The Mark Hughes Effect...

Brendan Rodgers is not going to get a move to any club bigger than ours......

 

Have thought for a long time he's perfect for us.

Strange, it's all about opinions, and perceptions, and since 2014 I've thought he'd be anything but ideal for us.

But then again I've not previously been a fan of Hughes or Hoddle, both of whom ended up managing Saints, with a varying/different degree of success.

If you take into account his time at Swansea and how he had them playing he could work here, but we all know it would be a one or two season rehabilitation before he walked out.

True, but changing manager is a proper game of Russian roulette with the monkeys in charge at our club at the moment.

But the point is, I doubt we could do any worse...

But the point is, I doubt we could do any worse...

But the point is, I doubt we could do any worse...

Harry Redknapp has unfinished business with this proper football club.

The triumphant return of Alan Pardew.

I believe Paul Lambert gets the nod once you fire a Hughes...

The triumphant return of Alan Pardew.

Harry Redknapp has unfinished business with this proper football club.

I believe Paul Lambert gets the nod once you fire a Hughes...

All of whom would no doubt do us proud, but after missing out in 2001 because Rupert denied him the possibility of his own backroom team David Moyes must surely be the man. He can start the press conference "Ever since I met Rupert Lowe... I knew one day... I was destined to manage this football club.. blah blah..".

No I'm not seriously suggesting it

seeing as we ONLY operate in the out-of-work manager market. We have to hold our nerve for big steve bruce to be fired, then we are in.

We weren't all over them at all. Can only assume people saying that got caught up in the live hype. We were better, I agree. We were not all over them and it took one wonder strike to come close to breaking the deadlock. As always lots of running and possession and no end product.

 

We're boring and in effective. Horrible combination.

We really were all over them. As usual without creating any decent chances. Best performance I've seen from us in some time. For a half.

We really were all over them. As usual without creating any decent chances. Best performance I've seen from us in some time. For a half.

Don't agree. Watching from home we knocked the ball about in front of them because they weren't stepping up. We defo weren't all over them or creating them any problems

Don't agree. Watching from home we knocked the ball about in front of them because they weren't stepping up. We defo weren't all over them or creating them any problems

Watching at the game, we were all over them. Because we were.

Watching at the game, we were all over them. Because we were.

Ahhh it is 'live hype', I get it now. Well with the benefit of replays, being able to see more of the game, rewind stuff and you know, stats, we weren't.

However, if by 'all over them' you mean knocking it around ineffectually without actually challenging their goalkeeper, then yes. We were all over them.

We were all over them between the halfway line and their 18 yard line.

For about 35 mins

Puel 38 matches, 1.21 points per game, 1.08GF 1.26GA

Pellegrino 30 matches, 0.93 points per game, 0.96GF 1.47GA

Hughes 14 matches, 0.93 points per game, 1.00GF 1.50GA

On paper he's no better than MoPe and both lose in all aspects to the "Boring yet we scored and created more" Puel.

I'm convinced that our problems are more a mental one rather then a personnel issue, on paper we have the manager and the players to at the very least compete. I blame Pellegrino personally.

Puel 38 matches, 1.21 points per game, 1.08GF 1.26GA

Pellegrino 30 matches, 0.93 points per game, 0.96GF 1.47GA

Hughes 14 matches, 0.93 points per game, 1.00GF 1.50GA

 

On paper he's no better than MoPe and both lose in all aspects to the "Boring yet we scored and created more" Puel.

You mean "Boring yet we scored more and created more while having the weakest squad" Puel

Ahhh it is 'live hype', I get it now. Well with the benefit of replays, being able to see more of the game, rewind stuff and you know, stats, we weren't.

 

However, if by 'all over them' you mean knocking it around ineffectually without actually challenging their goalkeeper, then yes. We were all over them.

No, I mean constantly attacking, dominating possession, winning the ball back quickly, restricting them to literally nothing and nearly scoring ourselves on a number of occasions before actually scoring.

But you can sit in your high-backed arm chair with your stats, talking ****e, if you prefer.

Puel 38 matches, 1.21 points per game, 1.08GF 1.26GA

Pellegrino 30 matches, 0.93 points per game, 0.96GF 1.47GA

Hughes 14 matches, 0.93 points per game, 1.00GF 1.50GA

 

On paper he's no better than MoPe and both lose in all aspects to the "Boring yet we scored and created more" Puel.

Let's add Koeman to the comparative to make it meaningful.

Comparing Puel / Pellegrino / Hughes is like comparing 3 turds and arguing about which is the biggest turd.

If Hughes had followed Koeman and the feel good factor and momentum we had,I'd wager that his record would be way better than Puels.

I said at the time that the Puel spell could take years to recover from and so it's proved.

No, I mean constantly attacking, dominating possession, winning the ball back quickly, restricting them to literally nothing and nearly scoring ourselves on a number of occasions before actually scoring.

 

But you can sit in your high-backed arm chair with your stats, talking ****e, if you prefer.

Can't score with no shots on target. So it's you chatting ****. But do carry on getting carried away with sub standard football.

