Mark Hughes - 'I Deserve More Credit'

[BlueSinclair]

Wtf?! Is he serious? What tha heck has he done that deserves credit? He has done below average at best, Harry has done better no question about that. What a tool.

 

[Anonymous]

I guess you have to be careful when reading interviews like this becuse of "selective" quoting.

But.....

"Harry Redknapp has done a good job at Spurs. But I feel it is very similar to myself, it's just that he gets a bit more credit than I do."


If MH really said and actually believes that then I'm afraid he's completely off his head.Stark raving bonkers,in fact.

After leaving the FA cup winners,Rednapp was offered the job of managing a spuds team in crisis with the brief of getting them off the bottom of the league.The master "firefighter."

MH inherited a team that had just finished 9th,after publicly announcing to the press that he left Blackburn beacuse City were "a bigger club with far more potential,"a chairman with money and ambition,etc.etc.

What happened after he took the job is open to conjecture,depending on whether you believe that MH,Thaksin's porkies or the "lazy/unfit/disruptive" players are the reason we've so far struggled to reach the same points total as last season......

Totally different reasons.

 

[Brucie Bonus]

You lot are a fucking disgrace. Call yourselves supporters? Try supporting then. Hughes has done a descent job so far. Just like players Hughes needs time to adapt and if we get a top 10 finish in his first season then that's a good start! You achieve nothing by sacking your manager after one season. I don't post that often but lately this forum has really pissed me off. I know the kind of responses I'm gonna get for this post and I really couldn't give a toss. If you wanna support the team then support all that comes with it, manager included!

From another thread:

In fact Hughes was at it after less than three months at the club, never mind ten, this blew up with him ranting and raving at some of the younger players, and being told he was out of order and talking through his ar*e.

Soulboy beat me to it on the stabillity and time factor that you want for clueless but ignore for anyone else, besides the accademy being far from the flop Hughes is, did I see you asking for Jo to be given time to settle in?, or maybe because he went under a decent manager and did exactly what numpty said he could not has effected your memory.

The very fact you have such a low opinion of the players who have come through the youth system, together with your pathalogical defence of clueless marks you out as not worth arguing with.

I'm waiting for the 'worst manager in 50 years' bullshit to make this post complete.

Defending Hughes relies in part on a logical fallcy - post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this) - and the idea that stability / time is necessary and sufficient. Hughesians lay into anyone who wants Hughes to go (because his CV is one large blank) as a person who hasn't learnt from the past, because sacking managers every year doesn't work...but nobody said that sacking managers every year did work, unless they're terrible managers of course, and should never have been offered the job in the first place, which goes to the judgment of those who employ them? Do they know anything about football? Why do Hughesians spend so much of their time attacking a position nobody maintains?

I wonder sometimes if Hughes and his friends have limited themslves to newspapers.

The Hughesians take the "stability" approach because the last thing they want to talk about are Hughes' laurels; for he has none. Aside from one manager of the month award in his four years of club management, his temples are bare. This is why his biggest defence is centered on stability, which (apart from being a logical fallacy in City's case, i.e. correlation does not equal causation) is a generality that can be applied to any manager or player: actually, I'm being unfair: the thing that Hughes really has going for him is the blind faith (and it is blind, as it is not based on experience or anything tangible as a jumping off point) of his fans who actually think their case is so watertight they have no compunction in avoiding such silliness as, "I just believe he'll come good", and "Trust me, I know it'll work out, I just know it will"; well, there's no arguing with that.

It has been said that expecting someone like Hughes to have any trophies, or big victories, is a bit much, and is unfair, given he only had three years at Blackburn. I agree, it is a bit much, and it is unfair to expect Hughes to lead the (supposedly) most ambitious club in the world to domestic and Continental honours, which is why I don't expect him to. It's also why I object to the reckless gamble that is Hughes, and the willingness to allow Hughes to use City as part of his apprenticeship programme.

We are no longer beggars. We can choose now.

