He's alive

[BobKowalski]

I think the positivity of his comments will be in direct proportion to the state of his payoff negotiations.

Obviously

It is obvious you would think that.

Did he beat you up at school or something?

No. Just a cynic. Well ok it was joke but as I have discovered this forum and humour continually pass each other by.

Apparently. Unless he did beat you up at school & I've touched a nerve?

I'm getting the impression you kind of like the idea :)

[avoidconfusion]

MANCHINI OUT

I'd bring back Hughes rapid

[Ted Hughes]

I think the positivity of his comments will be in direct proportion to the state of his payoff negotiations.

Obviously

It is obvious you would think that.

Did he beat you up at school or something?

No. Just a cynic. Well ok it was joke but as I have discovered this forum and humour continually pass each other by.

Apparently. Unless he did beat you up at school & I've touched a nerve?

I'm getting the impression you kind of like the idea :)

Not at all, I think you should have stood up to him ;)

[CityFanFromRome]

About 3-4 people will no doubt start threads slagging him off.

And 3-4 people will say that he's better than Mancini.

I'd wager it might be a few more than 3-4 people who think that!

Yes, should be interesting indeed. I don't really ever remember him doing punditry that often before? I think they all do it after they get the bullet, to put themselves into the public eye again.

No doubt, giving how the board's been lately. However there's no real proof, is there? I mean, one can say Mancini took us out of both the cups while Hughes had got us to the Calring Cup semifinal, but who knows if Mancini would have achieved that too, or if Hughes would have done better than Mancini in the cups, had he stayed? We weren't in the top four when Hughes was sacked, we aren't now (only fifth for GD if I'm not mistaken), but would Mancini have done better in the seven draws period? Would Hughes have done better in the games we played since he was sacked? Nobody can say that for sure, comparing them is, therefore, a bit pointless imho.

The only thing that could be compared is the style, and no doubt Hughes' was more eye-pleasing but we also conceded goals for fun, which we do less now.

[BobKowalski]

Not at all, I think you should have stood up to him ;)

I would have but he was bigger than me

[Ted Hughes]

Not at all, I think you should have stood up to him ;)

I would have but he was bigger than me

If you'd hit him he would have thrown himself on the floor.

[Blue Since 76]

About 3-4 people will no doubt start threads slagging him off.

And 3-4 people will say that he's better than Mancini.

I'd wager it might be a few more than 3-4 people who think that!

Yes, should be interesting indeed. I don't really ever remember him doing punditry that often before? I think they all do it after they get the bullet, to put themselves into the public eye again.

No doubt, giving how the board's been lately. However there's no real proof, is there? I mean, one can say Mancini took us out of both the cups while Hughes had got us to the Calring Cup semifinal, but who knows if Mancini would have achieved that too, or if Hughes would have done better than Mancini in the cups, had he stayed? We weren't in the top four when Hughes was sacked, we aren't now (only fifth for GD if I'm not mistaken), but would Mancini have done better in the seven draws period? Would Hughes have done better in the games we played since he was sacked? Nobody can say that for sure, comparing them is, therefore, a bit pointless imho.

The only thing that could be compared is the style, and no doubt Hughes' was more eye-pleasing but we also conceded goals for fun, which we do less now.

Not too be untrusting, but I thought I'd check this out. I've only looked at the premier league games, as cup games are unfair due to varying opposition. The stats are:


Hughes
Goals for: 30 in 17 or 1.76 = 67 goals in a season
Goals against: 25 in 17 or 1.47 = 56 goals in a season
GD +11

Mancini
Goals for: 15 in 9 or 1.67 = 63 goals in a season
Goals Against: 6 in 9 or 0.67 = 25 goals in a season
GD +38

Stats can be misleading and under Mancini, we scored 9 in first 3 games, so therefore 6 in last 6 which would be an average of only 38 goals scored per season.

Maybe the cup defeats are the problem for Mancini, just as the draws were for Hughes, as statistically he's doing better, but, much as I didn't like Hughes, Mancini is boring me to tears.

