homer
Well-Known Member
He's here 'til the end of the season, so get used to it
In fact enjoy it - Wet Spam 2/1 for the win on Satdee. Dip your bread
Puel out
- Thread starter Micky
- Start date
- Status
He's here 'til the end of the season, so get used to it
In fact enjoy it - Wet Spam 2/1 for the win on Satdee. Dip your bread
big_mac4824
Well-Known Member
So when shakey took over we had an immediate response and went on a winning spree, Shakey then tried to change our style and the players became shit, Puel took over with an immediate response and a great winning spree and wait for it,oh yes he tried to change the playing style and you guessed it we became shit, the same applied with Ranieri but all 3 were simply shite managers?
The bottom line is we do actually need to change how we play and press up front as I have stated before Puel made it public that there was to be a clear out in summer imo way to early it is no coincidence we began to play badly, this sits with the players.
Brown Nose
Well-Known Member
Ranieri is a very good manager that tinkered too much, too soon.
Shakespeare and Puel were/are indeed catastrophically bad managers for us.
There are lots of very good managers out there that can mould what we have and evolve our style successfully.
One positive aspect of the shambles of the last year is that said players are more likely to respond exceptionally well to a smart appointment. They will be thrilled to work for someone who they respect and who leads them.
homer
Well-Known Member
What are you on about ?
Shakespeare never attempted to change the style of play at all. He went back to a very straightforward and rigid 4-4-2 - although arguably Ranieri had played that way for several matches before he was sacked. At no point whatsoever did Shakespeare ever attempt to play in any way new or different.
And Shakespeare's wonderful 'winning spree' culminated in that shameful episode against both Spurs and Bournemouth at home - both equally as bad as each other
Stop making up stories to fit your ridiculous narrative that all of the managers have been utterly brilliant, and the players are the devil incarnate.
The whole Club - players, Manager, officials coaches and fans - failed collectively to cope with the aftermath of winning the League, starting with the utter failure to prepare for the next season by fartarsing around the World doing precisely nothing - this was ably assisted by spending money on a complete sack of shite.
Ranieri simply failed to cope with a complete shitstorm of circumstances that occurred post victory
Shakespeare was a coach, not a manager, and should never have been given the gig full time. He tried to change nothing at all.
Puel is simply a complete idiot
tedfoxxx
Well-Known Member
Transitioning into something more exciting?
Graz
Well-Known Member
Group cuddles?
homer
Well-Known Member
big_mac4824
Well-Known Member
Homer do you enjoy ranting everyone who does not agree with your line of thought? or when you are challenged and can not respond you simply ignore the post as with the one where you corrected over the fact that Puel did change how the U23 squad plays? Has that U23 squad done well this season? Is that group of players playing in the direction stated by Puel? Shakespeare tried various formations before and during games just look at the opening fixture against Arsenal and you can not blame Shakey for the end of last season again that was the squad simply giving up and not giving a shit!
1. I have not stated ever that any of the managers have been brilliant
2. Ranieri did not recruit effectively whether it was him or the club
3. Ranieri realised we were a one trick pony and tried to change how we played and lost his job as a result
4. Puel has reached the semi final of the Champions league has had great success in France of which his team was not PSG I would argue that does not make him an idiot.
The simple truth Homer is that we have 3 at a push 4 players that are a good standard, the rest are bottom of the prem standard or top of the championship. We won the league of the back of hard graft with an outstanding midfielder in Kante ( who saw the light and buggered off to Chelsea) Mahrez and Vardy. Every time a manager introduces change we as a club go through this. Either there is a rotten group of players in the squad or the vast majority are simply not good enough to play anything other than 4-4-2 and play the ball down the channels.
To state that Puel is an idiot is lamentable you may not like his playing style or approach but you certainly can not call him an idiot. In response to some of the posts on here stating Puel should not have changed his approach until next season, although it is highly likely we would have made 5th place and Europe he would have been in a more difficult position to recruit players to play to his style, and the fans would have been asking why he was selling players who had achieved a top 5/6 place in the Prem.
Puel rightly has realised that we do need to change and has gone about that by highlighting to the board just how poor some of our first team are technically, it will cost him his job and that is the chairman's decision, I can not see them appointing a manager who will change things without a big clear out I would be surprised if Benitez would be interested or indeed anyone of that ilk.
