The Mark Hughes Effect...

[Turkish]

Basically disagree with what you are saying.

 

First off you say look at the games as a whole, we had some good performances. Which is true. But so did MP2. Man City? Chelsea? Were we wrong about him too?

Puel's overall football was boring. His results were awful. The issue is and where I think you are wrong is that Puel was being compared to what was before him. Mopo and Koeman. Two managers who took the club to the highest level we had been. We got used to the style of football we were playing. We got used to really good attacking, free flowing football.

In comparison to what was before him, Puel was not this guy you try and picture above. He was the total opposite of what we had come to expect.

But in comparison to what came after him, MP2 and Hughes we can look back and say how well he actually did. Maybe he did better than what we thought at the time. And I think it is safe to say that would be true.

 

But lets not kid ourselves here. His football was dire overall. And we had some awful results. You highlight some of the good ones ie Sunderland but don't mention the bad ones. How about Hull, Stoke, West Brom, Burnley or even the Swansea game? There were some dreadful results in that season. Not to mention the run at the end of the season. We were closer to a relegation spot than we were the team above us.

 

The truth is if Les and co got it right with his replacement and we went back to the Koeman/MP type of football and the same kind of results nobody would be talking about Puel now or questioning how he did. The reality is Les and co ****ed up the replacement. They basically went for someone in the same mould, same style and it went wrong big time. So because of that we look now at the Puel era and think he actually did pretty good. And if you compare his results to MP it looks that way.

 

So as you mention considering what he had to deal with he did a lot better than what people give him credit for. But that is based purely on how we did after he left. If we got it right, the signings right etc these threads would not exist. The only reason they do is because the board continued to mess up and we continued to fall from where we were.

 

his results were awful? He finished 8th and got us to a cup final. If you look at the overall results in his season with us compared to Pochetinos only full season then Puel did better. Yet Pochetino is a hero and Puel is boring, awful manager. if you're looking purely at results like you state then Puel is a genius and guided us to one of our greatest seasons ever despite having to play half the season without a decent centre back and no one who could score a goal. So based on that he did a great job compared to Pochetino, he also did better than some of what went before him, if you're only going to look at results of course.

 

You say I highlighted some good results when Puel was here and don't mention the bad ones. Well there were back ones under Pochetino and Puel as well. People forget under the brilliant Pochetino we lost 1-0 at home against soon to be relegated Cardiff, at Christmas time we went on a run of only 1 in in 9 games, we got knocked out of both cups by the dreadful sunderland who we also needed a last minute equaliser against to nick a point at home in the league. Under Koeman we went on a run where we lost 6 out of 8 games, people were starting to call for his head, that same season we also suffered our biggest home defeat in decades and went out of the FA cup with a home loss to Crystal Palace. We finished 6th that season due to the terrible performances of Chelsea and Liverpool. Yet everyone looks back on that period as a an era where we were ripping the league up smashing teams left right and centre every week. The reality is that the end results are pretty comparable and there were some very good performances and some bad ones for all 3 managers, the difference being Pochetino and Koeman both had far better squads and far better players than Puel did.

[Noodles34]

Regardless of why we finished 8th or 6th because Chelsea and Liverpool were rocking etc... someone just put up the points tally for each season (I cant be arsed).

It is amazing what a league table will tell you year on year. Its not rocket science.

 

ive done it now.

 

[TABLE=class: wikitable]

[TR]

[TH=bgcolor: #EAECF0, align: center]2012–13[/TH]

[TD]Premier League[/TD]

[TD]38[/TD]

[TD]9[/TD]

[TD]14[/TD]

[TD]15[/TD]

[TD]49[/TD]

[TD]60[/TD]

[TD]41[/TD]

[TD]14th[/TD]

[TD]R3[/TD]

[TD]R4[/TD]

[TD][/TD]

[TD][/TD]

[TD]Nigel Adkins

Mauricio Pochettino[/TD]

[TD]Rickie Lambert[/TD]

[TD]15[/TD]

[TD]Rickie Lambert[/TD]

[TD]38[/TD]

[TD]30,874[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TH=bgcolor: #EAECF0, align: center]2013–14[/TH]

[TD]38[/TD]

[TD]15[/TD]

[TD]11[/TD]

[TD]12[/TD]

[TD]54[/TD]

[TD]46[/TD]

[TD]56[/TD]

[TD]8th[/TD]

[TD]R5[/TD]

[TD]R4[/TD]

[TD][/TD]

[TD][/TD]

[TD]Mauricio Pochettino[/TD]

[TD]Jay Rodriguez[/TD]

[TD]17[/TD]

[TD]Adam Lallana[/TD]

[TD]38[/TD]

[TD]30,211[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TH=bgcolor: #EAECF0, align: center]2014–15[/TH]

[TD]38[/TD]

[TD]18[/TD]

[TD]6[/TD]

[TD]14[/TD]

[TD]54[/TD]

[TD]33[/TD]

[TD]60[/TD]

[TD]7th[/TD]

[TD]R4[/TD]

[TD]QF[/TD]

[TD][/TD]

[TD][/TD]

[TD]Ronald Koeman[/TD]

[TD]Graziano Pellè[/TD]

[TD]16[/TD]

[TD]Graziano Pellè[/TD]

[TD]38[/TD]

[TD]30,652[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TH=bgcolor: #EAECF0, align: center]2015–16[/TH]

[TD]38[/TD]

[TD]18[/TD]

[TD]9[/TD]

[TD]11[/TD]

[TD]59[/TD]

[TD]41[/TD]

[TD]63[/TD]

[TD]6th[/TD]

[TD]R3[/TD]

[TD]R5[/TD]

[TD]Europa League[/TD]

[TD]Play-off round[/TD]

[TD]Sadio Mané[/TD]

[TD]15[/TD]

[TD]José Fonte[/TD]

[TD]37[/TD]

[TD]30,750[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TH=bgcolor: #EAECF0, align: center]2016–17[/TH]

[TD]38[/TD]

[TD]12[/TD]

[TD]10[/TD]

[TD]16[/TD]

[TD]41[/TD]

[TD]48[/TD]

[TD]46[/TD]

[TD]8th[/TD]

[TD]R4[/TD]

[TD]RU[/TD]

[TD]Europa League[/TD]

[TD]Group stage[/TD]

[TD]Claude Puel[/TD]

[TD]Charlie Austin[/TD]

[TD]9[/TD]

[TD]Fraser Forster[/TD]

[TD]38[/TD]

[TD]30,936[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

2017/2018

[TABLE=width: 459]

[TR=class: row--highlight, bgcolor: #D71920]

[TD=class: pos]17[/TD]

[TD=class: team, align: left]Southampton[/TD]

[TD]38[/TD]

[TD]7[/TD]

[TD]15[/TD]

[TD]16[/TD]

[TD]-19[/TD]

[TD=class: points]36[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

 

says it all about Puel and MP really, as well as how good RK and Poch were

 

simple as the more points we had, the better we were.

