Wednesday's B*l**x (updated)

[Ted Hughes]

Forgive me, but I was unaware that Alex Ferguson was viewed as a man of pure benevolence even in the demi-deification of impending ­retirement.
I must have imagined the fact he became known as the ­Hairdryer because of the ­fearsome abuse he could dish out to his players.
I must have misremembered him terrorising players, trying to control the minutiae of their lives.
I must have ­misinterpreted those stories about Brian Clough punching Roy Keane because he underhit a backpass.
I must have been misled when I read stories about Bill Shankly treating injured players as if they did not exist.
The point is, surely, that if we get to the stage where we make judgments about football managers based on their manners, we will be picking from a thin field.
Football managers are, by necessity, dictatorial, bombastic, defensive, obsessed and ­ruthless.
The great ones probably even more than the rest.
Jose ­Mourinho anyone?

Oliver Holt is horrible rag but he is spot on there and pretty much the point I have been trying to make in lot of topics. Now some people wanted to get rid of Mancini, fair enough. You thought we should've done better this season and/or played better football, fair enough. But to make it sound like succesfull football managers are known for their motherlike compassion to their players somewhat ridiculous.

It's a ruthless, but well paid, world professional football. It's not democracy but dictatorship by default. There are lot of nice managers but none of them ever win anything. I WANT our manager to be dictatorial, bombastic, defensive, obsessed and ­ruthless. That goes for any incoming manager.

I don't care much either way, but I think the manager needs to also have another side to him where he works on the individual players & improves them. Neither Mancini nor Hughes seemed to have much of that, but Ferguson does.

Pellegrini does also apparently. If he's rotten with the groundstaff but chats to the players & gets them playing for him I'm happy.

I'm not sure the owners are though. I think they want the right kind of figurehead for the club & Mancini is not that man, neither is Mourinho.

[Niall Quinns Discopants]

Forgive me, but I was unaware that Alex Ferguson was viewed as a man of pure benevolence even in the demi-deification of impending ­retirement.
I must have imagined the fact he became known as the ­Hairdryer because of the ­fearsome abuse he could dish out to his players.
I must have misremembered him terrorising players, trying to control the minutiae of their lives.
I must have ­misinterpreted those stories about Brian Clough punching Roy Keane because he underhit a backpass.
I must have been misled when I read stories about Bill Shankly treating injured players as if they did not exist.
The point is, surely, that if we get to the stage where we make judgments about football managers based on their manners, we will be picking from a thin field.
Football managers are, by necessity, dictatorial, bombastic, defensive, obsessed and ­ruthless.
The great ones probably even more than the rest.
Jose ­Mourinho anyone?

Oliver Holt is horrible rag but he is spot on there and pretty much the point I have been trying to make in lot of topics. Now some people wanted to get rid of Mancini, fair enough. You thought we should've done better this season and/or played better football, fair enough. But to make it sound like succesfull football managers are known for their motherlike compassion to their players somewhat ridiculous.

It's a ruthless, but well paid, world professional football. It's not democracy but dictatorship by default. There are lot of nice managers but none of them ever win anything. I WANT our manager to be dictatorial, bombastic, defensive, obsessed and ­ruthless. That goes for any incoming manager.

I don't care much either way, but I think the manager needs to also have another side to him where he works on the individual players & improves them. Neither Mancini nor Hughes seemed to have much of that, but Ferguson does.

Pellegrini does also apparently. If he's rotten with the groundstaff but chats to the players & gets them playing for him I'm happy.

I'm not sure the owners are though. I think they want the right kind of figurehead for the club & Mancini is not that man, neither is Mourinho.

Possible, likely even. All I'm saying is that it doesn't really concern me whether our manager is nice to kitman or not as long as he wins us trophies. Unfortunately to do well in football management you usually need qualities that make you seem like utter cunt to most people.

I agree that ferguson was more sensitive to certain softer players of his but you can't say that he leaves you with impression of being overall nice guy.

I'm not so much defending Mancini here by the way but more saying that if you are great buddy with players around you, you probably don't have proper command of your team.

[Blue Since 76]

Oliver Holt is horrible rag but he is spot on there and pretty much the point I have been trying to make in lot of topics. Now some people wanted to get rid of Mancini, fair enough. You thought we should've done better this season and/or played better football, fair enough. But to make it sound like succesfull football managers are known for their motherlike compassion to their players somewhat ridiculous.

It's a ruthless, but well paid, world professional football. It's not democracy but dictatorship by default. There are lot of nice managers but none of them ever win anything. I WANT our manager to be dictatorial, bombastic, defensive, obsessed and ­ruthless. That goes for any incoming manager.

Taggart was clearly ruthless - look what happened to players that crossed him or the club. However, he also got the best out of a lot of temperamental characters. None of us know how he did that, but I suspect it wasn't by screaming at them. Same would have gone for Clough - he knew he could punch K*^ne, as he'd respond well to it, but not all players will.

In the same way, if you were overly friendly, some players would thrive whilst others would take the piss.

The very best managers know how to get the best out of all their players, not just the ones with the right character traits. Whilst it'd be great to have 25 Zabaleta's, it would rule you out of buying some of the best players available.