[CityFanFromRome]

Maybe the cup defeats are the problem for Mancini, just as the draws were for Hughes, as statistically he's doing better, but, much as I didn't like Hughes, Mancini is boring me to tears.

Not disregarding the stats you posted, which by the way seem to prove what I was saying at least for the goals conceded part, while I agree we lost much of our scoring ability so that does raise some worries, I wanted to comment on this.

Mancini is boring now but I don't believe we are the finished article under him, meaning there's still space for improvement upfront, and to be honest I've seen glimpses of this in the last few games, against Stoke on Weds we could (and should) have been out of sight in the first half with better finishing, and that is not down to the manager but to the players. Hughes had a season and a half to settle the defence, but he never got around to doing that, going for the "let's score one more than the opposition" approach, which, if you watch the big teams all across Europe, none of them use, basing their success on a tight defence first of all.

So this is the difference, I didn't feel Hughes would manage to steady the backline even in another three seasons, while with Mancini I still feel we can improve from where we are now.

[Douglas Higginbottom]

I think the positivity of his comments will be in direct proportion to the state of his payoff negotiations.

Obviously

It is obvious you would think that.

Did he beat you up at school or something?

No. Just a cynic. Well ok it was joke but as I have discovered this forum and humour continually pass each other by. Either that or I am not funny. Which if this forum was my wife would be the explanation. Except that this forum is a bit like an old fashioned 'Snug' with old dudes in scarves and flat caps nursing their bottles of mild and bemoaning the state of modern football and it wasn't like this in the good old days of Hughsie who tried to stck it up 'em and now its all tactics and planning and organisation.

You will have to help us out Bob but was that you trying to be funny again?

[Ted Hughes]

Maybe the cup defeats are the problem for Mancini, just as the draws were for Hughes, as statistically he's doing better, but, much as I didn't like Hughes, Mancini is boring me to tears.

Not disregarding the stats you posted, which by the way seem to prove what I was saying at least for the goals conceded part, while I agree we lost much of our scoring ability so that does raise some worries, I wanted to comment on this.

Mancini is boring now but I don't believe we are the finished article under him, meaning there's still space for improvement upfront, and to be honest I've seen glimpses of this in the last few games, against Stoke on Weds we could (and should) have been out of sight in the first half with better finishing, and that is not down to the manager but to the players. Hughes had a season and a half to settle the defence, but he never got around to doing that, going for the "let's score one more than the opposition" approach, which, if you watch the big teams all across Europe, none of them use, basing their success on a tight defence first of all.

So this is the difference, I didn't feel Hughes would manage to steady the backline even in another three seasons, while with Mancini I still feel we can improve from where we are now.

Don't understand why people think Hughes couldn't get a team to play defensive football. Hughes' Blackburn defence made up of cheaply signed nobodies would cope with most teams as well or better than ours does now. It would have most likely beaten Stoke.

He was trying to play attacking football at City because that's what a team in our position should be doing & it's probably what he'd been told he should do. Who wants to spend £200M & build Everton?

[Douglas Higginbottom]

Hughes could sort out a defence I have absolutely no doubt at all but for a spell ( too long a spell) he didn't and it cost him his job.He relied on his players , key players , not to keep making silly mistakes but they didn't do it and the rest is history.

[CityFanFromRome]

Don't understand why people think Hughes couldn't get a team to play defensive football. Hughes' Blackburn defence made up of cheaply signed nobodies would cope with most teams as well or better than ours does now. It would have most likely beaten Stoke.

He was trying to play attacking football at City because that's what a team in our position should be doing & it's probably what he'd been told he should do. Who wants to spend £200M & build Everton?

The problem is that he never gave me the impression to be nearing a balance between attacking and defending, and as I said in my previous post, none of the very big teams go all out attacking without any care for defending. Do Chelsea, United, Liverpool or Arsenal do that? Does Bayern, or Inter? No, they don't. Even Barcelona doesn't, they are quick to get back in position when they lose the ball, and win it back promptly, even if they are possibly the most attacking team in the world when they have the ball.

