The "do they mean us?" thread

[ARTY_FOX]

7 hours ago, Dan LCFC said:

English football generally is about the drama and soap opera-like storyline. When journalists are unsure, plenty will turn straight to a narrative over anything tactical. It's a huge failing in the way it is.

 

Very true. I find it baffling how many people can point this out when it comes to their team but take the papers word for everything outside of their own. 

[ARTY_FOX]

1 minute ago, shen said:

People are acting as if we were in the CL places when he took over, anything decent happening in that period being clouded by recent form and trends. But I suppose the reality of PL football is that there is no time for rebuilding a squad and ethos.

There is time if someone is showing progression though. Puel isn't showing any signs of that at the minute though. We're leaking goals at an alarming rate, we're creating nothing. We just knock it about abit going nowhere. 

 

The attacks been nullified the defence is more open than it was already, the style or ethos is abysmal. Puel is showing absolutely nothing in terms of progression. If it hadn't been for that 5 or 6 game spell when he took over then we'd be in serious serious trouble. We were phenomenal in those games, so why change it to this snoozefest? 

[Finnegan]

21 hours ago, Wookie said:

Club size is obviously very subjective but I’d have us down as bigger than WBA and Norwich, probably Middlesbrough too.

 

Don't kid yourself tbh, in 2018 club size is just budget. There are no other criteria anymore. 

 

We're a bigger club than everyone we can out spend and we're smaller than everyone else. 

 

It makes us bigger than Huddersfield and smaller than only about six teams in the country. It's why I roll my eyes at all of the people on here that desperately have to be seen to be putting the club down because they think it makes them the voice of reason. 

 

"We'd never get Dyche", "we're not a bigger club than Newcastle", "wake up the league win was a one off this is our level" is all a load of absolute rubbish tbh. 

 

We're not a big club because we won the league, we're a big club because the resources available to us are big and if we told Rafa Benitez he could spend this summer what we spent in the last two summers, he'd be here like a shot. 

 

The only mitigating factor in any of that is job security. Someone like Dyche or Wagner is legitimately going to look at our sacking rate and question their ability to do any better than Puel and our patience when they don't. 

 

None of this is arrogance or delusion, it's just reality.

 

If Wolves come up and it turns out they really do have the power to out spend us then they're a bigger club. Not because of their stadium or history but just because it's a business and they've got more assets. 

 

Any fan that still thinks football club "size" is about history, fame or prestige is a ****ing moron tbh. 

Edited 9 May 2018 by Finnegan

[Ric Flair]

6 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

Don't kid yourself tbh, in 2018 club size is just budget. There are no other criteria anymore. 

 

We're a bigger club than everyone we can out spend and we're smaller than everyone else. 

 

It makes us bigger than Huddersfield and smaller than only about six teams in the country. It's why I roll my eyes at all of the people on here that desperately have to be seen to be putting the club down because they think it makes them the voice of reason. 

 

"We'd never get Dyche", "we're not a bigger club than Newcastle", "wake up the league win was a one off this is our level" is all a load of absolute rubbish tbh. 

 

We're not a big club because we won the league, we're a big club because the resources available to us are big and if we told Rafa Benitez he could spend this summer what we spent in the last two summers, he'd be here like a shot. 

 

The only mitigating factor in any of that is job security. Someone like Dyche or Wagner is legitimately going to look at our sacking rate and question their ability to do any better than Puel and our patience when they don't. 

 

None of this is arrogance or delusion, it's just reality.

 

If Wolves come up and it turns out they really do have the power to out spend us then they're a bigger club. Not because of their stadium or history but just because it's a business and they've got more assets. 

 

Any fan that still thinks football club "size" is about history, fame or prestige is a ****ing moron tbh. 

 

WORROW. Spot on pal.

[shen]

47 minutes ago, ARTY_FOX said:

There is time if someone is showing progression though. Puel isn't showing any signs of that at the minute though. We're leaking goals at an alarming rate, we're creating nothing. We just knock it about abit going nowhere. 

 

The attacks been nullified the defence is more open than it was already, the style or ethos is abysmal. Puel is showing absolutely nothing in terms of progression. If it hadn't been for that 5 or 6 game spell when he took over then we'd be in serious serious trouble. We were phenomenal in those games, so why change it to this snoozefest? 

I'm not arguing the evidence. But even the rather recent adage of "Give the guy at least the summer and a few months to get in his own players and get a pre-season under their belts" has been thrown out the window. The guy is clearly pragmatic and has a clear idea of how to shape a football club (isn't that exactly the same thing said of Pearson?). Evidence suggests he's not too bad at it either. So what gives?

 

On one hand, people are dissatisfied with the personnel available, but they don't want to give a new manager the opportunity to address that.

Many are saying that this squad "should get 7th", while also conceding that we have big problems in defence and midfield and even in goal. How does that add up?

Few are acknowledging that Puel has given our fringe and youth players chances, which wasn't happening under Shakespeare, Ranieri or even Pearson.

You could say that the evidence is there for all to see: We do NOT have a squad that's good enough for 7th.

 

Are people happily forgetting how poor we were in our first season back under Pearson? If it wasn't for the unlikeliest of comebacks, we wouldn't even be in the position we find ourselves in today.
Few credited Pearson for this. After all, he had been in the spotlight for negative reasons. Yet he gets credited for having largely built the squad that made the miracle possible.

