Rewriting of History - Part II

Well, anyway, I must go now. I may check later when I expect to find hundreds of Hughes fans stating that they alwasy thought 4 points from the last three games was the sort of return that would justify their confidence in him over that period.
 
simon23 said:
JohnMaddocksAxe said:
Just a quick one. Not a debate about whether Hughes is the right man or not - he's not, in my view and never will be. The results speak for themselves.

this makes answering your post/question completely pointless.....you clearly dont want to give MH a chance....

would you change your opinion if he went onto take city into the top 8 this season?

I have given him a chance. He has blown it. Up until December I was all for him turning it around. He hasn't.

If, they finished in the top eight, yes, I may change my mind.

If they go down, will you?

See, that's the problem with dealing in pure speculation, we can all do it.

How about we deal with fact and the results that have actually happened.

Do you fancy honestly answering the orginal question posed and then dressing it up in some sort of postive spin?
 
Here's a radical thought...judge the manager at the end of his first full season in charge. Until then, feel free to critique his tactics, team selection, results...but don't be a supercilious **** towards those who are prepared to wait until the season's over...
 
Very selective with the facts there, JMA. Who really cares about 3 games in Dec? The owners certainly don't. They want results over the course of a season, and like the fans, to be better than last season. If that's not the case, move on. Stop bleating on about Hughes. It's getting you no where.
 
JohnMaddocksAxe said:
Is Kaka or Villa, if they are obtainable now or in the summer, going to sign because of Hughes or because the Arabs are throwing money at them?

Kaka, Villa etc would only sign for City, irrespective of who the manager is, because of the ADUG money.A, we couldn't afford the fee. B, we couldn't afford the wages and C, we wouldn't be attractive in regards to the potential of winning things. One thing is for sure, they wouldn't sign for us because of our glorious past!

And, anyway, if we get in these type of players at some point, who cares why they sign?


As for the main question, I wanted 6 points out of those 3 games. We only got 4, but the way we came back away at Blackburn has shown we do infact have some fighting spirit, even if we do have some severe and obvious weaknesses on the park.

Lets not forget that last season we were bad in the 2nd half of the season, and the players who were mainly responsible for our good form up until december 07 , Petrov, Johnson and Elano, are either out injured or havent played to that standard since. The squad we have now is a talented one, but it is also severely inbalanced and hampers us at times. We have scored what? 38 goals in half a season - not far off our whole total from last season. Let Hughes attempt to address these defensive problems (CM, LB, - and even get a quality ST) and see what happens. If we had sacked Sven in Dec 07 you would have thought he would have gone on to be the best ever City manager. 6 months is nothing.
 
I posted that from these four games, 7 points would be the minimum to get us back into the top half, and 9 would convince me that progress had been made since last year. I qualified that by saying that if we didnt achieve it, I would not write Hughes off at this stage.

Everton was a poor second half performance, capped by two inexplicable defensive mistakes (again) that gave them the win in time added on. I was very disappointed, but i didnt really learn anything new from that game. Elano went missing in the second half when everton took control of the midfield, and Jo kept coming so deep, it was a nightmare to watch. Robinho was clearly unfit and Micheal Ball was wretched in possesion. The midfield was outnumbered, outfought, out-played, but it hasnt looked right all season, because we only have kompany who drops deep, and ireland, who gambles all the time going forward (as well they both should). In between, there is nothing. I cant for the life of me think how i would solve this problem with the squad as it is.

West Brom was a different matter. There were rumours of fall-outs, which seemed to be in line with the team that was picked. MH picked our most physical team, and we looked short of creativity and quality, and benjani had a poor game. What i couldnt figure out for the life of me was how with kompany and gelson playing infront of the back four, we managed to be wide open to WBA on the break. Two big negatives against hughes came from this match. one, either he had got the tactics wrong, or the team were not carrying them out correctly. either way, the buck stops with him. and secondly, with the team he picked, he had formulated a game plan that failed to capitalise on our strengths OR WBA's weaknesses. However, it was Micah and Micah alone who capped it all for the second week running turned a poor result into a humiliating one.

At this point, december the twenty-something, we fell into the drop zone, and our humiliation was complete. Personally, I went into melt-down. Christmas is a hard enough time of year for some of us without this kind of thing happening. I read the independants re-hashing of a story stating that MH had serious doubts about the mentality and viability of, well, nearly everybody. Were Robinho's poor performances down to the alleged splits in the dressing room? was his injury as much in the mind as in his ankle? Was he now not the messiah, but the flake that many had called him when he signed for us? Were we doomed to sign shitty 'star' players, who only turned it on for themselves, on their own terms? Even though we had all the money in the world, would we turn out to be the english equvalent of the inter-milan of the 1990s, outrageous talents, totally wasted?