Edited 25 September, 2018 by Noodles34

[Saint Benali]

his results were awful? He finished 8th and got us to a cup final. If you look at the overall results in his season with us compared to Pochetinos only full season then Puel did better. Yet Pochetino is a hero and Puel is boring, awful manager. if you're looking purely at results like you state then Puel is a genius and guided us to one of our greatest seasons ever despite having to play half the season without a decent centre back and no one who could score a goal. So based on that he did a great job compared to Pochetino, he also did better than some of what went before him, if you're only going to look at results of course.

 

You say I highlighted some good results when Puel was here and don't mention the bad ones. Well there were back ones under Pochetino and Puel as well. People forget under the brilliant Pochetino we lost 1-0 at home against soon to be relegated Cardiff, at Christmas time we went on a run of only 1 in in 9 games, we got knocked out of both cups by the dreadful sunderland who we also needed a last minute equaliser against to nick a point at home in the league. Under Koeman we went on a run where we lost 6 out of 8 games, people were starting to call for his head, that same season we also suffered our biggest home defeat in decades and went out of the FA cup with a home loss to Crystal Palace. We finished 6th that season due to the terrible performances of Chelsea and Liverpool. Yet everyone looks back on that period as a an era where we were ripping the league up smashing teams left right and centre every week. The reality is that the end results are pretty comparable and there were some very good performances and some bad ones for all 3 managers, the difference being Pochetino and Koeman both had far better squads and far better players than Puel did.

 

You can't compare the two and to even try is ridiculous....

MP took over a side that had come up from the championship 5 months prior to his appointment. Puel took over a team that finished 6th, only 3 points behind Man City. A team that was playing in Europe.

He took that championship squad, signed 4 players (Forren, Wanyama, Lovren and some nutter called Osvaldo) and took that team to 8th. How many championship clubs can do that in their 2nd season?

 

Puel had a team full of internationals. We sold players but we also spent a **** load of money trying to replace them (again board **** up there). Redmond, Boufal, Hoj, McCarthy, Gabbi etc. That was what £50m-£60m? To add to players like Tadic, Forster, Bertrand, VVD, Jay, Fonte, Romeu, Soares etc etc. Who had all done well the season before.

 

It seems you wish to "change history" and forget where we actually were prior to MP taking over. We had lost 8 of our first 10 games. And 1 win in 8 prior to his appointment. We then lost only 5 games for the rest of the season. In that run winning against Man City, Liverpool and Chelsea in the league.

MP didn't take over a team doing well pushing for Europe. He took over one that had won only 5 games out of 22 games.

The following season we won 15 of our 38 games. A club record. Losing 12 of them. But against the top 6 we lost 7 of the 18 games. The rest were either wins or draws.

Puel failed to beat a single one of them in the league.

 

And his football was not boring? Again it seems you are forgetting actual history. Was it not under Puel that we went 6 home games in a row without actually scoring a goal? How many games did we actually not even have a shot on target? We had one of the worst home records in all of the leagues not just the PL.

 

MP took a team that was struggling and made them actually into a team. He brought team spirit into the squad. Even when we had a nutter in there. How many stories did we hear about Puel not being liked? We saw it countless times on the pitch with players gesturing towards him. Puel took over a team that had just had its best season in its history. We lost a couple of important players. That would hurt any team. But as mentioned we spent a vast amount of money and brought in a lot of players under Puel. MP only brought in 4 players in his entire term here.

You can't compare them at all because if MP had taken over the season Puel had I am pretty sure most people would agree he would have done a lot better with the squad he had.

[Heisenberg]

Puel can turn the strongest momentums

 

Wasn't it Puel that took over Lyon following SEVEN consecutive league titles?

 

#momentumcurve #momentumkiller

[Mystic Force]

If the problem was really Puel, the players demonstrated it the following season when they all knuckled down and showed us what they could do right? Oh we actually nearly got relegated so.....

[doddisalegend]

If the problem was really Puel, the players demonstrated it the following season when they all knuckled down and showed us what they could do right? Oh we actually nearly got relegated so.....

 

Yes we where told by the ITKs the players where unhappy with Puel...fair enough. The club gave into them gave them a "nice guy" manager and they responded by being even more ****e than the season before. We got rid of the "nice guy" got in a manager with a "no nonsense" attitude and the players responded by being errr….****e...….at some point you have to start questioning the commitment of the players.

[Greedyfly]

Yup. Both sides were flying about the place in the first half but we absolutely dominated possession and territory and prevented them having more than one touch in our box. It was a superb display of outplaying an opponent who were by no means poor but just couldn't get anywhere against us.

 

Then you both enjoy mediocre football because I, and others I've spoken to, watched a **** affair on MNF between two ****e sides.

 

Turkish noted above about being 'all over' Milan at the San Siro; that is what I would call 'being all over someone', not Redmond running into blind alleys, Moi still looking **** and Long being Long.

 

Bottom line is we have a ****e manager, a ****e squad of players and little hope of playing entertaining football this season (and maybe scraping the odd win) with those two situations as they are. The problem is that those situations are also born out of poor management from the top, all the way down.

Edited 26 September, 2018 by Greedyfly

[Dark Munster]

Basically disagree with what you are saying.

 

First off you say look at the games as a whole, we had some good performances. Which is true. But so did MP2. Man City? Chelsea? Were we wrong about him too?

Puel's overall football was boring. His results were awful. The issue is and where I think you are wrong is that Puel was being compared to what was before him. Mopo and Koeman. Two managers who took the club to the highest level we had been. We got used to the style of football we were playing. We got used to really good attacking, free flowing football.

In comparison to what was before him, Puel was not this guy you try and picture above. He was the total opposite of what we had come to expect.

But in comparison to what came after him, MP2 and Hughes we can look back and say how well he actually did. Maybe he did better than what we thought at the time. And I think it is safe to say that would be true.

 

But lets not kid ourselves here. His football was dire overall. And we had some awful results. You highlight some of the good ones ie Sunderland but don't mention the bad ones. How about Hull, Stoke, West Brom, Burnley or even the Swansea game? There were some dreadful results in that season. Not to mention the run at the end of the season. We were closer to a relegation spot than we were the team above us.

 

The truth is if Les and co got it right with his replacement and we went back to the Koeman/MP type of football and the same kind of results nobody would be talking about Puel now or questioning how he did. The reality is Les and co ****ed up the replacement. They basically went for someone in the same mould, same style and it went wrong big time. So because of that we look now at the Puel era and think he actually did pretty good. And if you compare his results to MP it looks that way.

