Hughes Out Brigade - Tatical Board

[AlexC83]

Why is it patronising?
It is a football forum about Manchester City.
It is about opinions on tactics, team selection etc.
So you support the right to have an opinion on where it all went wrong after the game but before.
When a guy starts talking to you about a subject, do you listen even if he has no obvious knowledge of the subject?
I read Moomba and Didsbury Daves posts with interest even though they are generally more towards the "Out" brigade than me.
They have shown they have the knowledge, in my opinion (there goes that word again!), that makes me want to listen and consider their views.
We don't get to see people face to face.

it is patronising because you're suggesting that none of us are qualified to have an opinion on our manager, unless we have an fa coaching badge or something. i know from watching the game for thirty-five years that this squad of players, the best we have ever assembled, are seriously under achieving and that HAS to be down to the manager.

I think the OP's correct, Hughes outers might not have to be qualified to give an opinion but they should be able to qualify their opinions rather than just saying "He's crap/we're playing rubbish".

 

[scotty]

i think we will play a 1-4-1-3-1-1

.
...........................Given...........
Richards(unfortunatley) Toure Lescott Bridge
...................De Jong...............................
.........SWP BARRY Bellers
....................................Robinho

.................Adebayor................

I hope he plays Ireland instead of Barry Though and Tevez instead of Adebayor, because he will run them down more, Bring Ade on late

 

[Blue Dove]

Tell you what mate, instead of saying that time and stabilty is the holy grail of football, why dont you give us reasons as to why Hughes should stay, exactly what can he offer our club?[/quote]

I have already stated or a few of the OUT threads why I think Hughes will come good.
But remember it is an opinion.
I believe that we are still finding how to play together and this has been hampered by the several International breaks.
I believe the players are good enough but I don't expect EVERY player to be playing well all the time.
Bridge and Barry came good early on and Lescott struggled.
Lescott was our best defender against Hull and is steadily improving.
I read what the professionals say.
Like Owen Coyle on Sunday saying that it takes time to gel a team.
He is a pro manager, I am not. I am not going to tell him he knows Fk all.
I have an opinion like I said in the OP, but it is an opinion.
Some posters on here talk with so much "authority" it is hilarious!

Right I have answered your question.
Do you want to have a real go at mine?
You don't have to.

 

[FCLB]

People can be in a field for 40 years and over and know very little about it.

You dont need any qualification to be able to assess the performance of a manager. Yet this does not mean that any assessment is correct.

I am not that sure that the squad that is currently assembled is that great. There is a lot of big names but...

The second point is that a replacement is needed. Hugues out is nice but it creates a vaccuum that needs to be filled.

Not knowing exactly why Hugues is to be sacked makes it very hard to elect a suitable replacement.

Or the game can be kept on: a new manager is brought in, a coalition is assembled on ground the manager is underachieving, he is sacked, a new one is brought in and so on.

 

[JohnMaddocksAxe]

I will bite.

Obviously all the below is one hundred percent accurate and exactly what is needed but I will display some false modesty and say it's all a matter of opinion, no-one's view is right or wrong, blah, blah, blah.

Now, there is no other option against Chelsea other than the 4-3-3/4-5-1 formation. A two man central midfield up against Lampard, Essien and one other will get completely overwhelmed. A three man midfield quite possibly will be too, but it's slightly less likely. I'd have to have De Jong in there and Barry would get the nod from me as I still believe he is a quality player. I also don't trust Johnson in this situation at present. There's not much more in the way of options in there. If Zab is a midfielder then I am the Pope.

SWP would be a certainty on the right. I'd consider Tevez but I would be concerned that Cole would just run off him. I don't think SWP has been anywhere near as bad as some make out and even if he had his defensive qualities and ability to get up and down with Cole are required here.

Adebayor is the only option up front. RSC is, I hope, just not fit. If he is fit then I am very worried. Bellamy and Tevez could be options, especially Bellamy but it'd still be Ade for me -with a rocket up his ar$e.

The defence isn't going to change, apart from right back. I don't rate Zab at all. Richards or Nedum at right back. I wouldn't even be bothered if Toure played there. I doubt that there would be a significant difference with any of those options.

The most controversial bit would be that I'd consider dropping Robinho.

I've never thought he was suited to playing wide in that system. He is a second striker imo and needs the freedom associated with that. Ivanovic has surprised me with his willingness and effectiveness going forward. Robinho, and I don't blame him for it, isn't going to combat that. I'd probably prefer Bellamy as there's going to be times, maybe a lot, when the team is under a heap of pressure.

Tevez and Robinho as subs later on would give some nice options.

But, all of the above is pretty pointless because we can all try to bang on about tactics and team formations but that is only a fraction of getting a team moulded into an effect unit.

Hughes could pick the exact same team as above and I would be delighted. But if he hasn't conducted enough good work with the defence over the past three months to get them looking like they know what they are doing then it will all be pretty pointless.

If he persists in instructing them, or allowing them, to hoof the ball 75% of the time (totally undermining the skills of our players and demoralising some of them) then it will be pointless.

If he persists in not adapting to what is happening and the changes that go on within the game, then it is pointless.

