Good read Brix, had to stop for a sandwich. You know my feelings on the summer raiding a club which didn't meet his ambitions, because he knew them, stank the whole club out then and still does now. Even if AJ can do when he's back. Well done for the Agincourt mention.
I think your poor player has to be Hughes on this occasion TIMK! To further our debate then, the really interesting point you make basically asks, where do the likes of Clough senior and 'Arry (Ramsay, Shankley, Paisley, Buzby, Stein, Stock, Jago, Sexton, Venables and more recently Fergie, Mourinho, Moyes and even Allardyce etc. etc.) rank in the credible manager stakes? Imo, all extremely credible on the evidence of consistently acceptable results - but to resolve my criticism of the Hughes regime at Rangers, you'd really have to ask what all these 'gaffers' have that others don't? My opinion? Evident technical (including tactical nouse) and people (almost parental) management (HR+) skills / abilities. Cloughie and 'Arry were/are certainly the Daddy than Hughes just isn't... As for things like passion and belief, they're 'spices' that flavour our management, aren't they? If so, belief is an absolute essential, whilst the cases of Ramsay, Paisley, Busby, Stein, Stock, Jago and Sexton for example all suggest that desirable add-ons like drive and passion are non-essential. Just my observations.
Weather i agree with all you wrote or not i found it a very engaging read. Good on ya for taling the time.
You know, you've got me thinking there Rhino. You're right, apart from Kia Jobsfortheboys sphere of influence with foreign players, Hughes' contacts seem limited to players from former clubs. Has beens mostly and the impressionable youth, Hoilett. And there was I taking him at face value and assuming he must have been so well loved, some would follow him to the end of the earth... Thought transfers were his one redeeming strength. Think again Brixton. Doh! Hope you enjoyed the sandwich!
An interesting read. Another point (unless I missed it) might be the disgraceful pre-season tour against a series of atrocious Asian teams that was merely a publicity stunt and didn't help prepare the team at all. TF must bear a fair proportion of blame for that, IMO. Just a pedantic point: your 3 battles don't really serve your point. True, they might have all been 'defensive' in some way, but in the fifteenth century the Bull's Head formation deployed at Agincourt was militarily highly sophisticated, brought the overwhelming fire-power of the English archers to the fore; plus it had already been used with devastating effect at Crecy and Poitiers. Moreover, unlike Hastings (loss) and Rourke's Drift (hard-fought draw), Agincourt was a major victory for Henry V. None of this really matters though!
Now have had time to absorb your thought provoking OP and the equally excellent responses. Hughes v Warnock - neither thanks (with the benefit of hindsight of course). I think both made a very similar fundamental error - always playing to combat the oppositions strengths rather than play to our own. Obviously you have to manage risk, but the way we have set up for more than a season now tells us more about the managers' lack of faith in their own players than anything else. This had worked for Hughes in the past, but tellingly when he had the players at his disposal at Citeh he still couldn't break the 'first, don't lose' mentality. Football is a simple game - and footballers are undeniably simple people. From what I understand of the Hughes approach it was clearly too confusing for some of our guys. Meticulous preparation in terms of fitness, health and the basic, consistent structure and shape of the team with and without the ball, plus a few words in ears ( "he always goes to his left son"), and the human touch with these delicate flowers is enough. No dossiers please. Lessons from abroad- the German analogy is interesting. The older and more travelled I get the more wary I am of generalisations about national characteristics. But there is certainly something in this. The way their companies (and football clubs) are organized and owned, with real worker/fan representation and stability around investment gives them a very stable foundation. The cost is a constant desire for consensus and long decision making processes. But it's easy to forget that, before the last century, the Germans were the great romantics of Europe, the leaders in art, literature and music, and that is still in the mix. For footballing models I would look to Barcelona and Ajax - a clear philosophy of how to play the game, developed at every level throughout the club over decades. That's how Barca can buy sometimes surprising players - they know player xx will fit into their system, easily and seamlessly. Messi is a genius, but he plays the Barca way. I actually prefer Ajax for sentimental reasons - Jack Reynolds managed them on and off for over 20 years until the 40s, 'invented' total football and put the foundations down, which Cruyff then took to Barca. Reynolds virtually unknown over here of course. Great Battles of History think we're at Thermopylae now mate. Hope the casualty rate is a bit lower though. PS Arrigo Sacchi manager of the great AC Milan side of the late 80s and early 90s actually said that his job was the same as an opera director's (he is Italian!) - allocate the roles, but allow the players' to interpret them. Presupposes having intelligent players of course......and of that team Gullit, Van Basten, Rijkaard, Donadoni and Ancelotti at least have managed top rank clubs and/or their national teams. Tassotti has been a leading coach at Milan for years and Baresi and Maldini are clearly not thick. Think Sacchi had an eye for a player too....got the cast for his opera spot on. Meanwhile at QPR there is fierce competition for the role of 3rd donkey in the infants Nativity play......
