Mancini vs Hughes, Statistically

[Original Dub]

Building to take a team from mid to lower table into champions league qualification in a short space of time.

God, how long have I been away from here? When did Hughes do this?

That was the task he was handed and I said as far as I knew it was unprecedented in the modern game.

It was a different task to the one handed to Mancini. I don't know if Hughes would have acheived it, he was certainly on course to, but there is no denying that one built the side and the other tweaked it.... some good tweaking, some bad.

[BobKowalski]

Did you know that Hughes used only one youth teamer (Weiss) in 18 months whereas Mancini has used 4???? (apparently)

Mancio is and has always been one to give youth a chance.

Mancini also seems more willinging to utilise the squad in a 'horses for courses approach' as well as using the young 'uns. Doesn't always work mind as the Stoke replay showed but its interesting especially as MoN is getting a kicking over his unwillingness to pick outside his strongest 11 no matter what leading to Villa's annual decline in the last quarter of the season. Pros and cons to it I guess but I prefer the Mancini approach.

Building to take a team from mid to lower table into champions league qualification in a short space of time.

Ah with it now.

[Slim]

Building to take a team from mid to lower table into champions league qualification in a short space of time.

God, how long have I been away from here? When did Hughes do this?

That was the task he was handed and I said as far as I knew it was unprecedented in the modern game.

It was a different task to the one handed to Mancini. I don't know if Hughes would have acheived it, he was certainly on course to, but there is no denying that one built the side and the other tweaked it.... some good tweaking, some bad.

Well let's take a bit of a look at what you actually posted shall we?

And still people forget what he did was unprecedented in the premier league and most of europe... no matter how many times he said it.

Building to take a team from mid to lower table into champions league qualification in a short space of time.

Well first, you said he DID it, not he was on track or going to, and as far as I am aware, 6th place(which we were in when he was sacked) does not get you into the champions league, so "on track", afraid not.

And secondly, a team from mid to lower table? He took over a team that finished 9th and as far as I was aware there were 20 teams in the league when he did, so wouldn't that make it "upper to mid table", lemme check my math...yep, 20 divided by 2 is 10th, lower to mid would at least two placed less than we were when Sven left, and even after a full year in charge even Hughes couldn't manage to put us in the lower half to make that "mid to lower" table comment accurate.

I realise you want Hughes to be remembered fondly and your aggrandizing on his behalf is a little less than shameless, but if you are going to pop in with these little facts and slant them to your will, you should try for accuracy first.

[btajim]

And secondly, a team from mid to lower table? He took over a team that finished 9th and as far as I was aware there were 20 teams in the league when he did, so wouldn't that make it "upper to mid table", lemme check my math...yep, 20 divided by 2 is 10th, lower to mid would at least two placed less than we were when Sven left, and even after a full year in charge even Hughes couldn't manage to put us in the lower half to make that "mid to lower" table comment accurate.

Do you think the table is simply divided in half when you're looking at internal Groups? To me, the table is always divided roughly in to thirds. i.e. Top 6 or 7 all chasing Europe slots (Champions League / Europa League), the middle section of 7 or 8 Clubs and the remaining sides looking over their shoulders at relegation / survival.

City were in the mid to upper table at the end of last season. That's a very fair comment.

[Slim]

And secondly, a team from mid to lower table? He took over a team that finished 9th and as far as I was aware there were 20 teams in the league when he did, so wouldn't that make it "upper to mid table", lemme check my math...yep, 20 divided by 2 is 10th, lower to mid would at least two placed less than we were when Sven left, and even after a full year in charge even Hughes couldn't manage to put us in the lower half to make that "mid to lower" table comment accurate.

Do you think the table is simply divided in half when you're looking at internal Groups? To me, the table is always divided roughly in to thirds. i.e. Top 6 or 7 all chasing Europe slots (Champions League / Europa League), the middle section of 7 or 8 Clubs and the remaining sides looking over their shoulders at relegation / survival.

City were in the mid to upper table at the end of last season. That's a very fair comment.

Thanks for backing me up. I don't think you were trying to, but you did anyway.

[Original Dub]

Building to take a team from mid to lower table into champions league qualification in a short space of time.

God, how long have I been away from here? When did Hughes do this?

