Confused....and angry

[jay_mcfc]

At the risk of repeating myself and others, I've got no problem with Hughes receiving a considerable amount of criticism for the part he has played in the disappointment that this season has been so far. What I find completely and utterly blinkered however, is this view that the players are somehow blameless and that if they don't perform then it is Hughes' fault. It's a view that is just plain wrong. Not opinion... just wrong.

Hughes' tactics and selections have at time bordered on insane but once those players are on the pitch they have a responsibility to him, the club, us, hell even themselves, to put in a hard graft and do what they can. Everyone has off days, I get that, but when competent players continually put in sub standard performances then I question them and them alone.

As I said, I'll blame Hughes for his apparent tactical ineptitude and for picking dross such as Vassell and Ball when he had better options, but I won't blame him for the players on the pitch playing like they have nothing riding on it.

I don't want Hughes to be sacked if I'm honest, but I would completely understand if he was and wouldn't be too bothered. That said, regardless of the manager in charge, I want to see a considerable amount of deadwood around Eastlands banished from the club for good.

Nobody is saying the players are 'blameless', and that's because they aren't. They've under performed badly this season and whatever we say about Hughes it is ultimately the players that go out and play. However there is a huge difference in being 'blameless' and being 'to blame'. Whilst they're clearly not blameless they are a million miles away from being the blame. Whatever happens on a football field the buck stops with the manager and that is that. He is failing badly as manager of MCFC and whilst I agree that there are plenty of players that need moving on, Hughes has got plenty to work with and we shouldn't be performing as poorly as we are.

Your last paragraph just about sums up the belief of a lot of our supporters and my response to that is to say it's a little bit gutless. I don't want to have in my mind that I don't really care one way or another if the manager is sacked. I want to be 100% behind him, to have the faith in him that even during bad times I can see his vision and aims for the club. I want to respect and admire him, I want him to show me what he's capable of, I want him to admit when he's wrong, I want him to control the dressing room, I want players to respect him and to go onto the football field with a mindset where they'd run through brick walls for him. Sadly MH is failing on every single point. He doesn't excite me, he can't take us where we want to go, he's lost some players, his performance so far is a shambles and in my mind the future under Hughes is about as average as Blackburn under Fat Sam.

 

[Wooderbeen]

It's not gutless - not too sure what you mean by that. To me, it's sticking to my original argument of giving the man time. I firmly believe that a manager can only be judged over the course of a full season, which Hughes hasn't had. I can understand people being upset, frustrated, even angry with our lack of progress, but I'm not going to change my view game by game. A full season is exactly that; not half a season, a bad run or an early cup exit. With the exception of being in a serious relegation fight come March, I can't see the harm in giving Hughes more time and money to bring in the personnel he wants.

Call me an optimist but I think we'll match where we finished last year and maybe improve on it.

With regard to the players, I still find it confusing and a touch amusing that you're quite willing to suggest that they aren't 'blameless' but they also aren't 'to blame' without affording Hughes exactly the same courtesy. I don't think I'll be changing any opinions today, nor do I want to, but I'd still like to see a bit more clarity and a bit less hypocrisy on both sides of the Hughes debate.

Oh and in response to your last paragraph... are you really saying it's 100% backing or nothing? There are shades of grey in football. Please don't misinterpret my understanding of our current situation or my defence of Hughes as mere apathy.

 

[jay_mcfc]

Your post suggests I've changed my mind as a result of current form...that would be wrong. I was against the Hughes appointment from the start because I didn't like him and I didn't like his management style. I still thought he was a decent manager and would do a decent job however, much to my surprise if I'm honest, he's been appalling. Just about everything that could go wrong has done. He's failing in every aspect of management a manager can fail in with the exception of some very good signings. But my problem with Hughes has never been about current form, that's just the final straw for me. My problem is his management style and how far he can take us and on current evidence that is not very far. I could accept certain aspects of his management if he istilled a bit of excitement or if I had faith in him, unfortunately I have neither. He's a distinctly average manager in my opinion and we've got him at exactly the wrong time. Had he came just after KK or just after Pearce then things might have been different but as it stands he just isn't what we need.