The league position was hugely troubling in itself. The taunts were endless. Diarra signed for madrid two hours after we dropped into the bottom three. All the kaka and villa rumours had dried up, replaced by bellamy and bullard. It seemed that if MH had split the dressing room, he now had to sign players who would get us out of trouble in the short term, and who would be loyal to him. In other words, the kind of short-termism that has landed WHAM and Newcastle in so much trouble.

I think the tipping point was hearing Alan Green giving mark hughes a ringing endorsment. A man can only take so much.

So, lonely, depressed and fueled by some rancid chardonnay, I flipped to the dark side. Hughes out! said I, in so many words. He's made a balls up of everything! He's belittled the players achievements last year, broken their trust by slagging them off to the media behind their backs! what a coward, what an idiot! He's tried to change too much before he had established his authority, and it's backfired on him, and now it's backfired on us, because the team is in tatters, and no one in their right mind will join us now.

There isnt too much to say about the next two games. Hull was the perfect game at the perfect time. The simple fact that robinho was clearly fit again (and as such had clearly not been faking it), and elano played 60 minutes and shook MH's hand on leaving the pitch told me that I had been taken in by the rumours. I am sure things are not quite right. But either relations have thawed over the christmas period, or they were never quite as serious as they were made out to be. Maybe everyone has found themselves thrown together by the horror of our league position, and they realise they have to dig each other out. MH certainly appeared less arrogant and bullish in his comments. He stopped pointing the finger at the players and started talking about the things that have affected us collectively.

OK, we still lacked shape yesterday. quelle suprise, there is still no midfield, richards and dunne are still richards and dunne, and Joe Hart's distribution is a part of his game that even he doesnt have much confidence in, so the ball gets hoofed long too much. The plus side is that we were not out-fought, that the players displayed excellent hunger for the game, despite being slightly unfortunate to go two down, and robinho kept at it for 90 minutes. He worked, worked, worked, and at the end of 95 minutes, we had two players on the pitch who displayed unbelievable composure, technique and confidence to score on the last kick of the match.

We are a exquisite corpse at the moment, thrown together by managers with differing philosophies. We don't know our best game, we dont really know how to match the pieces of our squad together into a cohesieve game plan. Ball and robinho playing next to each other? you couldnt make it up. We dont trust each other fully. For all of these things, MH has not found the answers yet. In his defence, MH has been undermined by thaksin, then by Sulaiman, then by elano. And 'his' assesment of the squad's mentality and professionalism speaks volumes about the way our club has been run over recent years. I do however accept that it looks like he has made things worse on occasions. But it IS equally true to say that we are struggling because we are missing the vital organs that will turn us into a functioning whole, and that MH deserves the opportunity to put this right in the coming month.

Anything else would be desparate short termism. No manager can make a proper assesment of the squad, devise targets that will be right in the long term, and sign them, in a couple of weeks. Like it or not MH is best placed to do this. Once he has had his turn, then I will judge him.

p.s. looking at our upcoming games and those of our rivals, I think that our league position will improve drastically over the next 6 weeks. you can hang me by this, if it doesnt turn out so.
 
To answer your question pretty much no one would have thought 4 points was a fair haul from the three games you mentioned. I thought 7 was the minimum and some argued 6 but no one said 4 was good enough.

For Hughes fans though Hull was ground zero and throw in a bloody good fightback against Blackburn and you have your 'turning the corner' moment.

Basically if you have pinned a lot on Hughes being 'the man' then you will be pretty much rewriting the last six months and find at the end that it was all Sven's fault anyway!
 
So, that's no-one then.

In summary then we can conlude that even the biggest fans of Mark Hughes accept that the last three games, games which they themselves had earmarked as the time that we start picking up decent points, have been yet another failure for him.

Oh well, just one more in a long line of games where he will turn it around.

I note that the next few games have now been eamarked somewhere above as easy fixtures where he will turn it around. Perhaps he will this time. Who knows? It's about the sixth or seventh time this season that this has been the general concensus. He's failed each of those times, the odds are that he must get it right this time. Even a stopped clock...... etc etc
 
John Maddocks you are spot on and your point is a correct and valid one.

The simple fact is that anything looks good at the moment (i mean a win here or there) as we have been soooo shite up to now.

Its us City fans settling for second best.
I agree MH is not the man and will stick by that.
 