We can all spout about formations and selections but without it being underpined by good managament, tactical instruction and coaching then it'll still end up looking like, well, like the last 7 games - reagrdless of formation and selections

 

[Blue Dove]

Why is it patronising?
It is a football forum about Manchester City.
It is about opinions on tactics, team selection etc.
So you support the right to have an opinion on where it all went wrong after the game but before.
When a guy starts talking to you about a subject, do you listen even if he has no obvious knowledge of the subject?
I read Moomba and Didsbury Daves posts with interest even though they are generally more towards the "Out" brigade than me.
They have shown they have the knowledge, in my opinion (there goes that word again!), that makes me want to listen and consider their views.
We don't get to see people face to face.

it is patronising because you're suggesting that none of us are qualified to have an opinion on our manager, unless we have an fa coaching badge or something. i know from watching the game for thirty-five years that this squad of players, the best we have ever assembled, are seriously under achieving and that HAS to be down to the manager.

That doesn't make it patronising.
Challenging is the word I would use.
I have never said you are not allowed an opinion, I love them, but you blame the manager without using your 35 years of watching football to fully explain why.
Of course you don't have to, but it may get your point over and convince others.
But if you just prefer to rant after the game that is your right.
My own opinion is that unless you have played for a teams and had to try and understand how your team mates play and when they make runs, decisions etc, it is hard to understand how difficult it is.
Just a view.

 

[blueinsa]

I have already stated or a few of the OUT threads why I think Hughes will come good.
But remember it is an opinion.
I believe that we are still finding how to play together and this has been hampered by the several International breaks.
I believe the players are good enough but I don't expect EVERY player to be playing well all the time.
Bridge and Barry came good early on and Lescott struggled.
Lescott was our best defender against Hull and is steadily improving.
I read what the professionals say.
Like Owen Coyle on Sunday saying that it takes time to gel a team.
He is a pro manager, I am not. I am not going to tell him he knows Fk all.
I have an opinion like I said in the OP, but it is an opinion.
Some posters on here talk with so much "authority" it is hilarious!

Right I have answered your question.
Do you want to have a real go at mine?
You don't have to.

And it is my opinion that he simply is not good enough for were we want to be. He has recruited real quality, with the exception of RSC imo, but with the money spent, many others would have done the same, it was not difficult.

His tactics leave a hell of a lot to be desired, again on Saturday, Ireland should have been taken off and Kompany and De Jong should have been paired up to protect the back four, what does he do, he brings RSC on? Baffling! We have seen this all season and last and it simply is not good enough. The manager is paid a hell of a lot of money to put the right players on at the right time and if he cant do that, we will struggle.

A fellow pro manager saying that it takes time to gel, fancy that? Not very suprised, he is hardly going to say get rid is he?

We lack confidense as a team and individually at the moment and that is the responsibilty of the manager. I also think that the players have a lack of confidence in Hughes and that is showing, top quality players want a top quality manager, someone who they can believe in 110%. someone who knows what it takes to win football games. None of us like to suffer fools do we, why should they be any different?

To sum up, Hughes is not good enough, he was brought to the club by a previous owner who didnt have a pot to piss in, his brief was premiership stabilty, maybe a cup. The new pwners came and the expectation level jumped a 1000% overnight. He should have gone immediately in my opinion, but he didnt, he got his time, he got his money, he got his team but he still doesnt deliver, he still reels out the same tired old excuses and he still isnt good enough for us. He doesnt inspire confidence, he seems unable to motivate, it is obvious that his tactics leave us unable to run and dictate and dominate a game for the majority of the 90 mins.

All in my opinion of course...

 

[rastus]

it is patronising because you're suggesting that none of us are qualified to have an opinion on our manager, unless we have an fa coaching badge or something. i know from watching the game for thirty-five years that this squad of players, the best we have ever assembled, are seriously under achieving and that HAS to be down to the manager.

I think the OP's correct, Hughes outers might not have to be qualified to give an opinion but they should be able to qualify their opinions rather than just saying "He's crap/we're playing rubbish".

Well you cant just pick a team without the background, training, coaching etc. or you wouldnt need a manager.
Only a paper exrecise which isnt difficult (I did pick 12 on another thread) its the background which is harder.


Otherwise we just have shit players who cant be trained or tactically crap, we need a proper Hughes team one he has signed ;)

 

[Blue Dove]

Tell you what mate, instead of saying that time and stabilty is the holy grail of football, why dont you give us reasons as to why Hughes should stay, exactly what can he offer our club?

I have already stated or a few of the OUT threads why I think Hughes will come good.
But remember it is an opinion.
I believe that we are still finding how to play together and this has been hampered by the several International breaks.
I believe the players are good enough but I don't expect EVERY player to be playing well all the time.
Bridge and Barry came good early on and Lescott struggled.
Lescott was our best defender against Hull and is steadily improving.
I read what the professionals say.
Like Owen Coyle on Sunday saying that it takes time to gel a team.
He is a pro manager, I am not. I am not going to tell him he knows Fk all.
I have an opinion like I said in the OP, but it is an opinion.
Some posters on here talk with so much "authority" it is hilarious!