 

[Anonymous]

Good post Jay, agree with everything. Allthough i think Parker and Bridge are good signings because they are better than Ball and Fernandes.

 

[Wooderbeen]

All fair points. I too was completely underwhelmed by his appointment especially as they got rid of a bit of a fans' favourite, but from the second he was appointed I've been behind him and said that he needed time to make his own mark on the team. Maybe that's the difference. I'm not saying one way is right and one way is wrong, but it does occur to me that some (not all) have had a vendetta against the man from the get go. You say your opinion of him has nothing to do with our current form but I would suggest that is the single most important factor, which is why I'm very quick to point out I understand Hughes' critics.

We can't really know what Hughes is like in the dressing room, the same way we can't really what's he like on the training ground, the same way we can't know for sure that Elano is the trouble making monster we're led to believe, etc. etc.. We can speculate sure, but it seems wrong to base your entire opinion of him on speculation. Do we really know Hughes' management style under a completely different set of circumstances than he had at Blackburn? I've certainly not seen much clobbering from our side this year (in fact we need more if you ask me) and our football has ranged from pathetic to sublime. As for not being exciting, well I too hate the position we're in but I do believe we've seen much more exciting football this season by City than we did last, albeit sporadically at best. Second top goalscorers in the Premier League has surely got to suggest exciting football. I'd rather be top six with a negative goal difference, without a doubt, but you see my point.

That said, we do find ourselves in an uneviable position in the league table and Hughes must accept a good portion of the blame, as you said before the buck stops with him. I'll personally stick to my guns on this one and reassess the situation in a few months time. Given that the board seem to be sticking with Hughes for now, it's likely one of us will eventually be proven wrong.

 

[CBlue]

FFS - there is some shit in this thread.

City lack a back bone & are unbalanced.....when the fuck did this suddenly become an issue? Was it in pre-season? Was it in the middle of September? October? November? Did our management geniuses miss this small detail when assembling their squad to conquer Europe & an assault on the top 4? Why the fuck wasn't this addressed? Hughes was appointed manager in early June - it's not as if he had no time or resources to do it.

Hughes is a "Hard man" manager....great, I'm very happy for him. Unfortunately, I have no fucking idea what that is supposed to mean. Good management is about making the most effective use of the resources at your disposal. I'd hazard a guess that treating a room of millionaire employees as kids & fucking idiots isn't really the best approach in getting the best out of them. You treat them with respect & let them know your approach/plan to achieve success. If you can see that some aren't on board with that idea & show dissent to it then you move them on at the most convenient time for you & bring in resources that you feel will achieve success. What you don't do is alienate them when they are an integral part of the plan...you get the best out of them, by whatever means (i.e. you manage them) until you are able to strengthen/improve the resources. How many of the players that SGE inherited were part of his ideal squad? I would guess not too many...take a look at some of his early press conferences....praising Dunne/Richards/Johnson/Hart/Hamman/Ball/Ireland...these guys were walking on air - I would think that, long term, some of them weren't part of the master plan.

Players taking the piss out of the manager....good managers would take them to one side & talk to them. If it continued then a spell in the reserves...if it still continued then training with the youngsters etc. What you don't do is continue playing them while potentially creating unrest with the rest of the squad - not unless you want to create a scapegoat for your own management deficiencies...self fulfilling prophecy...see I told you so etc.

All the issues about player unrest seem to be down to piss poor management. The solution that the pro Hughes camp keep espousing is to not sack him because he is a really poor manager & it's all the fault of the players. Even Cook thinks he's not too good when he talked about him not wanting to leave his comfort zones.

Hughes is the local corner shop owner that has just been appointed the CEO of Walmart...what worked for him at the local store won't work at Walmart...he needs additional skill sets that he is showing he doesn't possess.

