Jose Mourinho.

[mikeyk07]

Those who are complaining about him playing boring football:

1. If you can sit through the Stuart Pearce era and still turn up week in and week out then what is the problem?

2. Wouldn't you rather play boring football and win rather than score 10 goals per season at home all season under Pearce? Hughes team might be scoring a lot of goals but we're conceeding our fair share too. Mourinho's teams are hard to beat.

I'm not necessarily saying he should come in because I think Hughes should get another season but I don't see why people see boring football and winning things as a negative?

You say we are 'conceeding our fair share'. We've currently got the 2nd best goal difference outside of the top 4 and scored more goals at home than EVERY other team other than United, to me this builiding for the future. Changing managers at this stage of our development for anyone would be damaging.

 

[leewill31]

Here's the reasons I want Mourinho:

1) He can attract much better players than Hughes.

2) I have a problem with Mark Hughes' attitude.


What I mean by 2) is that I think Hughes is more concerned with keeping his job than actually wanting City to become the best team in the world. Listen to his interviews after games we've lost, they are all brimming with excuses and smack of desperation.

When he says 'City were crap before I took over', that's just a ploy to manage expectation so that his own efforts of mid-table mediocrity seem better than they actually are.

He's desperately clinging onto his job to the detriment of the club as a whole.

it all depends on how one sighted you look at that yourself imho,not sure how some thought we would automaticly hit the top 4 this season myself looking at the whole picture within and around the club.

and you say he is desperately clinging on to his job well im not so sure about that one.

 

[Anonymous]

Not sure he is doing at Inter, they're one of the more free scoring teams in the league are they not? Maybe it's nothing simpler than him getting his sides to play the type of football that brings the maximum chance of success. Were we ever to have Mourinho as manager I would expect that we would be signing the type of players that would allow us to win games with the sort of flair associated with some of those sides mentioned.

Agree with that totally...

The inter fan on this forum (Interesti I think) has said a few times that he feels that Inter were more effective, and more attractive under Mancini. Also, he pointed out that Mourinho started the season using his tried and trusted 433 formation, and brought in his own players to implement it - but then quickly reverted to the same formation (442) and team selection, as Mancini did last season...

Again, I'm not saying I wouldn't have Jose - but there is a certain effectiveness at the expense of style to his teams, which is well....boring IMO. To draw a parallel, I find Liverpool under Benitez incredibly boring as well. Effective but boring.

Arsene Wenger has a lot to answer for in terms of, certainly, my expectations of the way the game can be played in the premiership....

 

[mikeyk07]

I agree this team is not ready for JM, but what is clear is that it needs time, to mature. If, (and it is a big if) the younger players, including Bojinov, De Jong, Kompany, Zabletta, Johnson, and Richards can continue to progress, and develop as has Stevie Ireland and too a certain extent Nedum Onhua over the next 18 months, then the foundations are certainly there to win or at least challenge for honours with some more acute signings. Historically what we do know is that chopping and changing managers has seriouly damaged the club over the years. Winning the league or at least braking into the top 4 will not happen immediately, and take into account that 3 of this years champions league semi finalists are English, we are competing with arguably Europe's elite on a week to week basis. What is evident though is looking at Utd over the past 10-15 years, is Fergusons, ability to continually replicate the same team year in year out, resulting in a succesful winning formula i.e for Pallister and Bruce change Ferdinand and Vidic. Kanchelskis, Ronaldo, even Mark Hughes and Rooney you could argue were similar in style of play... Keane, Ince you can go on and on. It all appears strangely so simple so with the money we now have at our disposal if Hughes can correctly identify the players akin to Fergusons own formula, then perhaps we will then start to compete with the top 4, but i suspect that these clubs having been strong and their own infastructers being in place for so long it will not be easy and even then we've got to start getting the sort of referreeing decisions they get on a regular basis !!!

Lee Sharpe?

Lost me there unless your suggesting that Lee Sharpe was a poor player, which i'd rather not argue on a City forum.

 

[christened at st marks]

Manchester City's Arab rulers are at it again with a staggering plan to land a dream double of Lionel Messi AND Jose Mourinho.
Despite the humiliating Kaka fiasco in January, City supremos still believe they can snare the biggest names in world football.
The Sheikhs are ready to throw fortunes into convincing Messi and Mourinho they have the money to back up their ambitions.
Astonishingly, City are prepared to obliterate the transfer record by offering £150million to Barcelona for Argentinian ace Messi.
Barca president Joan Laporta, who met City executive chairman Garry Cook in London last week, is aware City mean business.
The Abu Dhabi group's money could turn Barcelona's heads and a wage deal of about £10million a year is also available for Messi, although sources close to him claim that money is not his main driving force.
Driving
If City can persuade Messi they can make it big as Champions League contenders and winners they may have a chance.
The same applies to Inter Milan coach Mourinho, who will be offered a staggering package of around £6million a season for the next four years.
But Mourinho would only come to City if he thought they could land top players and their credibility is being tested by the current moves to bring in star names.
Agents are also working on signing Spanish striker David Villa from Valencia - as People Sport revealed last October - but the price will have to drop from the £100million valuation in the last window.
Manchester United's Carlos Tevez is also on the City wish list. However, Tevez is reluctant to upset United's fans after the way they have supported him.
City are determined to pull off some knockout deals this summer.
It is obviously spelling the end for manager Mark Hughes, who was given cash backing in his first season but has only produced mid-table mediocrity.

