Why Mark Hughes was never likely to succeed at QPR please log in to view this image Loftus Road is not the place for a manager lacking charisma. 23/11/2012 by David McIntyre Paul Parker was right. And he was right because unlike those in control of the club, he understands QPR. An ex-Rangers favourite and Manchester United colleague of Mark Hughes, Parker told West London Sport after the Welshmanâs arrival that his former team-mate would need to change his style in order to succeed as Râs boss. You could argue it was a polite way of suggesting Hughes wasnât the right man for the job. And he wasnât. Parker was merely saying what others who understand QPR as a club suspected â that Hughes is a capable manager, but simply wasnât right for Rangers. And Hughes is a capable manager, however much of a battering his reputation has taken. Even Alan Mullery, perhaps the worst QPR manager of them all, had some success. He signed Gary Bannister and John Byrne after all. Hughesâ 11-month tenure was not without similar achievements. The signing of Djbril Cisse, who had previously been found wanting in the Premier League, was a bold call vindicated by the strikerâs role in keeping Rangers up last season. And while Neil Warnock talked a lot about developing Adel Taarabt as a player, Hughes quietly did so. But it was that quiet nature, along with the folly of his employers â more on that another time â that did for Hughes rather than some supposed lack of tactical acumen. Successful QPR managers have tended to be charismatic, engaging characters â tub thumping, big personalities who acted as spiritual leaders as much as decision makers. Ian Holloway, Gerry Francis, Warnock and to some extent the likes of Jim Smith, Don Howe and even John Gregory during high points of their reign all fitted into that bracket. So does Harry Redknapp, who will do a âtrifficâ job of lifting the club in the coming weeks, Iâm very sure. Others, like Hughes, had the knowledge but not the personality, and knowledge is worthless unless youâre able to make use of it. No-one demonstrated that more than the late Ray Harford, who had one of the finest football brains of his generation. His seemingly dour personality made him a sitting duck at a club that was beset by problems and needed someone like the hyperactive Holloway, who later restored some much needed zest to the place. If management was about tactics and preparation, the likes of Harford, Paulo Sousa, Hughes and others would have left QPR with their reputations enhanced rather than dented. Once managers come across as dour â and in Hughesâ case, perhaps just not very likeable â problems on the pitch are quickly put down to them being clueless and lacking motivational skills. Once that perception sticks, the gameâs essentially up. Hughes made the mistake of believing his knowledge and experience would do the trick for him. Some of his allies inside the club were scathing about Warnockâs methods. What they failed to grasp was that Warnock, like other successful Rangers bosses, had his limitations but was first and foremost a manager. He managed. He managed players, fans and the media and did it well. Thatâs whatâs the jobâs about. Itâs not about theory, or âmeticulous preparationâ as Hughes continually called it. Itâs about practice â the nuts and bolts of getting people behind you and instilling the right mentality. Privately, Hughes would be sincere and complimentary about QPR fans, saying he really enjoyed their passion and the âfeelâ of Loftus Road. He should have gone very public with that, but it wasnât his nature to. Some of his predecessors would have beaten that drum for all it was worth, got the fans on their side and created the kind of momentum that almost always transmits to players. Itâs worth more than all Hughesâ dossiers and Pro-Zone stats. He needed to get out and engage, kiss a few babies, make a disparaging comment about Fulhamâs away support compared to Rangersâ â something, anything, to lift the gloom and build some momentum behind him. He should, if nothing else, have gone on the clubâs online show, London Call-In, last week, rather than continually leaving that kind of thing to Mark Bowen. He should gone on there in front of the fans and stressed the need for his under-performing players to deliver for them, and urged them in turn to get behind the team and raise the roof for one big effort against Southampton, which Hughes was convinced would be a turning point. Thatâs what leadership is all about. Nigel Adkins is a leader and had Saints fans rooting for him. Meanwhile, letâs be honest here, how many QPR fans were understandably thinking of what the up side to a defeat on Saturday might be? I think that had a bearing on the outcome of the game. Thatâs not the fansâ fault. Itâs Hughesâ. Adkins led his men â his club â into battle. Hughes, with his chairman sticking to his ludicrous and typically poorly judged âcream always rises to the topâ message, failed to lead, and his overdue dressing-room tirade afterwards was too little, too