 

[HelloCity]

Your post suggests I've changed my mind as a result of current form...that would be wrong. I was against the Hughes appointment from the start because I didn't like him and I didn't like his management style. I still thought he was a decent manager and would do a decent job however, much to my surprise if I'm honest, he's been appalling. Just about everything that could go wrong has done. He's failing in every aspect of management a manager can fail in with the exception of some very good signings. But my problem with Hughes has never been about current form, that's just the final straw for me. My problem is his management style and how far he can take us and on current evidence that is not very far. I could accept certain aspects of his management if he istilled a bit of excitement or if I had faith in him, unfortunately I have neither. He's a distinctly average manager in my opinion and we've got him at exactly the wrong time. Had he came just after KK or just after Pearce then things might have been different but as it stands he just isn't what we need.

Says it all.

 

[Wooderbeen]

FFS - there is some shit in this thread.
You treat them with respect & let them know your approach/plan to achieve success. If you can see that some aren't on board with that idea & show dissent to it then you move them on at the most convenient time for you & bring in resources that you feel will achieve success. What you don't do is alienate them when they are an integral part of the plan...you get the best out of them, by whatever means (i.e. you manage them) until you are able to strengthen/improve the resources. How many of the players that SGE inherited were part of his ideal squad? I would guess not too many...take a look at some of his early press conferences....praising Dunne/Richards/Johnson/Hart/Hamman/Ball/Ireland...these guys were walking on air - I would think that, long term, some of them weren't part of the master plan.

Players taking the piss out of the manager....good managers would take them to one side & talk to them. If it continued then a spell in the reserves...if it still continued then training with the youngsters etc. What you don't do is continue playing them while potentially creating unrest with the rest of the squad - not unless you want to create a scapegoat for your own management deficiencies...self fulfilling prophecy...see I told you so etc.

All the issues about player unrest seem to be down to piss poor management. The solution that the pro Hughes camp keep espousing is to not sack him because he is a really poor manager & it's all the fault of the players. Even Cook thinks he's not too good when he talked about him not wanting to leave his comfort zones.

And which Premier League side were you in charge of then? I love these 'clever' posters who are convinced they have all the answers because they went on a Call Centre Management course once. It's laughable. 'Management for Dummies' can be typed out here all people want but the bottom line is nobody knows what goes on behind closed doors and how Hughes deals with individual players!

City languish in a place where none of us want them to be and I don't mind arguing the merits of the players or the manager until the cows come home, but let's not fool ourselves by thinking any one of us have a monopoly on knowing what is best for City... and beginning posts with 'FFS' doesn't make your point more valid.

 

[mancity1]

Agree CBLE and points well made it summarises our situation well.

I might add though that whoever in our club decided that it was best we bring in " the best credentialled young manager in British football " need to have a good look at how they go about doing their research before the next selection is made.

In the blame game which I am not a big fan of anyway as it doesn't help getting more points on the score sheet on matchdays those people have to be as accountable as everybody else.

I am not a fan of Cook going to the press and telling them about Hughes failings when its obvious to all and sundry that he needs to change his approach if he is to remain in the job for any length of time and by that I mean beyond the transfer window.

Maybe I am too pessimistic and cynical about this new dawn but I see nothing in Cook and his spin that gives me any confidence that things will get worse before they get better.

Until you get the right people at the top of the tree that know how to appoint the right people who are given responsibility for on field decisions and performance you will go nowhere or as Hughes already puts it 2 steps backwards to go one step forwards.

I thought at worst we would be on an even keel with our performance level of early last year results wise ( surely the loss of Petrov and Corluka have not made us a poor team overnight given who we have bought in )

Like some others have already concluded avoiding relegation is our only priority for this season and Hughes cry for premiership experience to " bolster the quality in the squad " is a clear indication that he knows if changes are not made to personnel in January thats the distinct possibility that faces us , however he will need to change as well and for the better and quickly otherwise expect more of the same but with a different face or three.

 

[CBlue]

And which Premier League side were you in charge of then? I love these 'clever' posters who are convinced they have all the answers because they went on a Call Centre Management course once. It's laughable. 'Management for Dummies' can be typed out here all people want but the bottom line is nobody knows what goes on behind closed doors and how Hughes deals with individual players!

