That's a great piece of writing Brix and you've stuck some really good analogies in there. I, like so many others on here have pondered the same thoughts to varying degrees this past eleven months. For the sake of brevity, and my limited professional football knowledge. (There are far too mant tangibles pertaining to Hughes's reign that even a well versed psychologist would struggle with.) I would put it simply down to this. Our players suffered from 'Paralysis from analysis.' When Hughes came into the club, he spouted on about his fitness regimes and relentless well rehearsed drills, scientific analysis, psychology, meticulous planning etc etc etc. Harry on the telly today. ' This is a great club with some good players, I'll give it a good go.' Footballers are simple creatures. They need simple instructions and played in their right positions and train in a happy environment. No enforced bonding camps in Portugal, that was insulting and belittling, ( Teacher/Pupil scenario. ) It was over Valentines day, the players wanted to be with their loved ones not on some enforced meet and greet, in an environment that they can spend with people they want to be with in the close season. Pro-ballers need simple instructions, what is expected of them when we have the ball and what is expected when we don't. As pro-ballers they should already come with the pre-requisite of technical ability, fitness and will to win. The managers job is to keep re-instating all those attributes and have a simple plan. That's my take on it anyway. Of course there are another set of anomalies to be considered and Bobmid et-al are the people best placed around these parts to address that. But my thinking is this. I remember watching a documentry on Graham Taylor in the early nineties, it was about him when he was the England manager. I sat down and expected some great mythical insight into the game at it's highest level. I was deeply disappointed when I realised it was no different to listening to my pub team coach. I also remember listening to an an interview with our old friend Ian Wright. He said that the coaches would approach him with plans and strategy on how to play in certain games. He said that I used to nod my head and agree with them and when I got out onto the pitch I ignored it all and played just like I did when I was a 10 year old down the park!
Indeed Uber. At least we can vote in our charlatans unlike vast swaths of the World. We're lucky in that sense!
Just what the doctor ordered Sooper: some accurate detail to complement my rash overview. Interesting - and more so since it was your 'Difference of Emphasis' thread that inspired my reflections in the first place. Marry me and we've got a act that'll be hard to beat!!
I have to say that to me, Uber, you are definitely one of the subtly funniest posters on here sometimes, and also one of the smartest. Keep it up old son! Of course you're right about the outcomes of those battles, albeit that our weaponry was better than our opponents in the first two. However, set your stall out like that in football and you invite the opposition on to you and, unless you're an accomplished counter-attacking force like Italy, you'll win nowt.
great post brix and the part about the Germans interested me very much. back in 2001 i went to help/study the youth set up at Bochum, 1 because my brother lived out there and helped hook me up and 2. it helped me gain experience towards my uefa b licence. all voluntary although it was only for 3 weeks. Like most things German, the set up came across like a well oiled machine with in my opinion was tactically over indulged but when my brother helped me break down the language barrier it became apparent just how much it meant to these kids to become footballers. the management was very precise with information yet had just the right mix of freedom of thought to complement it. there youth set up was years ahead of what we had over here at the same time. i for one left feeling very impressed with how the Germans went about their business.
Thanks for that Bob. I wondered if people would understand where I was coming from with that bit of my OP, e.g. whether I'm some sort of closet German or not. You've helped leave them in no doubt that German machines, football etc. maintain a quality benchmark because they are so very well managed. We ain't ever gonna compete with them unless and until we take our management seriously.
nines, you have summed up very nicely and the truth is, just because people are involved in football doesn't necessarily mean they know any more or any less than others! in every aspect of the game, opinions is what differentiates managers from others. whose opinion is right and whose wrong, only results can really confirm at the highest level. take swp for example, technically i think he is terrible but he's made a dream living out of football so i must be wrong. technically David luiz is superb but many don't rate him etc etc.
