DM I don't care who he bought and how much he paid, it was the football he played and his complete lack of tactical nous and inability to coach players that for me means he deserves the criticism he gets.
Same thing happened at QPR, spent loads of money on players and couldnt do anything with them. Redknapp didn't save them from relegation but they certainly looked like they had more of an idea if what to do.
You give credit to Hughes for signing Zabaleta and Kompany etc and not one of them played under Hughes anything like they did under Mancini. Coincidence?
I think not.
I really do fear for Stoke, Hughes will go in there and try and change the team by burning in his best mates. Another relegation battle next year is on the horizon next year except this time they might go down.
Kompany was excellent straight away, Bellamy was excellent, Robinho was till he got injured, City played way more exciting football under Hughes and no there is no coincidence they played better under Mancini, its this thing called time. When you put together multiple new players they take time to gel, its as simple as that, that is why they got better season on season till Mancini's lack of any tactical ability cost him his job. In Europe, an utter inability to come up with a plan to stop the other side, similar in the league.
Hughes was fired after 12 games this year, with a very new and changed squad and no QPR were categorically worse under Redknapp and WERE improving before he left. Look at who they played and when, Redknapp took over right before the easiest 4-5 game spell of the entire season. I don't entirely blame Redknapp, he tried to change the team as well but that took them relatively speaking back to square one in terms of being a new team. He changed the defence, dropped the most inform midfielder. Hughes spent 12 games trying to phase out Derry/Hill and the others, and just as the replacements were getting form Redknapp decided some english grit was the answer, but then the team was getting used to a different line up again.
Its funny because I remember years back when Hughes was splashing the cash you were absolutely loving the way City played against utd despite a very unfair, Fergie time Owen goal it was the best you've played against Utd for donkeys years at the time, against a good Utd side at that rather than one that fell apart. You were also agreeing with me and defending hughes and your team for overspending on who they could get knowing most would be replaced. Back then you were defending Hughes and saying it would take time to improve and drastic changes in a team would take time for players to gel, and that you were getting stung for all transfers and fully expected to buy one set of players to get you into the top four, and another set to go the next step.....
Under Hughes they were drastically changed and drastically improved when Mancini took over with what 6 first teamers that were first team in the title winning side, maybe 5.
Back on this year, I suggest you look up some game stats, like against Spurs under Hughes then under Redknapp, QPR had half the possession and a bunch of chances and no luck under Hughes and away from home IIRC, under Redknapp they had something like 30% possession, at home, had like 3 shots and managed to fluke a goal(to get a win or a draw, I can't remember). That is one of MANY games that QPR were noticeably much better under Hughes than Redknapp, and again I'll point out they had multiple injuries in defence, upfront and their best midfield player from the previous season.
Oh well, its funny how you looked at the time back then and how you defended the club and the manager when people laughed at spending big on not great players, and how you describe the same situation now.
didn't create one decent chance against 10 men though in about 25 minutes so didn't deserve to win sadly.
...Hughes at Arsenal?? Id probably slit my throat if that ever happened :/
