Claude Puel

[The9]

Dress it up how you like...if the top 6 are winning more games then it's likely the rest of the league have declined and are less competitive. It's not like the top 6 have won everything in Europe is it?

 

Whereas the league used to be top 6, a middle league and the bottom league, now it's the top 6 and the rest are at risk of relegation.

The teams coming up managed to stay up, do you really think that is because the league is more competitive and because teams are takin points off each other? Alternatively is it the "rest" have decline to such an extent teams with small budgets and championship teams can finish safely in mid table?

 

No, it's more competitive in the bottom 14 because everyone overall has improved due to having £60m to get more of the best players in the world (we've gone backwards by a couple of players and 10 places) but the top sides are still able to spend even more due to the various spending regulations and the very top players aren't interested in signing for anyone outside the top 6. And only one team can win a match no matter how good both sets of players are. Which was particularly true with Liverpool and Man City in the Champions League.

 

There are various factors for how the likes of Burnley have done well, and as Leicester proved if you get the right combination, some shrewd tactics and a pile of luck you can overachieve, but the usual determinant is wages. I can appreciate how Saints fans don't see the spending correlation, but it's there.

 

As an indication, Saints were the 18th richest club in world football at the end of last season, showing that everyone in the Prem has got enough money to attract better players than before from better clubs elsewhere.

Edited 14 May, 2018 by The9

[The9]

I guess the easy way to work this out is to see how many draws there are across the bottom 14 teams over the past 10 years, to see how even they are. It'll include draws against the top 6 too but that shouldn't be significant.

 

I don't think we need to look at anything other than the table to see that top 6 vs the rest is skewed more now than ever.

 

No, I'm not doing it.

[The9]

Hit the NEXT button here to show why the top 6 are better... it's very simple. There's also much of a muchness across the others.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/football/ng-interactive/2016/aug/03/interactive-exploring-the-relationship-between-premier-league-clubs-finances-and-their-success

 

See also this from 16/17, the first season with the new overseas tv deal:

[Saint-Fred]

I guess the easy way to work this out is to see how many draws there are across the bottom 14 teams over the past 10 years, to see how even they are. It'll include draws against the top 6 too but that shouldn't be significant.

 

I don't think we need to look at anything other than the table to see that top 6 vs the rest is skewed more now than ever.

 

No, I'm not doing it.

 

That's not relevant, if they are all rubbish then they will still get draws against each other the same as if they all improved. All this would indicate is that they are all the same level not whether the level is good or bad, improving or declining.

 

Surely the measure of whether a league is strong is how those teams outside the top 6 perform in Europe and how a team coming into the league from a lower league perform.

 

Teams outside the top 6 bomb in Europe...West Ham couldn't get through a qualifier with a minnow, we couldn't get outside the group stages despite a top ten finish, Everton were shocking in Europe but finished top 10, do you really think Burnley will get anywhere?

 

On one of the rare occasions this year, all three promoted sides were safe even before the last day of the season. How does that indicate a league getting stronger? Teams should really struggle coming up, if the league is that strong, competing against teams which have had years of 100m+ pound income but they don't.

 

 

 

How many decent players have Burnely got? How does their wages compare to the bottom 4?they should not be able to compete but they do as the opposition is poor.

Nine of this indicates teams getting better, it indicates weaker teams who can't compete with the top 6 in their own league, with European sides on a tiny budgets compared to themselves and teams coming up who are not spending 100 m each but easily stay in the league.

[Kingsland Red]

As we proved under Hughes,pragmatism rather than flamboyancy is the new success for clubs outside the top four.

The earlier a team plays for a Pulis style point, the more points they are able to accumulate. The Huddersfield and West Brom (under Pulis) matches at St Marys were two of the most boring Premier League games I have ever seen.

Teams playing with a more attacking outlook ( Everton under Koeman, Watford under Silva or us in a care free style before Christmas) end up struggling to grind out the points.

[positivepete]

Quote: How many decent players have Burnely got? How does their wages compare to the bottom 4?they should not be able to compete but they do as the opposition is poor.

Nine of this indicates teams getting better, it indicates weaker teams who can't compete with the top 6 in their own league, with European sides on a tiny budgets compared to themselves and teams coming up who are not spending 100 m each but easily stay in the league.

