|
Post by Absolution on Sept 7, 2018 17:59:35 GMT
If I was Peter Coates I would have pulled the C.V. of Mark Hughes out of the file and read it carefully again. He will have seen that Mark Hughes had always achieved over 4O points in a full season with every PL club he had managed, despite some very, very poor starts to seasons.
I don't think mick Hughes had lost the dressing room, I'm not sure that he had even lost the confidence of Peter Coates, but it was the Coventry defeat that sealed his fate.
Hughes knew how to win PL games, he had shown that with Blackburn, Man. City, Fulham and in his first half season with QPR and latterly with Southampton.
It was the case that the club probably needed a change of manager, but not after 23 games and not to a manager who had no record of PL success.
So rather than look at what he'd done so far that season or even what he was doing presently, you'd have dragged out his cv and looked at what he'd done years ago amd based your decision on that? You keep going on about poor/slow starts to a season but 23 games in isn't a start of a season, it's pretty much half way through! How many other clubs that he had success with had as few points halfway though a season as we did and he then kept them up? That would be literally the ONLY fact from his cv that would have had any relevance. Saying "It took him 6 games at Man city, 8 at Fulham.." etc is 100% irrelevant geoff, we were 23 games in!! 23 games is 60% of the way through the season and we'd also been mugged by Bristol City and Coventry. That wasn't on his CV. It was on the pitch.
|
|
|
Post by geoff321 on Sept 7, 2018 18:14:11 GMT
If I was Peter Coates I would have pulled the C.V. of Mark Hughes out of the file and read it carefully again. He will have seen that Mark Hughes had always achieved over 4O points in a full season with every PL club he had managed, despite some very, very poor starts to seasons.
I don't think mick Hughes had lost the dressing room, I'm not sure that he had even lost the confidence of Peter Coates, but it was the Coventry defeat that sealed his fate.
Hughes knew how to win PL games, he had shown that with Blackburn, Man. City, Fulham and in his first half season with QPR and latterly with Southampton.
It was the case that the club probably needed a change of manager, but not after 23 games and not to a manager who had no record of PL success.
So rather than look at what he'd done so far that season or even what he was doing presently, you'd have dragged out his cv and looked at what he'd done years ago amd based your decision on that? You keep going on about poor/slow starts to a season but 23 games in isn't a start of a season, it's pretty much half way through! How many other clubs that he had success with had as few points halfway though a season as we did and he then kept them up? That would be literally the ONLY fact from his cv that would have had any relevance. Saying "It took him 6 games at Man city, 8 at Fulham.." etc is 100% irrelevant geoff, we were 23 games in!! Southampton will have appointed Hughes based on his overall PL record and the belief that he would keep them up, and he did.
When any club appoints a manager they will take into account his past record as a manager, if he has one, what other way is there to judge him?
The fact that Mark Hughes wasn't able to maintain the standard he himself set at Stoke doesn't mean he's a bad manager, or that he won't enjoy success in the future, it just means he hit a difficult patch, sometimes that happens to people in life mick.
|
|
|
Post by mickmillslovechild on Sept 7, 2018 18:31:22 GMT
So rather than look at what he'd done so far that season or even what he was doing presently, you'd have dragged out his cv and looked at what he'd done years ago amd based your decision on that? You keep going on about poor/slow starts to a season but 23 games in isn't a start of a season, it's pretty much half way through! How many other clubs that he had success with had as few points halfway though a season as we did and he then kept them up? That would be literally the ONLY fact from his cv that would have had any relevance. Saying "It took him 6 games at Man city, 8 at Fulham.." etc is 100% irrelevant geoff, we were 23 games in!! Southampton will have appointed Hughes based on his overall PL record and the belief that he would keep them up, and he did.
When any club appoints a manager they will take into account his past record as a manager, if he has one, what other way is there to judge him?
The fact that Mark Hughes wasn't able to maintain the standard he himself set at Stoke doesn't mean he's a bad manager, or that he won't enjoy success in the future, it just means he hit a difficult patch, sometimes that happens to people in life mick.
Of course you appoint a manager based on their cv. I never disagreed with that geoff because you never said that in the first place as you weren't talking about appointing Hughes. You were talking about keeping him which is another thing entirely. What you said is that you'll judge a manager and decide whether or not to keep him at his present club, based on their cv which is based on what they did at OTHER clubs. Do you know of ANY club that will hang on to a failing manager just because he was good once at a completely different club with completely different personnel a few years back? Can you give me literally just 1 example of any club that have done that and just ignored their results at the present club? In any job you are hired based on what you've done previously at other companies (i.e. your cv), but when you've been there for 4 years already then you'll be judged based on what you're doing for THEM, not what you did once upon a time for someone else. And how can you say 1 minute that you're only going to concentrate on last season because that's when we went down, but then the next minute base your decision on his cv going back several seasons before he even came to us? You can't have it both ways can you?
|
|
|
Post by The Toxic Avenger on Sept 7, 2018 19:11:55 GMT
So rather than look at what he'd done so far that season or even what he was doing presently, you'd have dragged out his cv and looked at what he'd done years ago amd based your decision on that? You keep going on about poor/slow starts to a season but 23 games in isn't a start of a season, it's pretty much half way through! How many other clubs that he had success with had as few points halfway though a season as we did and he then kept them up? That would be literally the ONLY fact from his cv that would have had any relevance. Saying "It took him 6 games at Man city, 8 at Fulham.." etc is 100% irrelevant geoff, we were 23 games in!! Southampton will have appointed Hughes based on his overall PL record and the belief that he would keep them up, and he did.
When any club appoints a manager they will take into account his past record as a manager, if he has one, what other way is there to judge him?
The fact that Mark Hughes wasn't able to maintain the standard he himself set at Stoke doesn't mean he's a bad manager, or that he won't enjoy success in the future, it just means he hit a difficult patch, sometimes that happens to people in life mick.
It doesn’t make him a bad manager but it meant he was failing and should have been replaced long before he was. You’re doing what you always do, praising a manager for his successes and absolving him of any responsibility for his failings.
|
|