A
A
Anonymous
Guest
leewill31 said:
Maybe he has one stuck up Stevie's that has made him better :-)
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Jose Mourinho.
- Thread starter C_T_I_D
- Start date
Maybe he has one stuck up Stevie's that has made him better :-)
Cheesy said:leewill31 said:Cheesy said:Bluemoonbaldboy said:Any improvement in form is down to the player being motivated by his surroundings it also helps if he feels the manager believes in him Hughes stopped Stevie being sold. He plays him in a role that brings out the best in him
OK, I'll go with that theory. So, who is to blame for Dunnie & Micah not being as good as last season?
themselves maybe or does hughes have a remote control and antennas stuck there ass!
Maybe he has one stuck up Stevie's that has made him better :-)
:)
bizzbo
Well-Known Member
it's a fundamental law of human thermodynamic psychological metaphysics that players are responsible for their own state of mind and their performance. managers are responsible for the performance of the team. the crossover point is where the manager sets out the roles for each individual. he has to ensure the players are capable of, understand, and are comfortable with, the roles he needs them to play.
so, if we look at stevies, the fitness, the mentality, the intelligence, commitment, vision and consistency he has shown this year, all the credit goes to him. as noted, he quietly improved his game over the preceeding season, and put a lot of effort into sorting his head out, and training throughout the summer. Hughes gets some credit for putting him in a role he obviously is comfortable with.
the micah and dunne story is difficult. stories have been told that both are uncomfortable with the zonal system they are being asked to play, if this is true, and hughes has not been able to communicate it properly to them, or help them become comfortable with it, the responsibility is primarily his. yet hughes is not directly responsible for micah not tracking back enough, or dunne's lapses.
it's simple. manage the right way, people perform well and grow. manage poorly, and you are only going to see people not performing their roles properly, which further leads them to lose confidence in themselves. hughes is getting somethings right, but there are question marks over other things.
so, if we look at stevies, the fitness, the mentality, the intelligence, commitment, vision and consistency he has shown this year, all the credit goes to him. as noted, he quietly improved his game over the preceeding season, and put a lot of effort into sorting his head out, and training throughout the summer. Hughes gets some credit for putting him in a role he obviously is comfortable with.
the micah and dunne story is difficult. stories have been told that both are uncomfortable with the zonal system they are being asked to play, if this is true, and hughes has not been able to communicate it properly to them, or help them become comfortable with it, the responsibility is primarily his. yet hughes is not directly responsible for micah not tracking back enough, or dunne's lapses.
it's simple. manage the right way, people perform well and grow. manage poorly, and you are only going to see people not performing their roles properly, which further leads them to lose confidence in themselves. hughes is getting somethings right, but there are question marks over other things.
Brucie Bonus
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 15 Aug 2008
- Messages
- 5,215
Summarize: v.tr (also -ise)...
Concise (1,800 pages) Oxford English Dictionary, Clarendon Press, Oxford. 9th Ed, 1995. (my copy)
It's actually "ize". We are wrong, not the Yanks. It's been brought in from French (through schools) as an affectation, and from Down Under through the media into mass culture. We've gone over this before on the forum.
Anyway:
<a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_and_British_English_spelling_differences" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_a ... ifferences</a>
see: -ise, -ize
"The OED firmly deprecates usage of "-ise" for words of Greek origin, stating, "[T]he suffix..., whatever the element to which it is added, is in its origin the Gr[eek] -ιζειν, L[atin] -izÄre; and, as the pronunciation is also with z, there is no reason why in English the special French spelling in -iser should be followed, in opposition to that which is at once etymological and phonetic." It goes on to say "... some have used the spelling -ise in English, as in French, for all these words, and some prefer -ise in words formed in French or English from Latin elements, retaining -ize for those of Greek composition."[47] Noah Webster rejected -ise for the same reasons.[48] Despite these denouncements, however, the -ize spelling is now rarely used in the UK in the mass media and newspapers, and is often incorrectly regarded as an Americanism.[49]"
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/13/messages/785.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_boar ... s/785.html</a>
The second, and much larger, group consists of verbs containing the Greek suffix -ize. Among these are realize, civilize, ostracize, jeopardize, organize and trivialize; there are far too many to list here, and new ones are coined almost at will, like hospitalize, finalize and prioritize. These words must be spelled with -ize in American English. In British English, the spelling with -ize is traditional, and is still preferred in many conservative quarters, for example at the Oxford University Press. But the newer spelling in -ise is now widespread in Britain and is preferred in other quarters. British writers may use whichever spelling they prefer, unless they are writing for a publishing house which insists upon one or the other.