BillyShears said:
Here's a radical thought...judge the manager at the end of his first full season in charge. Until then, feel free to critique his tactics, team selection, results...but don't be a supercilious **** towards those who are prepared to wait until the season's over...


Billy, I know we disagree on a fair amount of things but I'll try to quickly outline why my patience has snapped.

Normally I would agree completely with the general assertion that a manager deserves a season.

After a season there is a pattern that emerges where by a manager might be able to be judgd clearly.

However, its a sliding scale. Its harsher to sack a manager after a seaosn of underachievement than it is after two underachieving seasons. Similarly, its even less harsh after three, patterns are being established and excuses are even more hollow.

After six months the only situation where I would ever consider sacking a manager is if they have totally failed to meet any reasonable expectations that a reasonable man might hold about results in that period and possibly if this is added to the place not be a happy ship and the manager not controlling this and it seeming to impact on performances and results.

Unfortunately, the above completely describes Hughes reign and they are exceptional circumstances. Add in to this the lack of anything approaching decent, sustained good football and its been woeful and truly exceptionally bad.

Plenty of other managers have gone for siginificant underperformance in thier first six months. Plenty of them who have had a much tougher task, less money and less talent to work with than Hughes. That's what happens if you under perform on a gross scale. When they underperform to such an extent they lose their position of strength from which to ask for time.

And none of them who I can recall have ever had the temerity to say 'well, this is a great squad and I'm just failing to get them to play at present. It has to come good eventually, the players are too good for it not to, and even if it doesn't I hope to spend £80m next month and that should produce decent mid table football. So, please forgive my underachievment and managerial failure so far, the ability of the players and £80m more mean that this should be discounted and ignored'.

This laughable statement seems to be the only argument that Hughes and his backers are relying on so far.

I only call for a manager's head after six months in exceptional circumstances. I've never done it before at City, just maybe for other clubs that mean nothing to me. His results, performances and ability to create a happy camp have been exceptionally, exceptionally below par considering his resources. Therefore, I have no interest as to whether he wants the chance to spend £80m more to get out of it. This option isn't open to other grossly underperforming managers. WHy should he have it as an excuse?
 
JohnMaddocksAxe said:
So, that's no-one then.

In summary then we can conlude that even the biggest fans of Mark Hughes accept that the last three games, games which they themselves had earmarked as the time that we start picking up decent points, have been yet another failure for him.

Oh well, just one more in a long line of games where he will turn it around.

I note that the next few games have now been eamarked somewhere above as easy fixtures where he will turn it around. Perhaps he will this time. Who knows? It's about the sixth or seventh time this season that this has been the general concensus. He's failed each of those times, the odds are that he must get it right this time. Even a stopped clock...... etc etc


So you cite one person, in regards to the next 3 games, and then turn it into a "general consensus"in the next sentence...

Come on.
 
ElanJo said:
JohnMaddocksAxe said:
So, that's no-one then.

In summary then we can conlude that even the biggest fans of Mark Hughes accept that the last three games, games which they themselves had earmarked as the time that we start picking up decent points, have been yet another failure for him.

Oh well, just one more in a long line of games where he will turn it around.

I note that the next few games have now been eamarked somewhere above as easy fixtures where he will turn it around. Perhaps he will this time. Who knows? It's about the sixth or seventh time this season that this has been the general concensus. He's failed each of those times, the odds are that he must get it right this time. Even a stopped clock...... etc etc


So you cite one person, in regards to the next 3 games, and then turn it into a "general consensus"in the next sentence...

Come on.

I'm not saying it's defintely the general concensus. How would I know? I apologise for that

I would but big money on most Hughes fans pointing to the up coming fixtures though and saying this is where we will start to pick good points up though.

It's what has been happeniing all season and any fair man will admit that ther have been numerous points where they have been claiming that we should pick up X points from the next few games (and this being where Hughes will turn it). The West Brom, Hull, Blackburn shcedule just being the lastest where he has let his supporters and everyone else down.
 
JohnMaddocksAxe said:
BillyShears said:
Here's a radical thought...judge the manager at the end of his first full season in charge. Until then, feel free to critique his tactics, team selection, results...but don't be a supercilious **** towards those who are prepared to wait until the season's over...


Billy, I know we disagree on a fair amount of things but I'll try to quickly outline why my patience has snapped.

Normally I would agree completely with the general assertion that a manager deserves a season.

After a season there is a pattern that emerges where by a manager might be able to be judgd clearly.

However, its a sliding scale. Its harsher to sack a manager after a seaosn of underachievement than it is after two underachieving seasons. Similarly, its even less harsh after three, patterns are being established and excuses are even more hollow.