 

In an article in The Times today the 2016/17 wages for Burnley was £61m, ours was £109m. They used the table of wages to calculate expected points, ours for this season, based on last seasons wages was 51 points. Burnley’s expected points was 35

[Heisenberg]

Puel aside Leicester still have a top side.

 

If you were going to build an 11 with players outside top 6 sides youd probably have 4-5 leicester players included.

[Pamplemousse]

Of course Leicester would be interested in him - he led us to a top half finish and a cup final with what was a pretty poor squad.

 

He's a world class manager, it's a shame our idiot fans are unable to see this. Leicester's owners are clearly very smart.

 

Almost a year on, it looks like I was right. They even sold their best player but that hasn't stopped their upwards momentum.

[Dusic]

Almost a year on, it looks like I was right. They even sold their best player but that hasn't stopped their upwards momentum.

 

About him being a world class Manager? LOL.

[Pamplemousse]

About him being a world class Manager? LOL.

 

You all thought I was on the wind up but I was deadly serious. To achieve what he did with that group of players... wow. One of the great footballing achievements, certainly in the Premier League era. Maybe George Burley getting Ipswich to 5th is above that.

[Lord Duckhunter]

I would PMSL if they hire Puel.

 

Followed by a swift visit to the bookies for a bet on Leicester relegation - currently 8/1 odds

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[whelk]

He will have cashed out before his two game ultimatum so won’t have lost any money. Forever shrewd

[ALWAYS_SFC]

Can we get him back...

[Ted Bates Statue]

Sacked after two wins from seventeen matches played, Claude Puel has just been re-identified by the Saints FC Black Box (TM) as a top managerial prospect but most importantly a free agent. CHDAJFU? 

https://www.ligue1.com/Articles/NEWS/2021/12/06/claude-puel-leaves-saint-etienne

 

[Whitey Grandad]

45 minutes ago, Ted Bates Statue said:

Sacked after two wins from seventeen matches played, Claude Puel has just been re-identified by the Saints FC Black Box (TM) as a top managerial prospect but most importantly a free agent. CHDAJFU? 

https://www.ligue1.com/Articles/NEWS/2021/12/06/claude-puel-leaves-saint-etienne

 

NHCDAJFU

[miserableoldgit]

This just came up on FB:- https://lm.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.leicestermercury.co.uk%2Fsport%2Ffootball%2Ffootball-news%2Fproblem-plaguing-leicester-citys-season-6304646&h=AT2OjWd4vkAM7b0SRFYVXW2yK8F6YK6Z6szxEEmmh1jdTP924F1eATi5eFrqKF-1jOYoYwaHbTYTrJKRNzbzHhxMyXv3gExdKyfMQz1QruZTdwc2jxR0w2EqlNbjbu7qGI8Mk9Ohuxd-VHYIlA

[Saint86]

On 20/02/2022 at 23:43, Dark Munster said:

Don't forget 8th place and runners up in the Cup is a sackable offense!

Are there actually people that think sacking Puel was a mistake? 😨

[Turkish]

1 hour ago, Saint86 said:

Are there actually people that think sacking Puel was a mistake? 😨

Yes, for a number of reason not least of all that he was replaced by Pellegrino and Hughes, The three sackings would have cost us millions in pay offs, Puel would have done a lot better than those two. Plus on paper Puels season was one of the best we've ever had. Puel had to rebuild a team and fans didn't like him from the start because he wasn't the big name they demanded and he didn't have any onliners for interviews.

[Whitey Grandad]

6 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Yes, for a number of reason not least of all that he was replaced by Pellegrino and Hughes, The three sackings would have cost us millions in pay offs, Puel would have done a lot better than those two. Plus on paper Puels season was one of the best we've ever had. Puel had to rebuild a team and fans didn't like him from the start because he wasn't the big name they demanded and he didn't have any onliners for interviews.

And there's the problem. Football is played on grass. I didn't like him from the start because his football was soporific. I don't care about profile and he could have spoken French as far as I was concerned. It was all about what went on out on the pitch and the answer is, not a lot.

[Turkish]

1 minute ago, Whitey Grandad said:

And there's the problem. Football is played on grass. I didn't like him from the start because his football was soporific. I don't care about profile and he could have spoken French as far as I was concerned. It was all about what went on out on the pitch and the answer is, not a lot.