 

So as you mention considering what he had to deal with he did a lot better than what people give him credit for. But that is based purely on how we did after he left. If we got it right, the signings right etc these threads would not exist. The only reason they do is because the board continued to mess up and we continued to fall from where we were.

Basically disagree with what you are saying.

 

Go read Turkish's excellent post again, especially the bit about having the worst pair of centre halves in the league after Van Dijk got injured and Fonte got sold and not replaced, having our two best sources of goals in Pelle and Mane sold and replaced with Austin, who spent half the season injured, and having our best defensive midfielder sold. All of which you conveniently ignore.

[Saint Benali]

Basically disagree with what you are saying.

 

Go read Turkish's excellent post again, especially the bit about having the worst pair of centre halves in the league after Van Dijk got injured and Fonte got sold and not replaced, having our two best sources of goals in Pelle and Mane sold and replaced with Austin, who spent half the season injured, and having our best defensive midfielder sold. All of which you conveniently ignore.

 

So it was all because of VVD being injured and Fonte leaving was it?

 

He was injured on the 22nd of January. And Fonte left a few days before that.

- Watford (h) - draw 1-1

- Utd (a) - loss - 2-0

- Sunderland (h) - draw - 1-1

- Arsenal (a) - loss - 2-1

- Swansea (h) - win - 1-0

- West Ham (a) - win 0-3

- Leicester (a) - draw 0-0

- Burnley (h) - win - 3-1

- City (a) - draw - 1-1

- Chelsea (h) - Loss - 0-2

- Hull (a) - loss - 2-1

- Liverpool (h) - draw - 0-0

- Everton (h) - win 1-0

- Palace (a) - loss 3-0

- Boro (h) - win 1-0

- Stoke (a) - draw - 0-0

- Bompey (a) win - 1-3

- Spurs (h) loss - 1-4

- West Brom (h) - loss - 1-2

- Everton (a) - loss - 3-0

- Burnley (a) - loss -1-0

 

Total before injured/sold = 21 games - 6 wins - 9 losses - 6 draws - 19 goals scored - 26 goals against.

= 28% win ratio. 42% loss ratio. Avg 1.1ppg - 1.2 goals against per game - 0.9 goals for per game.

 

After injured or sold

- Leicester (h) - win - 3-0

- Swansea (a) - loss - 2-1

- WH (h) - loss - 1-2

- Sunderland (a) - win 0-4

- Watford (a) - win - 3-4

- Spurs (a) - loss - 2-1

- Bompey (h) - draw - 0-0

- Palace (h) - win 3-1

- West Brom (a) - win - 0-1

- City (h) - loss - 0-3

- Chelsea (a) - loss - 4-2

- Hull (h) - draw 0-0

- Liverpool(a) - draw - 0-0

- Arsenal(h) - loss 0-2

- Boro (a) - win - 1-2

- Utd(h) - draw - 0-0

- Stoke(h) - loss - 0-1

 

17 games - 6 wins - 7 losses - 4 draws - 21 goals for - 19 goals against

= 35% win ratio - 41% loss ratio - 1.2gpg - 0.9 goals against per game.

 

Point being we had a better goals against record in the games VVD and Fonte were not playing. Which kills your opinion our defence got worse when VVD and Fonte didn't play.

[saintadjg]

Nice rewriting of history, as there has been a lot with Puel era. Mongboard myth becomes fact doesn't it. As for you any you obviously don't know what you're on about as we didn't lose to Be'er Sheeva, you cant even get the name of the team right!

 

If people actually bothered to look at the games rather than jumping on the Puel was boring bandwagon, they'll see it was far from what the make out. If we had a striker who could stick the ball in the net we'd have handed Milan their arses in the San Siro, we absolutely battered them for an hour, missing about 5 or 6 great chances that we really should have scored. Was the league cup final like having your toenails pulled out with a rusty pair of pliers? or the wins home and away against Liverpool, away at Arsenal, home to Milan, Prague, away at Sunderland, Watford, West Ham. There were a lot of games where we did play some very good stuff, in fact the fact of the matter the time the football arguably was dull was when he had to play the worst pair of centre halves in the league after Van Dijk got injured and Fonte got sold and not replaced (blame the board for that one). Yes there were some dull games, but there were some dull games under Koeman too. On a like for like basis didn't Koeman set up with a very defensive, long ball style away at Midtjylland? The only difference being we did actually lose that one. People make out week in week out we were playing brilliant attacking football under Koeman scoring a hatful of goals every week, they forget how truly terrible we were away at Norwich, Palace, Bournemouth etc and at home to Stoke, Everton, Sunderland (2nd season he was here, clearly) and so on. At one point after a dreadful run of form around christmas some fans wanted him out.

 

Puel got the results he did after having our two best sources of goals in Pelle and Mane sold and replaced with Austin who spent half the season injured and Redmond and Boufal, neither of which delivered. Our best defensive midfielder was sold and replaced with Hojberg who still even now isn't a nailed on starter. Then to cap it all our best defender missed half the season with injury, our other one was sold and not replaced and our leading goalscorer missed 4 months of it. Puel was by no means perfect but there is a hell of a lot of rewriting of history when it comes to his time here. To be blunt fans didn't like him from day one because he wasn't Koeman and because they wanted a bigger name (that's another argument) and that's what it came down too. They moaned about his interviews, they moaned about his tactics and formation and now people talk a lot of sh*te about how boring we were to watch when if people actually took the performances over the season and the circumstances he had to deal with rather than they'd realise he actually did a very good job.

 

Best post I've seen on here.

Didn't we miss 6 penalties that season? How many good chances did we miss over the season ,especially in first 10 or so games?

I never liked our style of play under Koeman, I thought we played a lot of long ball football under him and could never understand why we mocked West Ham for doing the same.

[doddisalegend]

Nice rewriting of history, as there has been a lot with Puel era. Mongboard myth becomes fact doesn't it. As for you any you obviously don't know what you're on about as we didn't lose to Be'er Sheeva, you cant even get the name of the team right!

 

If people actually bothered to look at the games rather than jumping on the Puel was boring bandwagon, they'll see it was far from what the make out. If we had a striker who could stick the ball in the net we'd have handed Milan their arses in the San Siro, we absolutely battered them for an hour, missing about 5 or 6 great chances that we really should have scored. Was the league cup final like having your toenails pulled out with a rusty pair of pliers? or the wins home and away against Liverpool, away at Arsenal, home to Milan, Prague, away at Sunderland, Watford, West Ham. There were a lot of games where we did play some very good stuff, in fact the fact of the matter the time the football arguably was dull was when he had to play the worst pair of centre halves in the league after Van Dijk got injured and Fonte got sold and not replaced (blame the board for that one). Yes there were some dull games, but there were some dull games under Koeman too. On a like for like basis didn't Koeman set up with a very defensive, long ball style away at Midtjylland? The only difference being we did actually lose that one. People make out week in week out we were playing brilliant attacking football under Koeman scoring a hatful of goals every week, they forget how truly terrible we were away at Norwich, Palace, Bournemouth etc and at home to Stoke, Everton, Sunderland (2nd season he was here, clearly) and so on. At one point after a dreadful run of form around christmas some fans wanted him out.