That was the task he was handed and I said as far as I knew it was unprecedented in the modern game.

It was a different task to the one handed to Mancini. I don't know if Hughes would have acheived it, he was certainly on course to, but there is no denying that one built the side and the other tweaked it.... some good tweaking, some bad.

Well let's take a bit of a look at what you actually posted shall we?

And still people forget what he did was unprecedented in the premier league and most of europe... no matter how many times he said it.

Building to take a team from mid to lower table into champions league qualification in a short space of time.

Well first, you said he DID it, not he was on track or going to, and as far as I am aware, 6th place(which we were in when he was sacked) does not get you into the champions league, so "on track", afraid not.

And secondly, a team from mid to lower table? He took over a team that finished 9th and as far as I was aware there were 20 teams in the league when he did, so wouldn't that make it "upper to mid table", lemme check my math...yep, 20 divided by 2 is 10th, lower to mid would at least two placed less than we were when Sven left, and even after a full year in charge even Hughes couldn't manage to put us in the lower half to make that "mid to lower" table comment accurate.

I realise you want Hughes to be remembered fondly and your aggrandizing on his behalf is a little less than shameless, but if you are going to pop in with these little facts and slant them to your will, you should try for accuracy first.

I missed you mate. Honest.


What I said hughes DID was build a team capable of moving from mid table to champions league qualification in a short space of time. If you think he didn't build a team capable of doing that, then that's your opinion and we all know that you have a slightly slanted view when it comes to hughes, just like you claim I have.

Now, his target was 70 points and we may well have been in 6th, but I believe there may well have been a game in hand which could achieve 35 points after 19 games. So check and double check all you want there mate, but your maths, no matter how fantastic they might be, appear to have let you down on this occasion.

I realise you want Hughes to be remembered for failing and your berating him is a little less than shameless, but if you are going to pop in with these little facts and slant them to your will, you should try for accuracy first.

[btajim]

Do you think the table is simply divided in half when you're looking at internal Groups? To me, the table is always divided roughly in to thirds. i.e. Top 6 or 7 all chasing Europe slots (Champions League / Europa League), the middle section of 7 or 8 Clubs and the remaining sides looking over their shoulders at relegation / survival.

City were in the mid to upper table at the end of last season. That's a very fair comment.

Thanks for backing me up. I don't think you were trying to, but you did anyway.

Mid to Upper not Mid to Lower. It depends which way you look at it.

[ronk]

Hughes had his weaknesses, we can all acknowledge that. He's also had his strengths. He mostly made good signings and was building a team. He worked hard in rebuilding the squad, staff and training methods from the ground up. He left the club a more professionally run operation than when he joined and it's not like Mancini has had to redo a lot of the building.

Mancini inherited a situation where there were many things that he did not need to change. He didn't need for example to work on the fitness of players, that was already excellent. Hughes was underachieving somewhat in areas where Mancini has improved, but Mancini certainly has had a lot to work with since he came in.

We always knew that Hughes was not an instant success man.

[Slim]

I missed you mate. Honest.

Thanks

What I said hughes DID was build a team capable of moving from mid table to champions league qualification in a short space of time. If you think he didn't build a team capable of doing that, then that's your opinion and we all know that you have a slightly slanted view when it comes to hughes, just like you claim I have.

You didn't say capable, on track or going to..YOU SAID HE DID.

Now, his target was 70 points and we may well have been in 6th, but I believe there may well have been a game in hand which could achieve 35 points after 19 games. So check and double check all you want there mate, but your maths, no matter how fantastic they might be, appear to have let you down on this occasion.

Four points adrift of 5th, game in hand put us 6th. 29pts from 17 games=1.70 points per game. "On track" would mean after 32.4points after 19 and more importantly, 65 after 38 games. ON TRACK means ON TRACK, not gearing up for a run that we haven't managed yet. We were close yes, but close and ON TRACK and not the same.

I realise you want Hughes to be remembered for failing and your berating him is a little less than shameless, but if you are going to pop in with these little facts and slant them to your will, you should try for accuracy first.

Still accurate, are you and Jim sharing a stash?