It really wasn't. There were good games and bad games, people only remember the last 6 or 7 homes games of the season. I dont remember too many complaints about soporific football when we were beating Inter, Liverpool and Arsenal and played Man United off the park at Wembley.

[Whitey Grandad]

1 hour ago, Turkish said:

It really wasn't. There were good games and bad games, people only remember the last 6 or 7 homes games of the season. I dont remember too many complaints about soporific football when we were beating Inter, Liverpool and Arsenal and played Man United off the park at Wembley.

It really was. I went to every home game and it wasn't the last 6 or 7. We were knocked out of Europe and didn't we lose to Manchester United?

[CWD]

17 hours ago, Whitey Grandad said:

It really was. I went to every home game and it wasn't the last 6 or 7. We were knocked out of Europe and didn't we lose to Manchester United?

It was also a somewhat freak season that allowed us to finish 8th with 46 points. Ralph amassed 53 a few seasons later which was only good enough for 11th.

I never had anything against the bloke particularly, just didn’t think we’d got to the position we were in by playing that style. And despite a couple of memorable results, we threw the Europa League away that year. How Sparta Prague, one of the worst teams I’ve ever seen at SMS, won that group is beyond me.  

[TWar]

Puel absolutely was boring as all hell. We scored 41 goals, 5 fewer than in 18-19 when we finished 16th. Fewer than every other season since we've been back in the prem except Pellegrinos year which was only 4 less. We didn't even win many games, we got 8th because everyone else was rubbish that year outside the top 7.

Saying people didn't like Puel because he wasn't a "big name" is nonsense. People didn't like Puel because we were shite under him and dead boring. We finished 8th because a lot of the league just happened to also be shite, that doesn't mean he did well. He then did a very similar thing at Leicester.

[The Left Back]

I think Puel was unlucky to be following Poch and Ronald.  His achievements were pale by comparison.  And I agree that, with the benefit of hindsight, he would almost certainly have done better than Pellegrino the following year.  This debate crops up every now and then and consequently I feel more positive about him now as a result of the advocacy of @Turkishand others.  But I have to say my memory is more like that of @Whitey Grandad in that I was thoroughly bored by a lot of the football at St. Mary's and the general vibe about the place.  

Back on topic, it's a real stretch but if we keep this momentum up for the whole of the rest of the season (a big if) and if 2-3 out of Wolves, Spurs, Arsenal and West Ham falter (a medium sized if) then I think we could actually get to 6th.  It's unlikely but certainly a prize worth chasing and keeping the players from putting up the deckchairs.

[Turkish]

20 hours ago, Whitey Grandad said:

It really was. I went to every home game and it wasn't the last 6 or 7. We were knocked out of Europe and didn't we lose to Manchester United?

Maybe if you’d been to a few away games you might have a different view. We got knocked out of Europe under Koeman as well, the game away at Mitjiaad or however it’s spelt was one of the worst and most boring performances I can remember, but Koeman is a hero and Puel is the devil because we got knocked out. Your point about us losing to Man United is laughable, everyone knows how well we played, but then I guess that defeat of your world was down to useless, boring old Claude as well. 

[manzo]

2 hours ago, TWar said:

Puel absolutely was boring as all hell. We scored 41 goals, 5 fewer than in 18-19 when we finished 16th. Fewer than every other season since we've been back in the prem except Pellegrinos year which was only 4 less. We didn't even win many games, we got 8th because everyone else was rubbish that year outside the top 7.

Saying people didn't like Puel because he wasn't a "big name" is nonsense. People didn't like Puel because we were shite under him and dead boring. We finished 8th because a lot of the league just happened to also be shite, that doesn't mean he did well. He then did a very similar thing at Leicester.

I'm going to bring this up every time someone says this: we found ridiculous ways to not score the chances we created, so you can't just extrapolate from that stat to "We played boring football". Then our confidence completely left us, and that's when we went into our shells and started playing safe and boring football.

And, frankly, even his boring football was a load better to watch than what we had to suffer under the next two managers.