Let's knock this "stability / time" issue on the head. The reason why City have failed over the last three decades is not because we suffered from managerial instability, though instability may have exacerbated problems (some could argue it actually helped on occasion!). It is because we suffered from average to poor managers and average to poor players. We suffered from a dirth of quality. We got rid of so many managers because we had neither judgment or vision, financing or single-mindedness. We changed managers so often because all we could do was apply a thin layer over the cracks and cross our fingers no-one would notice the foundations were slipping and settling, past the point of no-return.

The last three decades has been like watching the fire brigade at work, constantly running-around, putting out fires and often being in a state of emergency, which is not good for clear thinking. Managerial instability was not the cause of our decline into "typical City-dom", but was the sign of a deeper, underlying problem, which has, hopefully, been put to bed.

However, the response to our new situation viz Mark Hughes is a function of the scars of the last 30 years, especially those between 1989 and 1998 when we went through 11 managerial changes.

It is the 1990s that people are thinking about when they talk about "changing managers every year". What about the 1980s, or the present decade then? When we changed managers in the past, were we changing so we could get one of the top five managers in the world to accompany some of the best footballers on the planet? No, we weren't.

So why, if some City fans want Jose Mourinho, do others start talking about "not learning from the past" and "changing managers every year"?

I think I have learned from the past; not only City's past, but the past of a lot of successful clubs. Does keeping Mark Hughes, who has a blank CV, indicate learning?

Many City fans blame instability for the last thirty years. It's easier to blame an abstract noun, than a whole slew of proper: perhaps we shouldn't blame those who were only doing their best, if their best wasn't good enough, but perhaps we can't even be honest enough to admit when someones best is not good enough. I see in Mark Hughes the repetition of the very thing we ought to be tryng to avoid: hiring an average manager with a limited skill set.

Mark Hughes was brought in by Frank to deal with a set of problems at City in the areas of discipline, motivation, and fitness. He was also brought in because he could make a little stretch a fair way, which also included his eye for picking up some decent players. He was also charged with getting us to a top 6 finish.

Under Frank, he was supposed to get us into the top 6. I wonder when he changed his tune...? I have't heard any big announcement. So top six it must be then. Er.

He was not brought to City on the back of a reputation of being a world-beater; he was an up-and-coming, young, British, manager and all that. I don't recall anyone saying they believed he was the man under whose management we would lift trophies, win titles, and set the world afire. Our reach now exceeds Hughes grasp. He has to go. The rationale for Hughes bears a striking resemblance to that under which we have hired other managers. Those who want to keep Hughes at it until Christmas or next May have really no leg to stand on when they abuse blokes like me who want him out now. I don't think people who want Hughes out come Christmas or next May have learned a thing tbh.

I want Hughes out, so we can really begin building to victory. This means I am doing what City did between 1989 and 1998 (that is the time when we had 11 managerial changes in 9 years) by giving Hughes only 12 months, BUT I am not doing what City did between 1979 and 2008 because the person I want as manager is PROVEN WORLD CLASS. Those who want Hughes to stay until Christmas or next May are doing what City did between 1979 and 1989, and between 1998 and 2008, that is, giving Hughes 18-24 months ffs!

So less of the "We've learned, you haven't" if you please. If you were bound and determined to get a manager of the calibre of Mourinho, no obstacles left standing, I'd be inclined to believe it.

As it is, you have hitched your waggons to an apprentice manager with an empty trophy cabinet, and for why? You're hell-bent on taking an unnecessary gamble. What point are you trying to make? If the fans of any other club, say...Newcastle, had just got Mark Hughes, and those fans were against replacing him with a Mancini or a Mourinho you lot would take the piss mercillesly; it'd be nothing but "how deluded are those Geordies?" and "good, that just makes it easier for the rest of us".

 

[RealMancsAreBlue]

well well well !