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/youmeus/learnit/learnitv19.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learn ... tv19.shtml</a>
"In my experience most UKers I've talked with that were uninformed on the history of spelling believed that "-ize" was an Americanism, and some don't believe that in fact it was the traditional British spelling. The British were once so gung-ho for "-ize" spellings that they even used them for words that didn't have etymologies from Greek "izo." In fact, in some American dictionaries, spellings like "surprize" (which I've never seen used in an American text) are listed as "British variants," but I believe those are probably a couple centuries old. I have seen "surprize" used in British academic texts on very rare occasions. But, back to the words from Greek "-izo" such as "baptize" and "equalize" etc that you mention, it is interesting to note the change in British preference over the past couple of centuries. It's interesting--but fashions change, I suppose.
The only reason I can think of that academics would think "-ise" was incorrect would be on etymological grounds, since "-ize" is historically closer to to the Greek root which it's derived from. The exception, of course, would be the words such as some "-prise" or "-mise" words which come from French "-pris" and "-mis." In the US we appear to prefer etymological and/or traditional British spellings in some cases where the British have since moved on in spelling fashion to the point where it seems as if the traditional forms are Americanisms.
For the most part the change has been over the last 20 years its been reasonably sudden, but few people seem to have noticed. I've been looking through books I own from British publishers from the 1970s, not one uses the "ise" spelling. While some book publishers still use the "ize" spelling quite a few seem to have moved over to "ise" "
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.antimoon.com/forum/t151.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.antimoon.com/forum/t151.htm</a> (use of the media, Australian style, and school teachers)
Lots more, but I'm English, and I think I'll stick with the English version even if that makes me a bit of a traditionalist these days: although I'm only forty, it IS how we were taught. Look through your own bookshelves and you'll notice the older the book (published, by edition) the less you see "ise".
Hughez in and out!
Concise (1,800 pages) Oxford English Dictionary, Clarendon Press, Oxford. 9th Ed, 1995. (my copy)
It's actually "ize". We are wrong, not the Yanks. It's been brought in from French (through schools) as an affectation, and from Down Under through the media into mass culture. We've gone over this before on the forum.
Anyway:
<a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_and_British_English_spelling_differences" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_a ... ifferences</a>
see: -ise, -ize
"The OED firmly deprecates usage of "-ise" for words of Greek origin, stating, "[T]he suffix..., whatever the element to which it is added, is in its origin the Gr[eek] -ιζειν, L[atin] -izÄre; and, as the pronunciation is also with z, there is no reason why in English the special French spelling in -iser should be followed, in opposition to that which is at once etymological and phonetic." It goes on to say "... some have used the spelling -ise in English, as in French, for all these words, and some prefer -ise in words formed in French or English from Latin elements, retaining -ize for those of Greek composition."[47] Noah Webster rejected -ise for the same reasons.[48] Despite these denouncements, however, the -ize spelling is now rarely used in the UK in the mass media and newspapers, and is often incorrectly regarded as an Americanism.[49]"
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/13/messages/785.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_boar ... s/785.html</a>
The second, and much larger, group consists of verbs containing the Greek suffix -ize. Among these are realize, civilize, ostracize, jeopardize, organize and trivialize; there are far too many to list here, and new ones are coined almost at will, like hospitalize, finalize and prioritize. These words must be spelled with -ize in American English. In British English, the spelling with -ize is traditional, and is still preferred in many conservative quarters, for example at the Oxford University Press. But the newer spelling in -ise is now widespread in Britain and is preferred in other quarters. British writers may use whichever spelling they prefer, unless they are writing for a publishing house which insists upon one or the other.