Can't score with no shots on target. So it's you chatting ****. But do carry on getting carried away with sub standard football.

You can be all over a team with poor finishing. If your best argument is to talk about the number of shots on target then we can all see who has won.

Don't strain yourself reaching for the remote.

You can be all over a team with poor finishing. If your best argument is to talk about the number of shots on target then we can all see who has won.

 

Don't strain yourself reaching for the remote.

Three different people, who don't support Saints, sat and watched that game. Most remarked that we had slightly more class on the ball in the first half and that Brighton were making it easy for us by sitting off. Not one would agree that it was high quality football where we were some reincarnation of 1970 Brazil. We were better, we weren't however, impressive or all over them. I've watched it once and the highlights. Maybe you should strain yourself and do the same and not from your pitch view seat.

Like I said, some people in here are entertained by mediocre football and 'effort'. Usually those who think 0 goals and assists is reasonable return from Redmond.

Three different people, who don't support Saints, sat and watched that game. Most remarked that we had slightly more class on the ball in the first half and that Brighton were making it easy for us by sitting off. Not one would agree that it was high quality football where we were some reincarnation of 1970 Brazil. We were better, we weren't however, impressive or all over them. I've watched it once and the highlights. Maybe you should strain yourself and do the same and not from your pitch view seat.

 

Like I said, some people in here are entertained by mediocre football and 'effort'. Usually those who think 0 goals and assists is reasonable return from Redmond.

I don't recall saying we were brilliant or reminiscent of 1970s Brazil.

What we were, was all-over a fairly ****e opposition team.

Let's add Koeman to the comparative to make it meaningful.

 

Comparing Puel / Pellegrino / Hughes is like comparing 3 turds and arguing about which is the biggest turd.

 

If Hughes had followed Koeman and the feel good factor and momentum we had,I'd wager that his record would be way better than Puels.

 

I said at the time that the Puel spell could take years to recover from and so it's proved.

To be fair from the times ive watched puels Leicester side, I think they have played fast exciting attacking football, have some great talents and bags of pace and skill. Maybe how limited our side is makes a big differance ?

Watching at the game, we were all over them. Because we were.

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.

No, I mean constantly attacking, dominating possession, winning the ball back quickly, restricting them to literally nothing and nearly scoring ourselves on a number of occasions before actually scoring.

Completely agree with you here.

Let's add Koeman to the comparative to make it meaningful.

 

Comparing Puel / Pellegrino / Hughes is like comparing 3 turds and arguing about which is the biggest turd.

 

If Hughes had followed Koeman and the feel good factor and momentum we had,I'd wager that his record would be way better than Puels.

 

I said at the time that the Puel spell could take years to recover from and so it's proved.

Admit it, you'd take 8th and a cup final all day long if it was offered to you right now.

I do agree with you though, it'll take us many years to recover from the decision to relieve Puel.

Let's add Koeman to the comparative to make it meaningful.

 

Comparing Puel / Pellegrino / Hughes is like comparing 3 turds and arguing about which is the biggest turd.

 

If Hughes had followed Koeman and the feel good factor and momentum we had,I'd wager that his record would be way better than Puels.

 

I said at the time that the Puel spell could take years to recover from and so it's proved.

Lets not unless you want to compare Mane/Pelle/Wanyama to Redmond/Austin/Romeu. Koeman to Puel is nowhere near apples to apples.

Our fanbase, with you at the helm, were too blind to realise we'd lost our best players and expected us to perform on par with our best years. It just doesn't work that way. That Puel team was in no way a top 6 challenger. Hilarious that a Champions League semi-final manager isn't enough for Southampton fans.

A bunch of us on here defended Puel while he was here and we're being proven more and more right as time goes by while you continue to look more and more the fool.

Admit it, you'd take 8th and a cup final all day long if it was offered to you right now.

 

I do agree with you though, it'll take us many years to recover from the decision to relieve Puel.

We could have kept Puel and got 8th and a Cup Final every season. I wouldn't have been watching though. Watching that football was like having your toenails pulled out with a rusty pair of pliers. At least Hughes teams have a go. Far more courage than the bloke who set up for a 0-0 against Hapoel Tel Aviv at home. And lost.

Lets not unless you want to compare Mane/Pelle/Wanyama to Redmond/Austin/Romeu. Koeman to Puel is nowhere near apples to apples.

 

Our fanbase, with you at the helm, were too blind to realise we'd lost our best players and expected us to perform on par with our best years. It just doesn't work that way. That Puel team was in no way a top 6 challenger. Hilarious that a Champions League semi-final manager isn't enough for Southampton fans.

 

A bunch of us on here defended Puel while he was here and we're being proven more and more right as time goes by while you continue to look more and more the fool.

Agreed, Puel did a decent job - I was very annoyed when we let him go (although pretty much resigned to it happening by the end of the season and the noises coming out of thee club).

None of our "fans" are in any position to mock Puel considering how far ahead his team is at the moment.