late. Hughes isnât a leader, heâs a thinker, and that type of manager generally doesnât succeed at QPR. He was quite simply the wrong man. Redknapp wouldnât be my choice, but he is a leader and man-manager in the Warnock/Holloway/Francis mould and one I fully expect to give the club the kind of short-term shot in the arm that Francis did when he replaced Harford. Another similarity between Harford and Hughes is that their spells showed the effect of having a dodgy centre-back cannot be underestimated. You can have all the knowledge and tactics you like, but if youâve got someone in the middle of your defence whoâs as big a threat as any opposing striker, youâve had it. To keep QPR up, Harford brought in Neil Ruddock, who was outstanding in what had been a problem position for Rangers. When unable to keep Ruddock, Harford went for a carbon copy, Gerry Taggart, who at the last minute opted to join Leicester, where he was a crucial player in their subsequent success. A chance was then taken on Richard Ord, who was crocked, so Karl Ready ended up staying at the heart of Harfordâs defence, with inevitable consequences for his manager. Until the sight of Stephane Mbia leaving the pitch at Arsenal after being sent off, I always felt Hughes would survive â that heâd get enough points to keep Rangers up and keep his job, but not to justify the level of spending by the club. It was at that moment, with Mbia facing a three-game ban for vital matches that would decide the managerâs fate, I belatedly started to feel Hughes was in serious trouble. Hughes cannot cite a lack of financial support for his demise, given the amount he was allowed to spend and the number of players he brought in. He was, however, disappointed and concerned by the clubâs failure to sign a commanding centre-back â which he regarded as a top priority â despite many attempts, and that concern was fully justified. They ended up getting Mbia, who needed time to find his feet in England, as his early displays showed. He was getting there though and did well against Arsenal before his moment of madness. His replacement of Anton Ferdinand was absolutely pivotal to Hughesâ plans for turning things around. I expect him to be an important defender for Rangers for the rest of the season and believe if Mbia had played against Reading and Southampton then, rightly or wrongly, Hughes would still be in a job. http://www.westlondonsport.com/features-comment/why-mark-hughes-was-never-likely-to-succeed-at-qpr Nailed it, excellent and spot on. And to be fair to McIntyre this has been his stance from day one with Hughes.
Brilliant article. His theory is flimsical and actually doesn't explain an awful lot (like why Hughes succeeded at other Clubs?) but the way he puts it is powerful enough on its own to make me believe it!! Very good writer is DM.
That's right, I've never heard MH thank or acknowledge the fans or apologise for a season for s*** performances. Never tried to get in touch with us, as if it was beneath him.
I like Dave mc, only because he showed the bin dweller up for what he really is, is amit still here? Emmm
And just to add to my first comment, that 1-0 win over chelsea last season was exactly the blood and guts type performance I'd expect from a warnock style manager. We were never capable of that under MH. Never.
I agree with many Rs fans, David Mac is THE consummate writer on matters QPR. Like his style, his mind, his way of putting stuff across: lucid and to the point. Great respect for the guy... BUT way off the Mark in this article imo. Whilst Hughes certainly gives the impression of a wannabe thinker, what came out at the other end was that he's anything but. He failed to get us firing last term (what did it was Cisse, Derry, Mackie in defeating Liverpool and us and Clint Hill thereafter); and he's done the same this year after a very poor spending 'spree' leaving us with a shambles for defenders and no bite up front during the summer. Even if he's capable of cognitive thought, what's the point if it doesn't get results? But if we're suggesting that the mob upstairs prevented Hughes from balancing the defence and getting a couple of young guns in to give opponents something to worry about, then more fool him. How hard is it to convince even the uninitiated that you need decent shields and swords to win battles? If you can't think your way round stuff like that then you're no manager as we found out to the cost of all. As for getting the crowd onside, well none of us is looking for a warm up act. What we want is points on the board and a place up the table. Simples. After a run of rubbish we got onside as soon as the results showed QPR 3 Liverpool 2. Not rocket science as they say. I could go on and on and on but it's late and I'm not here to bore you with my drivel. Suffice to say thinker Hughes must've had a mental block in his time with us. I've got him down as either complete idiot or worse still talentless, cynical opportunist. Now let's just check the old scoreboard. Hmmm... looks like it agrees with me! David?