 

Puel got the results he did after having our two best sources of goals in Pelle and Mane sold and replaced with Austin who spent half the season injured and Redmond and Boufal, neither of which delivered. Our best defensive midfielder was sold and replaced with Hojberg who still even now isn't a nailed on starter. Then to cap it all our best defender missed half the season with injury, our other one was sold and not replaced and our leading goalscorer missed 4 months of it. Puel was by no means perfect but there is a hell of a lot of rewriting of history when it comes to his time here. To be blunt fans didn't like him from day one because he wasn't Koeman and because they wanted a bigger name (that's another argument) and that's what it came down too. They moaned about his interviews, they moaned about his tactics and formation and now people talk a lot of sh*te about how boring we were to watch when if people actually took the performances over the season and the circumstances he had to deal with rather than they'd realise he actually did a very good job.

 

Generally agree with the post but a bit Harsh on Redmond I feel. He wasn't close to Mane but he got 8 goals (7 in the league) that season which is not bad for a player who wasn't the main striker.

[warsash saint]

You gotta love this board this time The love in for Puel whilst claiming that Koeman & Pottochino were inept!

[Mosin]

Generally agree with the post but a bit Harsh on Redmond I feel. He wasn't close to Mane but he got 8 goals (7 in the league) that season which is not bad for a player who wasn't the main striker.

 

I thought we played with 3 forwards that season? swear we played most games with 433 with Redmond / Tadic / boufal playing as inside forwards.

[Lighthouse]

For all the stats and facts over win percentages, players sold etc. The fact is that I was just never entertained under Puel. Watching those games just wasn’t fun. I get that he was limited by the players he had available but he did have enough to try and compete with the likes of Hull, Be’er Sheva, Stoke and Bournemouth. Instead we just sat back and played for a dreadful 0-0 in all of those games, plus a fair few other.

 

We had 3 good results at St Mary’s, all against very poor opposition. We put 3 past Leicester, Bournemouth and Palace. In the other 16 home games we scored 3 goals from open play. That’s just an appalling stat.

[Mosin]

So it was all because of VVD being injured and Fonte leaving was it?

 

He was injured on the 22nd of January. And Fonte left a few days before that.

- Watford (h) - draw 1-1

- Utd (a) - loss - 2-0

- Sunderland (h) - draw - 1-1

- Arsenal (a) - loss - 2-1

- Swansea (h) - win - 1-0

- West Ham (a) - win 0-3

- Leicester (a) - draw 0-0

- Burnley (h) - win - 3-1

- City (a) - draw - 1-1

- Chelsea (h) - Loss - 0-2

- Hull (a) - loss - 2-1

- Liverpool (h) - draw - 0-0

- Everton (h) - win 1-0

- Palace (a) - loss 3-0

- Boro (h) - win 1-0

- Stoke (a) - draw - 0-0

- Bompey (a) win - 1-3

- Spurs (h) loss - 1-4

- West Brom (h) - loss - 1-2

- Everton (a) - loss - 3-0

- Burnley (a) - loss -1-0

 

Total before injured/sold = 21 games - 6 wins - 9 losses - 6 draws - 19 goals scored - 26 goals against.

= 28% win ratio. 42% loss ratio. Avg 1.1ppg - 1.2 goals against per game - 0.9 goals for per game.

 

After injured or sold

- Leicester (h) - win - 3-0

- Swansea (a) - loss - 2-1

- WH (h) - loss - 1-2

- Sunderland (a) - win 0-4

- Watford (a) - win - 3-4

- Spurs (a) - loss - 2-1

- Bompey (h) - draw - 0-0

- Palace (h) - win 3-1

- West Brom (a) - win - 0-1

- City (h) - loss - 0-3

- Chelsea (a) - loss - 4-2

- Hull (h) - draw 0-0

- Liverpool(a) - draw - 0-0

- Arsenal(h) - loss 0-2

- Boro (a) - win - 1-2

- Utd(h) - draw - 0-0

- Stoke(h) - loss - 0-1

 

17 games - 6 wins - 7 losses - 4 draws - 21 goals for - 19 goals against

= 35% win ratio - 41% loss ratio - 1.2gpg - 0.9 goals against per game.

 

Point being we had a better goals against record in the games VVD and Fonte were not playing. Which kills your opinion our defence got worse when VVD and Fonte didn't play.

 

I thought Fonte and VVD was rebellious during that season as both wanted to move? Fonte to United and VVD to Liverpool? so I dont think they never played any where near their best. infact in most games vvd looked more like are worst defender than one of the best in the world

[mrfahaji]

Even though Turkish and Saint Benali (amongst others) write conflicting things, I find myself agreeing with parts of both. Puel set us up to be difficult to beat, perhaps because he felt our players weren't good enough to play an open game. But for the most part, we were difficult to break down. The fact that there were games where we played well, admittedly mostly away from home, made me think that there was hope for improvement and that perhaps Puel was trying to get us to be better as a counter attacking force, albeit unsuccessfully.

 

Contrast that with Pellegrino who set us up to be hard to beat but ultimately failed even in that.

 

The reason I still want to wait before deciding on Hughes is that there are some positives in terms of our attacking play. His defensive coaching was questionable before he arrived and there hasn't been much evidence to suggest otherwise since he has been here, but at least it feels like we might try and score from time to time. Next 4 games against Wolves, Chelsea, Bournemouth & Newcastle should give a good picture.

 

The continued omission of Yoshida is one decision I am bemused about - I don't hate Hoedt like many do, but I just think Yoshida would make a better foil for Vestergaard.

[OldNick]

For all the stats and facts over win percentages, players sold etc. The fact is that I was just never entertained under Puel. Watching those games just wasn’t fun. I get that he was limited by the players he had available but he did have enough to try and compete with the likes of Hull, Be’er Sheva, Stoke and Bournemouth. Instead we just sat back and played for a dreadful 0-0 in all of those games, plus a fair few other.

 

We had 3 good results at St Mary’s, all against very poor opposition. We put 3 past Leicester, Bournemouth and Palace. In the other 16 home games we scored 3 goals from open play. That’s just an appalling stat.

well we are oh so better off now

[stevegrant]

So it was all because of VVD being injured and Fonte leaving was it?

 

He was injured on the 22nd of January. And Fonte left a few days before that.

