kinkladze96 said:
JohnMaddocksAxe said:
Can someone explain to me the absolutely ridiculous thinking that sees people say stuff like "he picks the right team, it's not his fault if they don't perform" or things like "do you expect him to hold their hands throughout the match"?
What exactly is the manager there for if it is not to be responsible for the performance of his players and the fuinctioning of his team.
It does make me laugh when people use this excuse.
Perhaps it does make sense if we are talking about a one off match where a couple of out of character mistakes have turned the result.
But when we are talking about a whole season of shite that has been served up then there is only one person who can take responsibility for that.
Otherwise, are we saying that Sven had absolutely fuck all to do with the second half of last season as he had worse players to pick from and once he had sent them out it was nothing to do with him how they perfomed.
How will the Sven haters square that with their assertions that Hughes cannot be held responsible for the shite that is served up is he picks a decent XI
I dont hate sven or mark hughes. i do believe the time mh has had in charge has been good in terms of getting players of character in.
Results havent followed as quickly as everyone would like.
If you picked the team , would it have varied much from what he has put out?
The team needs a strong leader on the pitch, which at the moment isnt quite there. we have candidates which is encouraging.
the away form is poor, but i would hardly describe the season as shite.
It is not a case of results 'following'.
He has not taken over a team that was lamguishing in the lower reaches of the league and needed a complete overhaul.
That is something that the likes of Megson, Alladyce, Bruce and Redknapp have had to do recently, starting from a much worse position than Hughes did (plus without his financial advantage).
They have an argument for not wanting people to expect 'results to follow' quickly. However, each of them achieved an upturn in results much quicker than Hughes did/has.
In fact, we are still waiting for the upturn in results under Hughes, despite him having a massive financial advantage over these teams and much, much better players.
If I had been picking the team it would have been very similar to his choices at times and very different at times. That is irrelevant though. Regardless of the teams I am picking I would not expect to consistently send teams out full of very, very talented players, usually against inferior players and consistently, over the season as a whole, see them perform well below their ability as a group.
I would expect, if I had such a talented group of players who more often than not churned out poor perfomances in relation to their actual ability, that I am held to account for this. I would expect that people actually see the job of a football manager as being able to effect the performances of my team and that people did not see it as just a glorified version of Championship manager where you pick eleven players and hope they win.
I would expect that the work I do on the training ground, that I banged on about so much in the summmer as being superior to most and the equal of anywhere in the world, actually has some effect on the pitch and that I am able to influence my team and how it plays, rather than just sending them out and not knowing what is going to happen.
That's the art of management. Most managers can pick a decent eleven, especially from a decent squad. Good managers make the team perform to a consistent level that is at least on a par with the ability of the playing resources and usually above that level.
That's why they are good managers. City have performed well below the level of their playing resources throughout the season and continue to do so.
So, that is why I describe the season as shite.
I find it particularly funny that we are expected to see a cup run, where the performances (Schalke apart) have, relative to the opposition, been pretty shoddy, lucky and should have seen us eliminated on a couple of occasions, as a reason why the season has not been shite.
There has been very little in the UEFA cup run, taken as a whole, that shows we are progressing. There has been a lot that has shown us to be consistently underperforming in that compeition, as in every other one.
If we win it, great, we will have beaten some decent teams by then. At present, we have waded through dross in the knockout rounds and qualified from a group where 60% ofb the teams involved qualified.
So, that's why I think the season has been shite.
Just as a final example. Take a look at the league table. Try to pick out a manager who you could say "His points total, in relation to the players at his disposal, is currently worse than City's under Hughes."
You won't find many.
Are Stoke's players realisitically just 3 points worse than City's? Are Fulham's realisitcally two points better than City's? Are West Ham's realistically 6 points better? Are Hull's just 4 points worse? are Blackburn's? Are Pompey's just 5 points worse?
The answer, of course, is no to all of them. Unless you have a particularly low opinion of City's players.
And those are not players who have been schooled under their particular manager's into a well oiled machine for seasons. Most are under relatively new managers or in a new team or squads that have undergone a lot of change themselves.
The only teams I can realisitically see who have put in a worse performance than City in the league, relative to the talent they have are possibly Boro and Newcastle and maybe West Brom (who are woeful anyway). And that is debatable.
So, I contend that virtually 16 or 17 teams could point to their manager's getting more out of their players (relative to talent) when compared to City. On that basis, I would say it has been shit.
And given the results over the past two months (average at best if you actually study them and don't believe the spin) it shows no signs of getting better.
