THE review process that will ultimately decide Claude Puel's future at Southampton Football Club is now under way.

Those responsible for such critical decisions within the club's hierarchy will meet to debrief the season just gone, in which Puel led Saints to eighth place in the Premier League and to the EFL Cup final.

Vice-chairman of football Les Reed and director of recruitment and scouting Ross Wilson will analyse the campaign with the end aim of agreeing the best course of action in regards to Puel, who will be in attendance during the inquest.

Despite leading Saints to another lofty finish and to Wembley during an arduous 53-game season, the Frenchman has become increasingly unpopular because of his style of play, lack of goals and poor results in recent weeks.

Here, the Daily Echo, addresses a few of the crucial issues in relation to the manager that must be discussed during this internal end of season review at St Mary’s.

Has the football the team has produced lived up to expectations under Puel's management?

Arguably the most significant blot on Puel's copybook is the way Saints played under his leadership.

From the very start of the season, the style he opted for was a complete change from the previous regimes of his recent predecessors Mauricio Pochettino and Ronald Koeman.

After the proud successes of previous campaigns it will likely be viewed in the review process as an unnecessary move to rebuild part of the club's identity so soon in to his tenure.

Saints were known, from all academy sides to the first team, for playing in a 4-2-3-1 formation with high-pressing, quick passing and movement a fundamental characteristic of that.

But Puel wasted no time in scrapping that philosophy, which partly represented a disregard for what Saints had previously achieved and the personnel, who were familiar with the way of playing, that he had at his disposal.

The 4-3-3 possession-based, often slow and comparatively negative system that Puel introduced initially was justified by the Frenchman as an "economic" style to accommodate Saints' hectic fixture list in Europe and domestically.

Puel can partly be forgiven for this decision because of the sheer volume of matches. At least he justified the reasons why he binned a previously successful way of playing.

But, even after reverting back to the 4-2-3-1, Saints, for the most part, continued to produce drab displays, which, most pertinently, lacked goals.

Saints managed to score just 17 goals in 19 home games and ended the season with no strikes at St Mary's in five games.

Charlie Austin, who spent the majority of the season sidelined injured, ended the campaign as top-scorer with nine goals in all competitions.

These totals are not good enough.

Has Puel fulfilled what was expected of him?

In this respect Reed and Wilson simply cannot ignore that Puel has actually ticked quite a few boxes.

The Frenchman was picked by the club's hierarchy to be the manager because they felt he had the correct level of experience in Europe and in bringing through youngsters and improving players of any age.

There was not once any mention that Puel was expected to bring an exciting style of play, just that he fitted the bill because of his achievements.

Saints also wanted a manager to take them to a 'best of the rest' finish.

Well, Puel led the team to 8th place, certainly a position befitting of the league demands placed upon the boss on his arrival at St Mary's.

Beyond that, Puel guided senior players Oriol Romeu and Maya Yoshida to their best-ever campaigns.

And, although many players have failed to deliver, Puel has done wonders for the careers of Jack Stephens, Sam McQueen and Josh Sims.

Despite those positives, the Europa League campaign, one the main reasons for his appointment, was a complete disaster, with Saints failing to qualify from a weak group.

This is a big point that will work against him as Saints debrief, but it should be noted that he has done a lot of good work with players who would unlikely have not got an opportunity under another manager.

Puel will, of course, be able to point to the EFL Cup run to the final as another success, with no other St Mary's boss able to achieve such a feat in major competitions since the 2003 FA Cup final.

Have results been good enough under Puel?

In three out of four competitions Saints played in this season, there is no doubt that individual results have been substandard.

In the Premier League, Saints may have finished 8th but they won just once in their last eight games and ended the campaign 17th in the table on home games.

At St Mary's, Saints won just six of 19 games with only one them (Everton) coming against a team in the top half of the Premier League.

They failed to beat relegated Hull and Sunderland in front of their owns fans and, in contrast to other seasons, weren't able to beat any of the top six.

In fact, Puel's side didn't win against any of the leading sides in 12 attempts home or away.

But, despite these obvious sore points, Puel can point to the away form, which saw Saints finish as the 7th best away team, and the overall result in the league, which was a very good 8th place.

