I miss Hughes

[inbetween]

Worst thread I've ever read on here.

We've gone from ludicrous ramblings where people were shouting about only being able to judge a manager after he had a) spent 24 months at the club, b) replaced 90% of the squad with his own signings, c) had 4 full transfer windows and unlimited funds and d) been able to change every aspect of the club and member of backroom staff, to the same people claiming that the new manager isn't up to it after two months.

It is outrageous imo.

Also strange to see that some of the most vocal "Hughes inners" who were rabid in their claims that "Hughes outers" never gave Hughes a chance and were always against him, are now found on threads criticising the new manager after two months and claiming that their hero was always miles better than the multiple trophy winning Mancini.

What happened to their outrage about giving a new manager time and full support and not being able to expect much from a new manager early on?

I can pick holes in some of Mancini's actions since he's been here but it could it be that there are a few love struck Hughes men who are straying slightly too close to their often uttered "desperate to be proved right" phrase?

(In fact, given some of the out of order comments I saw aimed at Mancini on here before he had even managed a single game, I know that there are at least two or three very vocal posters who definitely fall into that category)

Agree, however I was a hughes inner, but not once have I made any comment about getting rid of Bobby. some lunatics on here, Given out Hughes in elano back sheik rattle and roll with it people

If you remember it was Hughes who wanted rid of Elano.

Don't want Hughes back because i can't honestly see us being successful in the CL with him in charge, you can't play the way we did under Hughes against world class teams we'd get absolutely battered.

Mancini needs time to build a squad capable of playing how he wants but i still honestly think its all being paved now for Mourinho to come in during the summer.

 

[moomba]

i dont know anyone who wants bobby replaced, if what we are led to believe he'll be gone in the summer anyway, the hughes fans, me included are saying with some justification that hughes 's team would have faired better against some of these recent clubs and if not would have at least had a go at them. bobby's tactics are completley wrong in the english game, not only wrong, downright boring.

but i am a hughes fan so perhaps i should move on to his club and leave city to city fans like some dickhead has just posted.

I too struggle to see what justification there is for expecting Hughes to have done better than Mancini.

 

[Damocles]

i dont know anyone who wants bobby replaced, if what we are led to believe he'll be gone in the summer anyway, the hughes fans, me included are saying with some justification that hughes 's team would have faired better against some of these recent clubs and if not would have at least had a go at them. bobby's tactics are completley wrong in the english game, not only wrong, downright boring.

but i am a hughes fan so perhaps i should move on to his club and leave city to city fans like some dickhead has just posted.

Well, his win/loss record would argue with you there.

 

[Bill]

i dont know anyone who wants bobby replaced, if what we are led to believe he'll be gone in the summer anyway, the hughes fans, me included are saying with some justification that hughes 's team would have faired better against some of these recent clubs and if not would have at least had a go at them. bobby's tactics are completley wrong in the english game, not only wrong, downright boring.

but i am a hughes fan so perhaps i should move on to his club and leave city to city fans like some dickhead has just posted.

Well, his win/loss record would argue with you there.

as i see it we always looked liked scoring with hughes in charge, bob has no clue what the word attack means, as i said in an earlier thread he should get advice from brian kidd, work with him and find the right balance, do that and there may be no need for jose after all.

 

[Damocles]

Well, his win/loss record would argue with you there.

as i see it we always looked liked scoring with hughes in charge, bob has no clue what the word attack means, as i said in an earlier thread he should get advice from brian kidd, work with him and find the right balance, do that and there may be no need for jose after all.

But under Hughes our defence was laughable. Mancini is just the exact opposite of Hughes in style. They both had the balance of the team wrong, yet Mancini is still winning games.

Defence is the hardest thing to get right though, and as soon as Mancini gets this right, he can start moving his attentions up the field. he has form of doing this at Inter, when he walked in, he immediately sorted out the defence and the Inter fans were nearly in riots because the football was so dull. It won them their first title in 20-odd years though. After he solidified their defence, he eventually worked more and more forward to the point where they were one of the most entertaining sides in Europe (Barcelona and Arsenal aside). It's just him 'firefighting' so to speak before he starts his build, it's no different to his Inter days.

 

[GStar]

We're not winning palying well, we're limping over the line against the bottom of the table sides, were making our own problems before the opposition are even factored into the equation. Add into that, that football is an entertainment and with our wealth, i don't think its too unreasonable to ask for a few sparks of entertaining play.

Listen to manager when Hughes was in charge, they were begining to fear City and our attacking prowess... our schoolboy set up in defence let us down and his unwillingness to address it let us down. Mancini came in, sorted out the defence and we dicked WOlves and Bburn straight away... why do we now have to go into or shells? At 1-0 we should be looking at 3 or 4 before we shut up shop, 1-0 isnt the place to be slowing down and other than Mourinho and Geroge Graham not many managers in England succeed down that route.

The Pl is getting more and more competative meaning teams will create and score more, we can't hope to nick a goal and shut up shop... we wont get top4 that way.

 

[moomba]

as i see it we always looked liked scoring with hughes in charge, bob has no clue what the word attack means, as i said in an earlier thread he should get advice from brian kidd, work with him and find the right balance, do that and there may be no need for jose after all.

14 from 7 games in the league under Mancini.
33 from 17 games in the league under Hughes.

We have a (slightly) better goals per game under Mancini.

I'm guessing there's a bit more of a difference in defensive records though.

 

[Corky]

Manicini does not have a record to judge yet.

One chance v Everton away, the loss at Hull and the last 3 at home do not inspire. It is like watching county championship cricket.

 

[fathellensbellend]

as i see it we always looked liked scoring with hughes in charge, bob has no clue what the word attack means, as i said in an earlier thread he should get advice from brian kidd, work with him and find the right balance, do that and there may be no need for jose after all.

14 from 7 games in the league under Mancini.
33 from 17 games in the league under Hughes.

We have a (slightly) better goals per game under Mancini.

I'm guessing there's a bit more of a difference in defensive records though.

it could be argued that mancini has played the easier teams, and also enjoyed an initial honeymoon period.

i cannot wait for city v liverpool, what a thriller thats going to be.

 

[SalfordCityBlue]

But under Hughes our defence was laughable. Mancini is just the exact opposite of Hughes in style. They both had the balance of the team wrong, yet Mancini is still winning games.

Defence is the hardest thing to get right though, and as soon as Mancini gets this right, he can start moving his attentions up the field. he has form of doing this at Inter, when he walked in, he immediately sorted out the defence and the Inter fans were nearly in riots because the football was so dull. It won them their first title in 20-odd years though. After he solidified their defence, he eventually worked more and more forward to the point where they were one of the most entertaining sides in Europe (Barcelona and Arsenal aside). It's just him 'firefighting' so to speak before he starts his build, it's no different to his Inter days.

Exactly, and pretty much what he said he was going to do when he came in. Not sure why it has come as such a shock to people?

As I keep saying, less than eight weeks in the job (and during the most hectic part of the season where it must be difficult to do any quality coaching, given the need to patch up and prepare for the next game) and he has made us look much more solid on the whole than Hughes (and Sven) managed over a number of years not weeks.

To do that he has needed to focus on defence and shape initially, and seems to be doing a more than acceptable job with it.

I also don't understand why people keep going on like they think Mancini has been happy with the performances in the last few games - it is clear as day that he has gone in at half time fuming on at least two occasions. So why do people keep talking like Mancini is choosing for the players to play poorly? He is obviously giving them instruction which, for whatever reason, they are not managing to heed for the full game at the moment.

It's ridiculous.