And now he's the fan favourite to take over the helm for a third time!

 

Puel is a dead man walking as a consequence of us still having high expectations after the title win and also because his style and the performance trend is grating people.

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

12 minutes ago, shen said:

I'm not arguing the evidence. But even the rather recent adage of "Give the guy at least the summer and a few months to get in his own players and get a pre-season under their belts" has been thrown out the window. The guy is clearly pragmatic and has a clear idea of how to shape a football club (isn't that exactly the same thing said of Pearson?). Evidence suggests he's not too bad at it either. So what gives?

 

On one hand, people are dissatisfied with the personnel available, but they don't want to give a new manager the opportunity to address that.

Many are saying that this squad "should get 7th", while also conceding that we have big problems in defence and midfield and even in goal. How does that add up?

Few are acknowledging that Puel has given our fringe and youth players chances, which wasn't happening under Shakespeare, Ranieri or even Pearson.

You could say that the evidence is there for all to see: We do NOT have a squad that's good enough for 7th.

 

Are people happily forgetting how poor we were in our first season back under Pearson? If it wasn't for the unlikeliest of comebacks, we wouldn't even be in the position we find ourselves in today.
Few credited Pearson for this. After all, he had been in the spotlight for negative reasons. Yet he gets credited for having largely built the squad that made the miracle possible.

And now he's the fan favourite to take over the helm for a third time!

 

Puel is a dead man walking as a consequence of us still having high expectations after the title win and also because his style and the performance trend is grating people.

This same thought has crossed my mind.  Think many of us over-rate this squad whilst somehow admitting that many individuals within the squad are not good enough.  The much needed attempt at a change of style has done its job of highlighting this.

 

The inclusion of younger players has shown that some show promise but are not the immediate answer

 

Its possible that Puel is the messenger and will be shot for it.

 

Said it before, if we get rid of him we'd better be having someone very impressive coming in or it will be a disaster

Edited 9 May 2018 by AlloverthefloorYesNdidi

[MC Prussian]

28 minutes ago, shen said:

I'm not arguing the evidence. But even the rather recent adage of "Give the guy at least the summer and a few months to get in his own players and get a pre-season under their belts" has been thrown out the window. The guy is clearly pragmatic and has a clear idea of how to shape a football club (isn't that exactly the same thing said of Pearson?). Evidence suggests he's not too bad at it either. So what gives?

 

On one hand, people are dissatisfied with the personnel available, but they don't want to give a new manager the opportunity to address that.

Many are saying that this squad "should get 7th", while also conceding that we have big problems in defence and midfield and even in goal. How does that add up?

Few are acknowledging that Puel has given our fringe and youth players chances, which wasn't happening under Shakespeare, Ranieri or even Pearson.

You could say that the evidence is there for all to see: We do NOT have a squad that's good enough for 7th.

 

Are people happily forgetting how poor we were in our first season back under Pearson? If it wasn't for the unlikeliest of comebacks, we wouldn't even be in the position we find ourselves in today.
Few credited Pearson for this. After all, he had been in the spotlight for negative reasons. Yet he gets credited for having largely built the squad that made the miracle possible.

And now he's the fan favourite to take over the helm for a third time!

 

Puel is a dead man walking as a consequence of us still having high expectations after the title win and also because his style and the performance trend is grating people.

How do you come to the conclusion that he is "pragmatic" and has "a clear idea of how to shape a football club"?

He may have these attributes - I'd question that to some extent.

 

What he certainly doesn't have is charisma and the motivational or language skills necessary to succeed in the Premier League.

No matter what club, you're required to motivate and inspire young men in between 18 to 32, who are earning money others can only dream of.

If you have to rely on a translator during interviews and can't get your idea across to your players, you're bound to fail. In any job that requires responsibility and leadership skills.

 

If a new manager fails to address our shortcomings in personnel and then tries to implement a style in which our personnel cannot prosper, whose fault is it?

 

We were once above Burnley in the standings and have thrown away a great chance of reaching 7th, an opportunity that possibly won't come again so soon.

That was after beating Watford 2-0 on matchday 24, the results since read:

Everton (a) 2-1 loss

Swansea (h) 1-1

Manchester City (a) 5-1 loss

Stoke City (h) 1-1

Bournemouth (h) 1-1

West Brom (a) 4-1 win

Brighton (a) 2-0 win

Newcastle (h) 2-1 loss

Burnley (a) 2-1 loss

Southampton (h) 0-0

Crystal Palace (a) 5-0 loss

West Ham (h) 2-0 loss

 

I've highlighted the most controversial games. Brighton was a game we won by sheer luck (or Brighton's inability to take the lead).

If that's not alarming, what is?

 

The reason why Puel has given SOME youth players more opportunities is due to our injuries to some key players (most notably Iborra), that means pretty much only Choudhoury. Other than that, how can you call Barnes getting a one-minute cameo or other youth players (Thomas, Hughes) stuck to the bench "giving chances"? What does Puel have to lose by subbing them in? We can't get anywhere up in the table and we can't get relegated.

 

We DID HAVE a squad competing for 7th place THIS SEASON, but the manager and the team decided to throw that chance away, caught in internal disputes.

 

As for Pearson, he was operating on a smaller budget and under different circumstances and was pretty much new to the demands of the Premier League.

