gillie wrote:But being Manchester City that was never going to happen.Getting to the CC Semi-Final was not enough because of 8 draws in the league yes 8 draws not losses since then we have gone out of both cups and in our current form destained for 7th at best so yes MR Chairman and the rest of the bigwigs explain to me how Mr Mancini is an improvement on Mr Hughes.
BobKowalski wrote:Because Hughes couldn't organise the team and was shipping goals faster than the Titanic shipped water.
You can berate Mancini for not getting it right in two and bit months but then Hughes didn't get it right in 18 months and there was no sign of it improving. Stability works if you have the right man in charge. You can argue that Mancini is not the right man based on what he does or does not do but using Hughes as a yardstick is woefully ineffective.
Green in blue wrote:BobKowalski wrote:Because Hughes couldn't organise the team and was shipping goals faster than the Titanic shipped water.
You can berate Mancini for not getting it right in two and bit months but then Hughes didn't get it right in 18 months and there was no sign of it improving. Stability works if you have the right man in charge. You can argue that Mancini is not the right man based on what he does or does not do but using Hughes as a yardstick is woefully ineffective.
mancio has conceded a lot more goals than u think.
BobKowalski wrote:Because Hughes couldn't organise the team and was shipping goals faster than the Titanic shipped water.
You can berate Mancini for not getting it right in two and bit months but then Hughes didn't get it right in 18 months and there was no sign of it improving. Stability works if you have the right man in charge. You can argue that Mancini is not the right man based on what he does or does not do but using Hughes as a yardstick is woefully ineffective.
BobKowalski wrote:Because Hughes couldn't organise the team and was shipping goals faster than the Titanic shipped water.
You can berate Mancini for not getting it right in two and bit months but then Hughes didn't get it right in 18 months and there was no sign of it improving. Stability works if you have the right man in charge. You can argue that Mancini is not the right man based on what he does or does not do but using Hughes as a yardstick is woefully ineffective.
Ted Hughes wrote:BobKowalski wrote:Because Hughes couldn't organise the team and was shipping goals faster than the Titanic shipped water.
You can berate Mancini for not getting it right in two and bit months but then Hughes didn't get it right in 18 months and there was no sign of it improving. Stability works if you have the right man in charge. You can argue that Mancini is not the right man based on what he does or does not do but using Hughes as a yardstick is woefully ineffective.
You're talking as if he took over a side at the bottom. He took over a side near the top that played football but let in some shit goals. He's turned it into a side full of defenders that can't play football & lets in shit goals. That's supposed to be tactically brilliant but imo tactically brilliant would be solving the defensive problem whilst playing attacking football. Had Hughes managed to achieve that, he would have been brilliant. He almost did, for example v Chelsea then he got injuries then the sack. Any twat can scrape out points by staying in their own half most of the game, especially with the players we've got but going forward & not conceding is much harder, takes a lot longer but is much more suitable for a club of our apparent ambition.
If Mancini is to have any chance of saving his job, he needs plan B, immediately.
BobKowalski wrote:Ted Hughes wrote:BobKowalski wrote:Because Hughes couldn't organise the team and was shipping goals faster than the Titanic shipped water.
You can berate Mancini for not getting it right in two and bit months but then Hughes didn't get it right in 18 months and there was no sign of it improving. Stability works if you have the right man in charge. You can argue that Mancini is not the right man based on what he does or does not do but using Hughes as a yardstick is woefully ineffective.
You're talking as if he took over a side at the bottom. He took over a side near the top that played football but let in some shit goals. He's turned it into a side full of defenders that can't play football & lets in shit goals. That's supposed to be tactically brilliant but imo tactically brilliant would be solving the defensive problem whilst playing attacking football. Had Hughes managed to achieve that, he would have been brilliant. He almost did, for example v Chelsea then he got injuries then the sack. Any twat can scrape out points by staying in their own half most of the game, especially with the players we've got but going forward & not conceding is much harder, takes a lot longer but is much more suitable for a club of our apparent ambition.
If Mancini is to have any chance of saving his job, he needs plan B, immediately.
As I said you can rip Mancini for what he does or doesn't do but using Hughes as a yardstick is pointless. Hughes was in charge for 18 months won 4 league games away from home, conceded 9 league goals in his last 3 matches and in his only full season finished 10th, after I may add promising a top 6 finish and no excuses and then treated us to the classic excuse that it was better to finish 10th and not have Europe as a distraction.
Or if you want to compare lets take Sven's one and only full season in charge who spent less, had less time in preseason and who finished 9th. Now you can slice and dice the two mens respective talents as manager anyway you want but the records show that Sven shaded it over Hughes.
Anyway we can kill Mancini all day long and I am sure a lot of people will do so with vim and vigour but do it based on his record at City not on some fantasy about Hughes because the facts don't back you up.
BobKowalski wrote:Ted Hughes wrote:BobKowalski wrote:Because Hughes couldn't organise the team and was shipping goals faster than the Titanic shipped water.
You can berate Mancini for not getting it right in two and bit months but then Hughes didn't get it right in 18 months and there was no sign of it improving. Stability works if you have the right man in charge. You can argue that Mancini is not the right man based on what he does or does not do but using Hughes as a yardstick is woefully ineffective.
