fernando a écrit:Claude Puel n'est plus l'entraîneur de Southampton .
MoogyC
"
The first is the idea that Puel had a counter attacking style. He didn't, he had a slow tempo possession style. The reason why occasionally we did better away was because the opposition in those games had some expectation that they would try to push. In home games we had the issue that when we lost the ball for any length of time we ended up in a 4-5-1 with our "wide-forwards" chasing fullbacks (poor Charlie Austin) and our two "box-to-box" midfielders standing shoulder to shoulder with our "pivot" Oriol. Which bs speak aside, meant that we had too many men behind the ball to break effectively. It meant that we generally won the ball back deep and couldn't transition forward quickly as we had no forward pass. So we'd generally go to a fullback, into central midfield, back to central defence and out the fullback on the other side every time we wanted to run the ball forward. At which point Cedric and Bertrand had a little space and everybody else could get up the pitch. But at this point, you have given the opposition plenty of time to get into shape, then you are trying to hold the ball long enough for the likes of Davo, JWP and Pierre to get into the final third. When they get there they didn't have the quality to provide a final ball in no space.
We were slightly better away from home, because the opposition had less players behind the ball which led for more open games but it was still often absolutely Kieron Dyer.
But the biggest issues were as follows:
- Said that we had to change Koeman's style because the players were running too much for a team that had to play 2 matches a week. I checked the stats, the players didn't run less. The difference was that now they were running back frantically trying to stop breaks when we'd over committed, due to our slow tempo making it extremely difficult to create DECENT chances (in caps for stats freaks that think a desperate long range punt that sails miles wide is evidence of bad luck.)
- Directly linked to the point above. He changed eight players every match anyway! Despite having two players in every position, played a third string in some cup games. We got away with it against Palace & Sunderland reserves in the League Cup but just as easily could have gone out. Did it away in Israel which was a bizarre nonsense, putting Hesketh starting in a unique atmosphere then subbing him after he'd barely touched the ball well into the first half. But by making these constant changes, he made no account of position & form. Constantly having players who are in a crap run, stuck in a position they don't play.
- Changed the formation, to a system that he didn't have the players to fit. Then picking the wrong players, even to fit the formation. Charlie Austin left wing with Redmond as a striker was like a modern art exhibit.
- The Shane Long substitution situation, which if it had happened at a big club, would have led the sports news for the whole weekend.
Generally seemed like a nice bloke. But tactically inept for the standard of the league, not a big enough character, philosophy not suited for the league & his selections were poor on top of that.
He was a panic appointment that looked desperately thin at the time & proved to be. Which is 100% on Les Reed and the board. As they put the club in a situation where they forced Koeman out that summer & made the role a poisoned chalice. It's hard to imagine the latest Lander Sports farce is going to change that.
I do feel sorry for him. But I stayed for the lap of honour and the guys that sit next to me every week, who probably average 35 years each going to games, all left because they were furious. A good portion of season ticket holders last season were turning up out of duty. If it's bad times, it's bad times and you do it. But if a deal of it is because you've hired the wrong coach, why not change it?"