I miss Hughes

[Petetheblu]

If Hughes had remained in the job he would have lost all the league games and we'd now be out of the FA Cup having lost at Boro.

He'd have spent £100m on Upson, Bentley, Parker and Samba.

FACT.

No he wouldn't have.

Our summer signings weren't in the Bentley catogary were they?

Mancini got Vieira ffs, pointless signing.

Liamlets give Vieira a bit more time to adjust to the pace, if the like of the Jimmy Bullard's of this world can play premier football I'm positive that Vieira can to to some level.

On the other subject bounding about the thread....Hughes got sacked because after a season and half our results were below average after spending a couple of million on players and another on resource (wasn't it Hughes who said that if you give a player an excuse they will use it....Well he had the full financial backing on and off the field and he died on his own motto).

How anyone can judge Mancini on several games and very little money to spend in a JANUARY window is beyond me......Can we all just give him some time. Yes it's boring football at the moment, but hey if we give him time to sort out the defence first (maybe we will have to buy someone) then he can move onto the midfield which only need tweaking.

 

[Dyed Petya]

hughes should have been left in the job, nothing against bob but hughes knew the english game better.

had we kept hughes we'd be top 3 now and we would have beaten stoke.

sorry bobby fans.

all that said hughes or bob will be replaced in the summer.

When the decision was taken to sack Hughes, we'd won eleven points from the previous ten games. The win in his last game took it to fourteen from eleven, still the ratio of a mid-table side.

The biggest reason was that, despite his signing a new goalkeeper and several new defenders at vast cost, we continued to leak goals alarmingly, and that would have cost us if it wasn't addressed. The fact that we conceded nine goals in Hughes's last three games showed that he was failing to address the problem and probably had no clue how to.

Given that, and the fact that Mancini's managerial record involves much more significant successes than merely overachieving a bit relative to resources at Blackburn, then swapping Hughes for Mancini was a logical step. And my personal view is that, if I were given the option to go back two months and change the club's actions, I wouldn't. But even if you disagree, to say we'd be top three and beating Stoke with Hughes in charge is just ridiculous.

Mancini isn't perfect, he's adjusting to the English game, he's made mistakes and odd decisions, and at the moment the football isn't great to watch. But he's inherited a squad whose personnel doesn't really allow him to play in the way he'd probably like to, and he arrived needing to tighten up a defence which had performed laughably all season.

In the light of that, I don't think he's doing too badly at all. If Mourinho is available and willing to take our job in the summer, I think we have to go for him, but if we can't get Jose, based on what we've seen so far, I'd be quite happy if Mancini were here next season.

I think with six months' experience in English football and the ability to bring in his own players next summer, Mancini would be a success. And we'd play decent football, as his Inter side did.

 

[Petetheblu]

hughes should have been left in the job, nothing against bob but hughes knew the english game better.

had we kept hughes we'd be top 3 now and we would have beaten stoke.

sorry bobby fans.

all that said hughes or bob will be replaced in the summer.

When the decision was taken to sack Hughes, we'd won eleven points from the previous ten games. The win in his last game took it to fourteen from eleven, still the ratio of a mid-table side.

The biggest reason was that, despite his signing a new goalkeeper and several new defenders at vast cost, we continued to leak goals alarmingly, and that would have cost us if it wasn't addressed. The fact that we conceded nine goals in Hughes's last three games showed that he was failing to address the problem and probably had no clue how to.

Given that, and the fact that Mancini's managerial record involves much more significant successes than merely overachieving a bit relative to resources at Blackburn, then swapping Hughes for Mancini was a logical step. And my personal view is that, if I were given the option to go back two months and change the club's actions, I wouldn't. But even if you disagree, to say we'd be top three and beating Stoke with Hughes in charge is just ridiculous.

Mancini isn't perfect, he's adjusting to the English game, he's made mistakes and odd decisions, and at the moment the football isn't great to watch. But he's inherited a squad whose personnel doesn't really allow him to play in the way he'd probably like to, and he arrived needing to tighten up a defence which had performed laughably all season.

In the light of that, I don't think he's doing too badly at all. If Mourinho is available and willing to take our job in the summer, I think we have to go for him, but if we can't get Jose, based on what we've seen so far, I'd be quite happy if Mancini were here next season.

I think with six months' experience in English football and the ability to bring in his own players next summer, Mancini would be a success. And we'd play decent football, as his Inter side did.

AMEN brother we are preaching from the same gospel.

 

[leewill31]

hughes should have been left in the job, nothing against bob but hughes knew the english game better.

had we kept hughes we'd be top 3 now and we would have beaten stoke.

sorry bobby fans.

all that said hughes or bob will be replaced in the summer.