[Turkish]

2 hours ago, The Left Back said:

I think Puel was unlucky to be following Poch and Ronald.  His achievements were pale by comparison.  And I agree that, with the benefit of hindsight, he would almost certainly have done better than Pellegrino the following year.  This debate crops up every now and then and consequently I feel more positive about him now as a result of the advocacy of @Turkishand others.  But I have to say my memory is more like that of @Whitey Grandad in that I was thoroughly bored by a lot of the football at St. Mary's and the general vibe about the place.  

Back on topic, it's a real stretch but if we keep this momentum up for the whole of the rest of the season (a big if) and if 2-3 out of Wolves, Spurs, Arsenal and West Ham falter (a medium sized if) then I think we could actually get to 6th.  It's unlikely but certainly a prize worth chasing and keeping the players from putting up the deckchairs.

I just simply don’t think he was as bad as some make out.
 

When the stat lovers point to how few goals we scored they never mention that Mane, Pelle our two leading scorers from the previous season had been sold and Austin spent a good part of the season injured.  He also is the only a manager to get a tune out of Gabbiadini, yet again he then got injured just when it looked like he might be quite a signing. that’s what happens when you look at a spreadsheet rather than knowing the details. 
 

They also never mention that Van Dijk and Fonte missed half the season with injury and in the case of Fonte being sold and not replaced. Factor in Wanyama was sold, useless Boring Claude got us to 8th and a cup final without five of the best players Koeman had for at least half a season along with a far more congested fixture list due to European league and league cup run. It meant we wouldn’t be able to play a high energy attacking football every week. 

[TWar]

5 minutes ago, manzo said:

I'm going to bring this up every time someone says this: we found ridiculous ways to not score the chances we created, so you can't just extrapolate from that stat to "We played boring football". Then our confidence completely left us, and that's when we went into our shells and started playing safe and boring football.

And, frankly, even his boring football was a load better to watch than what we had to suffer under the next two managers.

Yeah the two following him were even worse. Thank god for Ralph.

[SuperSAINT]

1 minute ago, Turkish said:

I just simply don’t think he was as bad as some make out.
 

When the stat lovers point to how few goals we scored they never mention that Mane, Pelle our two leading scorers from the previous season had been sold and Austin spent a good part of the season injured.  He also is the only a manager to get a tune out of Gabbiadini, yet again he then got injured just when it looked like he might be quite a signing. that’s what happens when you look at a spreadsheet rather than knowing the details. 
 

They also never mention that Van Dijk and Fonte missed half the season with injury and in the case of Fonte being sold and not replaced. Factor in Wanyama was sold, useless Boring Claude got us to 8th and a cup final without five of the best players Koeman had for at least half a season along with a far more congested fixture list due to European league and league cup run. It meant we wouldn’t be able to play a high energy attacking football every week. 

Another memory of Puel:

He showed us Romeu was a very good player & aside from when they played powerful strikers, Yoshi & Jack were decent.  4 clean sheets against Liverpool from 4 games.

[Fabrice29]

He was tasked with implementing a slightly more possession based game so we could manage two games a week with Europe. At the same time, especially at the end, he had some really out of form strikers which just lead to everything becoming stale and Tadic just racking up his chances created stats and the strikers their games without scoring stats. 

There were issues with him and his management of course but there's no doubt he was let down by poor strikers (bad recruitment plays a part here) and the whole Fonte debacle as well. 

Edited 5 March, 2022 by Fabrice29

[Turkish]

9 minutes ago, manzo said:

I'm going to bring this up every time someone says this: we found ridiculous ways to not score the chances we created, so you can't just extrapolate from that stat to "We played boring football". Then our confidence completely left us, and that's when we went into our shells and started playing safe and boring football.

And, frankly, even his boring football was a load better to watch than what we had to suffer under the next two managers.

Mane and Pelle contributed 22 of the 59 league goals we scored the previous season. Also their replacements were a significant downgrade. Austin spent most of the season injured and when Gabbiadini arrived in January he was on fire before getting injured. It’s no wonder we scored less goals, but still must all be Puels fault 

[TWar]

2 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Mane and Pelle contributed 22 of the 59 league goals we scored the previous season. Also their replacements were a significant downgrade. Austin spent most of the season injured and when Gabbiadini arrived in January he was on fire before getting injured. It’s no wonder we scored less goals, but still must all be Puels fault 

Koeman also lost his top scorers, and basically everyone else, it didn't seem to slow him down too much...