You say it yourself, if it hadn't been for that great run towards the end of 2014-15, we would be complaining about life in the Championship again. So cut the guy and the players that he managed successfully some slack.

 

Puel is a dead man walking, because despite his talent (managing in France), he's not cut for the Premier League due to personal incompetence he's unwilling or unable to address.

Not because of the fanbase's expectations, let me put that one to sleep.

We won't compete for the Premier League title again, let's not delude ourselves. But we've undersold ourselves terribly this season and were so close to getting somewhere in the FA Cup...

[4everfox]

4 hours ago, VIKTOR-LE5 said:

Those Huddersfield fans what a bunch of W@ nk£r$, Leicester are a far bigger club then that village an the response from our Leicester boys on this forum was soft as Sh!t this is why LCFC will never be classed as a big club, because our fans are weak as puck, the past is the past LCFC are the future. Hudders pukin field of S H1T£, not on Leicester level.

 

Forget about what any of those delusional idiots say, the only people who look like prized prats for saying Leicester is a sideways step is them. I mean Huddersfield, really? Riyad Mahrez is worth more than their entire football club. Big clubs talk about trophies, not ancient history. If any Huddersfield fans reading this want to have a debate about honours, I'd gladly destroy them in a couple of sentences. 

[Koke]

People say judging Pearson on his public persona is foolish yet they do with Puel? 

 

As for communication and language skills, Pochettino used a translator for 2 years at Saints. 

 

I legitimately hopes Puel goes for many reasons but let's put to bed the idea  that he's the French Peter Taylor (that has been repeated multiple times on here). 

 

I'd love to have a more nuanced debate about our players and manager but sometimes I forget this is FoxesTalk and we can't have nice things on here.

 

Chilwell is shit and a Championship player. Puel is Peter Taylor. Maybe neither are neither? Nothing black or white. No nuance.

Edited 9 May 2018 by Koke

[MC Prussian]

47 minutes ago, Koke said:

People say judging Pearson on his public persona is foolish yet they do with Puel? 

 

As for communication and language skills, Pochettino used a translator for 2 years at Saints. 

 

I legitimately hopes Puel goes for many reasons but let's put to bed the idea  that he's the French Peter Taylor (that has been repeated multiple times on here). 

 

I'd love to have a more nuanced debate about our players and manager but sometimes I forget this is FoxesTalk and we can't have nice things on here.

 

Chilwell is shit and a Championship player. Puel is Peter Taylor. Maybe neither are neither? Nothing black or white. No nuance.

 

Pochettino relied on a translater for about a year-and-a-half at Southampton, and that for press conferences/interviews only:

Quote

"The fact is I have an interpreter because he gives me the security that, when I have to answer complex questions, and with my complex answers, it's much better I have an interpreter to make sure nothing is misconstrued.

https://www.independent.ie/sport/soccer/pochettino-sticking-with-translator-29835028.html

 

Not the same case with Puel, I'm afraid. He doesn't even try to express himself fully, I get the impression he's evading questions more than anything. There's nothing complex about his answers.

 

Pearson in public was an act, based on statements from people getting to know him closer, players and club personnel, he's regarded as a genuinely funny and nice guy.

You may argue the overall value of the public persona for a manager - in today's footballing world, I think the appearance and representational function of the job has become more and more important.

Edited 9 May 2018 by MC Prussian

[shen]

11 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

How do you come to the conclusion that he is "pragmatic" and has "a clear idea of how to shape a football club"?

He may have these attributes - I'd question that to some extent.

 

What he certainly doesn't have is charisma and the motivational or language skills necessary to succeed in the Premier League.

No matter what club, you're required to motivate and inspire young men in between 18 to 32, who are earning money others can only dream of.

If you have to rely on a translator during interviews and can't get your idea across to your players, you're bound to fail. In any job that requires responsibility and leadership skills.

 

If a new manager fails to address our shortcomings in personnel and then tries to implement a style in which our personnel cannot prosper, whose fault is it?

 

We were once above Burnley in the standings and have thrown away a great chance of reaching 7th, an opportunity that possibly won't come again so soon.

That was after beating Watford 2-0 on matchday 24, the results since read:

Everton (a) 2-1 loss

Swansea (h) 1-1

Manchester City (a) 5-1 loss

Stoke City (h) 1-1

Bournemouth (h) 1-1

West Brom (a) 4-1 win

Brighton (a) 2-0 win

Newcastle (h) 2-1 loss

Burnley (a) 2-1 loss

Southampton (h) 0-0

Crystal Palace (a) 5-0 loss

West Ham (h) 2-0 loss

 

I've highlighted the most controversial games. Brighton was a game we won by sheer luck (or Brighton's inability to take the lead).

If that's not alarming, what is?

 

The reason why Puel has given SOME youth players more opportunities is due to our injuries to some key players (most notably Iborra), that means pretty much only Choudhoury. Other than that, how can you call Barnes getting a one-minute cameo or other youth players (Thomas, Hughes) stuck to the bench "giving chances"? What does Puel have to lose by subbing them in? We can't get anywhere up in the table and we can't get relegated.

 

We DID HAVE a squad competing for 7th place THIS SEASON, but the manager and the team decided to throw that chance away, caught in internal disputes.

 

As for Pearson, he was operating on a smaller budget and under different circumstances and was pretty much new to the demands of the Premier League.

