A question to the Hughes Outers

[imsimada]

mancini is playing boring football at least hughes played football the right way always felt exited under hughes mancini will not bring champions football to manchster this season under hughes i belive we would have been in the final of the cup and been in 4th place now we have gone negative,but i belive not untill marwood and cook leavecan we start to mount a serious challenge we will get beat by liverpool next and end the season 6th or 7 all becouse cook and marwood are controlling our club, time will tell but i agree hughes should still be here.

 

[Kazzydeyna]

If you want city to be a team that can lift itself for the "big teams" like arse and Chelsea but fails to beat the mediocrity at home fair enough vote Hughes.

If however you have been watching us do this for 30+ years and want to see us actually have a chance at achieving top four then vote Mancini.

It's dead simple: top four, with GIH looking hard to beat or 11 pts from 27, only looking arzed against glamour teams HEADING FOR mid table (like last season too).

What do you want?

Were you this impatient with the pride of the fucking valleys??

 

[moomba]

but now you have had your wish and Hughes is gone, we're out of the cup and doing equally as poor in the league under Mancini, do you still think it was right to get rid?

Out of the cup and doing equally as poor in the league?

Wrong on both fronts I think.

FWIW, I don't think the change in manager has hampered us, and while Hughes may have improved things enough got us to get back into the battle for 4th that has become a reality under Mancini.

Still lots of improvement to go to stay in that battle IMO, but while the points keep ticking over it's very hard to judge Mancini as anything other than a succesful appointment.

 

[wayne71]

Is mancini doing better with a hughes team than hughes did? IMHO the answer is yes.

We are in 4th place with a new manager, give the guy a chance, at the rate some of you plonkers are going even the sheikh will give us up as a lost cause.

 

[bluemoonmatt]

based on how we're playing and how we STILL are not beating teams we 'should' be beating,

Where do you get this from, what absolute tosh, Stoke have an excellent home record, we have no devine right to beat anyone, let alone at their place, both Liverpool and Arsenal have failed at the Britannia, infact only Chelsea Birmingham (probably a Stoke off day, we all have em) and Trafford Redsox have won there. So where do you get this assumption we should go to the Britannia and win

but now you have had your wish and Hughes is gone, we're out of the cup and doing equally as poor in the league under Mancini, do you still think it was right to get rid?

Equally as poor in the league???
MH 29 pts from 15 games = 1.933
MC 16 pts from 7 games = 2.285

Neither points per game is particularly poor but based on the above, under Hughes we would get 73.45 points for the season, under Mancini we would get 86.83, that's 13 points more and whats more is 86 wouldn't be far off championship winning form, it certainly puts us in the CL.

We aren't playing particularly to our full potential I grant you, however the sign of a solid team is still picking points up when not playing well. We cannot expect to win every game, especially against a well drilled and (has to be said) pretty decent Stoke at their place, and we cannot expect the most glittering football every game, what I didn't expect from City fans, is to be not giving a guy a chance. Patently we have become a set of impatient glory hunting cretins suffering from delusions of self grandeur. I have to say Pidge, you are a pretty good poster usually, I'm disappointed in this crap though.

 

[Gelsons Dad]

based on how we're playing and how we STILL are not beating teams we 'should' be beating,

Where do you get this from, what absolute tosh, Stoke have an excellent home record, we have no devine right to beat anyone, let alone at their place, both Liverpool and Arsenal have failed at the Britannia, infact only Chelsea Birmingham (probably a Stoke off day, we all have em) and Trafford Redsox have won there. So where do you get this assumption we should go to the Britannia and win

but now you have had your wish and Hughes is gone, we're out of the cup and doing equally as poor in the league under Mancini, do you still think it was right to get rid?

Equally as poor in the league???
MH 29 pts from 15 games = 1.933
MC 16 pts from 7 games = 2.285

Neither points per game is particularly poor but based on the above, under Hughes we would get 73.45 points for the season, under Mancini we would get 86.83, that's 13 points more and whats more is 86 wouldn't be far off championship winning form, it certainly puts us in the CL.

We aren't playing particularly to our full potential I grant you, however the sign of a solid team is still picking points up when not playing well. We cannot expect to win every game, especially against a well drilled and (has to be said) pretty decent Stoke at their place, and we cannot expect the most glittering football every game, what I didn't expect from City fans, is to be not giving a guy a chance. Patently we have become a set of impatient glory hunting cretins suffering from delusions of self grandeur. I have to say Pidge, you are a pretty good poster usually, I'm disappointed in this crap though.

whoops!

MH
17 games 29 points = 1.7

RM
8 games 16 points = 2.0

 

[Failsworth_Blue]

When Hughes left we were 6th in the table, 6 points behind 4th place with a game in hand. Now we're 1 point clear in 4th with a game in hand so as far as results go things have improved. Since Mancini came in we've picked up 16 points from 8 games which is an average of 2 points per game which is an excellent record and surely everyone is happy enough with that?