City languish in a place where none of us want them to be and I don't mind arguing the merits of the players or the manager until the cows come home, but let's not fool ourselves by thinking any one of us have a monopoly on knowing what is best for City... and beginning posts with 'FFS' doesn't make your point more valid.

You know fuck all about me so please don't label me as clever....I'm as thick as pig shit. I'm working my way up to "Management for Dummies"...does it have lots of pretty pictures? I've also never had the opportunity to attend a Call Centre Management course are they any good? You must be speaking from experience? Or are you bullshitting?

Which Premier League side were you in charge of then?

Unfortunately, due to piss poor management we are being fed selective leaks about what is going on behind closed doors & it doesn't paint a pretty picture. Like I said, look at the approach a good manager took to inheriting a pretty poor squad & then take a look at our current management genius.

OK, let's argue the merits of our current manager....of you go...I'm at a loss to see any. I stated at the time of his appointment that he had demonstrated a very poor record against the top teams in the PL (forget Europe because he wasn't in them long enough to form an opinion) which would suggest a lack of tactical ability. But, he was our manager & I reserved judgement & was willing to see what he could do. I take no pleasure in saying that he has flattered to deceive.

 

[Wooderbeen]

Unfortunately, due to piss poor management we are being fed selective leaks about what is going on behind closed doors & it doesn't paint a pretty picture. Like I said, look at the approach a good manager took to inheriting a pretty poor squad & then take a look at our current management genius.

OK, let's argue the merits of our current manager....of you go...I'm at a loss to see any. I stated at the time of his appointment that he had demonstrated a very poor record against the top teams in the PL (forget Europe because he wasn't in them long enough to form an opinion) which would suggest a lack of tactical ability. But, he was our manager & I reserved judgement & was willing to see what he could do. I take no pleasure in saying that he has flattered to deceive.

I've got no problem whatsoever with your opinion that Hughes isn't the man for us, but again (in the first paragraph above) you seem to accepting hearsay as 'fact'. 'Fed selective leaks'? Source?

Look, you might well be right and we might be lapping up the tripe being laid on by the club/Hughes. You might also be right that Hughes isn't the man for the job, but your strong views of what a good Premier League manager does and does not do is based on nothing of value. You don't know what goes on behind closed doors (nor do I) and you've never been in charge of such a outfit (nor have I). I've got no problem with opinions, it's just that the tone of your post seemed to be presenting your opinions as 'fact'.

As for the merits/positives of our manager that you wanted, well... I think he's done a good job in the market so far and I'm overjoyed to see that City have outscored all but one other team in the Premier League this season. Hopefully once our defensive errors are addressed, it'll be onward and upward. But that's not all.

My argument isn't quite as, ahem, scientific as yours, but it's not without merit itself. City have a tradition of hiring and firing managers at will and this system has reaped nothing but failure. I'm not saying Hughes is definitely the man to change all this, but I am willing to give him more than six months to prove that he's not.

As I said elsewhere, I'm sure I'm being a tad optimistic but I see us finishing at least as high as we did last season (with hopefully a good UEFA Cup run). Granted, it's not spectacular progress but I do think we'll have some momentum for next season.

 

[Brucie Bonus]

Wonderbeen makes a reasonable point about Hughes being judged over a whole season. In fact, one might argue that the first season for any manager is a case of getting his feet under the table; thought not a throw-away, the first season is suck-it-and-see. This depends on results though, obviously. In Sven's case many said that if the two halves of his season had been reversed, he'd never have been fired. On the other hand, as some wag said, if they had been reversed, Sven would have been sacked at Christmas. We'll never know about that, but Hughes is still with us.

Those who want Hughes removed often compare Hughes to date with Sven over the course of a whole season. Those who want Hughes to have more time point out that Hughes first half is on a par with Sven's second, and like is not being compared to like.

From the end of January 2008 many fans began to ask why Sven persisted with tactics &c. that had begun to unravel in early December. Much was said about Sven's tactics against Liverpool at home, when Liverpool where going through a very rough patch confidence-wise, and with unrest behind the scenes at Anfield. Much was said about that game, and none of it complimentary. At least we tried to beat Liverpool this season.