 

[RealMancsAreBlue]

You know what else gets my goater as well, after the Derby he came out saying ' I sent the players over to fans after the game because I felt it was important to do that'

He sent them over to the fans because someone asked why they dont do it at the fans forum and Vincent Kompany said his old club used to do it all the time

 

[Corky]

The quote is just made up in the thread title. This is pathetic.

 

[RealMancsAreBlue]

The quote is just made up in the thread title. This is pathetic.

The quote is the headline of the piece by sport.co.uk, and it is basically what Hughes is getting at, he doesnt get as much credit as he deserves, ergo he deserves more, its not a difficult concept to grasp.

 

[lancs blue]

Spot on, Brucie.

The quote is just made up in the thread title. This is pathetic.

Nope, referring to Redknapp:

"He's done a good job, similar to the one I've done myself. He just gets a bit more credit than I do, but there you go."

How he works out that he's done a similar job to Redknapp is beyond me. Spuds were in the relegation mire when he took over, now they're above us and competing for Europe.

 

[Brucie Bonus]

The quote is just made up in the thread title. This is pathetic.

"If you look at all the managers in a similar position in the league to us, they seem to get a lot of plaudits," observed Hughes.

"I don't get many. That is predictable and understandable I suppose."

"Harry Redknapp has done a good job at Spurs. But I feel it is very similar to myself, it's just that he gets a bit more credit than I do."

You're right. It is.

 

[scorer]

You lot are a fucking disgrace. Call yourselves supporters? Try supporting then. Hughes has done a descent job so far. Just like players Hughes needs time to adapt and if we get a top 10 finish in his first season then that's a good start! You achieve nothing by sacking your manager after one season. I don't post that often but lately this forum has really pissed me off. I know the kind of responses I'm gonna get for this post and I really couldn't give a toss. If you wanna support the team then support all that comes with it, manager included!

From another thread:

In fact Hughes was at it after less than three months at the club, never mind ten, this blew up with him ranting and raving at some of the younger players, and being told he was out of order and talking through his ar*e.

Soulboy beat me to it on the stabillity and time factor that you want for clueless but ignore for anyone else, besides the accademy being far from the flop Hughes is, did I see you asking for Jo to be given time to settle in?, or maybe because he went under a decent manager and did exactly what numpty said he could not has effected your memory.

The very fact you have such a low opinion of the players who have come through the youth system, together with your pathalogical defence of clueless marks you out as not worth arguing with.

I'm waiting for the 'worst manager in 50 years' bullshit to make this post complete.

Defending Hughes relies in part on a logical fallcy - post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this) - and the idea that stability / time is necessary and sufficient. Hughesians lay into anyone who wants Hughes to go (because his CV is one large blank) as a person who hasn't learnt from the past, because sacking managers every year doesn't work...but nobody said that sacking managers every year did work, unless they're terrible managers of course, and should never have been offered the job in the first place, which goes to the judgment of those who employ them? Do they know anything about football? Why do Hughesians spend so much of their time attacking a position nobody maintains?

I wonder sometimes if Hughes and his friends have limited themslves to newspapers.

The Hughesians take the "stability" approach because the last thing they want to talk about are Hughes' laurels; for he has none. Aside from one manager of the month award in his four years of club management, his temples are bare. This is why his biggest defence is centered on stability, which (apart from being a logical fallacy in City's case, i.e. correlation does not equal causation) is a generality that can be applied to any manager or player: actually, I'm being unfair: the thing that Hughes really has going for him is the blind faith (and it is blind, as it is not based on experience or anything tangible as a jumping off point) of his fans who actually think their case is so watertight they have no compunction in avoiding such silliness as, "I just believe he'll come good", and "Trust me, I know it'll work out, I just know it will"; well, there's no arguing with that.

It has been said that expecting someone like Hughes to have any trophies, or big victories, is a bit much, and is unfair, given he only had three years at Blackburn. I agree, it is a bit much, and it is unfair to expect Hughes to lead the (supposedly) most ambitious club in the world to domestic and Continental honours, which is why I don't expect him to. It's also why I object to the reckless gamble that is Hughes, and the willingness to allow Hughes to use City as part of his apprenticeship programme.

