Jose Mourinho.

[OB1]

Of course i want us to win the lot as soon as possible, but not to the extent of becoming a caricature of the manky mob, & "the special one" epitomises everything that i have ridiculed the vermin for for the last 30+ years (only that he is a boring cnut that sends out boring teams)

Fair enough. I agree that Jose puts winning before entertainment but he was just an example I was using (for obvious reasons) rather than the only option. As to his public persona, I think there's rather more to it than simple arrogance: I think there's a lot of psychology involved; although, being a City supporter, I'm not fond of arrogance.

 

[Chippy_boy]

I can't understand why there is anyone on this forum who would want to stick with a manager who is clearly not "world class" and wait for 3 or 4 seasons to see if he can improve (his own skills) enough to get us to the top? Why on earth should the richest club in the world want to do that?

If Hughes really can be one of the worlds best managers (and he is *definitely* not that at the moment) then let him hone his skills elsewhere thanks.

You only have to look at the miracles Arsene Wenger can work with a bunch of kids to see the gulf between Hughes and a world-class manager. The results we have had, with the money spent and the skill on offer are just not good enough. He doesn't get the team working well enough together, consistently enough. Critically for me, we don't have a "system". We rely too much on individual skill - which luckily we have in abundance - and not on a system that we all play to and understand. Even lowly opposition play us and clearly they have a method, a plan. They know what they are doing and go about the task. We just don't.

If we can get a really really TOP manager, surely it makes total sense to sack Hughes at soonest opportunity. I just can't understand why anyone would think otherwise.

 

[r.soleofsalford]

I can't understand why there is anyone on this forum who would want to stick with a manager who is clearly not "world class" and wait for 3 or 4 seasons to see if he can improve (his own skills) enough to get us to the top? Why on earth should the richest club in the world want to do that?

If Hughes really can be one of the worlds best managers (and he is *definitely* not that at the moment) then let him hone his skills elsewhere thanks.

You only have to look at the miracles Arsene Wenger can work with a bunch of kids to see the gulf between Hughes and a world-class manager.

If we can get a really really TOP manager, surely it makes total sense to sack Hughes at soonest opportunity. I just can't understand why anyone would think otherwise.

putting it that way you do have a point. ;-)

 

[r.soleofsalford]

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] -izāre; 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]"

Summarise is not a word of greek origin - it comes from the Medieval Latin summarius which in turn comes from the Latin summa meaning total, whole, essence or gist. The OED rule therefore does not apply.

Noah Webster was an American Lexicographer and writer of An American Dictionary of the English Language and as such his opinion does not carry any weight when we are considering the correct British usage. According to Wikipedia "His most important improvement, he claimed, was to rescue "our native tongue" from "the clamor of pedantry" that surrounded English grammar and pronunciation. He complained that the English language had been corrupted by the British aristocracy, which set its own standard for proper spelling and pronunciation. Webster rejected the notion that the study of Greek and Latin must precede the study of English grammar."

Hence why the American's use -ize for everything... because they ignore the classical root of the word, which would suggest to me the the use of -ise is historically correct for words of Latinate origin at least as early as 1828. It would suggest that the American usage is not a "pure" usage that has preserved a historic british usage in isolation but is in fact a corruption based on an ideological and nationalistic bias.

dont i know you, are you on tv.





the big bang theory. ;-}

 

[Brucie Bonus]

Another PM CB. Appreciate it. I like learning new things.

 

[Marvin]

I can't understand why there is anyone on this forum who would want to stick with a manager who is clearly not "world class" and wait for 3 or 4 seasons to see if he can improve (his own skills) enough to get us to the top? Why on earth should the richest club in the world want to do that?

If Hughes really can be one of the worlds best managers (and he is *definitely* not that at the moment) then let him hone his skills elsewhere thanks.

You only have to look at the miracles Arsene Wenger can work with a bunch of kids to see the gulf between Hughes and a world-class manager. The results we have had, with the money spent and the skill on offer are just not good enough. He doesn't get the team working well enough together, consistently enough. Critically for me, we don't have a "system". We rely too much on individual skill - which luckily we have in abundance - and not on a system that we all play to and understand. Even lowly opposition play us and clearly they have a method, a plan. They know what they are doing and go about the task. We just don't.

If we can get a really really TOP manager, surely it makes total sense to sack Hughes at soonest opportunity. I just can't understand why anyone would think otherwise.

You're making this up. I don't think I've been surprised once this season by the line-up or formation. There might be more point in questioning why City play the same system away from home.

Hughes was in the running for the Chelsea job if you remember, and now that he has been appointed, and has one season under his belt, it makes sense to give him time, especially when the club is progressing. If we were not, or we had an evidently poor manager, I'd be in favour of change. There aren't that many proven managers ariund with a cv that includes trophies. Reflect on 2 major apointments by Premiership clubs, which at the time you probably approved of: Scolari and Ramos. They worked well

 

[moomba]

If we were not, or we had an evidently poor manager, I'd be in favour of change. There aren't that many proven managers ariund with a cv that includes trophies. Reflect on 2 major apointments by Premiership clubs, which at the time you probably approved of: Scolari and Ramos. They worked well

Didn't you say after the Fulham game that you'd finally decided that Hughes wasn't up to it?