Cheers brix, your description of your 'longest Summer' made me smile, I have felt exactly the same. Agree about Warnock and defer to your greater football knowledge on Hughes, though I'm not sure he was clueless, I think he had plans for everything and saw himself as a thoroughly modern manager. For me his failing was that he couldn't get the players to read the script. They clearly didn't want to play for him, maybe even shafted him against Southampton like uber suggested.
i think it was sooper who said managing is like conducting an orchestra and I've got to agree with him yet i actually think it is more simple than that especially at this level. it may sound silly but there is probably more to managing at amateur level! Premiership managers like Hughes take a job, recommend personell, pick the team and tactics and wear a suit. all the background stuff is allocated to others like beard, rigg , bowen, Eddie down to the chefs and security etc. these players are not technically going to improve now so coaching is based on fitness and how the manager wants you to play. Hughes may be at the training ground but the coaches do the work and report to him. the other type of manager is a Chris Hutton or a Steve Clarke who made their names as coaches and have showed that they have the player management skills to manage. they can get their instructions and style of play more apparent as nothing can get that easily lost in translation from manager to coach to player!
Nice point this one Nines. Meant to acknowledge it earlier. Yeah, players in half-vest come smart bras. Very impressive. Just like the cameras they say were put up to monitor performance etc. Smoke and mirrors in my view, just like Hughes' suits. Don't mean a thing on the back of such an extended run of poor results... Wonder what happened to all the notes that would have gone with them? Recycled no doubt. Best thing for them and the eco system. What's all too evident now, is all that science would've been equally useless had we managed to win a few games. As I say, smoke and mirrors - all the way to the bank / championship!
Now this is a proper football discussion thread. I won't do a lengthy response (praise be) but will address a few points across the above posts. Warnock was a victim of circumstance by which I mean the club tried to grow beyond his leadership capacity. The Warnock era would, IMO have been more successful if he had the time and resources to buy his Danny Grahams etc. He instead found himself with a group of egos in a series of panic buys. I'd question who's players they were - Warnock's or the board's. Irrespective, he had to go for the reason of losing the dressing room. The factions that everyone is speaking of now were reported at the time. Second point is that the Summer was largely a time of optimism (perhaps overinflated in retrospect) with positive news flowing out the club about every subject possible. It may be a change that we got subtly manipulated by (naivete on our collective parts maybe) but it seems we're suddenly lumbered with a PR machine that is slick and savvy but also, and not surprisingly (since it is now something firmly embedded in modern society) reminiscent of a propaganda machine. That said, there wasn't too much unrest at the signings and I'll still back that quality brought in on the whole (excepting the CB and striker that we needed). I know Flyer in particular took exception to the recruitment policy although the oldest of these, Nelsen, shows that this isn't entirely fair. I should also say that any player moves clubs for their own personal gain be that trophies or money but the appearance of many as mercenaries is going to be a complaint levied at anyone doing a job without motivation and confidence. That brings me to my last point - Hughes and our season. I believe that Hughes was as carried away with the hype as the rest of us and Swansea dealt us a blow from which we never recovered. We played an attacking line up that everyone assumed would do the Norwich and a flat display followed and then a tricky run against top teams. This basically saw Hughes revert to a defensive team and good performances (generally) against decent opposition but no significant points to show for it. There simply weren't enough goals in that side. Then the confidence was draining out of the team and there was no cohesion as the players lost all sharpness. The teams were more attacking but nothing would work. Again, an irretrievable situation and Hughes had to go. The future is uncertain but our team, with belief and confidence, will be a force (the one it should have been in August). Here's hoping anyway... [sorry - much longer post than I or anyone else probably wanted]
Just finished reading this Brix. Intelligent and well argued as always. Just the kind of quality post that has been all too rare on here of late, keep it up mate!! Not too sure about the âsuccess and flexibilityâ of the Germans for "the entirety of the last centuryâ though mate. I seem to remember a couple of significant occasions where their style of leadership could be described, even being very charitable, as being pretty breathtakingly inflexible and ultimately (thank God) utterly unsuccessful.. Also, like Oslo, I donât go sign-up to the notion that Warnockâs sacking is now universally accepted as being inevitable. His obvious character flaws notwithstanding (such as the signing of Diouf and that nonsense about replying to every single thank you message he got when he left), the fact is (and it is absolutely a fact), that nobody knows what would have happened had he been given more time. For all the rumours of him losing the dressing room, about which none of us actually know how much truth there was, it is worth remembering what we do actually know. That is that in less than 2 years he turned the club around from Championship relegation fodder, to being promoted to the prem as NPC winners. Then, despite having no transfer kitty right up until the last few hours of the transfer window, in his 4 months or so in the prem the club had 17 points (including 2 away wins), and were never lower than fourth from bottom. Contrast that with Hughesâs 10 months in charge when the club was never higher than fourth from bottom, with no away wins at all in that whole time. Iâm not saying that we would of done better under Warnock. But I am saying that we donât know how we would have done. Iâm also saying that there are at least some perfectly valid reasons to suggest that we might have done better than a lot of people seem to assume.
