| Good piece in the Guardian. 00:17 - Oct 21 with 2821 views | JonDoeman |
Mark Hughes relaxed as QPR reel and odds on the sack shorten | Sean Ingle http://gu.com/p/3b99m/tw via @guardian |  |
| |  |
| Good piece in the Guardian. on 00:36 - Oct 21 with 2207 views | gigiisourgod |
Excellent article. Sums up my thoughts. Implausible to sack Hughes, but he needs to up his game and fast. The fact that he appears not to have a clue what his best team and formation is totally unacceptable. What is he doing Monday - Friday? |  | | |
| Good piece in the Guardian. on 02:16 - Oct 21 with 2137 views | JAPRANGERS |
yes, superb article in my favourite noozpaper. Good stuff from our Clive too!! |  | | |
| Good piece in the Guardian. on 03:14 - Oct 21 with 2097 views | gueRRilla |
Cheers for the link. Lots of sense. Glad to see Clive getting referenced. A sane but irritated QPR fan! |  | | |
| Good piece in the Guardian. on 04:12 - Oct 21 with 2079 views | Cornish_oooRRRR |
Sounds like a load of left wing propaganda to me. Probably written by somebody working for the BBC
|  |
| |
| Good piece in the Guardian. on 08:17 - Oct 21 with 2005 views | kropotkin41 |
Faurlin is right, a win will change things - I hope - we need a win of any sort......... ugly, last minute, own goal, gust of wind, doesn't matter. |  |
| ‘morbid curiosity about where this is all going’ |
| |
| Good piece in the Guardian. on 08:48 - Oct 21 with 1933 views | Northernr |
Should point out that those quotes were taken from a 10 minutes conversation and while they're accurate and I stand by them, I did also talk about how many injuries we've had in defence and the fact that Hughes has always started slowly and got it right before. I'm not at a Neil SI level of misery with Hughes just yet! |  | | |
| Good piece in the Guardian. on 08:54 - Oct 21 with 1899 views | gigiisourgod |
| Good piece in the Guardian. on 08:48 - Oct 21 by Northernr |
Should point out that those quotes were taken from a 10 minutes conversation and while they're accurate and I stand by them, I did also talk about how many injuries we've had in defence and the fact that Hughes has always started slowly and got it right before. I'm not at a Neil SI level of misery with Hughes just yet! |
I don't think there is any harm in the pressure being cranked up on Hughes and get him to hopefully pull his finger out and stop him being so stubborn and arrogant and actually address the obvious issues he needs to on the pitch. For once, I am fully behind this kind of editing! | | | |
| Good piece in the Guardian. on 08:56 - Oct 21 with 1888 views | Northernr |
| Good piece in the Guardian. on 08:54 - Oct 21 by gigiisourgod |
I don't think there is any harm in the pressure being cranked up on Hughes and get him to hopefully pull his finger out and stop him being so stubborn and arrogant and actually address the obvious issues he needs to on the pitch. For once, I am fully behind this kind of editing! |
No it's a good piece and does reflect my views. But when you wake up and find other QPR fans sending you this on Twitter...
"@loftforwords your a fcking idiot. Keep your mouth shut. #fanmybllocks. #selfpromtingtwt"
You sometimes feel the need to clarify! | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Good piece in the Guardian. on 09:00 - Oct 21 with 1863 views | gigiisourgod |
| Good piece in the Guardian. on 08:56 - Oct 21 by Northernr |
No it's a good piece and does reflect my views. But when you wake up and find other QPR fans sending you this on Twitter...
"@loftforwords your a fcking idiot. Keep your mouth shut. #fanmybllocks. #selfpromtingtwt"
You sometimes feel the need to clarify! |
You should just respond to those idiots with #superfan | | | |
| Good piece in the Guardian. on 09:59 - Oct 21 with 1677 views | Metallica_Hoop |
Good article.
I dunno why (might be last night's wine) but I'm feeling optimistic today.
However if I see Ji and SWP in the starting 11 together that will swiftly fade. [Post edited 1 Jan 1970 1:00]
|  |
| Beer and Beef has made us what we are - The Prince Regent |
| |
| Good piece in the Guardian. on 10:00 - Oct 21 with 1669 views | Neil_SI |
| Good piece in the Guardian. on 08:48 - Oct 21 by Northernr |
Should point out that those quotes were taken from a 10 minutes conversation and while they're accurate and I stand by them, I did also talk about how many injuries we've had in defence and the fact that Hughes has always started slowly and got it right before. I'm not at a Neil SI level of misery with Hughes just yet! |
Haha, don't drag me into this.  |  | | |
| Good piece in the Guardian. on 10:07 - Oct 21 with 1640 views | Jamie |
Have a minute amount of sympathy for Hughes in that clearly some decisions with regards this squad are coming from above his head, but the fact that he doesnt know what players or formation he wants to play this far in is criminal.