[Slim]

Do you think the table is simply divided in half when you're looking at internal Groups? To me, the table is always divided roughly in to thirds. i.e. Top 6 or 7 all chasing Europe slots (Champions League / Europa League), the middle section of 7 or 8 Clubs and the remaining sides looking over their shoulders at relegation / survival.

City were in the mid to upper table at the end of last season. That's a very fair comment.

Thanks for backing me up. I don't think you were trying to, but you did anyway.

Mid to Upper not Mid to Lower. It depends which way you look at it.

Yes peanut, it was OD who said we were lower to mid, I said we were mid to upper, I realise it has never been your intention, but in your monumental stupidity you HAVE BACKED ME UP.

[BobKowalski]

Hughes had his weaknesses, we can all acknowledge that. He's also had his strengths. He mostly made good signings and was building a team. He worked hard in rebuilding the squad, staff and training methods from the ground up.

Well he had to rebuild the squad...he fell out with the first one :)

Mind you he was in danger of falling out with the second one from Ade to the back 4 so I guess we missed an interesting January transfer window with Hughes departure.

Fitness aside I was unconvinced on the Hughes training methods and his staff. Not that I am an expert but the evidence on matchday over 1 and a half seasons screamed outdated and mediocre. Ok for the Blackburns of this world but top 4/Cl level? No chance.

Everyone has a natural level. Hughes found his.

[btajim]

Yes peanut, it was OD who said we were lower to mid, I said we were mid to upper, I realise it has never been your intention, but in your monumental stupidity you HAVE BACKED ME UP.

I'd back you up if I felt your opinion was correct. However, I doubt we agree that mid to upper was a reasonable finish for a first season in charge.

Don't think you're some kind of nemesis to me.

[DoomMerchant]

For the record tho, Mancini had 2 matches in hand i believe, to get to 35 pts, which he won both of which put him on track for the alleged/reported milestone target of 70pts, and/or 4th place.

Interestingly, 70 pts was a great target to shoot for, because i think it surely will get someone 4th place, and we've got a chance to do that.

I think fondly of Hughes sometimes in the way that i think of that girl i dated in 1989 for about 6 weeks who could give me a blowjob like no other, but had no idea how to fuck to save her life. And was irritating to talk to. And had issues with her family whom i couldn't stand.

Luckily, i'm past all that now.

cheers

[Slim]

Yes peanut, it was OD who said we were lower to mid, I said we were mid to upper, I realise it has never been your intention, but in your monumental stupidity you HAVE BACKED ME UP.

I'd back you up if I felt your opinion was correct. However, I doubt we agree that mid to upper was a reasonable finish for a first season in charge.

Don't think you're some kind of nemesis to me.

Urgh. Okay, let me start again from the beginning for the terminally moronic.

OD said Hughes took a LOWER TO MID table team and turned them around.

I said that being in 9th(or even 10th after Hughes first year in charge) we were, if anything, UPPER TO MID.

You crapped on in numerous posts telling me we were UPPER TO MID.

And I would never say that spending £147M on players to go from 9th to 10th was reasonable.(not that this was EVER the issue, but you seem to think it was) In fact, I should probably delete this part for fear that you will concentrate your reply on this part and in a feat of fucktardery somehow come to the conclusion that I believe Colin Bell was overrated.

[Slim]

For the record tho, Mancini had 2 matches in hand i believe, to get to 35 pts, which he won both of which put him on track for the alleged/reported milestone target of 70pts, and/or 4th place.

Interestingly, 70 pts was a great target to shoot for, because i think it surely will get someone 4th place, and we've got a chance to do that.

I think fondly of Hughes sometimes in the way that i think of that girl i dated in 1989 for about 6 weeks who could give me a blowjob like no other, but had no idea how to fuck to save her life. And was irritating to talk to. And had issues with her family whom i couldn't stand.

Luckily, i'm past all that now.

cheers

We had one match in hand, which was the Everton game, the less said the better. Here is the important stat, Hughes=29 in 17, Mancini=30 in 15, one of these over the course of 38 games reaches 70 points, one of them doesn't.

[mcfc1632]

Get the fuck out my topics you fucking weasel. I don't want to see your username on any of my topics. Without even seeing the contents of your bullshit posts, your username alone pisses me off.