You can mock Marco Silva though - a relatively easy set of games and Everton have not made a good start at all. Early days though, I know they've had a few injuries and suspensions.

None of our "fans" are in any position to mock Puel considering how far ahead his team is at the moment.

 

You can mock Marco Silva though - a relatively easy set of games and Everton have not made a good start at all. Early days though, I know they've had a few injuries and suspensions.

Yep CP was ok and miles beter than MP and as far as Silva goes.... well the coaching superstar is very far from starring.... he`s just average and wont last long at Everton

We could have kept Puel and got 8th and a Cup Final every season. I wouldn't have been watching though. Watching that football was like having your toenails pulled out with a rusty pair of pliers. At least Hughes teams have a go. Far more courage than the bloke who set up for a 0-0 against Hapoel Tel Aviv at home. And lost.

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.

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.

Quite possibly the best post I've read on here in 12 years (and, yes, I include my own in that )

And I would agree with that as well, very good summary of my thoughts on the Puel era.

I'm surprised that more of our fans aren't ecstatic with Hughes. They wanted excitement, goals, and said things like " I'd rather lose 3-2 than watch us draw 0-0".

Yes, excellent post from Turkish.

We could have kept Puel and got 8th and a Cup Final every season. I wouldn't have been watching though. Watching that football was like having your toenails pulled out with a rusty pair of pliers. At least Hughes teams have a go. Far more courage than the bloke who set up for a 0-0 against Hapoel Tel Aviv at home. And lost.

I’m pretty sure it would have changed. The management decided to back the players rather than the manager and look what happened sticking with the players.

Puel stripped the team back to basics and got us hard to defeat, some players were unhappy about it and it showed. I’m pretty sure he would have improved team performance, probably slowly, and had more U23s playing with the pathway re-opened. His Nice side was fantastic, playing an attractive passing attacking style football. Let’s see how he evolves his Leicester side.

If we want to play the blame game then it’s the management team > coaching > players. None are blameless.

Well said, Turkish.

Turkish's post is the most sensible thing I've read on here for a while.

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.

Excellent post sir.

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.

Shame you voted Puel OUT in the polls on here - as early as midseason. Hindsight’s a beautiful thing. We’re all guilty of it

Shame you voted Puel OUT in the polls on here - as early as midseason. Hindsight’s a beautiful thing. We’re all guilty of it

#winning

Shame you voted Puel OUT in the polls on here - as early as midseason. Hindsight’s a beautiful thing. We’re all guilty of it

You're right I did. But I also said that it was against my better judgement and he deserved to be judged at the end of the season. I also said that it was due to the whispers i'd heard he'd lost senior members of the dressing room and when that happens its a case of when and not if.

IIRC that poll was also done right towards the end of poor run of results, we'd just lost at home to West Brom, been thumped by Spurs and Everton so that probably influenced the vote as per my comments above I didn't vote out because we were supposedly playing boring football.

You're right, hindsight is a great thing, in hindsight over the course of the season Puel did a decent job in difficult circumstances. I later said that I thought he should have got another season but of course you wont desperately try to find posts from over two years ago saying that because it doesn't suit your agenda.

Puel's Leicester side have scored at least once in 45 of his 54 games in charge (83% of games). He also made the QF of both cups last season, losing in Extra Time and Penalties to Man City and Chelsea. Must be so boring...

Back to the topic at hand. Hughes doesn't seem to be getting much out of the squad, but this is a squad bereft of quality. 1.5 years ago the blame shouldn't have been levelled at Puel but rather at the board and recruiters. I fear Hughes will be the 3rd manager scapegoated while we continue to sign the misfits; long contracts to underperforming players that couldn't cut it here and new signings of players that couldn't cut it at their old club.

Yes there were some dull games, but there were some dull games under Koeman too.

Some?? The run in that season, I witnessed the most tedious football I have seen in my long lifetime of watching Saints! Yes you moan about no strikers, but no striker would have scored with the defence happily playing the ball from one side of the pitch to the next!

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.

Fantastic post

Yes, agree with comments above that Turkish's post is accurate. Puel was dealt a very tough hand of cards and expected to get wins with a seriously weakened team. I did feel the style of play was poor, but was in the camp of believing he should have had a second season with a better hand to see if the style of play improved. I hardened in that view when Puel was left dangling for weeks after the season end to see if he would be invited back.

Our appointments since have been very poor while I actually think Puel is doing well at Leicester. Admittedly he now has Vardy, Iheanacho and Maddison to call on.

I am worried about Hughes, especially the zonal marking he has introduced. Prefer man for man marking, so everyone knows who they are picking up, not just nearest man, as the tall strikers are targeting our shorter defenders/midfielders.

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.

All true, but it is also rewriting of history to suggest he was hounded out by the fans. All I remember was a few chants from a handful in the Northam on the last game and a bit of booing after yet another dull home game. The fans were just bored, all club had to do was invest in some decent striking talent during the summer and no one would have had a problem with Puel.

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.

Top post

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.

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.

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.

Amen to that. I couldn't have said any of that better .