Cheres TIMK! In fact we got 3 away wins under Colin in the PL - our only away wins since we came back up - Everton, Wolves and Stoke.
As the OP shows, I agree that in assessing the Hughes regime, it's necessary to compare and contrast it with his predecessor - but not overly so since the thread's about what the Hughes thing was all about ('sound and fury signifying nothing' by the looks of it). Whilst I have no axe to grind re. Warnock apologists, I've seen little on here (even at the height of the Hughes Out period) that suggests any more than a few posters thinking Warnock should've been allowed to carry on, hence my summary. However, before launching into the Hughes shambles and points highlighting mismanagement at every turn, I do credit Warnock for his successes in saying that his place in the annals of QPRFC is assured. As for German management, that they got into and consequently lost two world wars speaks only of opportunism, related desperation and lunacy in the autocratic monarch and dictator that ruled them during part of the last century. That they managed to maintain battles on multiple fronts against contemporary allied superpowers and those to be, speaks volumes for their abilities to organise and compete. This is an objective management view, and in no way a personal agenda. My politics have actually always vehemently and actively opposed both war and fascism alike - but being a lefty isnât always synonymous with being blind and/or daft! However, my reason for featuring German management when discussing football matters in general and Hughes in particular, is to demonstrate what I mean by effective management in terms of quality planning and implementation, regardless of issue or product. On a management level, almost everything the Germans have touched since the 1860s (and maybe even 50 years before that) have worked a treat re. what theyâve wanted to achieve (roads, machines, sports etc. etc.). I repeat. The kind of success we crave as both club and nation comes as a result of well managed method and not some mysterious form of âmagicâ (be it pseudo-science or x-factor). Until we take our management seriously all we can expect is ongoing disappointment. Despite appearances, both actions and results show that Hughes (and many others in football) was no manager.
Fair enough Brix, as I said, it was a quality read and itâs a good debate to raise. Itâs all about opinions mate, and I was just noting the only two points where mine seem to differ from yours. Personally I think that meticulous planning and good organisation are key, but when it comes to football they are only half the story. The other half is about passion and pride and is just as important. To be successful any QPR Manager has got to have both IMHO. If anything, for me the Hughes era represented to me too much of the former, and not enough of the latter. Sometimes a small club can do well by having a big personality to lead it. The Manager can act as a figurehead and can take some of the pressure off of the players. Old Big âed at Forrest is a good example of this, and I think Warnock (and hopefully now Redknapp) was our version of this.. Youâve got to have a good football brain to back this up of course. Just going for an over confident but popular leader, without having a bit of common sense to back it up, can backfire badly (old Adolf was democratically elected remember). I also think that there is something inherent to the nature of internet forums that gives a very skewed and unrepresentative reflection of what it is that ordinary fans think. Maybe itâs the anonymity, I donât know, but there is something about these forums that gives oxygen to the âkeyboard warriorâ culture, whereby the angrier you are the more attention you get. I think in the past weâve even given awards to âThe Angriest Posterâ, as if vitriol is something which is in itself worthy of celebration. The point Iâm trying to make is that just because the few posters who have stuck up for Warnock in the past have been heavily outnumbered (and often shouted down) by those against him, we shouldnât make the mistake of thinking that this represents the view of the average punter sitting in the stands. Letâs be honest, sometimes you have to have a pretty thick skin to go on here a say anything positive at all, whether that be about Warnockâs reign or about anything else. But just because people arenât taking to the keyboard in their droves to so, letâs not just assume that theyâre not out there. Liking your "sound and fury" Shakespeare reference by the way Brix! I just hope that Redknapp is not the "poor player, who struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard of no more"
