You both make similar points and I can see what you mean, thanks. I suppose I would still say that the manager has to set the side up according to the players he has, and the form they're in. We played most of the season without a target striker, so crosses into the box were a waste of time, especially at home with a more defensive opposition. That didn't stop us playing most of the home games by trying to find a striker in the box who was either isolated, or not able to compete for crosses at all. The consistent failure this season has been to get numbers into the box in support of the striker. Tadic, Boufal, Davis, JWP, and the fullbacks just haven't got into the areas of danger often enough, but when they have, there were often chances which were usually blocked.
Usually in the north end of the Kingsland when I go. I have been struck by how quiet it is at SMS for a while now.
I have no wish to consume a product or to show loyalty to a brand. I'll watch almost any live sport, but I never think of myself as doing either of those things. Few sports are as aesthetically pleasing as football, I'll grant you that. But the purpose is never to look good; it's always to win. And when you don't win, to accept defeat with dignity knowing that you have tried. That's what I hope to see on the pitch, the track or the ring.
Well, you might not like the labels but that is exactly what supporting a team is. We are buying into the idea of a Southampton FC. It might feel somehow more honourable or more romantic, but it isn't really. I disagree the "purpose is never to look good" when watching Chelsea and Totenham this season has been like watching beautiful poetry spoken by actors, and watching Southampton has been like watching broken verse read by awkward teenagers. Beauty and craft, more often than not, go with success. However, this is mostly semantics. The issue I return to is: people enjoy the football more when the style of play is more exciting. We may like winning, but winning with style is numero uno.
This is one of the most sensible posts on this thread for a long while and I must admit that Beddy's comments of late are something of a beacon of sanity amongst this love in for Claude Puel. To be honest, I feel sorry for Claude Puel but not too sorry. He was unfortunate with injuries and the strike force did not live up to the potential it had at the beginning of the season. Few would have thought that Shane Long would have had a barren season if asked in August. Most people would have conceded that the absence of Pelle and Mane would have be very detrimental. However, lets not lose sight of the fact that new recruits were added albeit only Redmond looks the part. The "star" purchase of Boufal increasingly looks like money squandered and I think it is fair to say that we would have expected the new payers tp deliver more. Puel's ability to enhance younger player's prospects and defence record with defence are demonstrative, in my opinion, that he is not without ability as a coach. In my opinion, the biggest problem is his understanding of the attacking element of the game. He has, without doubt, produced the most turgid and uninspiring football I have ever seen Saints play. I am not saying we have played bad as was the case with Branfoot, Merrington and the two Dutch incumbents, but the football has been woeful as a spectacle. Added to this, there has been a pattern in the home matches of making substitutions which, at best, have no impact. At worse, they have frequently lost us points. Against top of the league opposition, we have failed to rise to the challenge in the fashion that has historically defined out club. Against lower level teams, Puel has been outwitted by the likes of Stoke, Hull, Bournemouth and Sunderland. although his "park the bus " attitude might have secured us points away, at home we are constantly outsmarted by the opposition. This thread has mutated in to a love-in for Claude Puel. I can see that he has done things that are very good and that I would applaud him for, Unfortunately, there are too many instances where he has shown that the Premier League is beyond him. Finishing 8th in a very poor EPL when the game between 7th is so great and the gap between 4th from bottom is so near is indifferent at best. No one (even the "happy clappers") are suggesting that the football has been a pleasure to watch. Last season, the football was great entertainment and the system worked. There was no need for Puel to throw the baby out with the bathwater. A winning formula was in place that the team understood and in to which the new recruits could be dover-tailed. Puel chose to change things and the failings must rest on hos head. I think the rotation was necessary but not to the extent experimented with. If you stick with last season's pressing approach that everyone was familiar with, the new players would have slotted in easier and rotation would have been less of an issue since there was nothing new and radical to learn. I feel sorry for Claude Puel. We cannot expect to improve every season but I think fans can have an expectation to try and play football that is watchable. Recent reports suggest that even the players feel the same. Wembley was great and saw a performance that suggested Puel could pull the rabbit out of the bag. Sadly, recent results have suggested this was a fluke. We can play well in matches ofr periods but the ability to make a decision than transforms a game is simply not there. It is not in Claude's locker. Surprised that no one has mentioned the relegation of the academy team who were overlooked by Puel. The recent run of poor home results is indicative that this team would struggle next season under the French man. There was no underlining trend of improvement in performance but for a brief period in January / February. The rest of the season was simply dire. Puel has been obstinate and has offered little to suggest the technical nous to thrive at this level. He should not be retained just because people feel sorry for him. I would like both Puel and Black sacked and the club look at itself as the appointments were clearly poorly informed when better options like Pelligrini were available. Seemingly a perfect fit, Saints and Puel have certainly been detrimental to each other. Quoting Brexit / Francophobia / knuckle headed supporters is irrelevant . Keeping Puel would be a disaster for the club.
