Puel out?

Log in to stop seeing adverts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Shakespeare is different, caretakers often get the job when their manager gets the boot because they're the logical choice to take over in the short term due to already being at the club. Afterwards it always goes tits up and therefore is an equally bad appointment anyway.
 
I respect people’s different views on things. I would still argue that we are a Premier League club who gave the job to someone who hadn’t managed before.
 
Were we to lose our next three games, Puel would have the exact same return that Ranieri had in 16/17 when he got sacked.

In 16/17, Ranieri had 25 games and got 21 points (0.84 per game).

Puel has 21 points from his last 22 games (0.95 per game).

Shakespeare's entire spell in charge was significantly better than either of the above too (1.38 per game).

Why should our owners should show more loyalty to Puel than they did the manager and assistant manager during our biggest ever achievement?

Liverpool away is a tougher fixture than Man Utd away. I think it is entirely possible that his future hinges on the results of these next two matches as the Mirror reports.

Ranieri had his over one season whereas this is over two seasons and that's the important thing here.

Puel came in mid-season with an ageing squad of players who: Either became way too good to not be challenging for the title week in and week out; or who pretty much realise that whether they stay or leave, they're never going to achieve anything more in their career of note.

He's not had a chance to have a full summer break, pre-season and transfer window (Jan was never going to be productive given even more inflated prices).

Ranieri had all of the above with a squad that 4 months earlier were the best in the country.

Puel must and will be given time. He has a vision of football and the way he wants to play. He has tactical approaches and ideas and sometimes it takes time to deliver them. The owners saw this vision and liked what it was enough for them to hire him. Let's hope he delivers otherwise it will be goodbye and good riddance. But until then no one actually knows what's going to happen. Maybe he does shit as many predict, maybe we finish 6th and have a fab season.

The owners won't be as stupid to sack him so soon after giving £105m to spend in the transfer window.
 
If we lose the next 3 10-0 then I reckon he'd be gone. Not that I think that'll happen. If we did ditch him then unless they were bringing the Belgium world cup squad with them it'd be mental to even consider those two. Hopefully it's just to drum up interest in Henry after the Villa thing.
 
After some thought....maybe this has come from the club to get more people in the Puel in camp. It's got my allegiance switched that's for sure.
 
He should have been sacked mid to end of March, but he wasn’t.

Friday night was much better than what we saw over the last 12 matches of last season, so I’m willing to give him a chance, but not too long.

I think if he doesn’t get at least 4 points from our next 3 games he’ll be out of here. Rightly or wrongly. The owners showed with Shakespeare last season that they’ll act early if they don’t think somethings right.
 
Puel may have been a significant factor in us signing two of the seven that came in this summer (Ricardo and Ghezzal). I doubt whether he had anything to do with the other five. Managers don't do that any more. It's several years since we signed players on the basis of what the manager wanted.

Once again, you base an argument on spurious ideas you assume to be true without any real knowledge of how the transfer dealings have worked under this manager at all. Let's say, for argument sake, you're wrong. Let's say these are the players that Puel identified as ones he felt he could use to carry the club forward. Would it still make sense to pull the rug from under his feet so soon?

It would be utter, utter madness. I know, I know, you'll no doubt tell me that every club uses identified targets, the manager has nothing to do with it, look at club A or here's a website about club B but the fact remains neither you nor I have any idea of the circumstances of these signings under this manager.
 
Of course Puel wouldn't have been the only influence on transfers, but most of the players we have signed fit the Puel model. (For most of his career anyway) young, fast, hungry players.

This is the first summer since Pearson left that our signings have indicated a coherent plan, and that weaknesses in the squad have been dealt with.

It seems to me that the owners have invested in Puel's philosophy, so I expect he will be given time to put it together.

Outside of his season at Southampton where he took over a decimated squad, and last season with an aging, and apparently unmotivated team he has generally played attacking, fast, football. He has a good reputation of developing young talent. And generally does well in his second season.

Plenty of reasons for hope, so let's give the guy a chance.
 
Four points out of a possible 24 in the last eight games

#keeponhoping
 
Once again, you base an argument on spurious ideas you assume to be true without any real knowledge of how the transfer dealings have worked under this manager at all. Let's say, for argument sake, you're wrong. Let's say these are the players that Puel identified as ones he felt he could use to carry the club forward. Would it still make sense to pull the rug from under his feet so soon?

It would be utter, utter madness. I know, I know, you'll no doubt tell me that every club uses identified targets, the manager has nothing to do with it, look at club A or here's a website about club B but the fact remains neither you nor I have any idea of the circumstances of these signings under this manager.

Okay, I'll bite with three examples to illustrate why I think that it's utterly bonkers to pretend that the way we sign players isn't the way I described.

Remember us signing Kante? Ranieri didn't want him but we signed him anyway. That is because our DofF had identifed him and he was brought in in spite of the managers concerns.

