Despite having only played two games under Mancini, the differences between the styles and attitudes of the Managers are gulfs apart. Many may think that it is too early to compare the two, but the initial changes warrant a closer look.
Probably Mark Hughes biggest downfall was his reported stubbornness, it was either his way or no way at all, Player such as Dunne and Elano who didn’t fully buy into Hughes idea’s were moved on and there was no doubt a divide within the dressing room. Many a time there were reports in the media of player bust ups with the likes of Richards and Ben Hiam to name a couple, so it is understandable that the team was struggling and not progressing at the rate expected by money spent. Petrov’s recent attack of Hughes on the clubs official website summed it up when he said Hughes didn’t give him a fair chance. Yet under Mancini everyone has a fresh slate and the team seems to have bonded as a whole and want to play for the manager. It was as though Hughes was constantly trying to reinforce he was the boss when it wasn’t required and he should been developing the sides style of play.
Mancini’s tactical awareness really set him apart from Hughes, where Hughes would often only play 4-3-3 no matter what the opposition’s formation is. Mancini isn’t afraid of switching between formations during the game, illustrated in both the Stoke and Wolves games to great success with goals often following shortly after the change. It would seem between both Mancini and Kidd there is always a plan B, C etc, often instigated with a before mentioned formation switch or a substitute. Yet under Hughes with the same squad there was only ever a plan A and some of the substitutions were bewildering to say the least.
Team selection is another point where the managers differ; Mark Hughes could often be accused of playing his favours such as Evans, Adebayor, Toure and Lescott no matter how poorly they performed, whilst players like Petrov, Kompany and Elano lay in the wing. The only tangible reason for this is the fact he demanded that so much money should be spent on the players, hence felt a pressure to stick by them to save face. Mancini on the other hand seems to take the approach of impress me and you’ll play, resulting in all the players being motivated as they feel a legitimate possibility of playing in the first team. Garrido is probably the best example of this, under Hughes he was effectively relegated to the reserves and looked certain to leave the club in favour for firstly cult figure Glauber who wasn’t deemed good enough feature at all, bar a small cameo at Bolton and more recently an aging Sylvinho who hasn’t looked up to much in any of his outings to date. Remember Garrido was part of the defence that impressed many under the tutorage of Hans Backe whilst Sven was at the helm.
Many will say Garrido was found out in the later part of that season, but wasn’t the whole defence? In fact the collapse of Sven’s sole season in charge coincides with the departure of Hans Backe on compassionate leave. Until Mancini took over Backe was never really replaced, it was clear over Hughes entire reign that we were very susceptible from set pieces and poorly positioned defensively. Yet as glaring as this was to many a fan Hughes never truly addressed the situation through training regimes or new coaches and insisted that investing in new defenders would solve the problem. It’s highly unlikely that Dunne has moved on to Villa and recaptured his form whilst Micah Richard’s career stalled because they weren’t good enough. You don’t become captain of Ireland and the youngest ever defender to appear for England respectively because you lack talent. Since Mancini has taken over, the defence is playing like a unit with clear roles for each player, two clean sheets in two games proves this and it can only improve with time.
hughesHughes also seemed to lack imagination at times, especially with his dealings in the transfer market. By ruling out the possibility of signing player without Premier League experience, he was severely reducing the amount of potential players, hence upping the price of any player he desired, as well as showing that the pressure was starting to take a grip of him. Mancini on the other hand hasn’t been scared of taking calculated risks on unknown players such as Bolatelli and Suazo or high profile player such as Ibrahimovic or Vieira despite lack of experience within the league he is managing in.
Finally Mancini’s attention to details seems to be of a vaster importance, In both games Mancini has been on the touchline either talking idea’s over with Kidd or instructing his players of what they need to be doing, even in the last remaining minutes of stoppage time when City are leading comfortably. If anything this shows his players on the field how passionate he is about the game and his desire to ensure the win. Yet under Hughes there would be games where he would remain rooted to his seat looking glumly at his side hoping his initial plan works or complaining about a wrong desission rather than thinking of way to improve the team’s fortunes.
The mancityfans.net football forum
The BEST FORUM in all the land and all the world
