how do you lot feel about this? I wanted MP to fail at Spurs, sadly he hasn't. I wanted RK to fail at Everton and he has. Now that Claud is at Leicester I want him to do alright because I didn't want him sacked but I really dislike Leicester. What do you lot think?
Pretty much the same as The Leibherr Legacy; I'd like to see him stay for at least 2 of his 3 year contract too.
I wish him well...to a degree. I wanted him to have more time at Saints, so would be a bit miffed if he has a blinder with Leicester.
Strange fit with their personnel, if he plays the way he did with us. Have no ill will toward he or Leicester though, so good luck to the both of them.
Heard an interview yesterday from a jounalist who knows him well. He said that normally Claude aims for a solid first season and then builds on that in further seasons with more expansive play. Indeed, in France his sides are known to attack and not to play within themselves. So those of us who wanted him to continue were denied his more expansive play. That's a shame. I suspect that a solid first season at Leicester will be just fine. Then it could get interesting. And I have no ill will either. Good luck to him.
That's a strange approach if true. We played some fairly expansive football in the years prior to his appointment; why taken a detour through a season of sideways passing if the end goal is to play expansive football again?
I find his appointment at Leicester almost as strange as his appointment with us. Conversely, I knew nothing about football then and I still don't now.
He's not our manager, so can't really say I'm that interested in him. However, that probably means I quite like him, as all the other managers I have an opinion about are Klippty, Lying Dutchman & that boring boring Mourinho (personality & football). That said, my other don't like teams include Leicester, so I certainly don't want him to do well.
I get it and don't think it's that strange. He was new to the league, the players, the country. Modern football starts with "don't get beat." We hear "build from the back,"solid spine," etc all the time. It is fairly easy to understand that he wanted to come in, have a steady season, understand what he needed and then push on. Sadly (and in this order), the fans, the players and then the Board, didn't give him the chance. I still think that all three of those groups should have had a longer look at themselves. Comes back to that old life graph again.... never a straight line upward curve (and that can apply to style as well as position).
On the flip side, if you have a team that scored goals before you arrived, and is currently struggling mightily to score goals, and you're a manager that defaults to an aggressive style...wouldn't that be the time to ramp things up? I could understand it for the first couple months, if that was the intent, but surely it should have become apparent that slow and steady wasn't winning the race. A manager shouldn't need an entire year and following summer to get a team with no shortage of quickness to play at something above a walking pace.
I agree there is always a flip side which is why I was so surprised that you found it strange. You always come across as intelligent and balanced in most your views. I was surprised by your post, because either approach is understandable and not really "strange." Ps. To follow on from your latest post, perhaps he couldn't get his message over to the players. Perhaps they weren't taken by his lack of charisma compared to previous managers, so in short maybe it wasn't a case of him needing a year but other issues came along. Even so, in a season that finished as poorly as it did, his settling in year was still 8th and a cup final. I really am left with a bad taste at how all of us associated to SFC dealt with this one year "blip" (if that is what it was - and I spend several seasons saying that's what would happen). Such a demanding "I want it now" attitude, that I really didn't like. But hey, that's the modern world!
It's more that I'd have expected him to switch gears in there somewhere. There was clearly pressure on him long before he was sacked...from players, from fans, and presumably from the board. That pressure would have been leading him in the direction that is apparently his comfort zone, but he stuck to playing a game of control through to the bitter end, despite knowing that his job was in jeopardy. That absolutely is odd to me, because -- both to keep his position and to plan for the following year -- I'd imagine that he'd have wanted to know whether an up-tempo style worked with our personnel. Perhaps by the time he had such thoughts, the dressing room was irrevocably lost; it's the only thing that squares it. As I said throughout Puel's year, I don't think the fault was primarily his; there were things I wished that he had tried, but we had roster construction issues that went well beyond his managing (and have persisted thereafter). Don't know that he was a good fit, but perhaps we'll have a better sense after seeing how Leicester plays under him.
Think he could work well at Leicester. I would say counter attacking Football is more suited to him and Leicester are built entirely for that style. Hell, they won the title with about 20% possession
I think he should have got a second season with us, so his sacking gave me a bad taste in his mouth. Got us to Wembley, for heaven's sake! Our struggle to score goals now demonstrates that it wasn't all down to him. Tbh, I wish him well, but rather it wasn't here as it may make us look right chumps. So, hope he does well, but not too well.
http://sportwitness.co.uk/france-puels-thirst-revenge-southampton-due-ross-wilson-players/ According to L'Equipe (as reported in this article) the problem was with Ross Wilson. Talk of revenge....wouldn't go that strong, but he must feel he has unfinished business and he must want to erase an apparent blot on his CV and prove himself in the Premier league. The media will really have their eyes on this....especially the reporter in the Mail who has it in for Saints.
