Another boring Hughes thread/queston

[Dancini]

I believe in his ability to build a team, don't believe in his ability to use someone elses team. Give this squad time to gel and we'll probably compete with the top 4, now you might say that its the money but he is consistently good at signing players.

However, unless we show signs of wanting to pass a ball then I guess my support will diminish. I don't really care if we look shite at times, its to be expected but our best performance was played on the counter attack. We look incapable of doing anything but having fast players run into space. Eventually I think that will be addressed by tall players and wide men who can cross consistently, don't think thats the right way to go though.

I'll give Hughes till the end of the season but if I see no improvement (It doesn't even need to be that, it could just be signs we're improving) then I want a manager who will make us play the right way, this is regardless of whether he wins the CC or we somehow stumble into the top 4.

 

[Neil McNab]

Part of a managers skill set is to get big name players to the club, whilst a massive budget for transfers and wages helps, Hughes has managed to get players in. What I've seen him try with those players so far has been less impressive. We know these players are good and can be good week in week out if used properly so the "time to gel" aruement is wearing a bit thin.
I'm interested to see how Hughes tinkers with things and will wait a little longer, nothing we as fans say or do will change anything anyway!

 

[2sheikhs]

If Mark Hughes had not played for United and had played for City none of the questions on here would be been asked.
The fans would be behind him more and would chant his name.
I think it would be a good idea if with each member on here it showed how long they had supported City and then we would see if it is the newish City fans that are constantly slagging him off.
It is pathetic that these Hughes threads are cropping up all the time!!!

Joe Royle played for us,so did Reid and Booth.For me,it has nothing to do with him playing for scum.A novice manager is not good enough.

 

[pnjblue]

If Mark Hughes had not played for United and had played for City none of the questions on here would be been asked.
The fans would be behind him more and would chant his name.
I think it would be a good idea if with each member on here it showed how long they had supported City and then we would see if it is the newish City fans that are constantly slagging him off.
It is pathetic that these Hughes threads are cropping up all the time!!!

28 years and want him out

 

[Blue Mooner]

I really don't know what Manchester City you have been watching but it doesn't equate to the same team I have been watching particularly in the last 11 games.

Have you forgotten the awesome performance against Arsenal or the way we dominated the first half of the derby game and then everytime United struck we just responded.

We've suffered suspensions, injuries, poor refereeing decisions and are still within touching distance of the top four and had it not been for the fact we are handicapped by having played a game less could atually be in the top four.

The two draws at home were games we threw away, they certainly weren't the result of great play by the opposition.

Are you aware of the meaning of the word 'ratio?'

It wasn't used by chance.

And you, and one or two others on the thread have not answered the question.

There's still 'everything in the garden is rosy', 'everything will turn out ok' (Which I agree with, for the reasons stated in the first post) and 'You don't like him becasue he is a rag' comments flooding in, but they are a bit tedious when the initial post poses a specific, separate question.

Is it really that difficult to attempt to answer it (in fairness, there are a couple of attempts)?

Okay it was a long post - I missed you use of the word 'ratio'. Judging him on this season (and we're only 11 games in) I believe that there have been more good perfomances than poor but I would equally argue that the rags 'ratio' of disappointing peformances to good performances has not been impressive and neither was it that great last season with 11 1-0 wins and 10 defeats or draws would make their ratio 50:50 an they won the premiership.

I also happen to think that money is a more important factor than the manager and that success for us is inevitable. That's why I can't understand the undue focus on Hughes. I also believe stability to be more important factor than having the biggest name manager in the world every season. Give Mourinho Burnley to manage and would he win the Premiership - no way. Give Owen Coyle 300-400 million or inheriting the Chelsea side and would he win the league ? More than likely.

If you seriously think that every performance is going to be fantastic then you have wholly unrealistic expectations and totally underestimate the competitive nature of the premier league.

 

[Blue Mooner]

Hughes has achieved NOTHING as a manager.Even son of baconface got 2 promotions and got flirted.I put Hughes in the same catagory as alladyce,royle,reid,bassett,mccarthy,southgate,pearce and megson.LIMITED.If anybody thinks that we would have drawn our last 5 games under Hiddink,Mourinho or Van Gall,you must be deluded.All i'm saying is it is inevitable he will be sacked.Why wait until we've finished 8th and hear him tell us we're going in the right direction.

Well for a start none of those guys have played at Barcelona, Bayern Munich and Man United under the tutelage of some of the biggest name coaches in world football.

Success is relative to the resources you are afforded and I think most people are missing this point. Just because Hughes hasn't won anything doesn't mean he isn't/can't be a great manager. Nobody can argue he did a poor job at either Wales or Blackburn.

Joe Royle did a fantastic job at Oldham taking them from the 2nd division to the premiership and to cup finals. Unsurprisingly he was a failure with City.

The arguments the anti-Hughes brigade make are flawed because the likes of Van Gaal and Hiddink either started their careers at top flight clubs without having managed at the top level before (hence a risk) or they started at smaller clubs to learn their trade and then a bigger club took a gamble on them (when they maybe hadn't won anything.

Big Names don't start as big names they are built Hiddink got the job at PSV (a big club) after being the reserve coach - he hadn't won anything either before getting that job.

Its fair to say he did win things pretty quickly but PSV were already top when he took over, we have a bigger mountain to climb.

Its about time we stuck with a manager and not go for one who is near pensionable age.

 

[Anonymous]

You should all know that JMA is cleverer than anyone else on this board. When he starts threads like this, he's not looking for discussion or debate. He's looking for people to ridicule and patronize...so well done people for giving him what he wants!

 

[mammutly]

I also happen to think that money is a more important factor than the manager and that success for us is inevitable. That's why I can't understand the undue focus on Hughes. .

Are you serious?

You are obviously not stupid, but that is one utterly ridiculous statement.

The manager brings the coaching staff, the training regime, the match tactics, the team structure.... and loads of little 'details' like that.......

 

[Groucho]

Not been on for a while...

and this was the first Hughes thread I come across, so I've not read up on all of them.
Has anyone posted the fact that we haven't won a game if the opposition score first since Hughes took over?
(I don't count an extra time win against Fulham reserves in that btw!)

Tells me that if Hughes' Plan A isn't working.. he hasn't got the tactical ability to change it to Plan B!!

Now I don't know if Hughes would turn us in to title contenders if he was given time.. but that is a frightening statistic for any team.. let alone one that has spent as much as we have!!

 

[deynaskaz]

NOT boring just to long possibly , oh and a bit repetative.......................