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/youmeus/learnit/learnitv19.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learn ... tv19.shtml</a>
"In my experience most UKers I've talked with that were uninformed on the history of spelling believed that "-ize" was an Americanism, and some don't believe that in fact it was the traditional British spelling. The British were once so gung-ho for "-ize" spellings that they even used them for words that didn't have etymologies from Greek "izo." In fact, in some American dictionaries, spellings like "surprize" (which I've never seen used in an American text) are listed as "British variants," but I believe those are probably a couple centuries old. I have seen "surprize" used in British academic texts on very rare occasions. But, back to the words from Greek "-izo" such as "baptize" and "equalize" etc that you mention, it is interesting to note the change in British preference over the past couple of centuries. It's interesting--but fashions change, I suppose.
The only reason I can think of that academics would think "-ise" was incorrect would be on etymological grounds, since "-ize" is historically closer to to the Greek root which it's derived from. The exception, of course, would be the words such as some "-prise" or "-mise" words which come from French "-pris" and "-mis." In the US we appear to prefer etymological and/or traditional British spellings in some cases where the British have since moved on in spelling fashion to the point where it seems as if the traditional forms are Americanisms.
For the most part the change has been over the last 20 years its been reasonably sudden, but few people seem to have noticed. I've been looking through books I own from British publishers from the 1970s, not one uses the "ise" spelling. While some book publishers still use the "ize" spelling quite a few seem to have moved over to "ise" "
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.antimoon.com/forum/t151.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.antimoon.com/forum/t151.htm</a> (use of the media, Australian style, and school teachers)
Lots more, but I'm English, and I think I'll stick with the English version even if that makes me a bit of a traditionalist these days: although I'm only forty, it IS how we were taught. Look through your own bookshelves and you'll notice the older the book (published, by edition) the less you see "ise".
Hughez in and out!
PragueBlue
Well-Known Member
quiet_riot said:sboroMCFC said:Mourinho is exactly what we DON'T need!
Proven winner who can attract the biggest names and get the best out of them?
Hmmmm
Which of the biggest names has he attracted to his clubs? It seems to me that he generally goes for very good players that fit his system rather than individual world beaters.
He may well be able to transform us into a somewhat successful club but most likely at the expense of flair and attractive football. I doubt the likes of Robinho, Elano and SWP would be around for long.
I'm a bit greedy and would like success and flair. No idea who can deliver that though.
MCFCinUSA
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 14 Dec 2008
- Messages
- 5,299
- Team supported
- City since 1977
as I said on another post, but the one about Mancini/'Manciti', I believe the objectives & therefore the arguments surrounding this whole topic are the wrong ones we should be asking; even if this thread and the former one make cracking reading & debate!
here's the original post I made so as not to clog up the board again with a new one (and it's only a short two-page job):-
<a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=118529" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">viewtopic.php?f=1&t=118529</a>
arguing about winning the EPL/CL etc etc and who can or cannot do it for us and how quickly is really pretty much a crapshoot, as all the arguments for and against Mourinho/Hughes et al just go to prove. Essentially nothing is guaranteed or evident until after the fact!
why not just aim for us to play some decent football, which would be achievable and sustainable, and let the rest take care of itself?
wouldn't we all end up winners like this?
I just bloody hope the people in power think this way too, as I'm not convinced Jose is the man for the above goal, although I do think he is an outstandingly good team manager; but even with him (baring his style of football) you're not guaranteed of 'winning' anything necessarily, so where does that leave you - as others have pointed out in the never ending circular argument that's going on...
please let's aim for something we can get, without question.
I'd love to see our side coached and managed to play the right type of football, and with talented touch & flair players, and with fast and mobile defenders, see a team unit created & shaped into something beautiful and entertaining to behold. Simple.
my 'manifesto' is in the above link for those who care to be bothered.
here's the original post I made so as not to clog up the board again with a new one (and it's only a short two-page job):-
<a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=118529" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">viewtopic.php?f=1&t=118529</a>
arguing about winning the EPL/CL etc etc and who can or cannot do it for us and how quickly is really pretty much a crapshoot, as all the arguments for and against Mourinho/Hughes et al just go to prove. Essentially nothing is guaranteed or evident until after the fact!
why not just aim for us to play some decent football, which would be achievable and sustainable, and let the rest take care of itself?
wouldn't we all end up winners like this?