We are no longer beggars. We can choose now.

Let's knock this "stability / time" issue on the head. The reason why City have failed over the last three decades is not because we suffered from managerial instability, though instability may have exacerbated problems (some could argue it actually helped on occasion!). It is because we suffered from average to poor managers and average to poor players. We suffered from a dirth of quality. We got rid of so many managers because we had neither judgment or vision, financing or single-mindedness. We changed managers so often because all we could do was apply a thin layer over the cracks and cross our fingers no-one would notice the foundations were slipping and settling, past the point of no-return.

The last three decades has been like watching the fire brigade at work, constantly running-around, putting out fires and often being in a state of emergency, which is not good for clear thinking. Managerial instability was not the cause of our decline into "typical City-dom", but was the sign of a deeper, underlying problem, which has, hopefully, been put to bed.

However, the response to our new situation viz Mark Hughes is a function of the scars of the last 30 years, especially those between 1989 and 1998 when we went through 11 managerial changes.

It is the 1990s that people are thinking about when they talk about "changing managers every year". What about the 1980s, or the present decade then? When we changed managers in the past, were we changing so we could get one of the top five managers in the world to accompany some of the best footballers on the planet? No, we weren't.

So why, if some City fans want Jose Mourinho, do others start talking about "not learning from the past" and "changing managers every year"?

I think I have learned from the past; not only City's past, but the past of a lot of successful clubs. Does keeping Mark Hughes, who has a blank CV, indicate learning?

Many City fans blame instability for the last thirty years. It's easier to blame an abstract noun, than a whole slew of proper: perhaps we shouldn't blame those who were only doing their best, if their best wasn't good enough, but perhaps we can't even be honest enough to admit when someones best is not good enough. I see in Mark Hughes the repetition of the very thing we ought to be tryng to avoid: hiring an average manager with a limited skill set.

Mark Hughes was brought in by Frank to deal with a set of problems at City in the areas of discipline, motivation, and fitness. He was also brought in because he could make a little stretch a fair way, which also included his eye for picking up some decent players. He was also charged with getting us to a top 6 finish.

Under Frank, he was supposed to get us into the top 6. I wonder when he changed his tune...? I have't heard any big announcement. So top six it must be then. Er.

He was not brought to City on the back of a reputation of being a world-beater; he was an up-and-coming, young, British, manager and all that. I don't recall anyone saying they believed he was the man under whose management we would lift trophies, win titles, and set the world afire. Our reach now exceeds Hughes grasp. He has to go. The rationale for Hughes bears a striking resemblance to that under which we have hired other managers. Those who want to keep Hughes at it until Christmas or next May have really no leg to stand on when they abuse blokes like me who want him out now. I don't think people who want Hughes out come Christmas or next May have learned a thing tbh.

I want Hughes out, so we can really begin building to victory. This means I am doing what City did between 1989 and 1998 (that is the time when we had 11 managerial changes in 9 years) by giving Hughes only 12 months, BUT I am not doing what City did between 1979 and 2008 because the person I want as manager is PROVEN WORLD CLASS. Those who want Hughes to stay until Christmas or next May are doing what City did between 1979 and 1989, and between 1998 and 2008, that is, giving Hughes 18-24 months ffs!

So less of the "We've learned, you haven't" if you please. If you were bound and determined to get a manager of the calibre of Mourinho, no obstacles left standing, I'd be inclined to believe it.

As it is, you have hitched your waggons to an apprentice manager with an empty trophy cabinet, and for why? You're hell-bent on taking an unnecessary gamble. What point are you trying to make? If the fans of any other club, say...Newcastle, had just got Mark Hughes, and those fans were against replacing him with a Mancini or a Mourinho you lot would take the piss mercillesly; it'd be nothing but "how deluded are those Geordies?" and "good, that just makes it easier for the rest of us".

Fantastic post Brucie baby.....