The performances haven't been the best and obviously it's a concern that we're not playing great football and the belief from many on here is when we come up against a 'decent' team we'll come unstuck. However with regards to last night did people expect us to go to Stoke pass them off the park and win at a canter? That didn't happen last season when we played there, it didn't happen last night and it won't happen next week either. Stoke's pitch is the smallest in the premiership which means it's difficult to get it down and pass it about with ease as Stoke are in your face right from the start. A point is a decent result all things considered

Did we play better football under Hughes? In certain games yes but there was many a thread on here after we produced poor performances about how we're not playing football and how all Lescott does is hoof it upfront. Are people forgetting the average performances this season at home against Wolves, Hull and Fulham where we actually scored in all 3 games but apart from the goals hardly created anything else? (Similar to how we've done at home under Mancini, apart from the fact that we've won every home leauge game under Mancini whereas out of the 3 games i've used above we only won 1 and drew the other 2)


Away from home this season we also played some nice football especially against Blackburn, United and Liverpool however there was also a good few games where we played awful football and didn't create hardly any chances (Villa, Wigan, Birmingham and Spurs) but that all seems to be forgotton by some posters on here? Why i wonder?

 

[M18CTID]

Fuzzmaster. We can argue wether we've been unlucky or not. Personally I think we were lucky not to lose against hull at home under Hughes. You
seem to disagree (if I'm Reading you right). Fair enough.

But what would you prefer. 4th with game in hand or heading
to mid table. ?

How the fuck could we be unlucky not to lose against a side that didn't have a shot & were awarded a dodgy penalty in the 89th minute? Fair enough you don't like Hughes & prefer Mancini but claiming crap like that just to make a point is completely fucking ridiculous. You might as well claim we were unlucky to lose to Everton while you're at it.

I wish people would stop trying to change history, just to get their own point of view across. We weren't mid table at all when Hughes was sacked, we had a so so victory v Sunderland, shit performance v Spurs, a Mancini level performance away v Bolton & two performances v Arsenal & Chelsea that are on a different planet to anything we've produced since. How in God's name is that any worse than losing to Everton & Hull & drawing twice with Stoke? Is beating Portmouth, Bolton, Blackburn & Wolves really so fucking mind blowingly brilliant or so much of an advancement?

I think it was more like the 79th minute that Hull got that penalty, but apart from that your post is spot on. Apart from a 5 or 10 minute spell immediately prior to them getting that penalty when Bullard was pulling the strings, we were the dominant side. How that equates to us being lucky not to lose is utterly beyond me. Just as bad are his claims that we were lucky to get something against Burnley and Bolton. Yes, Burnley did take a deserved lead and were the better team for the first half hour but after that we battered them. Perhaps Kazzydeyna went AWOL in the second half because I seem to remember that we dominated proceedings so much that I honestly can't recall them once getting inside our box until Bridge's poor header lead to their equaliser 4 minutes from time. And don't get me started on Bolton - like Burnley they had something like 4 shots on target and scored 3 goals but there was only one team playing football for most of the afternoon.

I fully accept that something had to be done about the defending in the latter games of Hughes' reign and that's perhaps what did for him in the end but to say we were lucky to get something out of games in which we did more than enough to win is ludicrous.

I'll support Mancini as much as I've supported any other manager we've ever had and I really hope that he isn't just here as a caretaker until the end of the season because if that is the case it begs the question why we've changed managers mid-term. I suspect however that he's here for the long-term so we need to give him time to impose his style on the team. The early signs were very good but lately we've gone off the boil alarmingly performance-wise. That first half at Hull was as bad a half as I ever saw under Hughes - in fact, I'd go as far as to say it was as bad a half as I ever saw under Pearce. We were out-passed, out-played, and out-thought. In a word, it was shocking and anybody who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves. Other recent performances haven't been too good either and while I'm all for playing poorly but still picking up points, it doesn't take a genius to work out that we can't get away with doing it every week. Our level of performance needs to start improving considerably, starting with Liverpool on Sunday.

 

[Pigeonho]

Some decent answers on here. Like I said last night, (and in th'early hours!), I will never be an outer of any manager, not unless we start scoring own goals at his orders anyway. I made it more than known i thought Hughes was getting pelters when he was in charge, and even though we are now in that 4th spot, I think criticism can be aimed at the manager for the way we are playing, because after all, Hughes got some pelters for not making this set of players play to its potential, something Mancini isn't managing to do either. For now I am more than happy to reach 4th playing like this, but if we think we can march into the CL and expect to go to the crop of European football and play like this and come away with any kind of result or praise, forget it. The summer will need to see major changes in playing personel if Mancini stays, no more so than at the back.

 

[masterwig]

The next few games are a big test for Roberto. At the moment I'd say he has done no better or worse than Hughes was doing at the point he was sacked. People can trot out points per game stats all they want but I am looking at the actual games. It's fair to say that you cannot take a limited sample of games and use that as proof we have a better manager now than we did in November. I'm looking at performances, opposition and the trend of results.

The difference is I understood Hughes. I could see what he was trying to do and I'll still maintain that under him we were desperately unlucky at times (I know fans always feel hard done by but it seemed to me that every break was going against us). Luck alone though is not enough to explain the poor run we had. Mancini on the other hand completely baffles me. I can't tell what he is aiming for or where he wants to take the team. And what is worse, I suspect the players feel the same way. If that is the case he needs to either win them round quickly or, if he gets the chance, bring in a load of his own players. That raises the usual City problem of instability and an unsettled squad. If he cannot win the players round quickly and we are banking on him doing well when he gets his own men in you have to wonder why he was brought in at the time he was. Personally I think we do have a good squad. I think we do have the players that are capable of finishing fourth. We just need to get them in the right set-up and working together. Let's hope Mancio can do that.