You have been warned not act like a little weirdo and stay the fuck away from me. So do so and do not comment on anything I post and I don't come and comment on your little weirdo topics for stalkers and wankers.

Oh yeah, and don't bother answering to this or any other thing I post you fucking coward, as I can't and will not see them. Just stay the fuck away from me.

Dear Mancityfans.net colleague - was that aimed at me - I am guessing so as you seem to feel the need to slag me off in extreme terms recently - for the terrible sin it seems of pointing out the truth - being objective - daring to challenge - raising points on an internet forum

Not sure where to start - an obvious place would be to take your sage advice and:

"..don't bother answering to this or any other thing I post you fucking coward.."

but that would seem to be pandering to the ranting of some keyboard warrior - and giving into such patent forum bullying is (I am sure) not the intention of how this (or indeed) most forums are intended to function. So I will try and answer each aspect of your post in a tone of civility - which I must say is something you might well consider the merits of adopting when you take exception to what someone posts:-

1/ This reply is based upon the assumption that your post was aimed at me - if not - please accept my apology and advise who was indeed the intended recipient of such considered advice:

2/ "Get the fuck out my topics you fucking weasel....."

I had not understood that once a thread is started then said thread becomes the property of the OP with controls over who can contribute and what content is allowed.... Is this a general right of ownership or is it reserved for posters held in especially high regard by others (or indeed by themselves)

3/ “ I don't want to see your username on any of my topics.”

Is this a ‘polite request?’ – a ‘formal moderator warning?’ – I hope that you can understand that before I contemplate conformance, I need to understand the status and scope of this position – is it restricted to threads that you have started? – or does it extend to any and all threads in which you have imparted your wisdom (you do post on most) – does this mean you claim intellectual property over any thread to which you offer an opinion?

4/ “Without even seeing the contents of your bullshit posts, your username alone pisses me off.....”

This part has me really confused - such a level of abuse when you cannot even see what I have posted? – in fact on this occasion I was posting in support of OD and challenging your comments against him – but your ego is reaching new heights if you think all posts are about you – I posted on 6 threads last night

What I do not understand though is that you took exception to me previously pointing out to the board that you had been repeatedly inconsistent – even deliberately mis-leading to the board – you stated that you did not want to see my posts and you took the forum’s recommended action to ‘foe me’.

Is this not indeed what you (or any poster) should do in any such circumstance? Does it not end there? – or again do certain posters of (in their view) esteemed standing have further rights / sanctions? – Does this statement of yours mean that any poster ‘foed’ by any other poster should not contribute to the board? – they should all accept that the actions of an individual renders as fact that all they have to say is bullshit – do they need to apply to the board moderators for a new username that does not offend sensitive ‘special’ individuals – I have looked for guidance / rules but cannot see this detailed in any way

5/ “You have been warned....”

What does this mean – is this you personally warning me, or as a moderator – or is that the board – or what?? – just what did I say that was so extreme – my post hardly seems extreme given the tone of many posts I have seen on here – and indeed this one from you that I am replying to

...and what am I being warned of? – your tone sounds like a kid at school I used to know that for a couple of years was bigger than everyone else and that equated in his mind to the fact that what he said went and that he was (in his own mind) special – but we all ignored him – are you threatening me?? – are you going to ‘do’ something to me....?

Why? For having the temerity to put a post onto a thread in support of a forum colleague – which you cannot see any way – is it really acceptable for members to respond to posts that they cannot see with such vitriol – or is this another reserved privilege?


6/ “Oh yeah, and don't bother answering to this or any other thing I post you fucking coward, as I can't and will not see them.”

Another puzzle - You have foed me – surely that means that YOU do not see my posts and therefore YOU should not respond???? I have not foed you or anyone and surely that leaves me at liberty to respond to any / all posts so long as I do so in a manner of civility consistent with interaction on forums – open discussion / debate and without resorting to disrespect / abuse?


I do not want to break forum rules – if there is some special respect / homage that all members should pay you – irrespective of the quality / content of your posts – please point me at this guidance – otherwise your post indeed just sounds like ranting

[mcfc1632]

For the record tho, Mancini had 2 matches in hand i believe, to get to 35 pts, which he won both of which put him on track for the alleged/reported milestone target of 70pts, and/or 4th place.