Excellent post, Stan. Great and astute observation regarding Warnock & Hughes' inclination to manage risk and worry about the opposition's strength rather than focussing on the strengths, flair and creativity that their own squads had. In fairness to Warnock, in the Championship he did setup a workmanlike, pragmatic structure, but nevertheless looked to accommodate the genius of Taarabt within it. Wasn't enough for those of us spoiled on the halycon days of Bowles, Francis, Thomas, Currie, Wegerle et al, though.
Wot Uber sed! Crackin' post SB It's good to see this forum getting right back on top form. Just hope the Rs follow suit tonight!
Great thread. Congrats to everybody for their contributions. My opinions are simple; I thank Warnock for getting us up and Hughes for keeping us up. It was the right time for both of them to go.
Interesting and well informed response Husky. I can see there's plenty of scope on this board that goes way beyond matters QPR (shame we don't have side pockets for us anoraks eh?!). However, why is the battles thing relevant? For me, be they analogies or direct comparisons, the ways we set our stalls out when facing formidable opposition tells us lots about the quality, imagination and sheer audacity of our leaders in football. The three battles I used were all massive challenges of the type Hughes has faced this season. Yes, history has us down as won 1, drawn 1, lost 1 but shows it could easily have been 2 wins and a draw or even 3 defeats. Whilst Harold, Henry and Chard/Bromhead had both strong plan and a bit of faith in their 'teams', Stan (sb_73) suggests that neither Warnock nor Hughes did, which is one reason why we've had less than even results since returning to the prem. Had our subject, 'thinking' manager Mark Hughes had half the ability his profile and presentation suggested, I doubt we'd have seen so many unforced changes and such scant emphasis on attack. If you're gonna park the bus, you can't just sit there and absorb forever, you have to have a contingency in place for able counterattacks to take the weight off and give opponents something to worry about. The necessary contingency just wasn't there under Hughes, was it?
Excellent contribution Stan. So in conclusion, to what extent would you say Hughes is an effective premiership manager / campaign leader? If you were a club chairman, would you consider him for a management position - and if so, on top dollar or what?
I think it unlikely he will work in the PL again. A job overseas beckons perhaps in the more technical realms of Spain or Italy.
The big question! A year ago I would have said if comfortable safety is the aim, he'll be fine. Now, I think he will be very difficult to employ at top level and he has no experience anywhere else. He was given the magic ticket to the chocolate factory - cash, a hugely supportive boss, his hand picked support team - and fell in the chocolate lake when barely through the door. Heard on the radio last night that he has won something like 6 of the last 47 away games he has managed - covering us, Fulham and Citeh. This gives the true extent of the malaise, and neither I nor TF picked up on it. So, no recommendation from me, I'm afraid. For all that I am convinced he really did try his best and is as confused as the rest of us with the results. The 'clueless' and 'incompetent' comments are fine, but the personal insults unjustified.
So, we agree with the Citeh and Fulham fans we've heard from on other threads, Hughes is as they say in Brixton, a 'shaper': gives it as something he's not. More fool the owners for jumping on a name, as opposed to a known quality. These wealthy guys have shown impulsiveness and a naivety that beggars belief at this level. I have huge regard for the positivity they have brought to our little club - but for both us and them personally going forward, they will clearly have to take stock and spend their money more wisely. The Hughes show cost them (and us) big time and there's little doubt that Warnock and his apologists will be feeling well vindicated. However, once we'd got Hughes in and with continually dismal results, even we as an audience, struggled with both the decision to get rid of Hughes and the one to appoint 'Arry, despite the lack of options. Just goes to show how vital managers are to the success of a club. Back in the day, Liverpool got the management thing right with an almost Soviet type assembly line of capable insiders prepared and ready to take control - and look what they got for their troubles: success after success! That's what we all want isn't it(?) - and not just in football either. If the long term plan to establish Rangers as a major force is going to have legs, we clearly need to think beyond new stadia and training grounds. It's great to see a youth academy being developed at long last - but we also need a small group of future managers attentively assisting in the background, ready for when their hour cometh. If the owners can get their head round that and make it happen, I very much doubt that either they or we will ever regret it. Could this be the conclusion of this board - or is there anything we've missed?
Excellent response. But I think the problem wasn't that Hughes lacked faith in his attacking talents, but rather tried to employ tactics that had worked reasonably well at BR and Fulham which were simply not suited to Rangers and the personnel at his disposal. Not sure I'm making sense, but as you pointed out Hughes preferred to sit deep and invite teams on to us. Well, that's fine if you have the personnel for that sort of fight (which with the likes of Robbie Savage etc at BR, he did) but Rangers were already incredibly soft-centred when Hughes arrived. His failing (amongst numerous others) was not recruiting the players to perform the way he wants. Rangers, as long as I've watched them, have always been a footballing team - Hughes didn't know this, it seems. In fact, he seems to have been pulled in two directions at once: signing attacking, passing players like Granero and Diakite whilst playing defensive football which invited the opposition onto us. I can only really get to game in the Midlands and North these days, but don't think I've ever seen a Rangers side (of this season) so supposedly full of talent start so slowly - either last season or this. anyway, probably a bit of a rambling mess this post: let's hope HR sorts us out. PS My anorak does have side-pockets!