Redditch Fox
Well-Known Member
As far as I can understand you - you seem to be suggesting that Puel has purposely chosen to get bad results to prove to the owners that our players are rubbish and to justify a big clear out. You get top marks for originality but much lower (if any) for common sense.
LeeCovFox
Well-Known Member
Your first couple of points are debatable. Points 3 is bollocks and point 4 is disingenuous.
There is no evidence that Ranieri thought we were a "one trick pony". Indeed the evidence is for the opposite case. Upon inheriting what had become a winning team he changed the system from three at the back to four. He started his first season in charge with an attacking line up including attacking full backs. It's easily forgotten that we were the most exciting team in the country for a short while. When he realised that we couldn't keep winning that way (or keep relying on come backs after conceding a couple of early goals) he replaced Schlupp and De Laet with Fuchs and Simpson, making us more conservative at the back but still remaining a strong attacking force. Then, after Christmas, he changed our style yet again making us narrower, deeper, and more positionally rigid. It got us over the line. Ranieri continuously changed things. It worked, mostly.
As for Puel, since winning the league with Monaco (nearly 20 years ago) things have been a bit mixed. He did an exceptional job with Nice overall, finish 4th twice. But he did also almost take them down one year. His run to the Champions' League semi finals with Lyon is to his credit but in the end it's just a cup run. His time at Lyon is remembered as a failure. He ended their run of 7 consecutive title wins, finishing third, second, and third before being sacked. He spent lots of money and the team went backwards. Indeed, after sacking him, Lyon deliberately tightened the purse strings and focused more on youth player development and detailed statistical analysis of new signings. Puel's stint made them realise that they couldn't just continue winning titles by spending money; because one day you might give the money to a crap manager and not win titles. This was before PSG and Monaco had the benefit of billionaire investment. He did do very well with Lille but he finished there ten years ago.
His record is okay. There is definitely evidence of success. But he failed in his one big job which might demonstrate an inability to step up a level. I'm not one to laud the quality of our own top flight but it is beyond dispute that the Premier League represents a step up from Ligue Un.
At Southampton he did well when you look at league position and their League Cup final. But he also made them dreadful to watch. Given that Southampton's recent history has been accompanied by a high pressing style of play complete with lots of movement and quick passing exchanges, I find it hard to believe that last season was evidence of him making them boring in order to make them exciting again. They already had the tools for the latter. He chose not to use them.
The 'transition' argument here is, similarly, nonsense. There's nothing wrong with wanting to move us towards a more possession based style. But the way he has done so is appalling. In modern football a possession style needs to be complemented with pressing up the pitch in order to win the ball back closer to the opposition area. Otherwise it's possession in pointless areas of the pitch and is boring to watch. At our best, even in the last couple of seasons, we have pressed up the pitch. With most of the players we have now. There's no reason he can't have them doing the same, whilst also instructing them to be more careful with the ball and to take higher risks with it only in the final third. But that isn't what he is doing. He appears to have instructed the players to keep the ball above all else. There is no pressing. There is no movement. There is only boredom.
There is no evidence that Ranieri thought we were a "one trick pony". Indeed the evidence is for the opposite case. Upon inheriting what had become a winning team he changed the system from three at the back to four. He started his first season in charge with an attacking line up including attacking full backs. It's easily forgotten that we were the most exciting team in the country for a short while. When he realised that we couldn't keep winning that way (or keep relying on come backs after conceding a couple of early goals) he replaced Schlupp and De Laet with Fuchs and Simpson, making us more conservative at the back but still remaining a strong attacking force. Then, after Christmas, he changed our style yet again making us narrower, deeper, and more positionally rigid. It got us over the line. Ranieri continuously changed things. It worked, mostly.
As for Puel, since winning the league with Monaco (nearly 20 years ago) things have been a bit mixed. He did an exceptional job with Nice overall, finish 4th twice. But he did also almost take them down one year. His run to the Champions' League semi finals with Lyon is to his credit but in the end it's just a cup run. His time at Lyon is remembered as a failure. He ended their run of 7 consecutive title wins, finishing third, second, and third before being sacked. He spent lots of money and the team went backwards. Indeed, after sacking him, Lyon deliberately tightened the purse strings and focused more on youth player development and detailed statistical analysis of new signings. Puel's stint made them realise that they couldn't just continue winning titles by spending money; because one day you might give the money to a crap manager and not win titles. This was before PSG and Monaco had the benefit of billionaire investment. He did do very well with Lille but he finished there ten years ago.