- Watford (h) - draw 1-1

- Utd (a) - loss - 2-0

- Sunderland (h) - draw - 1-1

- Arsenal (a) - loss - 2-1

- Swansea (h) - win - 1-0

- West Ham (a) - win 0-3

- Leicester (a) - draw 0-0

- Burnley (h) - win - 3-1

- City (a) - draw - 1-1

- Chelsea (h) - Loss - 0-2

- Hull (a) - loss - 2-1

- Liverpool (h) - draw - 0-0

- Everton (h) - win 1-0

- Palace (a) - loss 3-0

- Boro (h) - win 1-0

- Stoke (a) - draw - 0-0

- Bompey (a) win - 1-3

- Spurs (h) loss - 1-4

- West Brom (h) - loss - 1-2

- Everton (a) - loss - 3-0

- Burnley (a) - loss -1-0

 

Total before injured/sold = 21 games - 6 wins - 9 losses - 6 draws - 19 goals scored - 26 goals against.

= 28% win ratio. 42% loss ratio. Avg 1.1ppg - 1.2 goals against per game - 0.9 goals for per game.

 

After injured or sold

- Leicester (h) - win - 3-0

- Swansea (a) - loss - 2-1

- WH (h) - loss - 1-2

- Sunderland (a) - win 0-4

- Watford (a) - win - 3-4

- Spurs (a) - loss - 2-1

- Bompey (h) - draw - 0-0

- Palace (h) - win 3-1

- West Brom (a) - win - 0-1

- City (h) - loss - 0-3

- Chelsea (a) - loss - 4-2

- Hull (h) - draw 0-0

- Liverpool(a) - draw - 0-0

- Arsenal(h) - loss 0-2

- Boro (a) - win - 1-2

- Utd(h) - draw - 0-0

- Stoke(h) - loss - 0-1

 

17 games - 6 wins - 7 losses - 4 draws - 21 goals for - 19 goals against

= 35% win ratio - 41% loss ratio - 1.2gpg - 0.9 goals against per game.

 

Point being we had a better goals against record in the games VVD and Fonte were not playing. Which kills your opinion our defence got worse when VVD and Fonte didn't play.

Are we not counting games that take place in cup competitions because in one of them we got to the final and that would therefore paint a rather different picture?

[mrfahaji]

Are we not counting games that take place in cup competitions because in one of them we got to the final and that would therefore paint a rather different picture?

 

Normally you find that they include the Arsenal 5-0 defeat but don't include any others.

[Pamplemousse]

Puel can turn the strongest momentums

 

Wasn't it Puel that took over Lyon following SEVEN consecutive league titles?

 

#momentumcurve #momentumkiller

 

Took them to a Champions League semi-final, even PSG with their mega billions can't achieve that, an amazing feat for a French football team.

[Turkish]

You can't compare the two and to even try is ridiculous....

MP took over a side that had come up from the championship 5 months prior to his appointment. Puel took over a team that finished 6th, only 3 points behind Man City. A team that was playing in Europe.

He took that championship squad, signed 4 players (Forren, Wanyama, Lovren and some nutter called Osvaldo) and took that team to 8th. How many championship clubs can do that in their 2nd season?

 

Puel had a team full of internationals. We sold players but we also spent a **** load of money trying to replace them (again board **** up there). Redmond, Boufal, Hoj, McCarthy, Gabbi etc. That was what £50m-£60m? To add to players like Tadic, Forster, Bertrand, VVD, Jay, Fonte, Romeu, Soares etc etc. Who had all done well the season before.

 

It seems you wish to "change history" and forget where we actually were prior to MP taking over. We had lost 8 of our first 10 games. And 1 win in 8 prior to his appointment. We then lost only 5 games for the rest of the season. In that run winning against Man City, Liverpool and Chelsea in the league.

MP didn't take over a team doing well pushing for Europe. He took over one that had won only 5 games out of 22 games.

The following season we won 15 of our 38 games. A club record. Losing 12 of them. But against the top 6 we lost 7 of the 18 games. The rest were either wins or draws.

Puel failed to beat a single one of them in the league.

 

And his football was not boring? Again it seems you are forgetting actual history. Was it not under Puel that we went 6 home games in a row without actually scoring a goal? How many games did we actually not even have a shot on target? We had one of the worst home records in all of the leagues not just the PL.

 

MP took a team that was struggling and made them actually into a team. He brought team spirit into the squad. Even when we had a nutter in there. How many stories did we hear about Puel not being liked? We saw it countless times on the pitch with players gesturing towards him. Puel took over a team that had just had its best season in its history. We lost a couple of important players. That would hurt any team. But as mentioned we spent a vast amount of money and brought in a lot of players under Puel. MP only brought in 4 players in his entire term here.

You can't compare them at all because if MP had taken over the season Puel had I am pretty sure most people would agree he would have done a lot better with the squad he had.

 

Puel didn't take over a team that had finished 6th, he took over a club that had finished 6th. That team had been stripped of his two leading goalscorers, it's best defensive midfielder and had Fonte causing issues behind the scenes. Then in January he left and Van Dijk got injured. The team that finished 6th had been stripped of arguably five its best players by the mid point of the season.

 

The team MP took over had only lost 2 in 9 games, we were fifteenth when he took over, we finished, errr 14th. The following season he added Wanyama and Lovren to the team, Rodriguez, Lambert, Lallana, Shaw and Clyne all had a years experience in the premier league and got international recognition that season. He had a midfield of Schniderlin and Wanyama, at the time one of the best central midfield pairs in the league. I'm not suggest Pochetino was a bad manager, hes a very good one and did good job here, but I would argue that the team Pochetino had was much better than the one Puel had in his season here. It's blindingly obvious to anyone that the team Koeman had was also far surperior player for player.

 

You say we spent a lot of money, but that's not down to Puel, it was the board and can you name a single signing that was better than the player they replaced? Mane and Pelle scored 29 goals between them in Koemans last season, Austin, Redmond and Boufal scored 19. Even adding Gabbiadini into the mix in January his 6 goals still left us 4 short of Mane and Pelles total. The fact that under 3 seperate managers Austin cant stay fit, Redmond has never really delivered and Boufal is out on loan says it wasn't Puels bad management that is the problem with those signings.

 

So perhaps the players didn't like him, but those same players who got him sacked then carried on being d*cks for Pellegrino, who whilst being a terrible manager showed that it was Puels personality that was the issue. As I said above Puel was by no means perfect but facts are facts. He got a bad hand and despite some bad results his one season here was one of the best we've ever had in terms of final league position and performances in the cup competitions.

[Dark Munster]

So it was all because of VVD being injured and Fonte leaving was it?

 

He was injured on the 22nd of January. And Fonte left a few days before that.