On an earlier thread I posted a link to this article saying how Dave M must have been on this board before writing the article. The bit about Mbia is a straight copy and paste of a thread I posted a couple of weeks ago!
Morning Peruvian. Hot and sultry where you are I guess? I am in Northern France for a break with family and rather chilly. Re your point. Seeing as we don't copyright, seems fair huff to me. Take it as a compliment. Sadly I note the bookies are not impressed with our current position and they believe Man U will give us a tonking!
Some good points but you have to say that there were a large number on here who blithely believed we'd be finishing top-half when it was patently obvious that our defence was suspect and we didn't have a 20 goal-a-season striker, despite Cisse's form last season. Results have proved that was the case and MH was never going to win popularity with his dour demeanour. You could say that AVB at Spurs will go the same way, he just talks bollox and results will do for him before too long. Where Harry will do well is in getting the fans onside and believing that we can achieve staying up as well as the players, it's gonna be another rollercoaster run to the end of the season but nothing we aren't used to...
i like the tone of the piece generally but must disagree, certainly in part, with the bit about tactical acumen. Hughes made enough strange substitutions and played enough people out of position in enough games (and i suppose there could be reasons for this as yet unknown to me) for his 'acumen' to be called into question i think. I'm also not sure about the idea that a certain kind of club needs a certain type of manager. Surely if a manager gets the right players in, gets a bit of team spirit going, organises them well and gets a bit of luck on the way then he'll be deemed the 'right man.' If Adel has popped in that sitter against reading when clean through and kick started a little run, would HUghes have still been the 'wrong man'? I wouldn't have given a toss about MH being dour or not going on the talk-ins if he'd pulled off a couple of wins. I want my manager to win some footy matches, his ability to do a stand up routine on match of the day is not important. If you're successful enough, you'll be popular enough I suspect.
Very good article, but I agree with Brix. Where are the proofs of his thinking. He played the same system/players almost all the time and lost almost all the time. Where was the thinking against Soton? We were out-played all over the pitch for 90 minutes. Even when we unexpectedly got one back, we continued in the same vein. Bringing on Mackie at half-time was just obvious, but would he have done the same thing earlier in the season; no. It was just desperation. COME ON 'ARRY!!!!
Enjoy! Yes I woke with the sun at 5.30am and now it's 6 I've got up to discover that surprise, surprise that Harry is our man, really, really hope it works out for him and our beloved Rs! As for ManU, hoping we keep it respectable!
Far too much sympathy for him in this article. Despite his lack of personality the vast majority of the fans (myself included) followed TFs lead and were very supportive and gave him every opportunity. It was only really the last couple of games where our patience ended. There is also an implication that our defensive woes were somehow not his fault and maybe we lacked the investment needed in that department which is complete nonsense.
Good article. I was very unsure about Hughes when he came in but hoped his apparent professionalism would see us climb the table. Last season was a hell of a struggle, but survived just, without me feeling Hughes contribution had been major. His transfer activities in the summer did not impress me, he failed to strengthen the CB and striker priority positions, and brought in too many ageing past their best types, and I did not share the optimism of so many on here - think I tipped us for 16th before the season started. I wanted Hughes out definite after Hammers, and if we still make 16th it will be a great achievement, but it is doable. Come on URRRRR.
well done DM on the artical. I have given David McIntyre stick in the past but that was a good read. Lot's of honest points to think about. Should have mentioned the Cisse/Adel spat at Stoke because that was the final nail for me.
What was that about? Was at Stoke but didn't see it, or hear of it after except a comment or 2 on here.
we were on the break and Cisse made a run, Adel had the ball and waited too long to pass it to him and when he did it went behind him instead of infront. Cisse had a moan at Adel which i think was wrong because it was one of those things. Also i think Cisse had words with Granero. Not many picked up on it but it showed that the players were not a happy bunch. As i said at the time it was a worry for me.