Or how about Maguire. Signed under Shakespeare but we'd offered £500k to Sheff Utd for him three years earlier and had tried to sign him again from Hull. I think there is an interview somewhere where Maguire states that he knew we'd been after him for years. He was 'on our list'. The recruitment team may well have had a conversation with Shakespeare and said that 'we think we can get Maguire now do you like the sound of it?' but that would have been about it.

This summer, was it a complete coincidence that Puel wanted Evans - the self same player that we'd offered big money for last summer? Wouldn't it be amazing if so many of our managers share this trait of liking the same players?

I'm not saying that the manager has no role whatsoever in recruitment. He is consulted and sometimes takes part in conversations to persuade a player to come to the club. He may also identify a type of player or position that he wants strengthening.

But the key part of our recruitment is our 'list'. This approach has been well publicised in the past, especially after our title win. Given the fact that several names identified by Steve Walsh (such as Slimani, Ndidi, or Maguire) were recruited after he left us, this list is even partially independent of the person in charge of recruitment.

It seems like managers are permitted to make occasional requests for players themselves - hence Benaloune for Ranieri who was only ever identified by him or Ghezzal now who (if you believe those that appear to know these things online) was also signed against the wishes of the recruitment team. They are very much the exception to the general rule though.

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that Puel had even heard of people like Ward or Benkovic before we told him that we were signing them? I'd seriously doubt it.
 
Okay, I'll bite with three examples to illustrate why I think that it's utterly bonkers to pretend that the way we sign players isn't the way I described.

Remember us signing Kante? Ranieri didn't want him but we signed him anyway. That is because our DofF had identifed him and he was brought in in spite of the managers concerns.

Or how about Maguire. Signed under Shakespeare but we'd offered £500k to Sheff Utd for him three years earlier and had tried to sign him again from Hull. I think there is an interview somewhere where Maguire states that he knew we'd been after him for years. He was 'on our list'. The recruitment team may well have had a conversation with Shakespeare and said that 'we think we can get Maguire now do you like the sound of it?' but that would have been about it.

This summer, was it a complete coincidence that Puel wanted Evans - the self same player that we'd offered big money for last summer? Wouldn't it be amazing if so many of our managers share this trait of liking the same players?

I'm not saying that the manager has no role whatsoever in recruitment. He is consulted and sometimes takes part in conversations to persuade a player to come to the club. He may also identify a type of player or position that he wants strengthening.

But the key part of our recruitment is our 'list'. This approach has been well publicised in the past, especially after our title win. Given the fact that several names identified by Steve Walsh (such as Slimani, Ndidi, or Maguire) were recruited after he left us, this list is even partially independent of the person in charge of recruitment.

It seems like managers are permitted to make occasional requests for players themselves - hence Benaloune for Ranieri who was only ever identified by him or Ghezzal now who (if you believe those that appear to know these things online) was also signed against the wishes of the recruitment team. They are very much the exception to the general rule though.

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that Puel had even heard of people like Ward or Benkovic before we told him that we were signing them? I'd seriously doubt it.
I’ve noticed this with several of our signings, over the past few seasons. Several times there has been the point made that we’ve been following a player for a reasonable length of time and the player in question has commented about it too. Given the regularity with which we have changed managers, it backs up this theory.

You have to obviously take the comments at face value and accept they are telling the truth, but it has happened a few times now, so I’ve taken to believing it to be the case.
 
Do you have any evidence whatsoever that Puel had even heard of people like Ward or Benkovic before we told him that we were signing them? I'd seriously doubt it.
Do you have any evidence whatsoever that Puel had not heard of people like Ward or Benkovic before we signed them, or that he was unaware that we were signing them? I'd seriously doubt it.
 
Do you have any evidence whatsoever that Puel had even heard of people like Ward or Benkovic before we told him that we were signing them? I'd seriously doubt it.
Exactly the same amount as you have for ideas to the contrary. That's the point.
 
I’ve noticed this with several of our signings, over the past few seasons. Several times there has been the point made that we’ve been following a player for a reasonable length of time and the player in question has commented about it too. Given the regularity with which we have changed managers, it backs up this theory.

You have to obviously take the comments at face value and accept they are telling the truth, but it has happened a few times now, so I’ve taken to believing it to be the case.
Maybe different managers chase the same players because they are good players? Perhaps it's because they are the type of players who would fit in to our specific setup and for our specific needs. Crazy talk I know but as valid as anything BN has written as 'evidence'. I'm sure when a new manager comes in, they are told about previous targets but it doesn't mean they are forced to sign them. Perhaps they watch the same video evidence our scouts do and then decide for themselves that they want them on the basis that they could use them in their way? There is as much factual evidence in that assertion as in anything else.
 
jqyrj.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Log in to stop seeing adverts

P Pld Pts
1Liverpool1128
2Manchester C  1123
3Chelsea1119
4Arsenal1119
5Nottm F1119
6Brighton1119
7Fulham1118
8Newcastle1118
9Aston Villa1118
10Tottenham 1116
11Brentford1116
12Bournemouth1115
13Manchester U1115
14West Ham1112
15Leicester1110
16Everton1110
17Ipswich118
18Palace117
19Wolves116
20Southampton114

Latest posts

Back
Top