Braggster
Well-Known Member
The Sven issue still haunts City, it would seem. There's really no need for it to. On the one hand is the pro-Hughes camp, who slag off Sven to validate Hughes. On the other side is the anti-Hughes camp, who praise Sven to invalidate Hughes.
There is no need to do this. My thesis on Hughes is simple: it's too early to say how good he is, as City are not a club that were capable of being turned around in a hurry, irrespective of the money spent (equivalent, in my view, to saying, well if Robinho is paid £160k a week he 'shouldn't be tired' - some things take time no matter how much money is thrown at them).
Part of this is down to the state that City were in when Sven left. The squad was in a poor shape: imbalanced; full of inconsistent and demotivated players; a mix of potential and past it old pros; in short, a potential relegation candidate, especially considering the later injuries to Johnson and Petrov, and there was chaos behind the scenes; whence the frequent slagging-off of Sven.
However, though some of this may have been Sven's fault, it was by no means principally down to him. A mixture of only a year in the job, a disastrous squad when he took over, a chaotic and impossible owner, years of under investment, etc., were the main culprits. Reference to the fact that City were shit by the end of last season, and on a serious downward spiral, are correct, no matter what some people on this board have argued. That doesn't mean that Sven was crap, though; he too would have had a good chance at remedying the situation with the Arab money.
Sven will not, I don't think, be returning to City, or to any other big premier league club (though you never know on the latter). I'm sorry that his tenure at City ended as it did, and I'll always be curious to know how he would've done here given longer in the job, but he's gone and it's time to move on. We can both recognise the problems of the Sven era AND the fact that he's a good manager who is in no way entirely responsible for those problems.
There is no need to do this. My thesis on Hughes is simple: it's too early to say how good he is, as City are not a club that were capable of being turned around in a hurry, irrespective of the money spent (equivalent, in my view, to saying, well if Robinho is paid £160k a week he 'shouldn't be tired' - some things take time no matter how much money is thrown at them).
Part of this is down to the state that City were in when Sven left. The squad was in a poor shape: imbalanced; full of inconsistent and demotivated players; a mix of potential and past it old pros; in short, a potential relegation candidate, especially considering the later injuries to Johnson and Petrov, and there was chaos behind the scenes; whence the frequent slagging-off of Sven.
However, though some of this may have been Sven's fault, it was by no means principally down to him. A mixture of only a year in the job, a disastrous squad when he took over, a chaotic and impossible owner, years of under investment, etc., were the main culprits. Reference to the fact that City were shit by the end of last season, and on a serious downward spiral, are correct, no matter what some people on this board have argued. That doesn't mean that Sven was crap, though; he too would have had a good chance at remedying the situation with the Arab money.
Sven will not, I don't think, be returning to City, or to any other big premier league club (though you never know on the latter). I'm sorry that his tenure at City ended as it did, and I'll always be curious to know how he would've done here given longer in the job, but he's gone and it's time to move on. We can both recognise the problems of the Sven era AND the fact that he's a good manager who is in no way entirely responsible for those problems.