You're talking as if he took over a side at the bottom. He took over a side near the top that played football but let in some shit goals. He's turned it into a side full of defenders that can't play football & lets in shit goals. That's supposed to be tactically brilliant but imo tactically brilliant would be solving the defensive problem whilst playing attacking football. Had Hughes managed to achieve that, he would have been brilliant. He almost did, for example v Chelsea then he got injuries then the sack. Any twat can scrape out points by staying in their own half most of the game, especially with the players we've got but going forward & not conceding is much harder, takes a lot longer but is much more suitable for a club of our apparent ambition.
If Mancini is to have any chance of saving his job, he needs plan B, immediately.
As I said you can rip Mancini for what he does or doesn't do but using Hughes as a yardstick is pointless. Hughes was in charge for 18 months won 4 league games away from home, conceded 9 league goals in his last 3 matches and in his only full season finished 10th, after I may add promising a top 6 finish and no excuses and then treated us to the classic excuse that it was better to finish 10th and not have Europe as a distraction.
Or if you want to compare lets take Sven's one and only full season in charge who spent less, had less time in preseason and who finished 9th. Now you can slice and dice the two mens respective talents as manager anyway you want but the records show that Sven shaded it over Hughes.
Anyway we can kill Mancini all day long and I am sure a lot of people will do so with vim and vigour but do it based on his record at City not on some fantasy about Hughes because the facts don't back you up.
Ted Hughes wrote:BobKowalski wrote:Ted Hughes wrote:BobKowalski wrote:Because Hughes couldn't organise the team and was shipping goals faster than the Titanic shipped water.
You can berate Mancini for not getting it right in two and bit months but then Hughes didn't get it right in 18 months and there was no sign of it improving. Stability works if you have the right man in charge. You can argue that Mancini is not the right man based on what he does or does not do but using Hughes as a yardstick is woefully ineffective.
You're talking as if he took over a side at the bottom. He took over a side near the top that played football but let in some shit goals. He's turned it into a side full of defenders that can't play football & lets in shit goals. That's supposed to be tactically brilliant but imo tactically brilliant would be solving the defensive problem whilst playing attacking football. Had Hughes managed to achieve that, he would have been brilliant. He almost did, for example v Chelsea then he got injuries then the sack. Any twat can scrape out points by staying in their own half most of the game, especially with the players we've got but going forward & not conceding is much harder, takes a lot longer but is much more suitable for a club of our apparent ambition.
If Mancini is to have any chance of saving his job, he needs plan B, immediately.
As I said you can rip Mancini for what he does or doesn't do but using Hughes as a yardstick is pointless. Hughes was in charge for 18 months won 4 league games away from home, conceded 9 league goals in his last 3 matches and in his only full season finished 10th, after I may add promising a top 6 finish and no excuses and then treated us to the classic excuse that it was better to finish 10th and not have Europe as a distraction.
Or if you want to compare lets take Sven's one and only full season in charge who spent less, had less time in preseason and who finished 9th. Now you can slice and dice the two mens respective talents as manager anyway you want but the records show that Sven shaded it over Hughes.
Anyway we can kill Mancini all day long and I am sure a lot of people will do so with vim and vigour but do it based on his record at City not on some fantasy about Hughes because the facts don't back you up.
This has no relevence to the fact that a manager was sacked for being 5th in the PL & in the semi finals of the cup having lost only 2 games all season, away at Utd & Spurs. Add to that the fact that it was done in the most part whilst attempting to play no holds barred attacking football. Take off your Hughes repellant specatcles, imagine that it was Mancini who'd been in charge then been sacked & Hughes who'd taken over & produced what we're seeing now & imagine what you & NQDP & the rest would be saying about it, then perhaps you'll appreciate where some of us are coming from.
john68 wrote:so Hughes wasn't the man for you..sack him....and if mancini doesn't cut the mustard...sack him too...what about the next manager and the next...etc? Do we keep hiring and firing them?
In over 50 years of supporting City, I have watched 27 managers come and go....I'm still waiting for the one we dicide to give the time to develop his particular project....or do we keep upour short term policy for another 50 years if one doesn't succeed in the 1st few seasons.
It doesn't matter what the quality of the ingredients you use to bake the cake...They have to be put together and blended correctly...That takes time.
Regarding Mancini, He was brought in to have an immediate positive impact because our ownwers felt that Hughes may not make the top 4. He was brought in to specifically ensure that target was reached. He doesn't have time.
Colin the King wrote:In hindsight- and maybe this makes me mentally weak- we shouldn't have sacked Hughes. You're completely right Gillie. This isn't a knee jerk reaction to a bad result, it's a feeling I've had for a while now. He wasn't the complete manager and I doubt anyone would claim otherwise, but when you sit back, after the event, and take everything into account, it really puts things into perspective (for me anyway).
ant london wrote:I have thought about this long and hard and I honestly don't even think we'll get into the Europa league on current form.
Stability was the answer....stability under Mancini is NOT the answer,
Get the shitalian cunt out
Return to The Maine Football forum
Users browsing this forum: belleebee, carolina-blue, Harry Dowd scored and 377 guests