By the end of January Sven was routinely criticized by fans on the basis of his tactics and substitions. Questions were asked about why Sven just sat, passively, seemingly disconnected from events on the pitch. What appeared calm and composed early in the season was no longer seen as the external manifestation of an interior and inspiring assuredness. By mid-February, when Sven admitted (!) that we had been figured out, fans discussed in eager anticipation Sven's plan B. Sven never had a plan B. Many all along suspected he did not, and they were correct. Sven only had one plan; to send everything - absolutely everything - down the left wing in the shape of the flying Bulgarian Nosfertau. Shut down City's left, and game over.

Sven was popular with many fans who (desperate for some affirmation that City - and they - mattered) where whipped into a frenzy by a case-study in how to organize a mob, using the press, radio, and internet; fake "letters to the editor"; the awful involvment of the OSC and their use of a fake poll; fake polls on the MEN and the internet; protests that cost nothing, and the involvement of wums, rags and Franks enemies from Thailand; false and misleading data picked up and used by the press and even the LMA and some MPs!: priceless. It was easy though, I mean, Frank FFS?

So all the ineptitude that Sven exhibited, his dodgy or one-dimensional signings (hyped-up of course), and panic buying, his unbelievably dull and uninstructive interviews (the master of saying nothing), his lacksadaisical approach to team-building and fitness, his boring team set-ups and play, even his entire record at other clubs were all forgotten, blown away in a flurry of, "Frank is a Nazi" and "Frank knows nothing about football" soundbites. The trumpets were brought on: "Sven has to have the time to build foundations", but these trumpets were just saying something footbally, suggesting that Sven ought to be trusted to do something at City he had curiously failed to do at a single club he had ever managed. Still, "foundations" sounds all good and footbally, like "lead the line" and "loyal servant of the club".

Of course Sven's manipulation of the press (and players) during his dispute with Frank was hardly to be condemned was it? Never-ending leaks from COMS and the stories that made a bad man (Frank, I mean) pass over into the realm of Hitler and Pol Pot were picked up and repeated with glee and gladness. Any morning paper that made Frank look out of touch - not only with football, but also with the English - was eaten up over the breakfast table with as much relish as a full breakfast (extra ham, naturally). Back then, no matter the source, no matter the chain of command or propriety, no matter any princple, it was all fair so long as it worked to one managers advantage.

Forgotten was Sven's dubious managment style whilst with England. Forgotten were England player revolts and fake Sheiks: City players refusing to perform their duty and suggesting boycotts last summer? Frank had lost the dressing room, so who cared? No princples involved though, just remember that. Nothing to see, move along.

The seeds of this current revolt were planted last April and May. Hughes was Frank's man, brought in as a response to the laziness and unprofessionalism of the players (as Frank saw and accused). Frank made an investigation into each of the players; their lives, habits, associations and so forth were all put down in written form and handed to Hughes when boyo took over. Frank was right about so many of them.

When the Arabs bought City I wouldn't be surprised if messages like, "Thank G*d, he'll be gone now", and "Let's get this twat out of here", and "Do you think we can get Sven back" were exchanged.

During the second-half of last season players refused to perform 100% physically and mentally, and in some games I believe it went further.

I can never forget the petulance exhibited in the collapse against Fulham: shaming Frank (and us, more to the point) in front of a large Thai contingent, with the players having the nerve to take a lap of honour (boooooo! GTFO!) after their rotten show since December was a mockery. The 8-1 at Middlesborough - a result preciptated by Dunne's accidental brush with Tuncay's lower calf inside the penalty box (at the time qualifying for Franks UEFA Cup dream via fair play was in the air, we didn't need a red card) - with players laughing and winking at one another said all I needed to know about the loyalty of so many loyal servants to the club. They are loyal to no one and nothing but their own self interests.

Confused? No.