When you look at the ex-rags who've gone on to be managers, they've all been the type who'd have responded to being shouted at. I suspect that's therefore all they ever saw from Taggart - yell at people and they'll play brilliantly next time, which has been what they've brought to management. Yet none of them have achieved anything - perhaps they didn't see the side of him which got the best out of some of their more frail teammates as it was done behind closed doors.

[Ted Hughes]

Forgive me, but I was unaware that Alex Ferguson was viewed as a man of pure benevolence even in the demi-deification of impending ­retirement.
I must have imagined the fact he became known as the ­Hairdryer because of the ­fearsome abuse he could dish out to his players.
I must have misremembered him terrorising players, trying to control the minutiae of their lives.
I must have ­misinterpreted those stories about Brian Clough punching Roy Keane because he underhit a backpass.
I must have been misled when I read stories about Bill Shankly treating injured players as if they did not exist.
The point is, surely, that if we get to the stage where we make judgments about football managers based on their manners, we will be picking from a thin field.
Football managers are, by necessity, dictatorial, bombastic, defensive, obsessed and ­ruthless.
The great ones probably even more than the rest.
Jose ­Mourinho anyone?

Oliver Holt is horrible rag but he is spot on there and pretty much the point I have been trying to make in lot of topics. Now some people wanted to get rid of Mancini, fair enough. You thought we should've done better this season and/or played better football, fair enough. But to make it sound like succesfull football managers are known for their motherlike compassion to their players somewhat ridiculous.

It's a ruthless, but well paid, world professional football. It's not democracy but dictatorship by default. There are lot of nice managers but none of them ever win anything. I WANT our manager to be dictatorial, bombastic, defensive, obsessed and ­ruthless. That goes for any incoming manager.

I don't care much either way, but I think the manager needs to also have another side to him where he works on the individual players & improves them. Neither Mancini nor Hughes seemed to have much of that, but Ferguson does.

Pellegrini does also apparently. If he's rotten with the groundstaff but chats to the players & gets them playing for him I'm happy.

I'm not sure the owners are though. I think they want the right kind of figurehead for the club & Mancini is not that man, neither is Mourinho.

Possible, likely even. All I'm saying is that it doesn't really concern me whether our manager is nice to kitman or not as long as he wins us trophies. Unfortunately to do well in football management you usually need qualities that make you seem like utter cunt to most people.

I agree that ferguson was more sensitive to certain softer players of his but you can't say that he leaves you with impression of being overall nice guy.

I'm not so much defending Mancini here by the way but more saying that if you are great buddy with players around you, you probably don't have proper command of your team.

I've recently read an old interview with Pellegrini where it sounds very much as if he was a Mancini type character who mainly concentrated on the technical side of things but he forced himself to change & now takes an interest in each player's personal life etc.

So he may secretly be a complete cunt but hides it well !

[john@staustell]

Forgive me, but I was unaware that Alex Ferguson was viewed as a man of pure benevolence even in the demi-deification of impending ­retirement.
I must have imagined the fact he became known as the ­Hairdryer because of the ­fearsome abuse he could dish out to his players.
I must have misremembered him terrorising players, trying to control the minutiae of their lives.
I must have ­misinterpreted those stories about Brian Clough punching Roy Keane because he underhit a backpass.
I must have been misled when I read stories about Bill Shankly treating injured players as if they did not exist.
The point is, surely, that if we get to the stage where we make judgments about football managers based on their manners, we will be picking from a thin field.
Football managers are, by necessity, dictatorial, bombastic, defensive, obsessed and ­ruthless.
The great ones probably even more than the rest.
Jose ­Mourinho anyone?

Oliver Holt is horrible rag but he is spot on there and pretty much the point I have been trying to make in lot of topics. Now some people wanted to get rid of Mancini, fair enough. You thought we should've done better this season and/or played better football, fair enough. But to make it sound like succesfull football managers are known for their motherlike compassion to their players somewhat ridiculous.

It's a ruthless, but well paid, world professional football. It's not democracy but dictatorship by default. There are lot of nice managers but none of them ever win anything. I WANT our manager to be dictatorial, bombastic, defensive, obsessed and ­ruthless. That goes for any incoming manager.

I don't care much either way, but I think the manager needs to also have another side to him where he works on the individual players & improves them. Neither Mancini nor Hughes seemed to have much of that, but Ferguson does.

Pellegrini does also apparently. If he's rotten with the groundstaff but chats to the players & gets them playing for him I'm happy.

I'm not sure the owners are though. I think they want the right kind of figurehead for the club & Mancini is not that man, neither is Mourinho.

Possible, likely even. All I'm saying is that it doesn't really concern me whether our manager is nice to kitman or not as long as he wins us trophies. Unfortunately to do well in football management you usually need qualities that make you seem like utter cunt to most people.

I agree that ferguson was more sensitive to certain softer players of his but you can't say that he leaves you with impression of being overall nice guy.

I'm not so much defending Mancini here by the way but more saying that if you are great buddy with players around you, you probably don't have proper command of your team.

I've recently read an old interview with Pellegrini where it sounds very much as if he was a Mancini type character who mainly concentrated on the technical side of things but he forced himself to change & now takes an interest in each player's personal life etc.

So he may secretly be a complete cunt but hides it well !

Isn't every successful manager a complete cunt? Whatever they show on the surface!