I just bloody hope the people in power think this way too, as I'm not convinced Jose is the man for the above goal, although I do think he is an outstandingly good team manager; but even with him (baring his style of football) you're not guaranteed of 'winning' anything necessarily, so where does that leave you - as others have pointed out in the never ending circular argument that's going on...
please let's aim for something we can get, without question.
I'd love to see our side coached and managed to play the right type of football, and with talented touch & flair players, and with fast and mobile defenders, see a team unit created & shaped into something beautiful and entertaining to behold. Simple.
my 'manifesto' is in the above link for those who care to be bothered.
Brucie Bonus
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 15 Aug 2008
- Messages
- 5,215
I always read these threads MCFCinUSA and make sure to take in your posts. Very good reading all around. One day the club operating system will be king, and managers and players will be "plug and play": then we can evaluate them and any progress objectively. Until that is done, fear and radical uncertainty will continue as major components in decision-making at all levels.
leewill31 said:how in the hell do you blame hughes for what has has happened at blackburn since he left.
Quite simply i havent, maybe you and a few others are reading what you wamt to read.
All i've said is that other than hughes oft repeated assertions (lapped up by many) there is no real evidence that he is any more a long term club builder than any other manager.
OB1
Well-Known Member
MCFCinUSA said:as I said on another post, but the one about Mancini/'Manciti', I believe the objectives & therefore the arguments surrounding this whole topic are the wrong ones we should be asking; even if this thread and the former one make cracking reading & debate!
here's the original post I made so as not to clog up the board again with a new one (and it's only a short two-page job):-
<a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=118529" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">viewtopic.php?f=1&t=118529</a>
arguing about winning the EPL/CL etc etc and who can or cannot do it for us and how quickly is really pretty much a crapshoot, as all the arguments for and against Mourinho/Hughes et al just go to prove. Essentially nothing is guaranteed or evident until after the fact!
why not just aim for us to play some decent football, which would be achievable and sustainable, and let the rest take care of itself?
wouldn't we all end up winners like this?
I just bloody hope the people in power think this way too, as I'm not convinced Jose is the man for the above goal, although I do think he is an outstandingly good team manager; but even with him (baring his style of football) you're not guaranteed of 'winning' anything necessarily, so where does that leave you - as others have pointed out in the never ending circular argument that's going on...
please let's aim for something we can get, without question.
I'd love to see our side coached and managed to play the right type of football, and with talented touch & flair players, and with fast and mobile defenders, see a team unit created & shaped into something beautiful and entertaining to behold. Simple.
my 'manifesto' is in the above link for those who care to be bothered.
Fascinating thread that you crossed referred to and I share your love of that Dutch side and Cryuff (who is the reason I've been a Barca fan since he played there). I would love to see Cryuff manage us but rate the chances as between fat and slim; Louis Van Gaal, who I wanted to replace Pearce, is another matter though and I'm sure we could jump ahead of Sunderland in the queue for his services although Bayern would be tougher competition.
I sympathise with your view about choosing a guy who can deliver the type of football you want and letting the rest take care of itself and I agree that whoever ADUG appoint as manager cannot guarantee winning things. However, I do believe that there are different degrees of probability and that, for example, Jose would give us a better chance than Hughesy: the past can be a guide to the future. I also think that the need to win is extremely important to the owners and most importantly the supporters, which could be symbolised by that f#*king banner. If you are based in the US, you may not feel the need as much as those of us back home.
MCFCinUSA
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 14 Dec 2008
- Messages
- 5,299
- Team supported
- City since 1977
OB1 said:If you are based in the US, you may not feel the need as much as those of us back home.
thx for the contribution OB1, the force is indeed noted & appreciated; agree with you on VGaal. That said, JC has been involved with managerial/coaching talks with both the Netherlands national team and I think at least one other club team since I believe he last swore off management ten or so years back. In my humble estimation he's so damn good I'd try for him anyway, at least in some capacity. Why not when you have our cash? Why not if you really want to create something special?
in my opinion Cruyff would be worth busting the bank for, to tempt him back perhaps for one final challenge.
---
for the record I used to have season tickets, but when I started contract work here I found I was spending less and less time in the UK and my seasonal attendance suffered, and so did my consumption of a decent pint, fish & chips, and Abduls. Always a good prematch prep before walking through Witty Park and into Maine Road; ah, those were the days... if only I could transport back for one last weekend!