Hughes Outers- Name names

[Goater666]

Top post on Wookies site, i cant take credit for it but it hit the nail on the head for me.

"We have seen time and time again that the most successful managers are the ones who have time."

What has been shown, time and time again, is that success leads to length of tenure. The causal relation is not the other way about. Length of tenure doesn't lead to success. Leaving, say, Alan Ball or Clarke or even Reid in charge longer than they were would almost certainly not have improved things.

Sven left too early, it is hard to make a case that the same was true of anyone else in the last 20 years (Horton shouldn't have gone either).

We should sack Les now. We should have sacked him four months ago.

Oh, and which of our managers went on to success after leaving us, proving the error of our ways?

Even Sven who I, along with almost everyone else, would have stuck with failed at Mexico.

I have not seem a glimmer of competence from HughesLes to cling to. Nothing.

 

[Scottyboi]

The best managers manouvere themselves into this situation and I honestly think that Hughes has come in, done the bollocking/hard man bit virtually straight away whilst forgetting to, or not having the personal/man managment skills to do the other bit. One doesn't work without the other.

You've been saying that for a long time now, and to be fair, I think more and more, you're probably right.

That's my main argument for not giving him more time.

I could give credence to the, another year, his signings have been good, things will settle, we're not far from being a good team arguments in neutral circumstances.

However, I think there is something badly wrong in terms of morale at the club and given the stories, rumours, selections and evidence on the pitch throughout the season, I have to guess that it comes from the manager's style. He has virtually said as much himself at various points, talking of people who aren't up to what he expects, culture shocks and various other cliches.

But without having your players completely onside you go very quickly from the Mourinho, Ferguson, Van Gaal style of management, where their players would do anything for them, to the Ball and Souness style, where the players are not convinced by them and end up resenting them.

And that's what everything suggests to me.

It's recoverable in the sense that we have so much spending power that we will undoubtedly sign some decent players in the summer, let some leave and improve the quality of the squad in the summer. No matter who is in charge, even if Hughes might not be able to attract those who others might.

However, we can't and won't replace half, three quarters or a ridiculous percentage of the squad. So we still have to get more out of many players who are totally underpeforming now. A manager who doesn't have the players onside now will have to undergo a miraculous change to do so during the summer, with a year's history behind them.

So why risk it when a new manager will aurtomatically have the players onside unless they come in with an attitude that alienates them (as I suspect Hughes did), which you would expect a serious, top class manager to avoid. Plus, we get a better manager at the same time.

I do actually think that even if he gets another season we will improve. It would be very difficult not to with this squad and the summer spending power. However, I also think it will be slowed dramitcally as it will have to be using players that seem to be totally unconvinced by what he is doing or who he just doesn't seem able to coach decent performances from on anything like a consistent basis. Therefore getting a lot less from them than others could.

Of course, I could be talking rubbish and all the players love Hughes, want to play for him and really believe in what he does. After all, I am just speculating, based on various things. The on pitch evidence alone tends to suggest otherwise.

your talking alot of sense tbh.

 

[keemcfc]

sven
scolari
rikaard sp?

...the chuckle brothers

lol.

 

[Blue Mooner]

The best managers manouvere themselves into this situation and I honestly think that Hughes has come in, done the bollocking/hard man bit virtually straight away whilst forgetting to, or not having the personal/man managment skills to do the other bit. One doesn't work without the other.

You've been saying that for a long time now, and to be fair, I think more and more, you're probably right.

That's my main argument for not giving him more time.

I could give credence to the, another year, his signings have been good, things will settle, we're not far from being a good team arguments in neutral circumstances.

However, I think there is something badly wrong in terms of morale at the club and given the stories, rumours, selections and evidence on the pitch throughout the season, I have to guess that it comes from the manager's style. He has virtually said as much himself at various points, talking of people who aren't up to what he expects, culture shocks and various other cliches.

But without having your players completely onside you go very quickly from the Mourinho, Ferguson, Van Gaal style of management, where their players would do anything for them, to the Ball and Souness style, where the players are not convinced by them and end up resenting them.

And that's what everything suggests to me.

It's recoverable in the sense that we have so much spending power that we will undoubtedly sign some decent players in the summer, let some leave and improve the quality of the squad in the summer. No matter who is in charge, even if Hughes might not be able to attract those who others might.

However, we can't and won't replace half, three quarters or a ridiculous percentage of the squad. So we still have to get more out of many players who are totally underpeforming now. A manager who doesn't have the players onside now will have to undergo a miraculous change to do so during the summer, with a year's history behind them.

So why risk it when a new manager will aurtomatically have the players onside unless they come in with an attitude that alienates them (as I suspect Hughes did), which you would expect a serious, top class manager to avoid. Plus, we get a better manager at the same time.

I do actually think that even if he gets another season we will improve. It would be very difficult not to with this squad and the summer spending power. However, I also think it will be slowed dramitcally as it will have to be using players that seem to be totally unconvinced by what he is doing or who he just doesn't seem able to coach decent performances from on anything like a consistent basis. Therefore getting a lot less from them than others could.

Of course, I could be talking rubbish and all the players love Hughes, want to play for him and really believe in what he does. After all, I am just speculating, based on various things. The on pitch evidence alone tends to suggest otherwise.

your talking alot of sense tbh.

However, if the board actually show some balls and back the manager then the troublesome players might get the message that Hughes is here to stay and that they need to toe the line

Unfortunatley the instability that the fans are feeding gives the troublecausers strength and is undermining our efforts in the closing matches. Fergusons strength comes from the fact that he has the unequivocal backing of the board - yes that has been strengthened by success but he was still given 5 years to get it right.