The only reason he hasnt been hounded out by now is that we as fans have had so much shit in the past 5 years we're reluctant to demand another change. | | | |
| Good piece in the Guardian. on 12:30 - Oct 21 with 1429 views | WatfordR |
| Good piece in the Guardian. on 10:07 - Oct 21 by Jamie |
Have a minute amount of sympathy for Hughes in that clearly some decisions with regards this squad are coming from above his head, but the fact that he doesnt know what players or formation he wants to play this far in is criminal.
The only reason he hasnt been hounded out by now is that we as fans have had so much shit in the past 5 years we're reluctant to demand another change. |
Nice to see you have decided to step up and speak on behalf of we fans.
Speaking only on my behalf as a fan, I'd say that wanting any manager hounded out after seven games of a season is ridiculous. I'd say that there aren't many examples of clubs achieving any relative stability or success by changing manager every five minutes. The Scum are perhaps an exception, although the spine of the team has remained in place since Mourinho's day.
Here's a few extracts from Wiki on SAF:
"Ferguson was appointed manager at Old Trafford on 6 November 1986....and finished 11th in the final table"
"the 1988—89 season was a disappointment for them, finishing eleventh in the league"
"1989-90: Following...an early season run of six defeats and two draws in eight games, a banner declaring "Three years of excuses and it's still crap...ta-ra Fergie." was displayed at Old Trafford, and many journalists and supporters called for Ferguson to be sacked. Ferguson later described December 1989 as "the darkest period [he had] ever suffered in the game", as United ended the decade just outside the relegation zone. However, Ferguson later revealed that the board of directors had assured him that they were not considering dismissing him. Although naturally disappointed with the lack of success in the league, they understood the reasons for the sub-standard results (namely the absence of several key players due to injury) and were pleased with the way that Ferguson had reorganised the club's coaching and scouting system."
"1990-91: Following a run of seven games without a win, Manchester United were drawn away to Nottingham Forest in the third round of the FA Cup. Forest were performing well that season and were in the process of winning the League Cup for the second season running, and it was expected that United would lose the match and Ferguson would consequently be sacked, but United won the game 1—0. United went on to win the FA Cup, beating Crystal Palace 1—0 in the final replay after a 3—3 draw in the first match, giving Ferguson his first major trophy as Manchester United manager."
So. four and a half years of largely rubbish and disappointment on the field before a trophy. For a club the size of United. And the rest is history.
Any chance some of the so called keyboard experts on here might just shut up and support the club, the owners, the manager and the team instead?
|  | | |
| Good piece in the Guardian. on 13:09 - Oct 21 with 1338 views | derbyhoop |
Clive shouldn't have to defend himself when an article takes selected comments from an interview that distorts the true feelings.
Because it's a results business Hughes' position looks precarious to the outside media, but the majority of fans are relaxed about the situation - at the moment.
After 8 games we will have played Chelsea, Spurs and Man City plus Everton and West Brom who have both started extremely well. The 2 home defeats are obviously the bad results but we are still the ONLY Premiership side to take points off Chelscum. |  |
| Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the Earth all one’s lifetime. (Mark Twain)
Find me on twitter @derbyhoop |
| |
| Good piece in the Guardian. on 13:11 - Oct 21 with 1329 views | TacticalR |
Most of us crave stability.
Although the Manchester United board did well to stick by Ferguson, using Ferguson and Manchester United as an example for everyone else is not that useful because:
1) Manchester United can attract the best managers, with an established record of success.
2) Ferguson had worked miracles with Aberdeen in Scotland, taking them to the title and eventually to victory over Real Madrid in the European Cup Winners' Cup in 1983, so was a proven winner.
3) Manchester United were very unlikely to get relegated.
And do you think Aston Villa should have stuck with Alex McLeish? |  |
| |
| Good piece in the Guardian. on 14:19 - Oct 21 with 1236 views | WatfordR |
| Good piece in the Guardian. on 13:11 - Oct 21 by TacticalR |
Most of us crave stability.
Although the Manchester United board did well to stick by Ferguson, using Ferguson and Manchester United as an example for everyone else is not that useful because:
1) Manchester United can attract the best managers, with an established record of success.
2) Ferguson had worked miracles with Aberdeen in Scotland, taking them to the title and eventually to victory over Real Madrid in the European Cup Winners' Cup in 1983, so was a proven winner.
3) Manchester United were very unlikely to get relegated.
And do you think Aston Villa should have stuck with Alex McLeish? |
Ferguson at United is a great example, exactly because it shows what can be achieved by sticking by a manager and giving him time and support. Wenger at Arsenal has given the club stability, and meets his board's target of Top Four every year. Martinez at Wigan has performed a miracle keeping them up. Dario Gradi at Crewe kept them in at least one division if not two higher than they should be during his tenor. That's just off the top of my head, I'm sure there are more examples.
Regards your specific points:
1. United did not have an established record of success when Ferguson was appointed. Think of Liverpool now compared to United now, and you'll get the idea. Appointing Ferguson then was a similar step to the one Liverpool have taken in appointing Rodgers now, they were taking a gamble on potential. Results and achievements in his first four and a half years as manager would have seen him fired by almost every success hungry owner in the Prem now.