 

[CBlue]

As for the merits/positives of our manager that you wanted, well... I think he's done a good job in the market so far

I don't agree....he has signed some good players but were they what we needed at the time? He doesn't seem to have a game plan. He inherited a squad of players who had been assembled to play football i.e. keep possession & pass & probe (coincidentally - this is the way the successful teams play). He now has them going long & chasing/harassing the opposition. He is putting square pegs in round holes.

Manchester City executive chairman Garry Cook believes Mark Hughes´ background of shrewd dealings in the transfer market can only benefit the club.

With record signing Jo setting off with the rest of the squad on Thursday to a training camp in Germany, City are now trying to lure Ronaldinho to Eastlands.

It was Hughes´ dealings in bringing stars to Blackburn on a budget that attracted City to the former Wales boss and Cook said: "We do not have an open cheque book - it is important to be responsible. Mark has a great track record in that department and will decide the talent he requires. He says the squad is a bit unbalanced."

Copyright (c) PA Sport 2008, All Rights Reserved.

The above was from July 3, 2008 - that's ~ 2 months before the end of the August transfer window - he is still saying the same thing. Why was it not addressed at the time? What does the "Management for Dummies" say about this?

and I'm overjoyed to see that City have outscored all but one other team in the Premier League this season. Hopefully once our defensive errors are addressed, it'll be onward and upward.

I'm overjoyed that you are overjoyed. This is akin to Boro' beating us 8-1 but losing the previous 7 games 1-0...they still only got 3 points. Have we won by the odd goal this season?

But that's not all.

Oh goody...

My argument isn't quite as, ahem, scientific as yours, but it's not without merit itself.

Don't put yourself down...I'm sure it does..

City have a tradition of hiring and firing managers at will and this system has reaped nothing but failure.

Oh...it is without merit...which of our failed managers were you thinking would have taken us to the promised land given just a bit more time?

I'm not saying Hughes is definitely the man to change all this, but I am willing to give him more than six months to prove that he's not.

Me too...this isn't an opinion garnered over a six month period - like I said, look at his track record. BFS has a better record.

As I said elsewhere, I'm sure I'm being a tad optimistic but I see us finishing at least as high as we did last season (with hopefully a good UEFA Cup run). Granted, it's not spectacular progress but I do think we'll have some momentum for next season.

One thing is for certain...unless Hughes qualifies for Europe &/or wins the Uefa cup, he won't see another transfer window with City.

 

[CBlue]

Frank made an investigation into each of the players; their lives, habits, associations and so forth were all put down in written form and handed to Hughes when boyo took over. Frank was right about so many of them.

The 8-1 at Middlesborough - a result preciptated by Dunne's accidental brush with Tuncay's lower calf inside the penalty box (at the time qualifying for Franks UEFA Cup dream via fair play was in the air, we didn't need a red card) - with players laughing and winking at one another said all I needed to know about the loyalty of so many loyal servants to the club.

Wow...where to begin!!

I've picked a couple of sentences that don't make a lot of sense to me. Why were some of the said players given new/extensions to their current contracts if this was true (by "boyo")? Why have none of these players been shown the door & sold?

Also, I'm not sure that loyalty & football are great bed-fellows. You may find some examples of this but they are in the very small minority.

 

[Wooderbeen]

I'm pleased my post warranted so much scrutiny (oh and I'm sure you're pleased I'm pleased). My argument (you know the one I thought was not without merit?) that our previous system of habitually hiring and firing managers has brought zero success... what part of that isn't valid? Erm, it hasn't brought us any success, unless you count The Thomas Cook Trophy (which, if I'm honest, sometimes I like to do). I have no idea who could have taken us to the promised land, but that was hardly my point. My point was, we've not let anyone try.

It seems we'll have to agree to disagree about the transfer market. I think SWP, Kompany and Zabaleta are good signings (Ben Haim has been disappointing) and I'm very excited to see what impact Bridge can make too. Personally, once Hughes has his team in place, I think we'll be a much improved side. I suppose time will tell on that one.

And maybe I should be a touch clearer with my other point. I am willing to give him more than six months in this job to prove himself. As they say, Rome wasn't built in a day. You might find that saying in your book too!

