Iv'e sat here reading post after post about guess what? Yep MoN V M Hughes... Now for some unknown reason i'm drawn towards Hughes..Nowt against MoN, in fact would be happy as a plan B. Why? Just a hunch nowt more.... Now as the title say's can you give a reason for one or the other in less than twenty words.... Just curious....short and sweet.
MoN good experience & a SAFC fan done well every where he has managed. vs Hughes a Manager who is strict likes to play attacking football & if he cant pick a forward who can.
MoN good experience & a SAFC fan done well every where he has managed. or Hughes a Manager who is strict,plays attacking football & if he cant pick a forward who can.
O'Neill spends millions and millions then kicked off he didn't get more (12 words) Hughes done brilliantly at Blackburn, done a good job at Fulham in a short space of time with little resources (20)
MON because he is an apparent Sunderland fan & a good tactician with a plan B. Has a strict approach.
O neill is a proven winner and will be a driving force. Hughes needs to explain that Fulham departure. Bizarre and petulant.
Mmm I once went to a conference at Craven Cottage and the kensington corner shop owner was there and made some opening remarks a very weird and dare I say it odd man. Was it not him also who got in a bragging match in the media about who had the biggest penis with another tycoon. So I would hazard a guess that Ellis Short is way way different personality from Mohamed al-Fayed and for Sparky or anybody to take umbrage with al-Fyed would not be difficult. Not to say I favour Hughes over MoN, would not mind either of them.
It is bit of a biased view but I just think Martin O'Neill has had success at previous clubs but I think like Bruce too he's old school whereas Hughes methods seem to be much more up to date. Football has changed massively in the last 10 years but I'm not sure some managers have. O'Neill sets his way up with a persistent 442 with wingers and a big striker up front, I just don't think that's the way football is played these days. We'd have Heskey up here in January to be used as a battering ram. Plus the way he left Villa stunk a little bit, we all questioned Gyan's attitude for leaving us in a massive whole, O'Neill done something very similar whilst at Villa after apparently not getting more money than the massive amounts he already spent at Villa. With the new regulations that our club are trying desperately to comply with despite not being anywhere near a European place I don't think our club would be best served with a manager who has a tendency to splash the cash at every opportunity. Hughes on the other hand has done a cracking job at Blackburn (Same position as O'Neill achieved at Villa) with much less funds at a less fashionable club and then went to Fulham and managed to do a cracking job in the space of one season.
Neither man will come for nowt lads. Both will want decent budgets otherwise we may as well go back to buxton and sbragia. Two excellent candidates we would do well to attract. Let's not prejudice either one before they even come.
No prejudice implied I just think O'Neill will want a bigger budget than Hughes. I think Hughes would be happier to come in and work with what we have got where as with MON we might see a bit of a clear out. These are just my oppinions lads, really what do I know? I would be happy with MON, less so with Hughes but I would not be upset if Hughes got the job. As Cest says both good candidates and a credit to the club that were talking about these names and not McClaren or Southgate.
