I am not posting on here any more but seeing as I have been quoted above I want to clarify it.
I was not disgusted about anything regarding Hughes' management of this club in November. It was only in December (I can pinpoint the date) that I formed the opinion that Hughes lacks the skills required to lead this club to where it needs to be.
The on pitch stuff should be reason alone for his regime to be asked some very searching, aggressive and intrusive questions.
However, the off the pitch stuff is the stuff that I think affects his managerial abilities just as much as his lack of ability to adapt and change a game.
If it is possible to retrieve old posts from last summer you will find on here that I felt Hughes had the ability to be a success at City and should be supported in his quest to do so. As much as I disaproved of Sven's sacking, that was a different matter and has no bearing on Hughes.
My one reservation, and this is 'in print' on here, was that I felt he was the most embarrassing manager in the country (even worse than Baconface) when it came to passing the buck, moaning and blaming everyone else. The point I made then was that at Blackburn he would constantly blame referees for everything, lie and moan about their decisions, never apologise for accusing them of stuff when it was proved he was wrong and bascially do everything he could to avoid having to admit that his team were not good enough or at fault. His prime concern was that everyone formed the opinion that he and his team were hard done by and any setback was the fault of someone else.
In fairness to Hughes, his embarrassing trait of blaming referees and moaning and lieing in aftermath interviews has not surfaced here, imo. That is to be praised.
However, I think the 'press' issues raised above are a continuation of this trait.
The stories about the squad all being shirkers, bastards, wasters and people who are totally different in attitude to every other Premier club have been a constant throughout the season since it became obvious we were underachieving. Constant questioning of the players and claims that the manager was being hindered by them.
They have to have come from a source inside the club. Furthermore, if they had been considered out of order by the manager then it was his duty to deny them. He didn't. Claiming that 'everyone is happy' is a totally different thing to denying that the players are bastards and hindering oyu in the job. The stories have reduced in volume now but they still exist and the willingness for people to believe that Hughes is 'the victim' is still in place. Which is their aim.
However, the most astonishing manifestation of his desire to deflect responsibility comes from his successful campaign to reduce expectations througout the season. A trick that many managers try but not many on such a scale as Hughes.
He came in here with big talk about how the team would be fitter, tougher and more successful under him. There is no proof of any of it (especially when you take into account the resources he has been given and compare any 'progress to what would reasonably be expected with those resources). Yet since Autumn he has embarked on completely contradicting his upbeat comments throughout the summer. Denying that he claimed this could, should and would be a successful season. It just amazes me that so many people swallow it and forget about his own expectations (prior to him being gifted one of the best players in the world and a £100m transfer budget).
He has convinced many that it is impossible to take over a squad and get them to improve, Despite the evidence of the contary existing nearby in the form of Bruce, Megson, Hodgson, Redknapp and Zola.
The best part of it is this constant claim that he is 'laying the foundations' Reference to money spent by the owners behind the scenes (money which would be spent whoever is the manager) and claims that Hughes is somehow uniquely positioned to oversee a complete change of culture at the club. Possessing an ability to 'install success' that is not seen in others. Conviniently ignoring that any manager who takes over at any club changes the cutlure to suit their style and any manager who has owners willing to spend so much money would embark on changing everything to suit them.
Far from being a hinderence to your team's performances, it should be a massive help. The ability to change everything you want to at a club in a short space of time, rather than the years it can take other managers when they join a poorer club, is a massive help. Not a reason why you should produce underpar fare on the pitch.
Never before in the history of football has a manager and his supporters in the club managed to use 'I'm laying the foundations' as an excuse for his poor performance. Painting that he is some sort of managerial guru who is undertaking such detailed and specialised work at the club that we should be grateful he is willing to do so. Work that other managers would not be willing or able to undertake.
Furthermore, there is little to suggest that this 'laying of foundations' is anything other than sanctioning improved facilities and implementing the type of training and discipline that the manager favours. ie: managing the club in the style he believes is best. Just as EVERY other manager in the history of football does. Whether they are 'relaxed' like Sven, Coppell or Rijkaard or discipline men like Fergie, Souness or Alan Ball.
Yet 'laying the foundations' has been pushed so constantly as a method of detracting from his failures to be able to manage this team that it is now accepted by many as some sort of mystic, unfathomable challenge that never needs explaining and never needs any sort of evidence to support it.
It needs no more explanation than the simplistic "he's laying foundations" and the even more simplistic "we haven't won a trophy for a long time so progress won't be possible for ages". Again, despite the fact that numeorus managers through history have taken over unsuccessful team and made them perform, without anywhere near comparible resources.
The constant repeating of mythical and unmeasurable 'laying the foundations', along with the constant seeping of blame towards players and away from the manager, are, imo, symptomatic of the excessive 'blame deflection' that is built into Hughes' character and detracts from his ability tobe as good a manager as he could be.
That he is so succesful at doing it though and that people are willing to swallow his complete reversals and about turns regarding what should be reasonably expected of him is astonishing but points to what a good job both he and COok have done of battering this 'laying the foundations' myth through the press to save their own skins.
This is a massive character fault (in managerial terms) and one that, even though Ferguson has it, is even more important in the modern game where managers are more accountable to players and cannot simply rely on the 'I am never wrong' approach. It holds him back and it is holding us back imo.