 

[Brucie Bonus]

Frank made an investigation into each of the players; their lives, habits, associations and so forth were all put down in written form and handed to Hughes when boyo took over. Frank was right about so many of them.

The 8-1 at Middlesborough - a result preciptated by Dunne's accidental brush with Tuncay's lower calf inside the penalty box (at the time qualifying for Franks UEFA Cup dream via fair play was in the air, we didn't need a red card) - with players laughing and winking at one another said all I needed to know about the loyalty of so many loyal servants to the club.

Wow...where to begin!!

I've picked a couple of sentences that don't make a lot of sense to me. Why were some of the said players given new/extensions to their current contracts if this was true (by "boyo")? Why have none of these players been shown the door & sold?

Also, I'm not sure that loyalty & football are great bed-fellows. You may find some examples of this but they are in the very small minority.

Hughes was aware of the issues when he took over the club, and believed he could do what was required to solve the problems that Frank (and Cook) identified. Hughes made a miscalculation imo with the new contracts and extensions, but they certainly pleased fans (at that time). Sometimes going into a new job we expect a certain amount of discomfort, perhaps a little hostility, maybe resistance (and in Hughes case, he replaced Sven, was brought in by Frank, and is in a sense the living embodiment of Frank's criticism) if the job is supervisory and we are required to change policies or procedures, and everyone, not just Hughes, has a comfort zone. I think Hughes has been stunned by the resistance in the dressing room. That's my opinion. This is the same Mark Hughes that was at Blackburn. With respect, I really do think City fans are going overboard when they say Hughes cannot manage the GREAT players we have. We have GREAT players? Which of our GREAT players are kicking up a stink and behaving like idiots on and off the pitch? Elano? Pfffft. 99% of the blokes who think he's just ah, so special, had NEVER even heard of him before he pops up as if by magic. They'll claim they knew all about him. They lie.

Then it'll be, "but he plays for Brazil, so must be good / good enough for us". Right, whatever. I have some new stickers for the latest Panini album, lots of swappsies? Later I fancy a game of Top Trumps Footballers if anyones interested.

We have the basis of a good XI, but a terribly weak squad. I do find the talk about what a great team we had last season a bit much to take. They were good-to-lucky for four months, that's it. So many talk about teams that punch above their weight, do well for a little time (like Hull this season), but who eventually find their proper level. Looking at City since the last time we got promoted, how would you honestly characterize the first part of last season? A new and glorious dawn which Hughes has sabotaged, the continuation of our march into europe, or a flash in the pan caused by a few new faces and the new manager bounce? It's bollox. Sven couldn't get them to play for most of last season, but the excuses are legion. Can't blame Sven, can't blame the players, it was all Frank. I'll tell you what the problem is imo, fans who couldn't find their arse with their hands. They rave on and on and on and on about so many average players, they big them up week in and week out, the most basic skill, the most mundane attribute they praise to heaven and call it "quality" and "sheer class" and "top-drawer". We can't even drop Bill and fucking Ben cos folks would start crying, or is it that we just are so thin, we have no one to replace a pair of fucking flowerpot men?

Putting on a City shirt suddenly supplies players with skills and abilities and heart they strangely lacked before signing. If your name gets put on lots of shirts bought by fans, you can get away with murder. After all, no fan is going to admit he spent money putting the name of a muppet on a shirt, because that would display piss-poor judgment for all to see.

This business about player x or player y suddenly playing badly and it's all because of Hughes. The team is dreadfully unbalanced, which is footbally for "full of shit players who do not have what it takes."

I couldn't care less about clearing out the dressing room. I have no sentimental attachment to a single player. It's weakness. It prevents you from doing what is required in the best interests of the club. You are either good enough to justify 30-70k per week, or you are not.

 

[CBlue]

I'm pleased my post warranted so much scrutiny (oh and I'm sure you're pleased I'm pleased).

I'm not sure that it was given much scrutiny...like Hughes' tactics, the arguments aren't anything I haven't seen before but I am pleased that you are pleased but then again I am easy to please so please be assured that I have taken great pleasure in your assurance.

