thought he handled that as best as can be expected), and of course the style - whilst beneficial in the long run - was not entertaining or enjoyable to either watch or play.

Fantastically accurate assessment of Puel's mixed time of it here! Fans are indeed strange creatures on occasions but the players that were here when Puel was first hired (most of who were a part of the unbelievable title triumph), don't like change from such a successful formula that brought us the unthinkable - but as you say sustainable it wasn't and a change was needed if we wished to keep afloat in the Prem. for years to come. Puel was the right fit at the right time to ensure that happened, Rodgers has now moved us on in the way the owners were originally hoping Puel would......

[Captain...]

3 hours ago, Xen said:

I'd actually argue that he was probably despised because of some of the good things he did, at least in part. 

 

No-one wanted to move on from the title-winning legends and the exciting low-possession counter-attacking style which had done so well for us, but it wasn't sustainable in the long term so someone had to change that. Ranieri tried but failed miserably, Shakey came in to restore morale and 'reset' to the title-winning formula until it completely ran out of steam, then Puel took over and made those tweaks that built the foundation for further improvement. Players might not have liked his methods but it's often the case that the early stages of learning something new are tedious and unrewarding. Similarly with transfers - certain players needed to be phased out for various reasons, but because of the camaraderie and team spirit from the title season no-one would have been able to do that without upsetting the squad. It was a necessary evil, and there are very few managers with the tact and charisma to be able to come in as a new manager and spin that in a way that keeps everyone on their side.

 

There are definitely a few strong characters within our squad who wouldn't take too kindly to his approach - the same kind of players who flourished under Pearson/Rodgers personable, enthusiastic arm-around-the-shoulder style, and the same kind of players who took a disliking towards Ranieri late on in his tenure...

 

That being said, its not hard to believe he was unlikeable for other reasons also. His interviews were terrible, he didn't connect well with the club (aside from after the helicopter crash, where I thought he handled that as best as can be expected), and of course the style - whilst beneficial in the long run - was not entertaining or enjoyable to either watch or play.

Agree with a lot of it, but there is some revisionism. The early stages were not tedious and boring, we started off really well under CP as a team we reacted well to what he was trying to do and blew teams away whilst dominating possession. That Southampton game we were scintillating and that was after 10 games. Everyone was buying into Puel-ball as an exciting dynamic brand of attacking possession football, but he kept dragging us further away down the route of possession for possession's sake. He alienated established players and tried to turn Gray into a striker, he found a great balance early on but lost it very quickly.