Ah this is why you spent so. I have time on the politics thread; you give politicians answers that suit your position I'll finish off your last sentence... "... even though he did well with position and cup progress "
I kept expecting us to improve, but a good match never seemed to result in much of a run....our fall back position was defensive...fine to get some important draws and a good defence got us to the league Cup Final, but there were games against the poorer sides where we should have done much, much better. Puel has earned another season, but we must not be allowed to deteriorate further. We have the players (with a couple of new ones) to compete better than we have done....may finish in the same position next season, but we must get more points....not just hold on. We are better than that. Les and Claude have to be certain that they can see what has gone wrong and can correct it. Okay with me if Puel is kept on under those circumstances, but wouldn't cry if we got a better manager....though there is never a guarantee of that.
Likewise I'd support anyone saying it was time to go if we hadn't improved in terms of style and threatening the top 6 properly.
QUOTE="fatletiss, post: 10576016, member: 1008587"]I think we've got more than 3000 proper fans Billy [/QUOTE] Ok, thanks for letting me know. Did it take you this long to count 'em
No way has Puel earned another season !! Had he not have got us to Wembley, he would have been out of the door by March. I have already said on this board that I felt he deserved a stay of execution following that achievement but what has happened since is that we have gone backwards. The academy team has also gone backwards. The pro-Puel brigade have the fall back position that he got us to Wembley but so did Branfoot!! What really worries me that we are not talking about a lack of progress (which would be understandable and beyond criticism given our previous seasons ) but there are things which are going fundamentally wrong. I don't think that retaining Puel will result in stagnation but the partnership with Black appears to be causing problems with our current playing staff and has caused our future playing staff to be playing at a lower level. This is supposed to be one of the better academies in the country!! I cannot think of any reason other tan sentiment as to why Puel should be retained. It is a no brainer.
I think you mean you don't won't to see any reason..... You made your mind up Ian early on and have stuck to it.
Ok, thanks for letting me know. Did it take you this long to count 'em[/QUOTE] I'm sure it was you once that said, "I have a job you know," when taking a while to respond
People on here say that they want more entertaining football. Is that not why Stoke replaced Pulis with Hughes and West Ham replaced Allardyce with Bilic, have either team improved, I would argue no, they have become porous and conceded more and thus ended up further down the table. West Brom are not exciting but they did almost as well as us, so success and entertaining are very different things.
Pellegrini played some of the most negative and boring football with superstars at Man City and Real, yet people are overlooking that when saying we should've appointed him
http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/sa...on_marks_which_hang_over_Claude_Puel/?ref=mac Echo saying review is under way....presumably not a 10 minute exercise, but a long winded debrief involving discussions about not only what has happened, but what is going to be done to rectify disappointing areas. Wonder if a decision about Puel has been made already or there will be a fair assessment. TBH, I wouldn't be surprised if Claude chooses to leave.
It won't be the points total, the GD or the fans that make the decision. I reckon it will be the relationship with the players that plays the biggest part. As we know, unhappy players fees gets smaller & become more difficult, and they won't like that one bit.
I'm sure it was you once that said, "I have a job you know," when taking a while to respond [/QUOTE] Maybe it was, but that doesn't lend itself so much to my quip. And I got sacked this week so have clearly too much time on me hand!
