5knuckleshuffle said:No one said he agree with it, but he was asked of his opinion.
But i cannot comment on who disagreed and who agreed but in Body language on the pitch and in the papers Ireland is loving the Hughes era.
Just use you head matey and performances and body language tell you the story.
Disturbance said:Why would Ireland be made captain if he was at the player's meeting complaining about the training?
Kinkys Blue Socks said:bluemoon1078 said:wouldn't know if this was true or not tbh but a lot of it just doesn't add up to me.
Which bits don't add up?
JohnMaddocksAxe said:Can I ask for serious answers to this qyestion and not a slanging match that other threads have developed into.
I'm addressing it to everyone who believes that it is possible that there may be some truth in this story (which includes me).
Do you not think that there is something strange when a group of experienced professional footballers, from all sorts of different backgrounds, come to the conclusion that the training methods and management techniques being used are bad for the club?
Instead of automatically writing it off as a disgrace and the players being soft, do we give no credence to the judgement of players like Dunne who have time and again proved that they are willing to sweat blood for this club?
Do the previous good, hardworking and professional characters of players like Dunne, Vassell, Hammann, Kompany, Ball, etc count for nothing?
Until the end of last season, when everyone has to admit that there were excpetional circumstances, these players have consistently been hardworking professional players, not scared of hard work and willing to put everything in for the shirt they are playing in.
Yet because they raise questions about the manager's techniques we are automatically writing them off as poncing leeches who constantly want to act in a manner that has previously been the opposite of everything their careers have stood for?
We are not talking about poncing trouble causers like Bellamay or Kieron Dyer here. We are talking about a man who has run through walls for this club, Richard Dunne, and a man who most would agree has always been the epitome of 'the model pro', regardless of ability, in Vassell.
Is there no possibility of the methods that Hughes is using, cmbined with his management style ever being open to examination and cross examination?
Cos this thread just seems to be full of people who automatically accept that if Hughes has implemented training regimes that all these players, from differing backgrounds and countries find poor, then that is no fault of Hughes and the players are just a bunch of twats. Even if that is the complete opposite of their character.
Furthermore, if, as has been suggested above, Hughes came in with details from Frank (hardly what people could call a stable, rational or reliable football source of knowledge) saying that all the players are twats, and has proceeded to carry these through even when the mad bastard has left, then wouldn't you expect some of the players to be unhappy that the word of a nutty politician, who the majrity of us accept knew fuck all about football and handled himself very badly at the end of the season, is being taken as read and their new manager has come in with an attitude that has already labelled them bastards?
Not looking for an argument but anything approaching a balanced view is lacking on this thread and I feel it's fair to post something questioning this from another angle.
Disturbance said:5knuckleshuffle said:No one said he agree with it, but he was asked of his opinion.
But i cannot comment on who disagreed and who agreed but in Body language on the pitch and in the papers Ireland is loving the Hughes era.
Just use you head matey and performances and body language tell you the story.
The performances are shit everyone knows that, for me the buck stops with the manager if he can't motivate 11 players to not lose 3-0 to fucking Forest at home. As for what you've posted, it's just rumour. You're an anonymous nobody on the internet so excuse me if I don't believe it as 100% gospel.
JohnMaddocksAxe said:Can I ask for serious answers to this qyestion and not a slanging match that other threads have developed into.
I'm addressing it to everyone who believes that it is possible that there may be some truth in this story (which includes me).
Do you not think that there is something strange when a group of experienced professional footballers, from all sorts of different backgrounds, come to the conclusion that the training methods and management techniques being used are bad for the club?
Instead of automatically writing it off as a disgrace and the players being soft, do we give no credence to the judgement of players like Dunne who have time and again proved that they are willing to sweat blood for this club?
Do the previous good, hardworking and professional characters of players like Dunne, Vassell, Hammann, Kompany, Ball, etc count for nothing?
Until the end of last season, when everyone has to admit that there were excpetional circumstances, these players have consistently been hardworking professional players, not scared of hard work and willing to put everything in for the shirt they are playing in.
Yet because they raise questions about the manager's techniques we are automatically writing them off as poncing leeches who constantly want to act in a manner that has previously been the opposite of everything their careers have stood for?
We are not talking about poncing trouble causers like Bellamay or Kieron Dyer here. We are talking about a man who has run through walls for this club, Richard Dunne, and a man who most would agree has always been the epitome of 'the model pro', regardless of ability, in Vassell.
Is there no possibility of the methods that Hughes is using, cmbined with his management style ever being open to examination and cross examination?
Cos this thread just seems to be full of people who automatically accept that if Hughes has implemented training regimes that all these players, from differing backgrounds and countries find poor, then that is no fault of Hughes and the players are just a bunch of twats. Even if that is the complete opposite of their character.
Furthermore, if, as has been suggested above, Hughes came in with details from Frank (hardly what people could call a stable, rational or reliable football source of knowledge) saying that all the players are twats, and has proceeded to carry these through even when the mad bastard has left, then wouldn't you expect some of the players to be unhappy that the word of a nutty politician, who the majrity of us accept knew fuck all about football and handled himself very badly at the end of the season, is being taken as read and their new manager has come in with an attitude that has already labelled them bastards?
Not looking for an argument but anything approaching a balanced view is lacking on this thread and I feel it's fair to post something questioning this from another angle.
projectriver said:When hearing the "Boro was a protest stories" Ive always wondered how losing 8-1 could be seen as helpful to Sven. I know players are generally not the brightest but surely the only thing the 8-1 did was condemn Sven to certain sacking?