There's no arguing, though, that the FA Cup and the Europa League campaigns were woeful and not good enough.

The context of the FA Cup exit cannot be ignored, but it was still embarrassing for the club to be thrashed 5-0 by Arsenal at St Mary's in the fourth round.

Puel was criticised at that time having made ten changes for the Gunners game.

But, the 55-year-old cited nine injuries, fatigue after the EFL Cup semi-final win over Liverpool and the importance of upcoming Premier League matches with Swansea and West Ham for his decision.

It will be up to the reviewing panel to decide whether that was a good enough explanation for the manner in which Saints exited the competition.

Puel will not, however, have a leg to stand on when it comes to the Europa League disappointment.

In a group that included a disinterested Inter Milan, two sides from far weaker leagues, Israeli outfit Hapoel Be'er Sheva and Czech side Sparta Prague, Saints should have easily been capable of progressing into the knockout phase.

But they did not score a single away goal and went out with a whimper.

One of Puel's main jobs was to give the European campaign importance, but he failed and that will not sit well with Reed and Wilson.

Yet, if there's one big redeeming point in this sense, then the EFL Cup run will be it.

Saints did not concede until the final, beating Crystal Palace, Sunderland, Arsenal and Liverpool (twice) to reach to the Wembley showpiece, where they lost 3-2 to Manchester United in a thrilling game.

Has Puel's management represented progress for the club?

This particular topic is subjective and a little ambiguous, because there's lots of elements to it.

In one sense, Puel has introduced yet more academy players to the team, which is something the club hold in extremely high regard.

That is, undoubtedly, progress for the 'pathway' between the youth programme and the first team.

Ronald Koeman stated during his reign at St Mary's that many of the young players were simply not good enough for the first team.

But Puel has taken a far different approach and given an opportunity to those players Koeman wouldn't ever have.

Spotting the potential in Sam McQueen to use him as a left-back, Jack Stephens' brilliant run in the team at centre-back, having the audacity to throw in Josh Sims against Everton. All these things represent progress and a certain level of resourcefulness on Puel's part.

If Puel were to hang around, he'd likely continue that work, whereas another manager might not want to focus on shaping careers.

But, this debrief cannot ignore the regression in terms of league finish.

Last season, Saints finished on 63 points, just three points off fourth place, while this term they tallied 17 points less and were 30 points off Liverpool in fourth.

Although they finished 8th, the gap in points and the manner in which they achieved that finish haven't been very pleasing.

However, Puel will be able to point out that he had to lead the team during a long and difficult campaign, which included the club's first ever Europa League group stage campaign.

And unlike like last season, Saints went far in a knockout competition.

Does Puel remain a good fit for the club?

Puel's popularity slumped noticeably as Saints crawled across the finish line and the perception of the fans will have to be considered in addressing this particular topic.

The Frenchman has lost the faith of the supporters, the vocal ones anyway, and the question is: does he have the capacity to win them back over?

It would be fair to say his lack of personality in press interviews has done nothing but hinder Puel's reputation among fans.

He can be forgiven in some small way because English is not his first language, but if the supporters are to have any affection for him as a character the dreary and repetitive answers he offers in press conferences have to stop.

Therefore, unless he changes his tactics in front of the press, it would be unlikely he will be able to talk his way in to the fans' good books.

If he's unable to win them over through his own voice, then getting the team playing attractive football may well be the ticket.

Another season at the helm might trigger developments in this regard.

He'll have an undisturbed pre-season. Another transfer window to shape his side. Ample time to continue to get his message across.

It seems, however, at this stage, that among most fans Puel is a lost cause, destined never to command much popularity.

But, if Reed and Wilson believe, given time, Puel will deliver what they hoped he would, then they might be inclined to think he remains a good fit.

Reed said in January that Puel is a "teacher", adding he "has taken teams from the bottom to the top, and young players from the academy to world class".

And most interestingly, the vice-chairman of football said: "If you want to go down that route you have to give someone time. Teaching takes time."

Whether Puel is still the right man for the job depends a lot on whether Reed still holds this opinion.