Interestingly, 70 pts was a great target to shoot for, because i think it surely will get someone 4th place, and we've got a chance to do that.

I think fondly of Hughes sometimes in the way that i think of that girl i dated in 1989 for about 6 weeks who could give me a blowjob like no other, but had no idea how to fuck to save her life. And was irritating to talk to. And had issues with her family whom i couldn't stand.

Luckily, i'm past all that now.

cheers

I was never a pro-Hughes person - cost me a fortune in spread bets last year becuase I (again) backed my belief in CITY - and I am now firmly a pro-Mancini man - I still want stability which was my main comment re Hughes

Re the fondness though - I can understand that - I liked the way he handled himself with the media and I like the way he irritated baconface - big plusses in my book - re the girl he reminded you of - you can take some comfort from that if she was still giving you blowjobs her hair would probably look like Hughes's nowadays when you looked down

[Original Dub]

I missed you mate. Honest.

Thanks

What I said hughes DID was build a team capable of moving from mid table to champions league qualification in a short space of time. If you think he didn't build a team capable of doing that, then that's your opinion and we all know that you have a slightly slanted view when it comes to hughes, just like you claim I have.

You didn't say capable, on track or going to..YOU SAID HE DID.

Now, his target was 70 points and we may well have been in 6th, but I believe there may well have been a game in hand which could achieve 35 points after 19 games. So check and double check all you want there mate, but your maths, no matter how fantastic they might be, appear to have let you down on this occasion.

Four points adrift of 5th, game in hand put us 6th. 29pts from 17 games=1.70 points per game. "On track" would mean after 32.4points after 19 and more importantly, 65 after 38 games. ON TRACK means ON TRACK, not gearing up for a run that we haven't managed yet. We were close yes, but close and ON TRACK and not the same.

I realise you want Hughes to be remembered for failing and your berating him is a little less than shameless, but if you are going to pop in with these little facts and slant them to your will, you should try for accuracy first.

Still accurate, are you and Jim sharing a stash?

Listen mate, I see you're still trying to pick and twist words and phrases to suit yourself, but the over riding point you don't seem to get sunshine is that the task that was handed to hughes was unprecedented. I never said he achieved it, but he was on course to achieve it no matter how much you try to dress it up. The media knew he was on course as did anyone with an opinion on it in the footballing world.

There was a damn good reason we looked like cunts for sacking him at that time yet you can't seem to see why?

That said, I'd never seriously want to see a manager come back, particularly when I like Mancini and I've seen nice football half the time. I'm behind him all the way and I'd love nothing more than for him to finish the job hughes started and get that fourth spot, but if and when he does, I'll be thanking both of them equally because eventhough you'll refuse to acknowledge it - hughes built this team and was on course to reach 70 points. He was sacked and Mancini was brought in to make tweaks here and there which he has done.

If we get champions league football this season it will be because of Roberto Mancini AND Mark Hughes and no amount of bitching and crying will take that fact away.

And yes, I did miss you. Sometimes it hurt.

[Niall Quinns Discopants]

Get the fuck out my topics you fucking weasel. I don't want to see your username on any of my topics. Without even seeing the contents of your bullshit posts, your username alone pisses me off.

You have been warned not act like a little weirdo and stay the fuck away from me. So do so and do not comment on anything I post and I don't come and comment on your little weirdo topics for stalkers and wankers.

Oh yeah, and don't bother answering to this or any other thing I post you fucking coward, as I can't and will not see them. Just stay the fuck away from me.

Bit harsh, Antti. Who was that aimed at?

Not me, I hope.

Not you.

[Beefymcfc]

Get the fuck out my topics you fucking weasel. I don't want to see your username on any of my topics. Without even seeing the contents of your bullshit posts, your username alone pisses me off.

You have been warned not act like a little weirdo and stay the fuck away from me. So do so and do not comment on anything I post and I don't come and comment on your little weirdo topics for stalkers and wankers.

Oh yeah, and don't bother answering to this or any other thing I post you fucking coward, as I can't and will not see them. Just stay the fuck away from me.

Ha ha ha, sounds like my Mrs when I've done something wrong!

Edit: Just read the rest of the thread............good to see we're getting back to normal!