IS THIS OLD NEWS JUST FOUND IT IN THE PEOPLE

 

[Marvin]

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?

Yes I did. But as the known facts change, I will change my opinion.

In the aftermath of the away defeat at Hamburg, and the Fulham home defeat, I was very disappointed. I thought Hughes should have changed the formation at half-time, to protect a very tired squad, whilst we had the lead. That game was crucial.

Since then the form has been very good. And results have improved as well. You go largely by what you see on the pitch, and results and performances have improved so at the moment I'd give the manager more time. After the Fulham defeat, and the CUP KO the team could have fallen apart, but they have responded positively which is significant

Changing manager is high risk, and installing big names like Scolari does not always work.

I hope that's OK with you? You don't change your spots do you?

 

[barney8]

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

But are we? Progressing compared to first half of the season maybe, but remember: We will get less points this season than we did last. Wich is a joke really, considering the fact that MH has spent £110 million on new players.

 

[moomba]

I hope that's OK with you? You don't change your spots do you?

Just asked the question, thats all.

 

[leewill31]

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?

Yes I did. But as the known facts change, I will change my opinion.

In the aftermath of the away defeat at Hamburg, and the Fulham home defeat, I was very disappointed. I thought Hughes should have changed the formation at half-time, to protect a very tired squad, whilst we had the lead. That game was crucial.

Since then the form has been very good. And results have improved as well. You go largely by what you see on the pitch, and results and performances have improved so at the moment I'd give the manager more time. After the Fulham defeat, and the CUP KO the team could have fallen apart, but they have responded positively which is significant

Changing manager is high risk, and installing big names like Scolari does not always work.

I hope that's OK with you? You don't change your spots do you?

just going of what is written in bold does anybody think this is a major point on players,i myself think with the likes of boj and petrov comeing back from injuies have had a major affect on the first 11,they have had to up there game and keep there places,this to me has been our downfall in a lot of games this season no strentgh in depth so some players have not been pushed to play there game to 100%

i feel this point of the team needs to be changed before the manager and should be in the summer,we may just see a differnt better allround manchester city next season.

 

[GJF]

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?

Yes I did. But as the known facts change, I will change my opinion.

In the aftermath of the away defeat at Hamburg, and the Fulham home defeat, I was very disappointed. I thought Hughes should have changed the formation at half-time, to protect a very tired squad, whilst we had the lead. That game was crucial.

Since then the form has been very good. And results have improved as well. You go largely by what you see on the pitch, and results and performances have improved so at the moment I'd give the manager more time. After the Fulham defeat, and the CUP KO the team could have fallen apart, but they have responded positively which is significant

Changing manager is high risk, and installing big names like Scolari does not always work.

I hope that's OK with you? You don't change your spots do you?

There is nothing wrong with changing your mind about something...
I personally am happy to admit on 2 occasions I have wanted Hughes out; the first time I was convinced he was going to go if we did not get a result at Hull. We looked stale and had no spirit..it was as if fear had manifested itself through the whole team; whether this was to do with specilation about players/manager, then who knows. Then they battered Hull, so he earned a reprive...
The second time was around the time we played Fulham, and just after. The fear seemed to have returned to the team; everyone looked poor, and not up for it. I was convinced that we would lose to Hamburg and Hughes should be replaced.
Then the Hamburg match happened; we witnessed a team come from a goal down to beat a team who have won every single other of their away matches (they even beat Bremen the other day), but the fact we came from a goal down, and were inches from winning spoke volumes. Then the next match after we won again at home, when we couldve given up in the league, then the next 2 wins, and now a settles formation with settles partenerships gelling in the pitch makes me believe that Hughes should stay.

Yes he may lose the next 3 matches, but he may also win.
Yes a new manager may come in but they may fail, likewise they may succeed.
Yes a new manager could get new players in but high likely are they to succeed? And by that account how do we know Hughes isnt a factor in getting players in? Kompany, De Jong, Ireland, and Given all rate Hughes as being a massive factor in them coming and they will be a a backbone of the team for years to come.

People say getting/keeping a manager is playing the odds and percentages, and point to Mourinho. True; he is a winner, but City would be something totally new to him. To take our current team to top 4 in one season in the toughest league in the world is a whole new challenge he has never encountered. And it doesnt compare with Porto; Porta arent in the EPL, and the League isnt done in two legs like a cup competetion.

Scolari was a winner, but lost at Chelsea.
Ramos was a winner, but lost at Spurs.

For the time being, I am happy with how we have progressed the second half of the season, but I realise that my opinions change; if we lost the next 3 matches terribly and there were terrible tactical decsions made I would be clamouring for Hughes' head on a plate. But likewise if he won the next 3 I would be calling for a contract extension probably..

It doesnt make me fickle, it just makes me human. Do we really think the owners make their decisions based on 1 match? Doubtful. Its probably based on trends, stats, and figures..theyt are businessmen after all. And at the moment, those trends, stats and figures are all pointing the right way...