I hope that Hughes brings to Stoke the same level of success that was achieved at his previous managerial positions.
Why is it so fashionable to slate Hughes now? Immense player and generally has done well in management. His only real flop was QPR and everyone has failed with that mess. At least he kept them up. Wales - did a good job, played some nice stuff. Close to qualification Blackburn - punched above their weight. Finishing top hlf under him as high as 7th. again playing good stuff Man City - did Ok at the start of their transition into big money. Pointed them in right direction, generallly the reaction was it was unfair for him to be sacked. Good appointment from Stoke if they get him. Not too far away from Stokes style which could destroy them (martinez style) but a better style than Pulis/allardyce etc. A transition towards better football whilst trying to get ok results to keep them up
Have to say, he has had just as many successful jobs than jobs which he has failed. I think he will do well at Stoke but does have on hell of a job if he wants to change the style.
I would say he has had more successes than failures. Wales, Blackburn and Fulham all over achieved under him. QPR was an impossible role-- I read somewhere that Warnock, Hughes both had win ratios just over 20%, while 'Arry the Saviour Redknap got even less. Successive failures suggest that, as we know, there is something fundamentally wrong with the club from top to bottom. Of the 3 he is the only one to have scraped to survival in the premier league. Did he do that badly at Man City? The owners expected to instantly buy success. He built a very solid foundation which Mancini slowly took to the title. Who is to say he couldn't have done the same and I don't remember the big ego clashes that came later. Have I missed any others?
Time will tell. Looking at the Stoke board, there aren't too many of their fans want him to be their next manager.
Seems like it's almost a done deal. Not all fans in agreement though!! http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...-edges-closer-to-Stoke-City-managers-job.html
I actually think he'll do a decent job, similar to what IRdan and EnglandWC fan he has probably been more successful than a failure over his managerial career. Too many short memories I think from the Stoke fans, who else is there really? Martinez will not be compatible to Stoke, him getting them to play nice football, which he will do, won't work unless he completely revamps the squad.
YL - Good point and not sure how much money will be available for transfers. IMO, Martinez is more likely to go to Everton.
It's difficult because I think they'll get a fair amount of money. Not enough to revamp a squad though, also I don't think they have many players in there team which would really make funds to revamp a squad. I would say Crouch, N'Zonzi and Shawcross are the only players in that team that would cost good more than £5 million if they were to be sold. I don't think they'll be able to overhaul the squad, hence why the Hughes appointment makes sense. His teams always seem fairly balanced and versatile, his successful teams anyway. He won't get them playing stunning football and he won't keep the ogre ugly style they've used under Pulis.
Jeez, a three year deal I've taken the liberty of reminding Stoke fans just how loyal and diplomatic he was while at Fulham and then when the job at QPRcelona came up
i personally have never seen the 'thing' with mark hughes. i heard the stoke chairman say today that he did a 'great job' at man city before being harshly sacked. man city spent more than £200m under his watch and in his 1st season in charge they were 17th at christmas. his teams are over-physical, unattractive and ill-disciplined. he is poor tactically and he can't spend money well. his most recent job was a complete shambles although he did at least stave off relegation (just!) in his first year. he walked out of fulham because he felt he 'could do better' than the club. the guy basically comes across a horrible human being who thinks he is a heck of a lot better than he is and i for one wouldn't want him anywhere near my club. and as an added bonus, he also brings along that rat kia koorabchian with him, so expect lots of dodgy deals with players part-owned or represented by him and his cronies. he also has a few 'select' journos (a bit like redknapp) who are on his side, so expect an easy ride from parts of the media. but quite why some clubs still persist with failed manager is beyond me - be brave - appoint someone who has done well and 'deserves' a shot at the premier league for once. for me, he is no better than tony pulis, so what was the point in the change?
You're so wrong about Fulham! Hughes took over from Roy Hodgson's Fulham side that had just reached the Europa League Final. Hughes dragged them down to 3rd bottom before a late revival saw them to finish 8th so he hardly made progress before he flounced out!
very true. it was hodgson who overachieved, not hughes. just because i don't rate hughes doesn't mean i think stoke will automatically get relegated. i think they'll be in trouble, but i think they'd have been in trouble no matter who they'd brought in next season. pulis was not everyone's cup of tea... and that's an understatement... but he was bloody good at grinding out results. that, in itself, is a skill (similar to that possessed by mick mccarthy in fact) - does hughes have that ability? time will tell.