[Turkish]

Just now, TWar said:

Koeman also lost his top scorers, and basically everyone else, it didn't seem to slow him down too much...

Because Koemans were replaced with better players. Puels werent

[sydney_saint]

I kinda disagree about the fans needing a name. Playing the right sort of ball and connecting with the fan base can change that very quickly. Look at the backlash against poch, yet he quickly won over people by having a clear exciting identity. 

Most of the time when we have a manager change, it's cos the previous manager was getting poor results. This wasn't the case when puel walked in. We had a model that was generating fantastic results in the league. Yes we lost a few vital players, but we still had some extremely talented players like Tadic, who I feel never regained his mojo after puel stifled us. 

Puel decided to rip up how we played. He could have brought in some players, maybe evolve us a bit, but ultimately stick to a successful blueprint. Sure there would be a drop off, Mane was irreplaceable, but I don't know if I can be convinced we couldn't have found another Pelle out there. Instead he brought this utterly turgid style of football that lead to us getting knocked out of europa embarrassingly, lack of entertainment and lack of goals. 

Still. He could have turned it around. There was considerable goodwill after the league Cup Final. We were never going down, so he could have lifted the hand break a little bit and played some better stuff. Yet we went backwards in terms of entertainment. Just have a look at our last several home games. His stubbornness was enormous, and it was only ever gonna go one way. Let's not forget he didn't just lose the fans, he lost the players as well and sucked the joy out of the club. It wasn't a shocking season of course, but for me I ain't got any sympathy as a lot of the problems came from his own ego and stubbornness. Something Leicester fans say as well

Edited 5 March, 2022 by sydney_saint

[TWar]

15 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Because Koemans were replaced with better players. Puels werent

Or because Koeman built his team around the players he brought in and integrated them well into a positive progressive style. Puel did not.

Mane, VvD, Tadic, Pelle, etc. weren't considered world beaters before Koeman signed them, he deserves massive credit for their development. Similarly, Ralph deserves massive credit for JWP, Ings, KWP, Salisu, Broja, Romeu, Bednarek, Stu, Adams, etc. who he has improved.

Who did Puel improve in his limp, boring season? 

Edited 5 March, 2022 by TWar

[Turkish]

2 minutes ago, TWar said:

Or because Koeman built his team around the players he brought in and integrated them well into a positive progressive style. Puel did not.

Mane, VvD, Tadic, Pelle, etc. weren't considered world beaters before Koeman signed them, he deserves massive credit for their development. Similarly, Ralph deserves massive credit for JWP, KWP, Salisu, Broja, Romeu, Bednarek, Stephens, Stu, Adams, etc. who he has improved.

Who did Puel improve in his limp, boring season? 

Laughable what utter nonsense, it’s simple

which players would you have in your team as a front 3?

Pelle, Mane, Tadic

or

Redmond, Austin, Boufal

 

[TWar]

Just now, Turkish said:

Laughable what utter nonsense, it’s simple

which players would you have in your team as a front 3?

Pelle, Mane, Tadic

or

Redmond, Austin, Boufal

 

Obviously Pelle Mane Tadic, but that is because of what Koeman did for them.

- When they both joined Boufal had a lot more hype than Mane and was from a stronger league.

- Austin had an 18 goal premier league season. Much more proven than Pelle.

- Puel also had Tadic so not sure why we are pretending he was just Koemans, he played 33 league games in Puels season, so a pretty stupid thing to say really.

Now we know Mane and Pelle as two of our best players of the last decade and Austin/Boufal as flops. They didn't come in that way though, Koeman and Puel had that effect, one massively improved players and the other made them markedly worse.

[SaveloyMush]

Puel was a pragmatist and did what he thought best with the mediocre squad at his disposal.

Playing for a draw (and losing, thereby ending our European campaign) at home against Be'er Sheva was unforgivable, though.

[Thereisonlyonemickychannon]

Peul would behave been a legend if Manolos goals was not ruled offside

[Turkish]

Just now, TWar said:

Obviously Pelle Mane Tadic, but that is because of what Koeman did for them.

- When they both joined Boufal had a lot more hype than Mane and was from a stronger league.

