The homegrown leadership is a very good point and one that I hope will come back in fashion rather than teams with the means simply appointing the best candidate on paper. That in itself has to come from a deeper understanding of the game at board level and I'm sure TF is learning his lessons quickly. That said, I can't sit idly while a fantastic thread descends into a rose tinted hate-fest aimed at Hughes. History will show that we are his only significant failure - Blackburn his only out and out success and then City was a step forward for them with some good foundations made. Fulham more of an impressive cameo that left a bitter taste to all concerned. So that raises the question of what differs us from the others? Certainly, there's probably most similarity with City in terms of the speed of change and resources at his disposal. There's also some valid (IMO) voices that say that he went as far as he could with Man City. With us, I still can't shake the feeling that the Swansea game was the most pivotal moment - a game that the hype, our hopes and Hughes ego had as such a banker especially in light of our scintilating home form at the back end of last season and the improvements made to the squad (and I still defy anyone to say they're not improvements). A game with a first choice eleven and no injuries that we got soundly beaten - victims of our own sense of inevitable success. I don't think anyone concerned could not suffer a personal body blow - Hughes seemingly invulnerable self-worth included and I'd say that everything Hughes did since that was purely a reactionary move to try and establish us as how we believed we should have been from the outset. I definitely hope that the powers that be also heed the necessity for balance between marketing tours and a thorough build up to each season so that we avoid the likelihood of history repeating. Then again, I could be completely wrong and merely a Hughes apologist (albeit a perplexed, frustrated and downbeat one).