After six months the only situation where I would ever consider sacking a manager is if they have totally failed to meet any reasonable expectations that a reasonable man might hold about results in that period and possibly if this is added to the place not be a happy ship and the manager not controlling this and it seeming to impact on performances and results.

Unfortunately, the above completely describes Hughes reign and they are exceptional circumstances. Add in to this the lack of anything approaching decent, sustained good football and its been woeful and truly exceptionally bad.

Plenty of other managers have gone for siginificant underperformance in thier first six months. Plenty of them who have had a much tougher task, less money and less talent to work with than Hughes. That's what happens if you under perform on a gross scale. When they underperform to such an extent they lose their position of strength from which to ask for time.

And none of them who I can recall have ever had the temerity to say 'well, this is a great squad and I'm just failing to get them to play at present. It has to come good eventually, the players are too good for it not to, and even if it doesn't I hope to spend £80m next month and that should produce decent mid table football. So, please forgive my underachievment and managerial failure so far, the ability of the players and £80m more mean that this should be discounted and ignored'.

This laughable statement seems to be the only argument that Hughes and his backers are relying on so far.

I only call for a manager's head after six months in exceptional circumstances. I've never done it before at City, just maybe for other clubs that mean nothing to me. His results, performances and ability to create a happy camp have been exceptionally, exceptionally below par considering his resources. Therefore, I have no interest as to whether he wants the chance to spend £80m more to get out of it. This option isn't open to other grossly underperforming managers. WHy should he have it as an excuse?

I'll just repeat what I said about Sven.

If we sacked him after 6 months, we all would have thought he would have gone on to become City's best ever manager. 6 month's is nothing
 
ElanJo said:
JohnMaddocksAxe said:
Billy, I know we disagree on a fair amount of things but I'll try to quickly outline why my patience has snapped.

Normally I would agree completely with the general assertion that a manager deserves a season.

After a season there is a pattern that emerges where by a manager might be able to be judgd clearly.

However, its a sliding scale. Its harsher to sack a manager after a seaosn of underachievement than it is after two underachieving seasons. Similarly, its even less harsh after three, patterns are being established and excuses are even more hollow.

After six months the only situation where I would ever consider sacking a manager is if they have totally failed to meet any reasonable expectations that a reasonable man might hold about results in that period and possibly if this is added to the place not be a happy ship and the manager not controlling this and it seeming to impact on performances and results.

Unfortunately, the above completely describes Hughes reign and they are exceptional circumstances. Add in to this the lack of anything approaching decent, sustained good football and its been woeful and truly exceptionally bad.

Plenty of other managers have gone for siginificant underperformance in thier first six months. Plenty of them who have had a much tougher task, less money and less talent to work with than Hughes. That's what happens if you under perform on a gross scale. When they underperform to such an extent they lose their position of strength from which to ask for time.

And none of them who I can recall have ever had the temerity to say 'well, this is a great squad and I'm just failing to get them to play at present. It has to come good eventually, the players are too good for it not to, and even if it doesn't I hope to spend £80m next month and that should produce decent mid table football. So, please forgive my underachievment and managerial failure so far, the ability of the players and £80m more mean that this should be discounted and ignored'.

This laughable statement seems to be the only argument that Hughes and his backers are relying on so far.

I only call for a manager's head after six months in exceptional circumstances. I've never done it before at City, just maybe for other clubs that mean nothing to me. His results, performances and ability to create a happy camp have been exceptionally, exceptionally below par considering his resources. Therefore, I have no interest as to whether he wants the chance to spend £80m more to get out of it. This option isn't open to other grossly underperforming managers. WHy should he have it as an excuse?

I'll just repeat what I said about Sven.

If we sacked him after 6 months, we all would have thought he would have gone on to become City's best ever manager. 6 month's is nothing

Over his first three months, first six months or 1 year, Sven cannot be have been sadi to have grossly underachieved. Whatever bad run came he had an excellent run to counteract it and point to as evidence of what he had achieved here.

Hughes has nothing to point to other than a litany of failure, gross underachievement and failing to live up to any reasonable expectations since he got here.

I'm away now anyway. Good night.
 
John,
Just a few cheap shots coming in to try and discredit what is the 100% truth.
I made a point some weeks ago that just because we have a big transfer budget in jan, does not give reason alone to keep MH in the job he has so far failed in TOTALLY.

Any other club, any other circumstance - he would be P45'd.

But.... we are City and we do things differently.

Note....... usually wrong.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top