Also remember that he has had the most backing, support and ability to change whatever and whoever he wants given to any manager in the history of football.
I'll just repeat that, in the history of football. Since the game was invented.
Also, where does this idea come from that if a club has not been successful recently then this will hold them back as there is a mental block?
THere are hundreds of examples of managers coming into clubs and, thanks to their managerial skills, improving their fortunes - either immediately, within a few months or within a season.
Are you saying we haven't improved then? Facts suggest we have.
Blackburn is irrelevant. Different times. Just as no club could ever come up from the Championship and challenge for Champions League in their first season.
Are you saying we should be challenging for the title then? Or just Champions League. Not clear.
Are City a special case where everyone associated with the club - even though none of them were here when City were a losing club going nowhere and many have experienced success elsewhere - suddenly becomes a nervous wreck and can't handle winning. How did Dalgleish manage it at Blackburn then?
In fact, it's not even winning that people particularly want - it's just playing at a level that does justice to the ability of the players we have.
So far, under Hughes, we have 15 months of consistent under par performances, failing to get anywhere near full potential out of players.
I'm interested in this theory that City are so special, so weak minded and so weird that no manager could be expected to get really good players playing to a consistent decent standard within his first two years at the club. Could you explain it a bit more and tell us why it happens at other clubs, up and down the leagues, throughout the years, when a better manager than the previous one takes over (expecially wheh they are given the support to buy far better players too)