BillyShears said:
JohnMaddocksAxe said:
I honestly feel that the denial now is part of a 'mananging by numbers' approach and not part of a considered plan to get develop things.
I get the impression that with Hughes, as with many managers, there is a tendency not to answer questions with his own opinions and thoughts but to answer them how he thinks 'a top manager would answer them'. Therefore, when faced with a blunt question of 'is there any unrest' instead of being honst or giving a genuine, heartfelt opinion many managers will think 'Jeez, what's a top manager's response to that question? Well, top manager's are in control, aren't they? They don't have dissent. I'll deny it. That's what Fergie would do, It'll make me look strong'.
Of course, that ignores the fact that many top managers like Jose are very honest with their personal thoughts but many, no, most, lesser managers are obsessed with replicating the cliched version of a powerful manager in control and respond accordingly.
That's what I would see as the driver for this denial now as it's at odds with everything else we see and his own actions.
I'm sorry but that make no sense to me whatsoever, and it totally contradictory. You're saying that all manager's respond in the same way, but when the successful managers do it, it's honest. And when the not so successful ones do it's cliched and copying the successful ones.
And the contradictory part is that over the weekend you were fucking lambasting Hughes for "hanging his players out to dry" after the Forrest game, but Mourinho is "very honest with his personal thoughts". Which I assume is a nice way of saying when he thinks his players are wank he says "they were wank". Which is exactly what Hughes did...
I don't mind people beating Hughes up if they have a valid point...unfortunately the above just comes across like pontificating for the sake of it...
No. Perhaps I've not worded it well. I'm supposed to be doing something else other than spout on here.
In general, many limited managers talk in cliches and come out with whatever they think shows them in the best light. It's thier cliched view of the image of a powerful manager, in control. That's why a number/most of them speak in cliches. Adams, McClaren, Curbishley, loads of them do it.
Their view isn't necessarily correct as people like Jose are very honest at times and often divert away from the tired old managerial cliches and stereotypes. By that I don't mean they hang their players out to dry for six months of bad results, they don't get into such n awful position in the first place, I mean they are confident enough to be unfazed by being seen by idiots as not being in control whilst also being confident enough that they are intelligent and quick witted enough to not appear tht way anyway even if they don;t deal in the standard, knee jerk, expected reactions to situations.
Hughes, in my opinion, with this interview is doing nothing other than what the average, limited manager spends half his life doing. Trying to promote an image of him being in control and behaving in the manner of most people's cliched 'powerful manager' stereotype.
No manager admits to having lost his players, therefore he is never going to do so, even if he has. He has hinted at it and most probably leaked a smilar thing but to specifically state it in public is a whole different ball game, even if it shouldn't be. The quotes would come back time and time again and that is not something anyone in his position wants to see in the long term, whether it is to his immediate benefit or not.
The frantic attempt to appear in control is paramount in most manager's minds, apart from the top ones as they are in control and therefore don't have to trot out the tired cliches to appear so. They wouldn't be in a position where they are even being asked this question.
It's not particaularly a criticism of him. Most managers around do it and del only in cliches.
I appeciate I might not be articulating this well. This is a bit of a stream of conciousness at the moment whilst I'm half doing something else.