Right I have answered your question.
Do you want to have a real go at mine?
You don't have to.

And it is my opinion that he simply is not good enough for were we want to be. He has recruited real quality, with the exception of RSC imo, but with the money spent, many others would have done the same, it was not difficult.

His tactics leave a hell of a lot to be desired, again on Saturday, Ireland should have been taken off and Kompany and De Jong should have been paired up to protect the back four, what does he do, he brings RSC on? Baffling! We have seen this all season and last and it simply is not good enough. The manager is paid a hell of a lot of money to put the right players on at the right time and if he cant do that, we will struggle.

A fellow pro manager saying that it takes time to gel, fancy that? Not very suprised, he is hardly going to say get rid is he?

We lack confidense as a team and individually at the moment and that is the responsibilty of the manager. I also think that the players have a lack of confidence in Hughes and that is showing, top quality players want a top quality manager, someone who they can believe in 110%. someone who knows what it takes to win football games. None of us like to suffer fools do we, why should they be any different?

To sum up, Hughes is not good enough, he was brought to the club by a previous owner who didnt have a pot to piss in, his brief was premiership stabilty, maybe a cup. The new pwners came and the expectation level jumped a 1000% overnight. He should have gone immediately in my opinion, but he didnt, he got his time, he got his money, he got his team but he still doesnt deliver, he still reels out the same tired old excuses and he still isnt good enough for us. He doesnt inspire confidence, he seems unable to motivate, it is obvious that his tactics leave us unable to run and dictate and dominate a game for the majority of the 90 mins.

All in my opinion of course...[/quote]


Some good points there but if he would have brought Kompany on to replace Ireland and we then conceded there would have been posters on here who would slag Hughes off for accepting a 1-0 and sitting back.
With our confidence dipping I believe we have to push on and not nervously try and retain a lead.
I don't blame anybody because I expected to need patience.
I am still a Hughes supporter.
I will wait until the end of the season or the owners will make a decision.
We love opinions!

 

[Balti]

I will bite.

Obviously all the below is one hundred percent accurate and exactly what is needed but I will display some false modesty and say it's all a matter of opinion, no-one's view is right or wrong, blah, blah, blah.

Now, there is no other option against Chelsea other than the 4-3-3/4-5-1 formation. A two man central midfield up against Lampard, Essien and one other will get completely overwhelmed. A three man midfield quite possibly will be too, but it's slightly less likely. I'd have to have De Jong in there and Barry would get the nod from me as I still believe he is a quality player. I also don't trust Johnson in this situation at present. There's not much more in the way of options in there. If Zab is a midfielder then I am the Pope.

SWP would be a certainty on the right. I'd consider Tevez but I would be concerned that Cole would just run off him. I don't think SWP has been anywhere near as bad as some make out and even if he had his defensive qualities and ability to get up and down with Cole are required here.

Adebayor is the only option up front. RSC is, I hope, just not fit. If he is fit then I am very worried. Bellamy and Tevez could be options, especially Bellamy but it'd still be Ade for me -with a rocket up his ar$e.

The defence isn't going to change, apart from right back. I don't rate Zab at all. Richards or Nedum at right back. I wouldn't even be bothered if Toure played there. I doubt that there would be a significant difference with any of those options.

The most controversial bit would be that I'd consider dropping Robinho.

I've never thought he was suited to playing wide in that system. He is a second striker imo and needs the freedom associated with that. Ivanovic has surprised me with his willingness and effectiveness going forward. Robinho, and I don't blame him for it, isn't going to combat that. I'd probably prefer Bellamy as there's going to be times, maybe a lot, when the team is under a heap of pressure.

Tevez and Robinho as subs later on would give some nice options.

But, all of the above is pretty pointless because we can all try to bang on about tactics and team formations but that is only a fraction of getting a team moulded into an effect unit.

Hughes could pick the exact same team as above and I would be delighted. But if he hasn't conducted enough good work with the defence over the past three months to get them looking like they know what they are doing then it will all be pretty pointless.

If he persists in instructing them, or allowing them, to hoof the ball 75% of the time (totally undermining the skills of our players and demoralising some of them) then it will be pointless.

If he persists in not adapting to what is happening and the changes that go on within the game, then it is pointless.

We can all spout about formations and selections but without it being underpined by good managament, tactical instruction and coaching then it'll still end up looking like, well, like the last 7 games - reagrdless of formation and selections

Absolutely spot on. If only team selection were the sole issue.

There is a reason why we are being regularly matched by teams filled with less ability and talent but that are simply better organised and fully understand their game plan. Formation and tactics are costing us points on a regular basis and that problem lies firmly and squarely at the feet of the manager.

Defensive basics need to be addressed before team selection will matter. They are clearly not yet operating as a tight unit. Zonal marking can be very effective but does not appear to be working for our boys.

Man marking from the defence and zonal marking from the DM would be my sole suggestion as to how the defence might see a quick improvement. Especially against Drog and Elk. Especially from set pieces where we continue to look vulnerable. (A tactic that Chelsea have often used themselves).