- Austin had an 18 goal premier league season. Much more proven than Pelle.

- Puel also had Tadic so not sure why we are pretending he was just Koemans, he played 33 league games in Puels season, so a pretty stupid thing to say really.

Now we know Mane and Pelle as two of our best players of the last decade and Austin/Boufal as flops. They didn't come in that way though, Koeman and Puel had that effect, one massively improved players and the other made them markedly worse.

So you agree then Koeman had far better players than Puel. Well done. 
 

as for your point on Austin he only played 15 games in boring old Claudes incoherent negative system yet someone managed to score 6, not a million miles off his 18 in a season ratio. Yet again your stats don’t give you the full story 

[LiberalCommunist]

12 minutes ago, SaveloyMush said:

Puel was a pragmatist and did what he thought best with the mediocre squad at his disposal.

Playing for a draw (and losing, thereby ending our European campaign) at home against Be'er Sheva was unforgivable, though.

It was a dreadful game, but we didn't lose. VvD scored a last minute goal, but a score draw was not enough to see us through.

Again, a dreadful game.

[TWar]

15 minutes ago, Turkish said:

So you agree then Koeman had far better players than Puel. Well done. 
 

as for your point on Austin he only played 15 games in boring old Claudes incoherent negative system yet someone managed to score 6, not a million miles off his 18 in a season ratio. Yet again your stats don’t give you the full story 

I think he did by the end of his stay, because he improved his players and Puel made his players worse. I don't agree he did when they signed the players. Pretty easy concept to grasp...

And I expect we just played with 10 men when Austin wasn't on the pitch then? Yet we still scored barely any goals. Puel played crap, that's why he got the sack.

Edited 5 March, 2022 by TWar

[SaveloyMush]

5 minutes ago, LiberalCommunist said:

It was a dreadful game, but we didn't lose. VvD scored a last minute goal, but a score draw was not enough to see us through.

Again, a dreadful game.

Bugger, must be getting old, as I was there! (I also went to all 3 away games and was gutted that the run ended so appallingly).

[LiberalCommunist]

Yeah, me too. It felt like a defeat.

It was a dreadful performance. 

I only really remember the end because Virgils goal kept our european home unbeaten run alive. 

 

[Whitey Grandad]

20 minutes ago, Thereisonlyonemickychannon said:

Peul would behave been a legend if Manolos goals was not ruled offside

What difference would that have made to the outcome?

[Lighthouse]

Watching Puel’s teams made me not want to go to games any more, I can’t put it any more simply than that.

[saintrich]

We played plenty of good football under Puel. Away at West Ham 0-3 was excellent. We scored 4 away at Watford and Sunderland. 

There were a couple of bland home games right at the start which was no surprise given the big changes at the summer. We then switched to a more defensive style when Van Dijk got injured, which was absolutely the right thing to do when you think back to one of the first games Stephens came in for was a 5-0 loss to Arssnal in the cup. When you lose players like Fonte and Van Dijk you struggle- see Leeds without Bamford and Phillips. So Puel did a good job keeping us competitive. Some of the 0-0's towards end of season we played fine, Gabbiadini missing penalty at home to Man Utd etc.

Basically most of the negativity stems from the Europa game which he got wrong, but was no worse than Koemans Europa exit. 

[AlexLaw76]

I think his best years were behind him when he joined Saints. 

Look how he has faired after moving on from us.

[Turkish]

31 minutes ago, TWar said:

I think he did by the end of his stay, because he improved his players and Puel made his players worse. I don't agree he did when they signed the players. Pretty easy concept to grasp...

And I expect we just played with 10 men when Austin wasn't on the pitch then? Yet we still scored barely any goals. Puel played crap, that's why he got the sack.

Interesting. When you were praising Benitez being “impressed by the job he was doing” you put the poor performances and results down to being without some of his better players. 
 

But when it’s Puel he “must have been playing with 10” when his best players were missing and was crap that’s why he was sacked 

Both were sacked. One was doing an impressive job without their better players. The other was just crap that’s why he was sacked

great logic 

[TWar]

4 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

I think his best years were behind him when he joined Saints. 

Look how he has faired after moving on from us.

I'll say, his win % seemed largely drop as his career continues (with the exception of Lille). Doubt he gets another job any time soon: