Joycee Banercheck
Well-Known Member
Wahey! You don't understand how rag-like you sound.blueonblue said:
Worst manager ever - I'm keeping that.
Hughes..the reality
- Thread starter plongo
- Start date
Worst manager ever - I'm keeping that.
blueonblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 31 Jan 2009
- Messages
- 2,522
No muppet two, I am not referring to the Richards incident, thats just one of many that have happend since clueless arrived, try paying attention when I said within the first three months.
allblues09
Well-Known Member
blueonblue said:
/thumbsup.gif)
Wow. You are very classy and have the mouth and intellect of a four year old. So calm down little guy. ;)
So if you are talking about another incident, please provide some proof (news article or anything). It is strange that the quote you attribute to the earlier incident was extremely similar to the Richards quote.
JohnMaddocksAxe
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 30 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 2,854
Allblues, I'm going to reply to that as it is directed to me. I won't be posting further though as I cannot be bothered with the insults that fly around on here (not on this thread).
I just want to address the 'reasons' you give for Hughes' apparent struggles this year. (I was going to say excuses but.......)
Lack of continuity
This is faced by every manager who takes over a club where they have not been on the coaching staff. Ie: the overwhelming majority of them. Some do not have a pre season, do not have a chance to bring in their own players and often take over a team where the league position dictates that the players are lacking confidence and demoralised.
None of those apply to Hughes and I have to say that I don't think I have ever heard a manager use 'lack of continuity as an excuse for his poor results throughout a season.
A lack of continuity is what you get when you appoint a new manager. It's a given and it can be a good thing as well as problematic. It isn't a problem that Hughes can point to as exceptional here at all in my view.
In fact, given his comments and upbeat mood throughout the summer and the early part of the season, he himself seemed to recognise that this wasn't an issue. In fact, he went on record to tell us how the 'break' from the old regime and installation of his would show tangible benefits this year.
Lack of Form from last year
The club lacked form for the second half of last season. There may well have been matters off the field that contributed to that, but the fact they lacked form is undeniable.
However, there is no reason whatsoever that this should carry through an off season, a pre season and the majority of the next season unless your players just aren't good enough for that league. We know that isn't true as you only have to look at the dross clogging up the squads of most of the clubs in this league.
You would also have thought that the arrival of a new regime, changing things and freshening things up would also contribute to ensuring that last season's late form was nothing more than a memory. Again, throughout the pre season Hughes was quick to tell everyone that this would be the case as he was immplementing his 'Football Factory' which would have great benefits. He seemed to be confident that last seasons form was temporary, which, of course, is the nature of form.
Charlton under Curbishley struggled from Christmas every year. Most seasons they started the next season well. Fulham were dross for all of last season, save a couple of results at the end. They started this year well and continued it throughout the season.
I'm sorry, but I can't accept that because the team was in poor form at the end of last year that this is therefore an issue that affects form throughout this season. There are far too many examples of clubs finishing a season in excellent or poor form and starting the next season in the opposite manner. There is no connection in my view (and seemingley in Hughes' view at the start of the season) and I've never heard a manager claim that his team is playing badly because the previous manager had some bad form in the previous season.
If the form was caused by our players being woefully underpar for the league then I could accept it. They aren't, they weren't and, more importantly, Hughes shared that view himself when he took over.
I would be disgusted if Sven had stayed and said that we were $hit for most of this season because of the late season form of last season. For a new regime that has had a complete break, brought in new 'methods', bulled them up constantly, brought in new players and had a complete break with last season to use that as an excuse seems ridiculous to me.
Takes Time For A Team To Gel
Yes, I agree. Unfortunately we, at present look like a midtable team that is capable fo getting some good results but is constantly totally out of it's depth when facing higher level teams. So for it to have taken him a year to produce a team of that status, bearing in mind that we have far better players and resources than other clubs who also hold that status is not much of an achievement in my view.
Especially as that was our status as a football club when he took over anyway. We have done nothing more than regress and then return to what was generally seen as our 'level' before he took over. All whilst spending millions on players and having these so called genius training and preparation methods
Others holding that staus include Zola's team and Redknapp's team (although Spurs have shown far more progress and ability to create chances against the big teams in a shorter time). They have taken less time, money and investment to 'gel' in the same manner.
If his excuse is that he cannot have been expected to have brought in so many players and gel them then perhaps he should have been more selective and have introduced new players in a slower manner (it's worked for the two mentioned above). However, the fact is that he was forced to bring in a large number of players in January because he had shown a complete inability to get anything like a 'par' performance from the squad he had (you know, the one he was so bullish about in the summer and which he proclaimed he would make into a sleak football machine).
He was a desperate man in January, aware that he could not match the achievements of the likes of Zola in 'gelling' his new team. Therefore he threw silly money at it. He can't have it both ways. Either he wants to spend big money on big players, something any manager would jump at, or he wants to build slowly with one or two big additions so that he doesn't have the 'gelling' problem.
He chose the former because his attempts at the later had us in the bottom three and showing no signs of improvement.
We have 'gelled' but still gone to Chelsea, Arsenal and Old Trafford and created no more than 4 decent chances in 270 minutes. I doubt there is another team, including the likes of Hull, Stoke, West Brom, that have create less on their combined visits to those grounds.
There is improvement but we are still woefully short and it is nothing to get excited about. I've seen people on here proclaiming we have 'turned the corner' at numerous points throughout the season.
Clearly, when Hughes came in he changed everything at the club (more than the culture). We play a completely different style, we train in a different style, etc. It takes time for players to adjust to so many changes
The problem with this is that it's something that every new manager does at every club.
Yet it seems to be being painted as a problem that is unique to Hughes and something that he has manfully struggled to overcome.
Every manager implements ther own training style on their new team. Their challenge is to do so and get results, performances and harmony. If they do they are lauded. If they don't they are questioned.
Yet never before have I heard it said for the 12 months following a manager's appointment "Well, it's not his fault, the players aren't used to his training methods."
It's his job to train the players in whatver way gets the best out of them. The bottom line is that if his team gets results then his training is working. If it doesn't, then it isn't.
As for the other changes, I ask what changes he has made that any other new manager of a club would not do (in their own individual style - obviously - which may mean they would differ from Hughes') given the opportunity.
I hear a lot of talk about it but no specifics and certainly no explanation of why these 'changes' would results in us producing the poor form that has been the hallmark of his reign.
If we are talking about using the owners' money to improve facilities, etc, then why is that a hinderence to what we see on the pitch. Isn't it an adavntage to be able to change everything at a club to exactly how you want it. Wouldn't the likes of Zola, Bruce, Megson, etc love the opportunity to be able to invest in everything they want and afford every little change they wanted to implement at their club? Do you think they are of the opinion that this would be a help or a hinderence to their players?
In summary, I hear this line a lot regarding 'behind the scenes changes'. I never hear any exaplantion of what they are and why they should impact in a negative manner on the development (long term or short term) of our team.
If I am honest, the amount of times that I hear Cook and Hughes (and others) come out with it, it seems like the designated party line to explain away the under par performances of the manager.
Regarding the rest of it, players taking time to settle is similar to the 'gelling' issue. I agree that people like Robinho, Bridge, De Jong, etc should be better next year. That's natural. I would also say that I would expect this natural process to occur whether Hughes or someone else is manager next year. I don't see it as a function of Hughes' managerial skills. It's just what happens when players move.
But if we are back to the excuse of us having many new players and needing time to gel I will repeat that the fact that we introduced so many new players in January is a function of Hughes' inability to coach results out of the existing squad. It was his choice s he has to put up with the consequences - if we have been transformed into world beaters, then credit to him - if we are lacking any type of form and this is due to having too many new players, then perhaps he should have introduced less players and got more out of our exisiting squad (which was, pre January, miles better than the teams around us) and not paniced and thrown millions at players who, in the vast majority of cases, would not interest the top four.
I've said what I wanted to say about the press in the previous post so I won't repeat that. The fact that the stories regarding him being 'the victim' of the bastard players have never been denied and allowed to bubble on throughout the whole season seems to suggest that he is not unhappy with them. I would expect any manager worth his salt who sees such unhealthy stories about his team to come down hard on them and catorgarically dismiss them out of hand. He hasn't. Which leads me to believe that he does not wish to banish this thought.
But, given that we have had a raft of excuses pushed through the press, from it's the player's fault, to I've got too much of a free hand to do whatever I want here, to the fan's are idiots and expect too much, to we've got too many new players to do well, to the suggestion that form from last season causes us to lose to Stoke and West Brom at Christmas and Fulham in April, I'm not surprised it hasn't been dismissed.
The party line since Christmas has been to do whatever possible to get the message out their that Hughes is the victim of circumstance and that he should not be judged by what he does on the pitch, despite every other manager in the country being judged this way, rather than by what 'changes' he makes to the club (despite explanations of these going no further than "he trains them harder" and "he's more professional and a hard taskmaster" (a line that Alan Ball and Souness were keen to push about themselves during their managerial careers)).
I just want to address the 'reasons' you give for Hughes' apparent struggles this year. (I was going to say excuses but.......)
Lack of continuity
This is faced by every manager who takes over a club where they have not been on the coaching staff. Ie: the overwhelming majority of them. Some do not have a pre season, do not have a chance to bring in their own players and often take over a team where the league position dictates that the players are lacking confidence and demoralised.
None of those apply to Hughes and I have to say that I don't think I have ever heard a manager use 'lack of continuity as an excuse for his poor results throughout a season.
A lack of continuity is what you get when you appoint a new manager. It's a given and it can be a good thing as well as problematic. It isn't a problem that Hughes can point to as exceptional here at all in my view.
In fact, given his comments and upbeat mood throughout the summer and the early part of the season, he himself seemed to recognise that this wasn't an issue. In fact, he went on record to tell us how the 'break' from the old regime and installation of his would show tangible benefits this year.
Lack of Form from last year
The club lacked form for the second half of last season. There may well have been matters off the field that contributed to that, but the fact they lacked form is undeniable.
However, there is no reason whatsoever that this should carry through an off season, a pre season and the majority of the next season unless your players just aren't good enough for that league. We know that isn't true as you only have to look at the dross clogging up the squads of most of the clubs in this league.
You would also have thought that the arrival of a new regime, changing things and freshening things up would also contribute to ensuring that last season's late form was nothing more than a memory. Again, throughout the pre season Hughes was quick to tell everyone that this would be the case as he was immplementing his 'Football Factory' which would have great benefits. He seemed to be confident that last seasons form was temporary, which, of course, is the nature of form.
Charlton under Curbishley struggled from Christmas every year. Most seasons they started the next season well. Fulham were dross for all of last season, save a couple of results at the end. They started this year well and continued it throughout the season.
I'm sorry, but I can't accept that because the team was in poor form at the end of last year that this is therefore an issue that affects form throughout this season. There are far too many examples of clubs finishing a season in excellent or poor form and starting the next season in the opposite manner. There is no connection in my view (and seemingley in Hughes' view at the start of the season) and I've never heard a manager claim that his team is playing badly because the previous manager had some bad form in the previous season.
If the form was caused by our players being woefully underpar for the league then I could accept it. They aren't, they weren't and, more importantly, Hughes shared that view himself when he took over.
I would be disgusted if Sven had stayed and said that we were $hit for most of this season because of the late season form of last season. For a new regime that has had a complete break, brought in new 'methods', bulled them up constantly, brought in new players and had a complete break with last season to use that as an excuse seems ridiculous to me.
Takes Time For A Team To Gel
Yes, I agree. Unfortunately we, at present look like a midtable team that is capable fo getting some good results but is constantly totally out of it's depth when facing higher level teams. So for it to have taken him a year to produce a team of that status, bearing in mind that we have far better players and resources than other clubs who also hold that status is not much of an achievement in my view.
Especially as that was our status as a football club when he took over anyway. We have done nothing more than regress and then return to what was generally seen as our 'level' before he took over. All whilst spending millions on players and having these so called genius training and preparation methods
Others holding that staus include Zola's team and Redknapp's team (although Spurs have shown far more progress and ability to create chances against the big teams in a shorter time). They have taken less time, money and investment to 'gel' in the same manner.
If his excuse is that he cannot have been expected to have brought in so many players and gel them then perhaps he should have been more selective and have introduced new players in a slower manner (it's worked for the two mentioned above). However, the fact is that he was forced to bring in a large number of players in January because he had shown a complete inability to get anything like a 'par' performance from the squad he had (you know, the one he was so bullish about in the summer and which he proclaimed he would make into a sleak football machine).
He was a desperate man in January, aware that he could not match the achievements of the likes of Zola in 'gelling' his new team. Therefore he threw silly money at it. He can't have it both ways. Either he wants to spend big money on big players, something any manager would jump at, or he wants to build slowly with one or two big additions so that he doesn't have the 'gelling' problem.
He chose the former because his attempts at the later had us in the bottom three and showing no signs of improvement.
We have 'gelled' but still gone to Chelsea, Arsenal and Old Trafford and created no more than 4 decent chances in 270 minutes. I doubt there is another team, including the likes of Hull, Stoke, West Brom, that have create less on their combined visits to those grounds.
There is improvement but we are still woefully short and it is nothing to get excited about. I've seen people on here proclaiming we have 'turned the corner' at numerous points throughout the season.
Clearly, when Hughes came in he changed everything at the club (more than the culture). We play a completely different style, we train in a different style, etc. It takes time for players to adjust to so many changes
The problem with this is that it's something that every new manager does at every club.
Yet it seems to be being painted as a problem that is unique to Hughes and something that he has manfully struggled to overcome.
Every manager implements ther own training style on their new team. Their challenge is to do so and get results, performances and harmony. If they do they are lauded. If they don't they are questioned.
Yet never before have I heard it said for the 12 months following a manager's appointment "Well, it's not his fault, the players aren't used to his training methods."
It's his job to train the players in whatver way gets the best out of them. The bottom line is that if his team gets results then his training is working. If it doesn't, then it isn't.
As for the other changes, I ask what changes he has made that any other new manager of a club would not do (in their own individual style - obviously - which may mean they would differ from Hughes') given the opportunity.
I hear a lot of talk about it but no specifics and certainly no explanation of why these 'changes' would results in us producing the poor form that has been the hallmark of his reign.
If we are talking about using the owners' money to improve facilities, etc, then why is that a hinderence to what we see on the pitch. Isn't it an adavntage to be able to change everything at a club to exactly how you want it. Wouldn't the likes of Zola, Bruce, Megson, etc love the opportunity to be able to invest in everything they want and afford every little change they wanted to implement at their club? Do you think they are of the opinion that this would be a help or a hinderence to their players?
In summary, I hear this line a lot regarding 'behind the scenes changes'. I never hear any exaplantion of what they are and why they should impact in a negative manner on the development (long term or short term) of our team.
If I am honest, the amount of times that I hear Cook and Hughes (and others) come out with it, it seems like the designated party line to explain away the under par performances of the manager.
Regarding the rest of it, players taking time to settle is similar to the 'gelling' issue. I agree that people like Robinho, Bridge, De Jong, etc should be better next year. That's natural. I would also say that I would expect this natural process to occur whether Hughes or someone else is manager next year. I don't see it as a function of Hughes' managerial skills. It's just what happens when players move.
But if we are back to the excuse of us having many new players and needing time to gel I will repeat that the fact that we introduced so many new players in January is a function of Hughes' inability to coach results out of the existing squad. It was his choice s he has to put up with the consequences - if we have been transformed into world beaters, then credit to him - if we are lacking any type of form and this is due to having too many new players, then perhaps he should have introduced less players and got more out of our exisiting squad (which was, pre January, miles better than the teams around us) and not paniced and thrown millions at players who, in the vast majority of cases, would not interest the top four.
I've said what I wanted to say about the press in the previous post so I won't repeat that. The fact that the stories regarding him being 'the victim' of the bastard players have never been denied and allowed to bubble on throughout the whole season seems to suggest that he is not unhappy with them. I would expect any manager worth his salt who sees such unhealthy stories about his team to come down hard on them and catorgarically dismiss them out of hand. He hasn't. Which leads me to believe that he does not wish to banish this thought.
But, given that we have had a raft of excuses pushed through the press, from it's the player's fault, to I've got too much of a free hand to do whatever I want here, to the fan's are idiots and expect too much, to we've got too many new players to do well, to the suggestion that form from last season causes us to lose to Stoke and West Brom at Christmas and Fulham in April, I'm not surprised it hasn't been dismissed.
The party line since Christmas has been to do whatever possible to get the message out their that Hughes is the victim of circumstance and that he should not be judged by what he does on the pitch, despite every other manager in the country being judged this way, rather than by what 'changes' he makes to the club (despite explanations of these going no further than "he trains them harder" and "he's more professional and a hard taskmaster" (a line that Alan Ball and Souness were keen to push about themselves during their managerial careers)).
OB1
Well-Known Member
JMA,
You should keep posting as you actually have something to say. Oh and I might nick some of it for another fourm if you don't object (giving due credit)?
You should keep posting as you actually have something to say. Oh and I might nick some of it for another fourm if you don't object (giving due credit)?
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
You use the word Clueless to describe the manager. Takes one to know one.blueonblue said:
Clearly you are being fed verbal bile from some no-mark in the academy who doesn't like being told that we need better than they're delivering. Stop going on like some parrot that repeats words that it's been taught but doesn't understand.
Ireland was drifting last season until he took matters into his own hands in the summer then started playing under a manager that he has publicly stated he enjoys working under. Richards we know has talent but maybe is lacking a bit of mental application like Ireland last season. Onuoha has done really well since he's come back into the side but he wasn't quite so admired over the last couple of seasons. Evans looks Championship quality at best. Sturridge has shown some glimpses but all academy lads have at some point. Johnson can certainly do it when he wants and was a large part of last season's early success. Soem ofthem are clearly good players and have been able to step up to the mark.
Your evident hatred for Hughes, obviously fed by your source, completely renders your opinion invalid in my view. I don't really care whether he stays or goes to be honest but in my opinion I've seen enough to give him one more season. And if someone else comes in and tells Cassell that things need to change, will you believe it then or will you still be indignant that a system that produced the likes of Lee Croft, Ishmael Miller, BWP & Willo Flood should ever be questioned?
Joycee Banercheck
Well-Known Member
I agree (and so does he because he doesn't post on here much anymore). Properly thought out posts that really do make me question what I believe is right/wrong for the club.Chippy said:
Rammy Blue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 23 May 2008
- Messages
- 30,586
Chippy said:
absolutely correct; maybe we will see more of JMA once we, as the fans, have stopped being so divided ie when Hughes has gone.
maybe someone should forward on his postings to Khaldoon to hurry things up.......
m27
Well-Known Member
JMA...a well thought out post and I accept most points. However, I'm not sure Hughes's signings in January can be used against him too much. I've been massively disappointed with Bridge but we needed a left back and he's England's No.2 in that postion after all; De Jong cost us too much but he's been useful (although not earth shattering); and Bellamy's goals were priceless during that rocky period of ours.
Personally speaking, my emotions towards Hughes have been as follows:
Appointment - Happy
Start - Satisfied
Liverpool (h) - Alarm Bells
January - Prepared to Wait
Now - Couldn't Care Less
The fact that I am totally non-fussed about his future bothers me because I'm usually so opionated about such matters. Yet the truth is if he stays, then fine, but if he leaves it will mean a world class appointment which excites me - I suppose that sounds like I want him out but it hasn't reached the stage where I would campaign to see him sacked, and in the past I have felt like that with Royle, Keegan and Pearce when their time was coming to an end. I am not one for continuity for the sake of it and I think it is clear that the sackings of Royle, Keegan and Pearce all benefitted the club, even if it was only for a couple of seasons at a time. Keeping any of these three any longer would have seen our future outside the top flight.
Believe me, I want Hughes to be a success because if he is it means a success for old fashioned values and hard graft - but the longer he is in charge, the longer it seems that this is an outdated notion which is simply not going to get us to the dizzying heights we want to get to. I'm still in his camp (just), but it's starting to feel like my loyalty could be misplaced.
Personally speaking, my emotions towards Hughes have been as follows:
Appointment - Happy
Start - Satisfied
Liverpool (h) - Alarm Bells
January - Prepared to Wait
Now - Couldn't Care Less
The fact that I am totally non-fussed about his future bothers me because I'm usually so opionated about such matters. Yet the truth is if he stays, then fine, but if he leaves it will mean a world class appointment which excites me - I suppose that sounds like I want him out but it hasn't reached the stage where I would campaign to see him sacked, and in the past I have felt like that with Royle, Keegan and Pearce when their time was coming to an end. I am not one for continuity for the sake of it and I think it is clear that the sackings of Royle, Keegan and Pearce all benefitted the club, even if it was only for a couple of seasons at a time. Keeping any of these three any longer would have seen our future outside the top flight.
Believe me, I want Hughes to be a success because if he is it means a success for old fashioned values and hard graft - but the longer he is in charge, the longer it seems that this is an outdated notion which is simply not going to get us to the dizzying heights we want to get to. I'm still in his camp (just), but it's starting to feel like my loyalty could be misplaced.