You say it yourself, if it hadn't been for that great run towards the end of 2014-15, we would be complaining about life in the Championship again. So cut the guy and the players that he managed successfully some slack.

 

Puel is a dead man walking, because despite his talent (managing in France), he's not cut for the Premier League due to personal incompetence he's unwilling or unable to address.

Not because of the fanbase's expectations, let me put that one to sleep.

We won't compete for the Premier League title again, let's not delude ourselves. But we've undersold ourselves terribly this season and were so close to getting somewhere in the FA Cup...

I was in the midst of writing a long-winded reply to this, but I was boring myself and would've bored others in the process.

 

In short, I would not apportion so much of the blame on Puel as you and many others would.

Yes, he's failed in his experiments, made some bad decisions, been dull and has overseen similar negative trends performance and resultswise like at Southampton.

Yes, it's concerning and I don't know if giving him time would make bad things worse or whether he would manage to buck the trend.

 

I believe there are problems with the squad and the seemingly chaotic chain of events and decisions ever since Pearson left really.

The appointment of someone who has visions of how to shape the football club and make the academy an integral part to our future sustained success and develop the style of our first team squad, together with a decent pedigree at reputable clubs, was the first sign that the club could employ a sensible approach again.

 

Puel has gotten rid of players that haven't performed or clearly weren't good enough (Ulloa, King, Slimani, Musa, Kapustka) while very actively attempting to rejuvenate the first-team by making Chilwell, Gray, Maguire and Ndidi first choices. Choudhury getting a look-in under previous managers would never have happened. Thomas and Barnes appearing in the match day squad is not a small difference, especially to signal the intent that academy players are looked at and assessed for the first team squad as well as telling established pros that they cannot take their place for granted.

 

He's basically doing what many cried out for, but because we're not at the same time securing 7th place, the hounds are baying.

Burnley had a head start on us when Puel joined and we looked at one point to usurp them (which would have been a brilliant achievement).

But are we really going to lynch this guy because he ended up a few places below 7th with a squad he inherited well into the season?

[ARTY_FOX]

2 hours ago, shen said:

I'm not arguing the evidence. But even the rather recent adage of "Give the guy at least the summer and a few months to get in his own players and get a pre-season under their belts" has been thrown out the window. The guy is clearly pragmatic and has a clear idea of how to shape a football club (isn't that exactly the same thing said of Pearson?). Evidence suggests he's not too bad at it either. So what gives?

 

On one hand, people are dissatisfied with the personnel available, but they don't want to give a new manager the opportunity to address that.

Many are saying that this squad "should get 7th", while also conceding that we have big problems in defence and midfield and even in goal. How does that add up?

Few are acknowledging that Puel has given our fringe and youth players chances, which wasn't happening under Shakespeare, Ranieri or even Pearson.

You could say that the evidence is there for all to see: We do NOT have a squad that's good enough for 7th.

 

Are people happily forgetting how poor we were in our first season back under Pearson? If it wasn't for the unlikeliest of comebacks, we wouldn't even be in the position we find ourselves in today.
Few credited Pearson for this. After all, he had been in the spotlight for negative reasons. Yet he gets credited for having largely built the squad that made the miracle possible.

And now he's the fan favourite to take over the helm for a third time!

 

Puel is a dead man walking as a consequence of us still having high expectations after the title win and also because his style and the performance trend is grating people.

I'm not saying our squad should be 7th or that it's shit personally. But what we do have equates to better than the performances as of late provided a manager picks a playing style that will get results. The problem I see is I don't see any thing puel does that will turn this current style to positive results. 

 

We have a team that yes need improving defensively but in attack is all in all a good one, in my opinion. Yet we negate the offensive prowess whilst not trying to sure up the defensive side all for some possession stats. The one positive levelled towards puel taking over here was 'well he didn't have Leicesters attack at Southampton he'll have us score goals' but he hasn't. His style is possession over penetration. 

 

We were definitely not completely awful all that first season under Pearson. We had a half the league talking about how baffled they were that we were bottom. It was only a couple of games we were really out of it. Probably to naive at times but I think that was proved by the run we went on where we finally had any luck at all. 

[MC Prussian]

17 minutes ago, shen said:

I was in the midst of writing a long-winded reply to this, but I was boring myself and would've bored others in the process.

 

In short, I would not apportion so much of the blame on Puel as you and many others would.

Yes, he's failed in his experiments, made some bad decisions, been dull and has overseen similar negative trends performance and resultswise like at Southampton.

Yes, it's concerning and I don't know if giving him time would make bad things worse or whether he would manage to buck the trend.

 

I believe there are problems with the squad and the seemingly chaotic chain of events and decisions ever since Pearson left really.

The appointment of someone who has visions of how to shape the football club and make the academy an integral part to our future sustained success and develop the style of our first team squad, together with a decent pedigree at reputable clubs, was the first sign that the club could employ a sensible approach again.

 

Puel has gotten rid of players that haven't performed or clearly weren't good enough (Ulloa, King, Slimani, Musa, Kapustka) while very actively attempting to rejuvenate the first-team by making Chilwell, Gray, Maguire and Ndidi first choices. Choudhury getting a look-in under previous managers would never have happened. Thomas and Barnes appearing in the match day squad is not a small difference, especially to signal the intent that academy players are looked at and assessed for the first team squad as well as telling established pros that they cannot take their place for granted.