The only team who tries to do it is Real Madrid, and how long has it been since they won something? The last to win there was Capello, who is certainly not known for throwing caution to the wind and carelessly attack.

[LookMumImOnMCF.net]

If he still says that we're "a work in progress" I'll fucking kill him.

[King Kev]

It's hard to believe that he has had to take a job in punditry, I thought a top club would have snapped him up by now.

[Ted Hughes]

Don't understand why people think Hughes couldn't get a team to play defensive football. Hughes' Blackburn defence made up of cheaply signed nobodies would cope with most teams as well or better than ours does now. It would have most likely beaten Stoke.

He was trying to play attacking football at City because that's what a team in our position should be doing & it's probably what he'd been told he should do. Who wants to spend £200M & build Everton?

The problem is that he never gave me the impression to be nearing a balance between attacking and defending, and as I said in my previous post, none of the very big teams go all out attacking without any care for defending. Do Chelsea, U***d, Liverpool or Arsenal do that? Does Bayern, or Inter? No, they don't. Even Barcelona doesn't, they are quick to get back in position when they lose the ball, and win it back promptly, even if they are possibly the most attacking team in the world when they have the ball.

The only team who tries to do it is Real Madrid, and how long has it been since they won something? The last to win there was Capello, who is certainly not known for throwing caution to the wind and carelessly attack.

He made a mistake being a bit too adventurous but I believe he thought he had license to do it. I've absolutely no doubt personally that he would have sorted out the defence eventually, the signs were there v Chelsea but then injuries kicked in immediately & that defense never played together again.

I think he genuinely believed that he'd be left to get on with the job so he was doing it his way trying to build a positive attacking ethos into the club; to look an opponent in the eye & never back down even when things went badly wrong. I think it was fantastic the way we came out fighting when we let stupid goals in & refused to lie down & rarely lost even when we fucked up. It was the kind of attitude that made me proud to be a City fan but I guess that's just the way I am.

Years ago I remember a lot of people used to love City for that though.

[Im_Spartacus]

It's hard to believe that he has had to take a job in punditry, I thought a top club would have snapped him up by now.

Agenda?

[King Kev]

It's hard to believe that he has had to take a job in punditry, I thought a top club would have snapped him up by now.

Agenda?

Zzzzzzzzz

[Im_Spartacus]

It's hard to believe that he has had to take a job in punditry, I thought a top club would have snapped him up by now.

Agenda?

Zzzzzzzzz

ok, i'll reply properly

I think he deserves a shot off the back of what we did with us.

[King Kev]

It's hard to believe that he has had to take a job in punditry, I thought a top club would have snapped him up by now.

Agenda?

Zzzzzzzzz

ok, i'll reply properly

I think he deserves a shot off the back of what we did with us.

Yeah, whatever. Not interested tbh, he's gone, time to move on eh?

I've started a sticky thread for people who want to talk about hughes, just like we had when he was at the club. Hopefully people will respect the fact that some of us are living in the present and keep their thoughts on him to that thread.

[Im_Spartacus]

It's hard to believe that he has had to take a job in punditry, I thought a top club would have snapped him up by now.

Agenda?

Zzzzzzzzz

ok, i'll reply properly

I think he deserves a shot off the back of what we did with us.

Yeah, whatever. Not interested tbh, he's gone, time to move on eh?

I've started a sticky thread for people who want to talk about hughes, just like we had when he was at the club. Hopefully people will respect the fact that some of us are living in the present and keep their thoughts on him to that thread.

u clearly missed the point

I was disgusted at what happened. I can actually look back on the time he spent here with fondness, as I think hughes NEARLY had it right. I would like Mancini to do well, but................................

Like i said about the fact he is a pundit, he will be impeccable and wont criticise city