- Watford (h) - draw 1-1

- Utd (a) - loss - 2-0

- Sunderland (h) - draw - 1-1

- Arsenal (a) - loss - 2-1

- Swansea (h) - win - 1-0

- West Ham (a) - win 0-3

- Leicester (a) - draw 0-0

- Burnley (h) - win - 3-1

- City (a) - draw - 1-1

- Chelsea (h) - Loss - 0-2

- Hull (a) - loss - 2-1

- Liverpool (h) - draw - 0-0

- Everton (h) - win 1-0

- Palace (a) - loss 3-0

- Boro (h) - win 1-0

- Stoke (a) - draw - 0-0

- Bompey (a) win - 1-3

- Spurs (h) loss - 1-4

- West Brom (h) - loss - 1-2

- Everton (a) - loss - 3-0

- Burnley (a) - loss -1-0

 

Total before injured/sold = 21 games - 6 wins - 9 losses - 6 draws - 19 goals scored - 26 goals against.

= 28% win ratio. 42% loss ratio. Avg 1.1ppg - 1.2 goals against per game - 0.9 goals for per game.

 

After injured or sold

- Leicester (h) - win - 3-0

- Swansea (a) - loss - 2-1

- WH (h) - loss - 1-2

- Sunderland (a) - win 0-4

- Watford (a) - win - 3-4

- Spurs (a) - loss - 2-1

- Bompey (h) - draw - 0-0

- Palace (h) - win 3-1

- West Brom (a) - win - 0-1

- City (h) - loss - 0-3

- Chelsea (a) - loss - 4-2

- Hull (h) - draw 0-0

- Liverpool(a) - draw - 0-0

- Arsenal(h) - loss 0-2

- Boro (a) - win - 1-2

- Utd(h) - draw - 0-0

- Stoke(h) - loss - 0-1

 

17 games - 6 wins - 7 losses - 4 draws - 21 goals for - 19 goals against

= 35% win ratio - 41% loss ratio - 1.2gpg - 0.9 goals against per game.

 

Point being we had a better goals against record in the games VVD and Fonte were not playing. Which kills your opinion our defence got worse when VVD and Fonte didn't play.

No, it's testament how well Puel did with those 2 gone. When we lost VVD and Fonte he sensibly set us up to play more cautiously, which he got pilloried for by some clueless fans (and sacked by the clueless board).

[Lighthouse]

well we are oh so better off now

 

We’re 14th. Under Puel we finished 2 points above 13th, there’s really not much in it.

 

Besides, saying we’re no better off now isn’t justification for keeping Puel. It’s like saying Millbrook is a sh*thole, so you’re off to live in Mogadishu. Getting shot over there doesn’t mean you were wrong to move out of Millbrook.

[whelk]

Pellegrino’s Leganes beating Barca. Got rid too early. Gym paying off

[CB Fry]

Puel didn't take over a team that had finished 6th, he took over a club that had finished 6th. That team had been stripped of his two leading goalscorers, it's best defensive midfielder and had Fonte causing issues behind the scenes. Then in January he left and Van Dijk got injured. The team that finished 6th had been stripped of arguably five its best players by the mid point of the season.

 

The team MP took over had only lost 2 in 9 games, we were fifteenth when he took over, we finished, errr 14th. The following season he added Wanyama and Lovren to the team, Rodriguez, Lambert, Lallana, Shaw and Clyne all had a years experience in the premier league and got international recognition that season. He had a midfield of Schniderlin and Wanyama, at the time one of the best central midfield pairs in the league. I'm not suggest Pochetino was a bad manager, hes a very good one and did good job here, but I would argue that the team Pochetino had was much better than the one Puel had in his season here. It's blindingly obvious to anyone that the team Koeman had was also far surperior player for player.

 

You say we spent a lot of money, but that's not down to Puel, it was the board and can you name a single signing that was better than the player they replaced? Mane and Pelle scored 29 goals between them in Koemans last season, Austin, Redmond and Boufal scored 19. Even adding Gabbiadini into the mix in January his 6 goals still left us 4 short of Mane and Pelles total. The fact that under 3 seperate managers Austin cant stay fit, Redmond has never really delivered and Boufal is out on loan says it wasn't Puels bad management that is the problem with those signings.

 

So perhaps the players didn't like him, but those same players who got him sacked then carried on being d*cks for Pellegrino, who whilst being a terrible manager showed that it was Puels personality that was the issue. As I said above Puel was by no means perfect but facts are facts. He got a bad hand and despite some bad results his one season here was one of the best we've ever had in terms of final league position and performances in the cup competitions.

Champions League or nothing mate, that's what I say.

[saint1977]

For all the stats and facts over win percentages, players sold etc. The fact is that I was just never entertained under Puel. Watching those games just wasn’t fun. I get that he was limited by the players he had available but he did have enough to try and compete with the likes of Hull, Be’er Sheva, Stoke and Bournemouth. Instead we just sat back and played for a dreadful 0-0 in all of those games, plus a fair few other.

 

We had 3 good results at St Mary’s, all against very poor opposition. We put 3 past Leicester, Bournemouth and Palace. In the other 16 home games we scored 3 goals from open play. That’s just an appalling stat.

 

This should be wheeled out every time of the Puel bores - an appropriate turn of phrase given the utter turd we had to endure - stats up. Has as much chance of being world class as Andy Awful.

 

The club were right to sack him but wrong to replace him with someone horrifically incapable as opposed to dull as dishwater.

 

The common factor is the old bloke who appointed them, sacked them and has left Hughes a hospital pass. Woefully underperforming goalkeeper? Give him a contract extension and a big pay rise.

[Pamplemousse]

No, it's testament how well Puel did with those 2 gone. When we lost VVD and Fonte he sensibly set us up to play more cautiously, which he got pilloried for by some clueless fans (and sacked by the clueless board).

 

Indeed. If he had the squad and team that Koeman had at his disposal, we could've made the Champions League. We might even have pipped Leicester to top spot.

[mrfahaji]

Indeed. If he had the squad and team that Koeman had at his disposal, we could've made the Champions League. We might even have pipped Leicester to top spot.

 

Wow, nothing wrong with being a fan of Claude but this is really something. To the extent that I'd assume you were trolling if it weren't for your pro-Puel history!

[kwsaint]

For all the stats and facts over win percentages, players sold etc. The fact is that I was just never entertained under Puel. Watching those games just wasn’t fun. I get that he was limited by the players he had available but he did have enough to try and compete with the likes of Hull, Be’er Sheva, Stoke and Bournemouth. Instead we just sat back and played for a dreadful 0-0 in all of those games, plus a fair few other.

 

We had 3 good results at St Mary’s, all against very poor opposition. We put 3 past Leicester, Bournemouth and Palace. In the other 16 home games we scored 3 goals from open play. That’s just an appalling stat.

 

This

 

No goals scored in 6 of the last 7 home games under Puel. My guess is that the Puel supporters weren't at many of these games. I was and it wasn't fun. The most entertaining moment was Harry Arter's penalty miss for Bournemouth when he nearly hit the roof of the Northam. The problem wasn't sacking Puel but replacing him with Pellegrino - who turned out to be even worse.