 

He's basically doing what many cried out for, but because we're not at the same time securing 7th place, the hounds are baying.

Burnley had a head start on us when Puel joined and we looked at one point to usurp them (which would have been a brilliant achievement).

But are we really going to lynch this guy because he ended up a few places below 7th with a squad he inherited well into the season?

Look, I'm not one to blame Puel only, but he does get most of the flak because he's the manager and responsible for the behaviour and comportment of these players on the pitch, for strategy, tactics, motivation.

Having "visions" for your new football club are all fine and dandy, but talking about it during a second half of the season is very irritating to me. How can you justify trying to work over a prolonged period of time in the future (say, three years at least) at a club you've just joined half a year ago if you're currently failing at your job and can't produce results?

 

Puel has gotten rid of players in January that we needed more than ever. He ships out Slimani and Ulloa, and then later on persists on our wingers and full-backs putting crosses into the opposing box, even though we have nobody to convert from headers.

Our central midfield looks bereft of ideas, although I'd question King having the nouse required to run a midfield next to Iborra or Silva, we were/are desperately crying out for cover. Has Choudhoury played well so far? Well, I'd call it "very cautiously", hiding behind Silva and stuck closer to our back four than to his actual midfield position.

And like I said before, promoting youth players and having them sit on the bench due to the lack of options or injuries to senior players is completely different as opposed to setting a mark by promoting youth players when better/more experienced players are readily available.

Chilwell had already started twice for us under Shakespeare (and in the three last matches last season), Maguire was already a regular under Shakespeare at the start of the season, Gray had already featured in every single game bar one under Shakespeare earlier this season (and fairly regular in the season before), Ndidi had featured for full matches all the way before Shakespeare was sacked! I don't see how you can attribute this "progress" to Puel and thus praise him for achievements accomplished by his predecessor(s), I really can't.

 

And "lynching" the manager is pushing it. I don't agree with some of the extreme criticism, but many fans are seeing the same mistakes happening over and over again under Puel, so there is a common theme.

The disbelief, disenfranchisement and disenchantment stem from the fact that we've blown a grandios chance to play in Europe again (given the teams struggling in between 7th and 17th) and that our team seemingly plays worse by the week/game, coupled with questionable team selections by the manager (Choudhoury over Silva, Albrighton over Simpson, Morgan over Dragovic).

All the positivity and professionalism built over three, four years (or even longer, considering the spirit instilled by Pearson in League One) has been sucked out in a matter of months.

[Ian Nacho]

I hate this big club nonsense. Clubs that call themselves big clubs are ones that have success in the past, Forest, Villa, Derby, Cov, etc, and they're crap now so they're living on past glory. I know football existed since 1992 but we're one of only 5 clubs to win the Premier League, surely that makes us a massive club going off the mentality of these so-called big clubs. I think what makes a big club is spending power and as you can see, we have a much greater spending power than some of the 'biggest clubs' in England. Obviously, you need some solid foundations as well as spending power as Barnsley could potentially have more spending power of Chelsea, but you see my point. Seeing as the Huddersfield owner owns the card factory he can get Wagner a 'Good luck at your new job card.'

 

 

Leicester City

The Srivaddhanaprabha Family[14]

$4.9B[15]

King Power International Group

 

Huddersfield Town

Dean Hoyle

$475M

Card Factory

 

Liverpool

John W. Henry[16]

$2.5B[17]

Fenway Sports Group

 

Everton

Farhad Moshiri (49.9%)  Bill Kenwright CBE  Jon Woods

$2.3B[13]

Steel and energy Theatre production Planet Hollywood Ocean Software

 

Manchester United

The Glazer Family[18]

$4.9B[19]

First Allied Corporation, Tampa Bay Buccaneers

 

Newcastle United

Mike Ashley

$3.3B[20]

Sports Direct International

 

Aston Villa

Dr. Tony Xia[31]

$1.2B[32]

Recon Group

 

Edited 9 May 2018 by Ian Nacho

[gerrytaggart]

6 hours ago, VIKTOR-LE5 said:

Those Huddersfield fans what a bunch of W@ nk£r$, Leicester are a far bigger club then that village an the response from our Leicester boys on this forum was soft as Sh!t this is why LCFC will never be classed as a big club, because our fans are weak as puck, the past is the past LCFC are the future. Hudders pukin field of S H1T£, not on Leicester level.

 

If we ever want to be taken seriously and be viewed as a big club then we need more posts like this.

[shen]

7 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

Look, I'm not one to blame Puel only, but he does get most of the flak because he's the manager and responsible for the behaviour and comportment of these players on the pitch, for strategy, tactics, motivation.

Having "visions" for your new football club are all fine and dandy, but talking about it during a second half of the season is very irritating to me. How can you justify trying to work over a prolonged period of time in the future (say, three years at least) at a club you've just joined half a year ago if you're currently failing at your job and can't produce results?

 

Puel has gotten rid of players in January that we needed more than ever. He ships out Slimani and Ulloa, and then later on persists on our wingers and full-backs putting crosses into the opposing box, even though we have nobody to convert from headers.

Our central midfield looks bereft of ideas, although I'd question King having the nouse required to run a midfield next to Iborra or Silva, we were/are desperately crying out for cover. Has Choudhoury played well so far? Well, I'd call it "very cautiously", hiding behind Silva and stuck closer to our back four than to his actual midfield position.