My argument (you know the one I thought was not without merit?) that our previous system of habitually hiring and firing managers has brought zero success... what part of that isn't valid? Erm, it hasn't brought us any success, unless you count The Thomas Cook Trophy (which, if I'm honest, sometimes I like to do). I have no idea who could have taken us to the promised land, but that was hardly my point. My point was, we've not let anyone try.

Yes, you are right...hiring & firing managers have brought zero success but that is the same argument that hiring & firing these managers has saved us from playing Non-League football or even worse calamities. The only manager that I can recall (in recent history) being sacked hastily (arguably) was Peter Reid. My question to you was who, in your opinion, would have led us to the promised land of "success" if they were allowed to continue & try?

It seems we'll have to agree to disagree about the transfer market. I think SWP, Kompany and Zabaleta are good signings (Ben Haim has been disappointing) and I'm very excited to see what impact Bridge can make too. Personally, once Hughes has his team in place, I think we'll be a much improved side. I suppose time will tell on that one.

Why is this not his team? He had ~ 3 months to put his squad together. He didn't know of the takeover & the near limitless resources until very late in the day. This was his squad that he had tinkered with & assembled for an assault on Europe & the top 4. I'm sick of hearing about this not being his team...it's BS. In my quote above it was clear from Cook that Hughes' frugality was one of his attractions:
"It was Hughes´ dealings in bringing stars to Blackburn on a budget that attracted City to the former Wales boss and Cook said: "We do not have an open cheque book - it is important to be responsible. Mark has a great track record in that department and will decide the talent he requires""

And maybe I should be a touch clearer with my other point. I am willing to give him more than six months in this job to prove himself. As they say, Rome wasn't built in a day. You might find that saying in your book too!

Now you are just trying to confuse me...I've already told you I can't read...plus I've heard that there is another book that states that light, land, sea, life etc was created in 6 days so what's the problem. Plus Rome didn't already have foundations on which to build.

 

[crystal_mais]

OK first of all what IS going on? We're hearing all kinds of reports and rumours of who we're in negotiations with, from the highest scale in the world to the most average in the premiership. Then we're hearing Hughes could be about to lose his job and transfers are to be put on hold....I hope it's the latter that is true.


Now the angry part. We've played well in 3 games out of our last 16 matches, the rest we've ranged from pretty average to completely diabolical. It's quite simply disgusting and all this blaming it on the players ability or attitude is shocking. Micah Richards, Dunne, Elano, Hart etc would easily get into other good premiership teams as well as many other players in our squad that are good solid premiership standard, not the best but certainly better players than what the likes of Hull, Bolton, Fulham etc have.

The truth is, of course, that Mark Hughes is completely and utterly inept. He's dragging us down to such a bad level that some of you lot now think the likes of Richards and Hart should be sold whilst players like Parker are just what we need. Well fucking shame on you. I can't even be arsed arguing all these points any more, this is my last thread on the subject as I know what you lot are like. Hughes performance as manager and the way he's blamed the players and left them out to dry is disgusting. Because of how badly he's doing we now have to set our standards of players we're looking at much lower than we should be, I only hope our owners don't show too much 'loyalty'.

Boring!!!

 

[crystal_mais]

Ive been against Hughes from the start but when a current first team player tells me some of the current squad couldnt give a fuck about City or they're fans then I'll side with Hughes in fucking ridding City of these leeching bastard jokers out of our club.

but these same players loved the club and played VERY well under Sven last year, its all VERY worrying and dissapointing

For half a season, where were they for the second half

 

[CBlue]

Hughes was aware of the issues when he took over the club...

So why does he continue to play Elano? Why is he yet to "blood" any of our esteemed academy graduates? Why didn't he off-load a number of these "muppets" in the 3 months he had before the window closed? Why couldn't he use the proceeds from the clearout & build a balanced squad? If all you say is true then why were the only players that left fringe squad players (Isacksson/Sun/Dickov/Geovanni/Mpenza/Corluka)? Or were these the trouble makers?

I'm not sure this is helping your cause.