 

To get back to topic. My view is that the jury is still out on Mark Hughes. We are certainly better going forward, but worse at the back. If we get to the end of the season with a consistent way of playing and a lower mid-table finish then it would be progress.

[Turkish]

Champions League or nothing mate, that's what I say.

 

I used to love the days when we would read that on here, how the league cup and the FA Cup were beneath us with our one trophy in 133 years.

[Neef]

Wholeheartedly agree with the defence of Puel. He inherited a very difficult situation. We'd sold our two highest goalscorers without adequate replacement, and then sold Wanyama also. And then factor in European football, it was obvious we were going to struggle to reach the heights of previous years. We'd essentially weakened our team and added more games into the mix, it was a difficult task. Then at the turn of the year we lose both Fonte and VVD. Almost the entire spine of that successful team had been gutted in 6 months. That shouldn't be overlooked when reflecting on his time at the club. I think he should have got another year, but unfortunately the board for the first time succumbed to pressure from the fans. We haven't had a better manager since.

[OldNick]

We’re 14th. Under Puel we finished 2 points above 13th, there’s really not much in it.

 

Besides, saying we’re no better off now isn’t justification for keeping Puel. It’s like saying Millbrook is a sh*thole, so you’re off to live in Mogadishu. Getting shot over there doesn’t mean you were wrong to move out of Millbrook.

yep difference is that he took over a dump that even a addict couldn't score, but there was likely to be a injection of investment and so Millbrook was likely to go upmarket and Mogadishu was going to stay the same.

Very mush like Brexiteers the Puel outers cannot bring themselves to accept they were wrong. We didnt give him a chance to improve the team. Luckily LM was given time as now he would have been sacked well before he took us to glory.

[OldNick]

This

 

No goals scored in 6 of the last 7 home games under Puel. My guess is that the Puel supporters weren't at many of these games. I was and it wasn't fun. The most entertaining moment was Harry Arter's penalty miss for Bournemouth when he nearly hit the roof of the Northam. The problem wasn't sacking Puel but replacing him with Pellegrino - who turned out to be even worse.

 

To get back to topic. My view is that the jury is still out on Mark Hughes. We are certainly better going forward, but worse at the back. If we get to the end of the season with a consistent way of playing and a lower mid-table finish then it would be progress.

It was a case that we had a bunc of players who were unable to score. I bet the chance created stats are higher than they are now, but we all got frustrated that we couldn't score and so the pot boiled.

[OldNick]

Nice rewriting of history, as there has been a lot with Puel era. Mongboard myth becomes fact doesn't it. As for you any you obviously don't know what you're on about as we didn't lose to Be'er Sheeva, you cant even get the name of the team right!

 

If people actually bothered to look at the games rather than jumping on the Puel was boring bandwagon, they'll see it was far from what the make out. If we had a striker who could stick the ball in the net we'd have handed Milan their arses in the San Siro, we absolutely battered them for an hour, missing about 5 or 6 great chances that we really should have scored. Was the league cup final like having your toenails pulled out with a rusty pair of pliers? or the wins home and away against Liverpool, away at Arsenal, home to Milan, Prague, away at Sunderland, Watford, West Ham. There were a lot of games where we did play some very good stuff, in fact the fact of the matter the time the football arguably was dull was when he had to play the worst pair of centre halves in the league after Van Dijk got injured and Fonte got sold and not replaced (blame the board for that one). Yes there were some dull games, but there were some dull games under Koeman too. On a like for like basis didn't Koeman set up with a very defensive, long ball style away at Midtjylland? The only difference being we did actually lose that one. People make out week in week out we were playing brilliant attacking football under Koeman scoring a hatful of goals every week, they forget how truly terrible we were away at Norwich, Palace, Bournemouth etc and at home to Stoke, Everton, Sunderland (2nd season he was here, clearly) and so on. At one point after a dreadful run of form around christmas some fans wanted him out.

 

Puel got the results he did after having our two best sources of goals in Pelle and Mane sold and replaced with Austin who spent half the season injured and Redmond and Boufal, neither of which delivered. Our best defensive midfielder was sold and replaced with Hojberg who still even now isn't a nailed on starter. Then to cap it all our best defender missed half the season with injury, our other one was sold and not replaced and our leading goalscorer missed 4 months of it. Puel was by no means perfect but there is a hell of a lot of rewriting of history when it comes to his time here. To be blunt fans didn't like him from day one because he wasn't Koeman and because they wanted a bigger name (that's another argument) and that's what it came down too. They moaned about his interviews, they moaned about his tactics and formation and now people talk a lot of sh*te about how boring we were to watch when if people actually took the performances over the season and the circumstances he had to deal with rather than they'd realise he actually did a very good job.

Very good post Turkish

[Nordic Saint]

Wholeheartedly agree with the defence of Puel. He inherited a very difficult situation. We'd sold our two highest goalscorers without adequate replacement, and then sold Wanyama also. And then factor in European football, it was obvious we were going to struggle to reach the heights of previous years. We'd essentially weakened our team and added more games into the mix, it was a difficult task. Then at the turn of the year we lose both Fonte and VVD. Almost the entire spine of that successful team had been gutted in 6 months. That shouldn't be overlooked when reflecting on his time at the club. I think he should have got another year, but unfortunately the board for the first time succumbed to pressure from the fans. We haven't had a better manager since.

 

But could he manage a small club like Leganés to beat Barcelona like the great Pellegrino? Seriously though, Puel wasn't sacked because of any pressure from fans. Although there was a lot of criticism online during the season, there were no protests at games and by May most fans thought he'd done enough to deserve to start the next season still as our manager. The decision to sack him would have been made by the board in consultation with the owner. So, it was Les and Kat who wanted to get rid of him, and neither of them has ever done anything because of what fans posted online. Personally, I think he deserved longer than he got here. He was an average manager but most of us knew that it was unlikely our board would replace him with anyone better.

[SonicBoom]

I think there is another intangible that needs to be discussed.

It's the simple fact that Puel gets on your tits. There I said it.

 

There was a growing disconnect between manager , team and fans. Most managers would explain a tactic or a style of performance. Puel mumbled through interviews and I couldn't understand what he was saying. I understood the words but that monotone drone switched me off and he rarely said anything interesting.

I know people will shriek that he doesn't have to be interesting in interviews but do you think he was any different talking to the players? And of course image matters. The best leaders are charismatic, people are drawn to them, will follow them and will fight for them. Persona is key. Look at Klopp, Guardiola etc. They understand the value of their image.

 

IF Puel had to play a certain way he certainly never said so, which is what all smart managers do - even if they do it subtly, they make their feelings known.