And like I said before, promoting youth players and having them sit on the bench due to the lack of options or injuries to senior players is completely different as opposed to setting a mark by promoting youth players when better/more experienced players are readily available.

Chilwell had already started twice for us under Shakespeare (and in the three last matches last season), Maguire was already a regular under Shakespeare at the start of the season, Gray had already featured in every single game bar one under Shakespeare earlier this season (and fairly regular in the season before), Ndidi had featured for full matches all the way before Shakespeare was sacked! I don't see how you can attribute this "progress" to Puel and thus praise him for achievements accomplished by his predecessor(s), I really can't.

 

And "lynching" the manager is pushing it. I don't agree with some of the extreme criticism, but many fans are seeing the same mistakes happening over and over again under Puel, so there is a common theme.

The disbelief, disenfranchisement and disenchantment stem from the fact that we've blown a grandios chance to play in Europe again (given the teams struggling in between 7th and 17th) and that our team seemingly plays worse by the week/game, coupled with questionable team selections by the manager (Choudhoury over Silva, Albrighton over Simpson, Morgan over Dragovic).

All the positivity and professionalism built over three, four years (or even longer, considering the spirit instilled by Pearson in League One) has been sucked out in a matter of months.

What if Puel's remit was to get us safe from relegation and develop the squad for next season and subsequent seasons?

I think it's ambitious and brave attempting to start long-term plans for the club. Why should he wait until the season is over to do that?

How can you say he's failing at his job when he effectively got us safe with many games to spare?

 

Did we need Ulloa? He had not performed for 1½ years and with the club having invested heavily in Iheanacho and the best formation still including Vardy, Mahrez and Okazaki, there were realistically not going to be many chances for either Slimani or Ulloa. The King debate will always rage, it seems. We know his capabilities and the verdict is pretty much that he's not part of our first team plans going forward.

You can only find out how good Choudhury is by playing him. Maybe he wouldn't have played if it wasn't for injuries to Ndidi, James and Iborra, but he's not exactly disgraced himself as our fifth choice midfielder...

 

You're reading too much into my comments though. I'm not crediting Puel for bringing through Ndidi, Gray, Maguire or Chilwell. What he's done is persisted with them. Chilwell is the first choice, he was interchanging with Fuchs under Shakespeare. Gray became a starter, he was a sub under Shakespeare. Ndidi was the lynchpin with Iborra, Silva and James rotating mainly. And even Maguire is the prime defender, with Dragovic coming in for the otherwise 'undroppable' Morgan.

 

Your last sentence is over the top though. Ever since the title win, we've gone downwards. Bar a CL campaign that papered over cracks and a brief rejuvenation immediately after Ranieri's sacking, we've not been great. We've effectively been an inconsistent midtable side with questionable recruiting and stagnant tactics. To say that positivity and professionalism has been "sucked out in a matter of months" suggests to me you blame Puel for a whole lot more than what he's been able to influence during his tenure...

[shen]

1 hour ago, ARTY_FOX said:

I'm not saying our squad should be 7th or that it's shit personally. But what we do have equates to better than the performances as of late provided a manager picks a playing style that will get results. The problem I see is I don't see any thing puel does that will turn this current style to positive results. 

 

We have a team that yes need improving defensively but in attack is all in all a good one, in my opinion. Yet we negate the offensive prowess whilst not trying to sure up the defensive side all for some possession stats. The one positive levelled towards puel taking over here was 'well he didn't have Leicesters attack at Southampton he'll have us score goals' but he hasn't. His style is possession over penetration. 

 

We were definitely not completely awful all that first season under Pearson. We had a half the league talking about how baffled they were that we were bottom. It was only a couple of games we were really out of it. Probably to naive at times but I think that was proved by the run we went on where we finally had any luck at all. 

I didn't say we were "completely awful", I said we were poor. We were comfortably the worst side in the league which our points total correctly indicated. We weren't getting trounced, but we weren't making inroads either. It's erroneous and ret-conning to say it was just down to 'bad luck' that we were in the position we were in. I think the management & coaching staff and the players deserve huge credit for the turnaround, but up until that point we were resigned to our fate and (if memory serves) half on here didn't think Pearson was good enough for the Prem and wanted him sacked.

 

With Puel, maybe he should get the chance to gradually 'weed out' the players that have struggled for the best part of this season and last and get his own players in. He should have a good idea by now about who he can count on. I wholeheartedly agree that we need some proof that his style/system can yield results, which is why I ultimately think he will get the sack.

Unfortunately, I think low confidence is now also playing a part in our recent tragic performances meaning we'll likely never find out.

[ARTY_FOX]

55 minutes ago, shen said:

I didn't say we were "completely awful", I said we were poor. We were comfortably the worst side in the league which our points total correctly indicated. We weren't getting trounced, but we weren't making inroads either. It's erroneous and ret-conning to say it was just down to 'bad luck' that we were in the position we were in. I think the management & coaching staff and the players deserve huge credit for the turnaround, but up until that point we were resigned to our fate and (if memory serves) half on here didn't think Pearson was good enough for the Prem and wanted him sacked.