When the decision was taken to sack Hughes, we'd won eleven points from the previous ten games. The win in his last game took it to fourteen from eleven, still the ratio of a mid-table side.

The biggest reason was that, despite his signing a new goalkeeper and several new defenders at vast cost, we continued to leak goals alarmingly, and that would have cost us if it wasn't addressed. The fact that we conceded nine goals in Hughes's last three games showed that he was failing to address the problem and probably had no clue how to.

Given that, and the fact that Mancini's managerial record involves much more significant successes than merely overachieving a bit relative to resources at Blackburn, then swapping Hughes for Mancini was a logical step. And my personal view is that, if I were given the option to go back two months and change the club's actions, I wouldn't. But even if you disagree, to say we'd be top three and beating Stoke with Hughes in charge is just ridiculous.

Mancini isn't perfect, he's adjusting to the English game, he's made mistakes and odd decisions, and at the moment the football isn't great to watch. But he's inherited a squad whose personnel doesn't really allow him to play in the way he'd probably like to, and he arrived needing to tighten up a defence which had performed laughably all season.

In the light of that, I don't think he's doing too badly at all. If Mourinho is available and willing to take our job in the summer, I think we have to go for him, but if we can't get Jose, based on what we've seen so far, I'd be quite happy if Mancini were here next season.

I think with six months' experience in English football and the ability to bring in his own players next summer, Mancini would be a success. And we'd play decent football, as his Inter side did.

sorry mate but i have a feeling he wont be getting that chance.

 

[Dyed Petya]

sorry mate but i have a feeling he wont be getting that chance.

We'll see. Obviously, it's all speculation and it depends on who's available and willing to take our job, together with how Mancini does in the rest of the season. There's no way we can guess how it will all pan out.

I suspect that the owners would can him for Mourinho no matter how we do in the rest of the season, and possibly also for Hiddink, but beyond those two, there aren't many realistic candidates I can think of who'd be clearly better than Mancini. So if we can't get Mourinho or Hiddink, the owners may well want to keep him on - as long as the wheels don't come off during the remainder of the season.

Of course, there's also the possibility that he may decide that English football or life in England isn't for him. The Inter job will be up for grabs if Mourinho leaves and Juve sacked their manager recently, appointing someone only until the summer. So there are big jobs in Italy for which he'd be a strong contender if he wanted to go back.

 

[blueinsa]

It will be a case of 'Hughes who?' and 'Mancini who?' after this summer's appointment of Mourinho!

 

[Kazzydeyna]

Hmmmm. Do I miss MH??

Like a dose of the fucking gallops.

A more talentless backward boring wanker it's hard to think of. Obviously.

Let's see... 14 pts from 33, with 8 successive draws to such giants as burnley, Bolton et al or the second best form team in the league with a defense that actually DEFENDS? no brainer.

To say we'd have "beat Stoke and been in 3rd"under MH is laughable (you WERE winding us up weren't you de niro?). Hughes inners wind me up more than that fake fucking yank tw@t on the sky blue news podcast (when's the next one out btw).

We finally have a manager that can take us places and people on here are clamouring for that backward f**kwit. I despair of my fellow blues
sometimes.

 

[greenie]

Hmmmm. Do I miss MH??

Like a dose of the fucking gallops.

A more talentless backward boring wanker it's hard to think of. Obviously.

Let's see... 14 pts from 33, with 8 successive draws to such giants as burnley, Bolton et al or the second best form team in the league with a defense that actually DEFENDS? no brainer.

To say we'd have "beat Stoke and been in 3rd"under MH is laughable (you WERE winding us up weren't you de niro?). Hughes inners wind me up more than that fake fucking yank tw@t on the sky blue news podcast (when's the next one out btw).

We finally have a manager that can take us places and people on here are clamouring for
that backward f**kwit. I despair of my fellow blues
sometimes.

that wasn't defending for their goal mate

 

[Unknown_Genius]

I didn't agree with the timing or manner of Hughes dismissal. I personally would have given him until the end of the season, looked at where we finished, how we've done in the cups, performances, and so on. If we finished top 4, or knocking on the door, and showing very good signs for the future, I would have given him another season, if we weren't I would have got rid, then spent the early part of the summer, going for a big, established replacement, such as Mourinho, or Hiddink. He would have a whole pre-season, and transfer window then, to make adjustments. This isn't a go at Mancini, but I just don't get the feeling he was who the owners really wanted, hence his contract situation. I'm fully behind him, but if he doesnt make top 4, he's very likely gone.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

Jesus, things aint that bad.

All the current problems are the slow exposing of Hughes' limitations as a manager.

That cock set us back 12 months on the grand master plan.