 

[Brucie Bonus]

Chippy Boy I don't understand it either. I keep thinking there's a principle at the back of it somewhere and that must explain it. This is what I wrote on the "If Only" thread (Transfer Forum).

_______________________

[Been on the same page since September mate. - reply to poster]

Players trust Jose to get the best out of them. They trust his plans. Other teams fear him. He can get inside the oppositions head. Players will sign because they are going to a. get paid a lot and b. stand an excellent chance of winning something IN THEIR OPINION; that is, THEY BELIEVE, and they (and opponents!) have a rational reason for so doing - precedent.

In the history of sports and athletics, from the Pythian games to date, there has never been anything to match the English Premier League in reach and wealth. Football is the most played and watched game in the world. The centre of this is (for the moment) England, the toughest league going (perhaps Spain), and Manchester City - right next-door to the most popular(?) club in the world - are the richest sporting organization (not just football club) on the planet, getting ready to pick the fallen baton from their neighbours before City go marching onto the Continent.

Who do we want to organize this monumental effort on the pitch to win the "Olympics" of footie, the world championship of soccer, the greatest ever feat of true diplomacy by other means? Who shall lead us to the mountain top after 30 years of horror. Who will be front and center as we supplant the old and turn football inside-out?

Apparently, an apprentice of four and a half years training (09/04 - date) who has yet to win anything (manager of the month once though), or manage a truly superior class of team / players.

If this was anything else, you'd think someone was pulling your leg.

If I were Hughes I'd ask ADUG to get Jose and I'd offer to work under Mourinho. No shame in that, unless you've got an ego the size of a small planet and want to run before you can walk. Lots of folks don't want Jose because they believe he wouldn't stick around long. Perhaps he'd stay around long enough for Hughes to learn something. Hughes is only forty-five. What's the rush here? Jose is forty-six and has been in club management twice as long, having won a few things - thanks to everyone else (apparently). Hughes has won nothing at all - thanks to everyone else (apparently).

Unless the club adopt an approach to football that transcends any manager or players, there is always going to be fear, wastage, lag, and risk, that could otherwise be avoided or minimized. [this refers to a PM I sent to MCFCinUSA about a systems approach along the lines of total football which exists independently of any manager, his pet theories and "players he likes". That is, it is the CLUBS way, and any manager who wants to manage the club must subscribe to it. The manager still picks the players of course.]

Hughes is a gamble. Jose is a gamble. Cruyff would be a gamble, Zico, Hiddink, Mancini, Big Phil...anyone would be a gamble; but surely the objective is to play a game where the odds do not favour the house. Why on earth would we adopt a policy of increasing uncertainty.

 

[Rammy Blue]

I can't understand why there is anyone on this forum who would want to stick with a manager who is clearly not "world class" and wait for 3 or 4 seasons to see if he can improve (his own skills) enough to get us to the top? Why on earth should the richest club in the world want to do that?

If Hughes really can be one of the worlds best managers (and he is *definitely* not that at the moment) then let him hone his skills elsewhere thanks.

You only have to look at the miracles Arsene Wenger can work with a bunch of kids to see the gulf between Hughes and a world-class manager. The results we have had, with the money spent and the skill on offer are just not good enough. He doesn't get the team working well enough together, consistently enough. Critically for me, we don't have a "system". We rely too much on individual skill - which luckily we have in abundance - and not on a system that we all play to and understand. Even lowly opposition play us and clearly they have a method, a plan. They know what they are doing and go about the task. We just don't.

If we can get a really really TOP manager, surely it makes total sense to sack Hughes at soonest opportunity. I just can't understand why anyone would think otherwise.

good post Chippy, especially the last couple of sentences.

 

[Cambridgeblue]

I can't understand why there is anyone on this forum who would want to stick with a manager who is clearly not "world class" and wait for 3 or 4 seasons to see if he can improve (his own skills) enough to get us to the top? Why on earth should the richest club in the world want to do that?

If Hughes really can be one of the worlds best managers (and he is *definitely* not that at the moment) then let him hone his skills elsewhere thanks.

You only have to look at the miracles Arsene Wenger can work with a bunch of kids to see the gulf between Hughes and a world-class manager. The results we have had, with the money spent and the skill on offer are just not good enough. He doesn't get the team working well enough together, consistently enough. Critically for me, we don't have a "system". We rely too much on individual skill - which luckily we have in abundance - and not on a system that we all play to and understand. Even lowly opposition play us and clearly they have a method, a plan. They know what they are doing and go about the task. We just don't.

If we can get a really really TOP manager, surely it makes total sense to sack Hughes at soonest opportunity. I just can't understand why anyone would think otherwise.

good post Chippy, especially the last couple of sentences.

Fair point to which I would have to say that it would hype expectations to an unrealistic degree which is a dangerous thing to do if we do not yet have the platform to meet those expectations. I think there is a real danger in our situation to try and do too much too soon and end up falling flat on our faces.

Hughes is good enough imho to get us to 5th or 6th next season and maybe win a trophy if he's given another transfer window to add some much needed depth to the squad. Given that this seems to be what most people on here would be satisfied with I can't see the harm of letting him try and then perhaps looking at a 'superstar' manager for the season after that who would have a geniunely solid platform from which to launch an assault on the top 4.