 

With Puel, maybe he should get the chance to gradually 'weed out' the players that have struggled for the best part of this season and last and get his own players in. He should have a good idea by now about who he can count on. I wholeheartedly agree that we need some proof that his style/system can yield results, which is why I ultimately think he will get the sack.

Unfortunately, I think low confidence is now also playing a part in our recent tragic performances meaning we'll likely never find out.

It's your opinion we were the worst side and my opinion we weren't I can't see either changing that thought. I just didn't see what you saw. But then I'm generally rather optimistic in my approach to Leicester. 

 

As for puel we may see one day but it won't be here thankfully. You could say there is a reason however that he hasn't had this chance. As you yourself said his style is awful. Do you honestly believe recruitment of any kind can make what we're seeing enjoyable? It is his tactics and his set up. As we've seen from his previous job. 

[shen]

11 minutes ago, ARTY_FOX said:

It's your opinion we were the worst side and my opinion we weren't I can't see either changing that thought. I just didn't see what you saw. But then I'm generally rather optimistic in my approach to Leicester. 

 

As for puel we may see one day but it won't be here thankfully. You could say there is a reason however that he hasn't had this chance. As you yourself said his style is awful. Do you honestly believe recruitment of any kind can make what we're seeing enjoyable? It is his tactics and his set up. As we've seen from his previous job. 

It's not just my 'opinion', it was a fact right up until a few games to go. We weren't playing super badly, but we weren't any better than our opposition either. I strongly felt that whatever the result of that season, we should have stuck with Pearson.

I see myself as an optimist too, but you have to agree that with Ranieri, Shakespeare and (most likely) Puel we are pulling the trigger quickly, however justified those decisions might be in hindsight. 

And I haven't said his style per se is awful. To be honest, I'm not sure we have seen it unfold.

To me it's evident that 'his style' is demanding of the players and they are currently not able to get it right.

It's most likely a steep learning curve and the downward spiral might not be rectified before this season's end.

 

What irks me is that we were crying out for better ball retention when Puel took over.

We seriously hoofed it out at virtually EVERY opportunity under Shakespeare and subsequently never had a foothold in games.

Puel comes in and changes that to immediate and successful effect.

We're still quite shit at the back and we conclude, once more, that when Mahrez or Vardy are not firing, we desperately lack creativity and penetration.

Big shock. It was exactly the same under Ranieri, Shakespeare and now Puel. Except Puel has not been able to influence the personnel.

He's actually brought in a bargain signing who already looks on par or better than Gray...

 

This may look like a defense, but in truth I'm only trying to put perspective on things.

The problems were there before Puel arrived and we are criticising him for doing the trying to change the wayward course we were on.

Which brings me to my original point that, in hindsight, Puel never stood a chance with the fans unless he was an instant and consistent success.

[MC Prussian]

3 hours ago, shen said:

What if Puel's remit was to get us safe from relegation and develop the squad for next season and subsequent seasons?

I think it's ambitious and brave attempting to start long-term plans for the club. Why should he wait until the season is over to do that?

How can you say he's failing at his job when he effectively got us safe with many games to spare?

 

Did we need Ulloa? He had not performed for 1½ years and with the club having invested heavily in Iheanacho and the best formation still including Vardy, Mahrez and Okazaki, there were realistically not going to be many chances for either Slimani or Ulloa. The King debate will always rage, it seems. We know his capabilities and the verdict is pretty much that he's not part of our first team plans going forward.

You can only find out how good Choudhury is by playing him. Maybe he wouldn't have played if it wasn't for injuries to Ndidi, James and Iborra, but he's not exactly disgraced himself as our fifth choice midfielder...

 

You're reading too much into my comments though. I'm not crediting Puel for bringing through Ndidi, Gray, Maguire or Chilwell. What he's done is persisted with them. Chilwell is the first choice, he was interchanging with Fuchs under Shakespeare. Gray became a starter, he was a sub under Shakespeare. Ndidi was the lynchpin with Iborra, Silva and James rotating mainly. And even Maguire is the prime defender, with Dragovic coming in for the otherwise 'undroppable' Morgan.

 

Your last sentence is over the top though. Ever since the title win, we've gone downwards. Bar a CL campaign that papered over cracks and a brief rejuvenation immediately after Ranieri's sacking, we've not been great. We've effectively been an inconsistent midtable side with questionable recruiting and stagnant tactics. To say that positivity and professionalism has been "sucked out in a matter of months" suggests to me you blame Puel for a whole lot more than what he's been able to influence during his tenure...

See, I thought about this scenario myself.

 

What if everything ever since securing safety in the league was merely a side act? A manager, team and club willfully, intentionally not giving two cents about the remaining few games of the season. Puel told that all he needed to do this season was avoiding relegation. That us being on top of Burnley and potentially reaching the Europa League was never a target.

 

Then it occurred to me that you'd need such a high level of sophistication and secrecy, with so many individuals involved having to keep their mouths shut, that it's pretty much impossible.

There probably was something wrong at the club before Puel arrived, but he's seemingly managed (sic!) to make matters even worse.

 

Is it Puel's job to instruct his players not caring about results anymore? Is it his job to instruct his players to throw first halves away on a regular basis? Is it his job not to motivate Mahrez to find back to his old self, instead of contributing a meagre two goals and one assist in ten matches? Is it his job to start/put players in unfamiliar positions when appropriate personnel is available?