Hughes needs to be backed and needs time to change the culture and another summer to strengthen and ship out the dead wood. the results this season have certainly not been helped by the lack of consistency in selection caused by injury and suspension - yet no one seems prepared to accept this. I seem like a lone voice on this but I genuinely believe that Hughes has the long term ambition and attributes and this should not be undermined by short term results and short term thinking.

In terms of replacments I do not believe you can sack Hughes without absolute confidence who would come in.

The last thing we want is a manager who is coming for his last pay day and is not thinking about being around for the next 10-15 years.

That is what Arsenal have in Wenger, United have had with Fergusons and Liverpool clearly have in Wenger. You can also throw Moyes and O'Neill into that.

If we sack Hughes we are going down the same old well trodden path. I hope the board show some balls and demonstrate that this really is a long term project not a short term 8 month one.

The sad thing is we should be focusing on the biggest game we have had in years and that Hughes has helped to achieve.

 

[shadygiz]

van gaal was my choice before we opted for sven....and he still is my number 1 choice...the guy is a legend

 

[bluemanc]

Top post on Wookies site, i cant take credit for it but it hit the nail on the head for me.

"We have seen time and time again that the most successful managers are the ones who have time."

What has been shown, time and time again, is that success leads to length of tenure. The causal relation is not the other way about. Length of tenure doesn't lead to success. Leaving, say, Alan Ball or Clarke or even Reid in charge longer than they were would almost certainly not have improved things.

Sven left too early, it is hard to make a case that the same was true of anyone else in the last 20 years (Horton shouldn't have gone either).

We should sack Les now. We should have sacked him four months ago.

Oh, and which of our managers went on to success after leaving us, proving the error of our ways?

Even Sven who I, along with almost everyone else, would have stuck with failed at Mexico.

I have not seem a glimmer of competence from HughesLes to cling to. Nothing.

HughesLes

He finally got to what it was all about,i don't blame you for not putting your name to that pile of shite.

 

[Dyed Petya]

I'm a fan of Van Gaal. He has stated before that he would love to manage in the Premiership. What I like about him is that his teams play good football plus he doesn't take any crap, can manage/ sort players with big egos, can handle the pressure/ expectations of a big club and he has proven at AZ that he doesn't need cash to turn a team into a league winner. OK City would be a challenge but Van Gaal is proven on literally every level.

I completely agree with the above. I'd take Mourinho but suspect he won't take us. So that leaves Van Gaal as someone who ticks all possible boxes. And if reports are true that he was interested in the Sunderland vacancy before Keane left, then it's difficult to imagine that we wouldn't have a good chance of attracting him here.

I admire the persistence of the 'Hughes In' crowd, but it's perfectly legitimate to note that he came to the club during the tenure of Mad Thaksin, so now we can wonder if we can't anticipate that someone better might be available now we have ADUG in charge. And when we look at Hughes's record in his year in charge as evidence for his capabilities for continuing with the 'Project', it's equally legitimate to suggest that it's patchy at best.

I mean, in his favour, we have a decent home record (six defeats, though) and a UEFA Cup run (though we struggled pretty desperately against three pretty ordinary Danish outfits and were battered by the first decent opposition we faced). Against that, there's the ndisgraceful away record, dismal displays in the domestic Cups, transparently unhappy camp at odds with Hughes's methods and so on.

When you look at his track record, hoping that he'll settle into the job and achieve things never remotely possible in his previous jobs is a much greater risk that hoping that a proven top class manager will take us forward - and, with our riches, there's little doubt that one will be available. So it simply has to be Hughes out.

Any new appointment is obviously a risk. However, if it were Van Gaal in, then I think we go about as far as we realistically can to minimise the risk.

 

[Blue Mooner]

I'm a fan of Van Gaal. He has stated before that he would love to manage in the Premiership. What I like about him is that his teams play good football plus he doesn't take any crap, can manage/ sort players with big egos, can handle the pressure/ expectations of a big club and he has proven at AZ that he doesn't need cash to turn a team into a league winner. OK City would be a challenge but Van Gaal is proven on literally every level.

I completely agree with the above. I'd take Mourinho but suspect he won't take us. So that leaves Van Gaal as someone who ticks all possible boxes. And if reports are true that he was interested in the Sunderland vacancy before Keane left, then it's difficult to imagine that we wouldn't have a good chance of attracting him here.

I admire the persistence of the 'Hughes In' crowd, but it's perfectly legitimate to note that he came to the club during the tenure of Mad Thaksin, so now we can wonder if we can't anticipate that someone better might be available now we have ADUG in charge. And when we look at Hughes's record in his year in charge as evidence for his capabilities for continuing with the 'Project', it's equally legitimate to suggest that it's patchy at best.

I mean, in his favour, we have a decent home record (six defeats, though) and a UEFA Cup run (though we struggled pretty desperately against three pretty ordinary Danish outfits and were battered by the first decent opposition we faced). Against that, there's the ndisgraceful away record, dismal displays in the domestic Cups, transparently unhappy camp at odds with Hughes's methods and so on.

When you look at his track record, hoping that he'll settle into the job and achieve things never remotely possible in his previous jobs is a much greater risk that hoping that a proven top class manager will take us forward - and, with our riches, there's little doubt that one will be available. So it simply has to be Hughes out.

Any new appointment is obviously a risk. However, if it were Van Gaal in, then I think we go about as far as we realistically can to minimise the risk.

Van Gaal is 57 - hardly the long term solution - I notice on Wikipedia that he had disappointing results in 07/08 so if he had been City manager he would have got the sack before having the chance to put them 14 points ahead in the league as they are this year.

 

[Scrabster Six]

Van Gaal for me but i'll give hughesles my backing IF ,IF he gets results better than one away win all season and mid table mediocrity and takes a course on playing people in their natural position.

 

[mat]

Sven - Unfinished Business.