His record is okay. There is definitely evidence of success. But he failed in his one big job which might demonstrate an inability to step up a level. I'm not one to laud the quality of our own top flight but it is beyond dispute that the Premier League represents a step up from Ligue Un.
At Southampton he did well when you look at league position and their League Cup final. But he also made them dreadful to watch. Given that Southampton's recent history has been accompanied by a high pressing style of play complete with lots of movement and quick passing exchanges, I find it hard to believe that last season was evidence of him making them boring in order to make them exciting again. They already had the tools for the latter. He chose not to use them.
The 'transition' argument here is, similarly, nonsense. There's nothing wrong with wanting to move us towards a more possession based style. But the way he has done so is appalling. In modern football a possession style needs to be complemented with pressing up the pitch in order to win the ball back closer to the opposition area. Otherwise it's possession in pointless areas of the pitch and is boring to watch. At our best, even in the last couple of seasons, we have pressed up the pitch. With most of the players we have now. There's no reason he can't have them doing the same, whilst also instructing them to be more careful with the ball and to take higher risks with it only in the final third. But that isn't what he is doing. He appears to have instructed the players to keep the ball above all else. There is no pressing. There is no movement. There is only boredom.
homer
Well-Known Member
No, that is simply not true. the u23s have not altered their way of playing one iota as a result of Puel's intervention. They have been progressing very nicely all season, thank you, with a very direct style of play which has nothing to do with tippy tappy sideways nonsense. It hasn't changed since Puel came in.
Instead of making things up, try actually watching them play - the matches are all online, sit back and watch them, and then stop talking utter nonsense
No he didn't. He really, really didn't
You suggested he was doing brilliantly until he tried to change the whole style of play. THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN
We're ninth in the Premier League, despite 4 wins out of 18 games, so that's quite obviously not true, is it ?
There's only one 'simple' thing here, but it's certainly not the truth
I don't even know where to start with this ? Highly likely we would have made 5th ? What are you talking about ?
Even if, if some alternate reality, we had been highly likely to make 5th, why on earth would anyone in their right mind have changed anything at all.
It's just wibble
camberwell fox
Well-Known Member
Pickled Onion - that is all.
londonfox
Well-Known Member
Surely a managers job, whichever team he is managing, is to consider all of the resources available to him, and work out an effective style of play to maximise those resources. As far as I see it there are only two styles of play - effective and non-effective. And 4 wins in 18 is most definitely not effective.
All of this bollox about a need to change (why?) and not wanting to finish 5th because it would make recruitment harder (what??) and players being unmanageable (despite the team/squad being very different from Ranieri's time to now???) is just that, bollox.
All of this bollox about a need to change (why?) and not wanting to finish 5th because it would make recruitment harder (what??) and players being unmanageable (despite the team/squad being very different from Ranieri's time to now???) is just that, bollox.
londonfox
Well-Known Member
Best crisp flavour ever.
big_mac4824
Well-Known Member
[B said:
big_mac4824
Well-Known Member
homer
Well-Known Member
There is only person on here who appears to have believed that, and deluded is a fair assessment
- Status
Championship
| P | Pld | Pts | |
| 1 | Leicester | 46 | 97 |
| 2 | Ipswich | 46 | 96 |
| 3 | Leeds Utd | 46 | 90 |
| 4 | Southampton | 46 | 87 |
| 5 | West Brom | 46 | 75 |
| 6 | Norwich City | 46 | 73 |
| 7 | Hull City | 46 | 70 |
| 8 | Middlesbro | 46 | 69 |
| 9 | Coventry City | 46 | 64 |
| 10 | Preston | 46 | 63 |
| 11 | Bristol City | 46 | 62 |
| 12 | Cardiff City | 46 | 62 |
| 13 | Millwall | 46 | 59 |
| 14 | Swansea City | 46 | 57 |
| 15 | Watford | 46 | 56 |
| 16 | Sunderland | 46 | 56 |
| 17 | Stoke City | 46 | 56 |
| 18 | QPR | 46 | 56 |
| 19 | Blackburn | 46 | 53 |
| 20 | Sheffield W | 46 | 53 |
| 21 | Plymouth | 46 | 51 |
| 22 | Birmingham | 46 | 50 |
| 23 | Huddersfield | 46 | 45 |
| 24 | Rotherham Utd | 46 | 27 |