 

I was referring to Ulloa and Slimani because of our style of play under Puel, where wingers and full-backs are required to put crosses into the opposing box, but with no one tall enough to convert. How many headed goals have we had this season? The last one I can remember was by Iborra, against Brighton.

If your personnel doesn't suit your style, how about adapting your style to suit the personnel at hand? At least until the end of the season. Whatever you do in pre-season, go for it. That's where you can truly experiment. Absolutely fine by me. Just be ready with it once the new season starts.

How many other Premier League teams have changed their style of play during this season? How many of those after a new manager took helm, initially playing to his players' strengths?

 

As for "fostering youth players" or something in that manner, even if you say Puel didn't bring them through, and only "persisted" with them, it's the same case. None of the players you mentioned had truly featured less often under Shakespeare (given the time he was the manager). I don't see how you can credit Puel with that. Demarai Gray isn't as much a regular starter under Puel as he was under Shakespeare. Chilwell was our starting left-back under Shakespeare at the end of last season and in two matches under Shakespeare at the start of this campaign, Ndidi started regularly under Shakespeare before and so did Maguire when he first arrived.

 

And even if those selection issues are/were down to our injury crisis (see Hamza Choudhoury), I'd like to know how much of that due to our training regime - under Puel (see the other thread). That's a lot of coincidences at once, especially given the fact Southampton last season faced similar problems around the same time. What's the common denominator? Just bad luck, I suppose...

 

I agree with your assessment of the club being on a downward trajectory for a while now (I've said this many times before myself) and I'm sorry I didn't emphasize this strongly enough - this isn't a rot that has set in since Puel arrived, he's merely the latest symptom of it.

Edited 9 May 2018 by MC Prussian

[ARTY_FOX]

33 minutes ago, shen said:

It's not just my 'opinion', it was a fact right up until a few games to go. We weren't playing super badly, but we weren't any better than our opposition either. I strongly felt that whatever the result of that season, we should have stuck with Pearson.

I see myself as an optimist too, but you have to agree that with Ranieri, Shakespeare and (most likely) Puel we are pulling the trigger quickly, however justified those decisions might be in hindsight. 

And I haven't said his style per se is awful. To be honest, I'm not sure we have seen it unfold.

To me it's evident that 'his style' is demanding of the players and they are currently not able to get it right.

It's most likely a steep learning curve and the downward spiral might not be rectified before this season's end.

 

What irks me is that we were crying out for better ball retention when Puel took over.

We seriously hoofed it out at virtually EVERY opportunity under Shakespeare and subsequently never had a foothold in games.

Puel comes in and changes that to immediate and successful effect.

We're still quite shit at the back and we conclude, once more, that when Mahrez or Vardy are not firing, we desperately lack creativity and penetration.

Big shock. It was exactly the same under Ranieri, Shakespeare and now Puel. Except Puel has not been able to influence the personnel.

He's actually brought in a bargain signing who already looks on par or better than Gray...

 

This may look like a defense, but in truth I'm only trying to put perspective on things.

The problems were there before Puel arrived and we are criticising him for doing the trying to change the wayward course we were on.

Which brings me to my original point that, in hindsight, Puel never stood a chance with the fans unless he was an instant and consistent success.

 

Firstly it is your opinion and not a fact. My opinion differs now as it did then. I travelled up and down the country because I always felt we were at some point going to get the luck we were due and get the points on the board. 

 

I don't think ranieri as horrible as it was, was sacked too early. He'd changed things for the worse and we were only heading in one direction sadly. Shakespeare maybe he should have been allowed longer when you see the fixtures he had. But he didn't have it tactically at this level unfortunately. Not his fault he never should have been given the job. 

 

In the run after puel first took over. Infact from appletons game In charge against Swansea really, we played some sensational stuff. We were attacking, progressive, possession based still and whilst we shipped the odd goal, it didn't really matter as much because we were so thrilling at the other end of the pitch we cancelled that out. Then as it went on we were looking a little luckier until we fully transitioned into the awful football we're getting at the minute. So the players can play that way. They are just being asked to play this way. 

 

Puel was given a chance during that good run many (myself included) spoke about how wrong we were. There was a thread dedicated to it. But the brand of football he has bought is not good enough for this league. 

 

I apologise if it seems as though I was saying you had called the style awful. That's my own veiw point didn't intend to insinuate differently. I like hear8ng other views anyway it's what makes football the amazing game it is. 100 different people with 100 different views. 

[Lovejoy]

The state of this. Pathetic question.

 

 

[4everfox]

23 minutes ago, Lovejoy said:

The state of this. Pathetic question.

 

 

The difference between Leicester and Huddersfield is that they celebrate finishing 17th like they've won the league and we celebrate finishing 1st like we won the league. 

[CosbehFox]

29 minutes ago, Lovejoy said:

The state of this. Pathetic question.

 

 

Given money spent and size of club, Burnley’s 7th place this season beats it 

[sylofox]

On ‎08‎/‎05‎/‎2018 at 16:59, ithuriel said:

 the same has is happening to Leicester because we have not been this bad so consistently for years.

Really? Do you want to check some facts. Other than the title season. It's our highest finish with the most points.

 

The table does not lie. Great escape most wanted Nige gone until the turn around. Title defence people wanted CR gone and most didn't want Shakey given it permanent.

 

When will this stop. But trying to make out this is our worst season is a total joke.