It said in the paper on Sunday Hughes hard working Stoke team (something he installs at all his clubs) have more points this season under him at this stage of the season compared to any other season they have been in the premier league. Harry was another who came with a decent track record to a certain extent and no one could have imagined how poor he would be at our club. I must admit i didn't see that hard working ethics when Hughes with was us. However after these two flops, and lets be honest many a decent player have come to us and been flops too, can a new manager do a good job? Can he get decent players playing well? Why were Hughes and Harry so poor?
Simply put, yes. Hughes was a disaster for many reasons...Redknapp bought badly, and had no passion for the fight. Exactly why they both failed is a mystery really. Lots on here will claim they know why, but it's all just theories. Some will solely blame the managers, others a mix of the manager and Tony, others only Tony (which I think is very unfair, we were desperate for a chairman with some passion for the club, and I'm glad we have one). Whoever you blame, most agree a new approach is needed. A new manager, with new ideas could bring that much needed fresh approach, and see very different results. Let's not be too doom and gloom before an appointment has even been made.
The rot set in when Neil was only given a few days to cobble a team of Prem quality together. Hughes then created a whole new team to disastrous effect as opposed to Stoke where he inherited a half decent team. Then when Harry came there was another massive overhaul and for various reasons Harry wasn't cutting it in training. A week with a hungry young coach and the difference is plain to see. We don't need another massive overhaul with a new manager.
