The mancityfans.net football forum

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.

Im lost with the club at the moment, i dont really know what the answer is.

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.

i would love to hear a frank explanation from the hughes hate squad that thought mancio was the business. I was a fan who thought we could probably do better than hughes. but i never wanted him to go in the middle of the season when things on paper were still ok. i liked some of the football we played under him. he got slated for lescott, who, now given time is starting to play some gd football. we will never forgive him for santa, but all managers make mistakes.

We should NEVER be getting beat 3-1 by stoke with the squad we have. under ANY manager

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.

mancio has conceded a lot more goals than u think.

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.

Given's let shedloads more in ;o)

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.

In 18 months under Hughes i saw more attacking football than this guy will ever produce imo.

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.

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.

The title of this thread is Stability was the answer but I think it should have been Stability should have been the answer.

I accept that talking Hughes now is near pointless exercise but tonights game actually reminded me of the Hughes games. We were playing an inferior footballing side and I think it showed for most of the 90 minutes however although we made chances we didnt take them. Then came the mistake which let them in for their goal and miraculously we go straight down and equalise. I think we had quite a few games which went like that and we were fully of disapointment and anger that we hadnt won and the tactics were bad and the team selection was bad etc etc.

Trouble is tonight was a cup game with extra time and again we decided to make those kind of defensive mistakes that lose you games and lost thos one tonight. You can be as tactically clever as you like ( and the jury is out on that anyway) but silly mistakes will still lose you games and of course all the time if you arent scoring goals at the other end.

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.

i'd rather take on the squad of players hughes left than the ones sven left. doesn't matter about the money cos sven could of got the decent ones on his budget

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.

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.

If Mancini is sacked at the end of this season because he fails to meet his objectives then so be it. I could bang on that he needs more time, a transfer window or two and that it is difficult to join midseason etc etc or indeed any of the excuses Hughes used to justify his less then steller record at City. But it would be pointless and I take a reasonably harsh view on these things and if Mancini proves not up to the task or is unable to overcome these obstacles then he will be gone.

I believe that Mancini is ultimately responsible for the teams performance and results. I do not take my cue from the Hughes book of excuses and blame the players, the culture, or whatever. Hughes in one full season and half a season consistently failed to perform to a satisfactory level and paid the price. Mancini will be the same.

I do think Mancini has what it takes to make the team a top 4 side. But I will not shed any tears if he is sacked because he fails to meet the necessary standard.

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).

The first season was disappointing in terms of our away performances- some of them spineless, and of course the cup exits to Forest and Brighton. But we were treated, in the shape of the stuffings of Arsenal, Portsmouth and Hull, to a glimpse of the potential of what we could be. From February onwards, we started to look better away from home, and showed greater desire. The demolition jobs at Eastlands stopped but there was still a sense of gradual improvement.

Then came the start of this season- we knew what we had to do. Improve our away form, show a more consistent desire and in doing so try to get into the Champions League. Maybe win a trophy. So, he was backed by the board to make a significant investment in the playing staff to help us achieve those things. We won our first three away games, in the fourth we fought back three times at Old Trafford and lost out, heartbreakingly, in the 97th minute. At home we tore Arsenal to shreds for the second consecutive season.

Looking at the infamous sequence of draws now that the Hughes era is over, of the seven I'd argue, and did argue at the time, that Villa and Liverpool were very good away points, Birmingham given their form was respectable, as was Wigan given the fact that we had 10 men. The three home games against Fulham, Hull and Burnley where we so carelessly surrendered leads were irritating, and hugely disappointing- but over the course of a SEASON would they have balanced out?

I think to last season- between October and the Christmas period was really disappointing. A carbon copy of this year. We improved defensively and mentally as the season continued then, couldn't we have done the same in this one? Wouldn't it have been especially likely since we have a far superior squad now than we did then.

Ultimately, none of us are supernaturals. We can't predict what would have happened. But as it stands now- on the day of Hughes' sacking we were sixth place, having just won 4-3 and in a Cup Semi-Final for the first time in 28 years. By Saturday night we could find ourselves...in sixth place, but of out both cups.

Was Hughes flawless and wonderful? No.

Was it necessary to dispose of him half way into what was an exciting and promising season? No.

Are we reaping the benefits of that decision? No.


And, lastly, as a Season Ticket holder, I miss the unpredictability. I miss turning up and not knowing whether we'll win 6-0, 4-3 or get spanked. I said before the Liverpool game it'd be 0-0. It was. Where's the fun in that?

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.

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.

This is a stability thread

What really irritates me is that long term supporters like you and me (40+ years for me) that have seen many ill-thought through sackings - followed by ill-thought through appointments and then same again and again - commented on the need for stability for a change - lets give the manager until the end of the season - and we were subjected to vitriol from the small group of anti-Hughes brigade - dubbed Hughes-lickers etc etc

We wanted stability - that group had to break things into extreme groups - well you reap what you sow - be good if the usual suspects had the pair to come on and admit they were perhaps wrong - but it is not in their character

BobK - fair play to you - you stand your ground - fight your corner etc - but I think what you are missing is remembering the level to which this group of 'usual suspects' just shouted down the rest - so don't be surprised that people are wondering where they are hiding now

A question for those of you lucky enough to remember. What were Joe Mercer's first ten-fifteen games like?

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

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).

Well said, and excellent post all round, squire.

Regardless of who the manager was in the first half of this season, the board's decision now even seems more laughable. The board themselves claimed that they had a "plan" and wanted stability. This of course then went completely out of the window and the speed of which the new appointment was made did have me thinking "we've planned this for some time" regardless of what was said.

Granted, we had had eight draws on the bounce. I'm sure though as frustrating as the home ones were (and they were the costly ones) most of us would have taken a draw away at Liverpool, Villa and (given their season form) Birmingham. The attacking style we often played did leave us exposed at the back, but when you take into account how we panned Arsenal and almost got a result at the Swamp, it may have been worth that risk to see some exciting stuff. And we were in a cup-semi for the first time in 28 years - was that lost on the board?

In all my thirty-odd years of supporting City, I only seem to remember two managers being given more than three years. That's ludicrous. Look at Arsenal, Liverpool and Manure. They don't seem to change their management too often do they? Stability is the absolute key, and it's something that the City board need to carefully consider when thinking ahead.

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

ohhhh...shitalian. exotically framed.

Mancini knows this squad can't be assembled to play the way he wants, apparently. You can see it in his eyes. His only chance is to convince Khantdoon that he needs a window and some buying/selling to assemble his type of squad. Barring some fantastically rendered sales pitch in that vein, Mancini is a goner at season's end.

As i said earlier, we need some proven-successful Premier League Football men in the executive suite, and on the touchline this summer. Total overhaul of the front and backoffice, again. We should have given Hughes another year to try and work it out because now we're back to square one after what will be 24 months and that's sad really.

We would have at least been excited to have beaten Stoke 4-3 last night, no matter what the lineup had been. i'm more convinced of that than ever. And i wasn't licking Hughes arse at the end at all. In fact, i thought he lost the plot and had his chance, and should have gone. What Cook brought in to replace him with is dire in every aspect.

if i am wrong and Mancini pulls through this with a 180-degree turnaround, and nicks 4th then ill put my virtual tongue on Antti's virtual butthole, but i can't see any way that could possibly happen. We're a Top 10 side. Hey ho. We were that under Sven.

cheers