Now he's at Leicester and they don't like him either. So it's not just Saints fans. The real mistake was Pellegrino because the club manager to find one of very few managers that made Puel look interesting.

Things come in threes so we did well with Adkins, Pochettino and Koeman.

Then we had Puel, Pellegrino and Hughes.

Let's just say I'm looking forward to the next 3.

[Lord Duckhunter]

For all the love on here, did Poch & Koeman get the absolute best out of the squads they were given, because Puel certainly did. Looking back on those 2, it was a missed opportunity imo. We could beat anyone on our day yet went meekly out of the Cups to Sunderland & Sheffield Utd.

 

Stupid as it sounds, but was Koemans squad any worse than Leicester’s. The centre halves were far far superior, and Allbrighton is not a patch on Mane. The 3 top top players, playing on top form Vardy, Mahrez, & Konte probably tip the balance so the league was pretty much out of reach , but **** me Hull, Sunderland , Aston Villa & Palace reached cup finals around that time.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Roo1976]

Yes we where told by the ITKs the players where unhappy with Puel...fair enough. The club gave into them gave them a "nice guy" manager and they responded by being even more ****e than the season before. We got rid of the "nice guy" got in a manager with a "no nonsense" attitude and the players responded by being errr….****e...….at some point you have to start questioning the commitment of the players.

 

Quality argument ............its the quality of the players that remain at this club ..............and there are here because no other club at this moment in time wants to buy them......

[Lallana's Left Peg]

Quality argument ............its the quality of the players that remain at this club ..............and there are here because no other club at this moment in time wants to buy them......

 

Well that's sort of the same at most clubs isn't it. It's entirely normal for clubs to have 50/50 records in the transfer market, our purple patch wasn't luck but nor was it a viable model for sustainable success.

 

The quality of the squad has got worse the last three seasons, no doubt, but when you luck at the depth and the quality of player we have its far better than at least half the teams in this division so then it comes down to coaching and management.

[Dark Munster]

Wholeheartedly agree with the defence of Puel. He inherited a very difficult situation. We'd sold our two highest goalscorers without adequate replacement, and then sold Wanyama also. And then factor in European football, it was obvious we were going to struggle to reach the heights of previous years. We'd essentially weakened our team and added more games into the mix, it was a difficult task. Then at the turn of the year we lose both Fonte and VVD. Almost the entire spine of that successful team had been gutted in 6 months. That shouldn't be overlooked when reflecting on his time at the club. I think he should have got another year, but unfortunately the board for the first time succumbed to pressure from the fans. We haven't had a better manager since.

Agree with all of that Neef, except it wasn't the fans that pushed Puel out, by all accounts it was certain prima donna players.

[Nordic Saint]

Agree with all of that Neef, except it wasn't the fans that pushed Puel out, by all accounts it was certain prima donna players.

 

You mean Old Les and Kat took orders from certain players? I very much doubt it. The board, led by Les and Ralph. in consultation with Kat, decided to sack Puel. Those who still credit Les and Kat with everything good that ever happened at the club, but nothing bad, will of course try to deflect the blame onto everyone else, including the players and fans.

[Jonnyboy]

I think there is another intangible that needs to be discussed.

It's the simple fact that Puel gets on your tits. There I said it.

 

There was a growing disconnect between manager , team and fans. Most managers would explain a tactic or a style of performance. Puel mumbled through interviews and I couldn't understand what he was saying. I understood the words but that monotone drone switched me off and he rarely said anything interesting.

I know people will shriek that he doesn't have to be interesting in interviews but do you think he was any different talking to the players? And of course image matters. The best leaders are charismatic, people are drawn to them, will follow them and will fight for them. Persona is key. Look at Klopp, Guardiola etc. They understand the value of their image.

 

IF Puel had to play a certain way he certainly never said so, which is what all smart managers do - even if they do it subtly, they make their feelings known.

Now he's at Leicester and they don't like him either. So it's not just Saints fans. The real mistake was Pellegrino because the club manager to find one of very few managers that made Puel look interesting.

Things come in threes so we did well with Adkins, Pochettino and Koeman.

Then we had Puel, Pellegrino and Hughes.

Let's just say I'm looking forward to the next 3.

 

And then you voted for Brexit.

[kelkel31]

There are some people writing some very opinionated long posts for this one lately, i cant be bothered so i simply put this

 

I LITERALLY FELL A SLEEP WATCHING PUELS TEAM AT HOME

[Dusic]

I agrewd that Puel had to go, as much because he had lost the fans as anything on the pitch.

 

The atmosphere was terrible towards the end of the season. I missed one game on my ST (Palace) and think the last home goal I saw was the game VVD got injured in which was 21st January. Any Manager will find that hard to overcome.

 

However, unlike Pellegrino and Hughes, he did have a clear style and was able to get the team playing a particular way quite quickly, which is usually the sign of a good Manager.

 

Puel was certainly hamstrung with injuries and shambolic recruitment (or lack of) but in the end he had to go because of the feeling in the stadium.

 

Problem wasn't removing him, it was the replacement.

[OldNick]

There are some people writing some very opinionated long posts for this one lately, i cant be bothered so i simply put this

 

I LITERALLY FELL A SLEEP WATCHING PUELS TEAM AT HOME

well that might have been the case, but that is why we are going backwards, as it seems we have a lot of here and now fans all of a sudden.

We were a whisker away from having our second decent trophy, and we tore Liverpool a new one (again our poor goalscoring stopped the first leg being a cricket score)

Les & co sold our goals and failed to replace them.Sadly we will never know what Puel could have done for us had he been given another year.

[saint1977]

This thread has dengenerated into a Puel thread, which I kind of get, but actually you were either pro or anti, and in the end it didn't matter from a fans perspective because it seems Claude's relationship with some key players and senior boardroom figures (rumoured to include Les) did for him.

 

This is about Hughes, but what all the Puel arguing tells you is that as fans, we don't feel that the recruitment approach has supported the managers since 2016 sufficiently and if you don't get that right, at PL level you can't get away with it and hide weak links as you can further down. I think the background to the takeover and then takeover itself was very destabilising with no positive benefits for the club, only individual bank balances.

 

The signings this summer have been a bit improved (Ings, Vestergaard good, Armstrong and Moi will take more time) but it'll take a few windows to improve the shocking mess Hughes inherited. If the club sacked him and brought in someone else, are they going to far much better working for Wilson, Reed, Kreuger and Gao? I'm not saying Hughes is the best manager ever but keeping a squad of mostly PL squad/Championship players up, when other teams have significantly strengthened and we were trying to undo 2 years of disasters, would be an achievement. How many of that squad are genuinely PL quality? Alex, Bertrand, Cedric (maybe?), Vestergaard, Ings, and Gunn looks decent. You could make arguments Lemina, PEH, Gabbi and JWP look PL standard on their best days, but below that some of the time.