2. Any muppet can look good in Scotland if they manage or play for Celtic or Rangers. Strachan, Smith, McLeish, Lennon, Mowbray, Burns, Souness. The list is endless.
3. United did indeed get relegated in 1974, just twelve years before Ferguson was appointed. The top flight was very very different in terms of protectionism in those days. | | | |
| Good piece in the Guardian. on 15:34 - Oct 21 with 1131 views | TacticalR |
Your points are all true.
What's nagging away at me is this:
Isn't it easy for the rich and successful clubs to say all the other clubs 'we have stuck with our manager, therefore we are rich and successful'?
But isn't the reality the other way round? Because they are rich and successful they are able to attract the best managers?
By far and away the three most successful clubs in British footballing history have been Liverpool, Manchester United, and Arsenal. You have mentioned Ferguson and Wenger, who work at two of those clubs.
I suppose what's bothering me is that it's easy to say things like 'expensive clothes are better than cheap clothes, because they last longer', and who could disagree? So why do people buy cheap clothes? Are they just perverse people? In other words, while all those things are true, they don't really *explain* anything.
On top of that doesn't it also mean that the rich and successful can not only have everything, but feel good about having it and lecture to everyone else at the same time too?
And do you think Aston Villa should have stuck with Alex McLeish?
OK, I know I'm rambling. | |
| |
| Good piece in the Guardian. on 15:56 - Oct 21 with 1093 views | WatfordR |
| Good piece in the Guardian. on 15:34 - Oct 21 by TacticalR |
Your points are all true.
What's nagging away at me is this:
Isn't it easy for the rich and successful clubs to say all the other clubs 'we have stuck with our manager, therefore we are rich and successful'?
But isn't the reality the other way round? Because they are rich and successful they are able to attract the best managers?
By far and away the three most successful clubs in British footballing history have been Liverpool, Manchester United, and Arsenal. You have mentioned Ferguson and Wenger, who work at two of those clubs.
I suppose what's bothering me is that it's easy to say things like 'expensive clothes are better than cheap clothes, because they last longer', and who could disagree? So why do people buy cheap clothes? Are they just perverse people? In other words, while all those things are true, they don't really *explain* anything.
On top of that doesn't it also mean that the rich and successful can not only have everything, but feel good about having it and lecture to everyone else at the same time too?
And do you think Aston Villa should have stuck with Alex McLeish?
OK, I know I'm rambling. |
The rich clubs are rich because they are bigger clubs who were able to throw their weight around with the FA back in the days when they were constantly rumbling on about breaking away to form a super league. Thus got the rule abolished that gave away teams 25% of the take from home team receipts.
Back then, the "Big Five" were United, Liverpool, Arse, Spurs and Everton. It's no coincidence IMO that the three who have constantly changed managers since then (other than Everton in recent years with Moyes) have fallen some way behind United and Arse. Huge injections of capital have allowed Citeh and the Scum to step ahead of them.
As I said above, anyone can look good in Scottish football, and McLeish was one of those I mentioned. He made a mess of the job at Brum, and then was inexplicably invited to do the same at Villa. | | | |
| Good piece in the Guardian. on 15:25 - Oct 24 with 876 views | TacticalR |
But once Alex McLeish *was* inexplicably invited to Villa, should they have stuck with him? | |
| |
| Good piece in the Guardian. on 15:36 - Oct 24 with 843 views | DylanP |
| Good piece in the Guardian. on 08:56 - Oct 21 by Northernr |
No it's a good piece and does reflect my views. But when you wake up and find other QPR fans sending you this on Twitter...
"@loftforwords your a fcking idiot. Keep your mouth shut. #fanmybllocks. #selfpromtingtwt"
You sometimes feel the need to clarify! |
To be fair, "fanny-bollocks" is a great way to describe you ... oh wait ... it says"fan-my-bollocks". Sorry, my bad!! He thinks you are a fan of his bollocks??!?!?! Ooo-er!
Sorry, I couldn't help myself there!!
Anyhow, back to the topic. QPR needs stability. That is the basic fact. Looking at our players, we know that we have the talent, now we need the conditions to be right to reach the potential that all that talent holds - and time and stability are two of the key factors.
Whoever it was that said they would be unhappy if Park starts at the weekend -- I would be surprised if he didn't start, so we might as well go ahead and start the suicide watch now. As we all know, Hughes tends to go defensive away from home and against the bigger clubs. Saturday's game counts as both. I would expect the midfield to be Park, Faurlin, and Granero, with Hoilett and Adel just in front and then Zamora. Hopefully, the SWP experiment has been finally laid to rest. At this point, SWP should be a late injection of speed, when defensive legs are tired -- and that is it (personally, I would play Mackie in that role before SWP, but I aint manager).
I would be much more disappointed to see SWP on the teamsheet that Park. I don't think Park has done much wrong. It is true that he doesn't add the same flash as others and hasn't shown anything spectacular. But that is kinda what I expected of him. He was good at Manure, but not really a spectacular player. [Post edited 1 Jan 1970 1:00]
|  |
| |
| Good piece in the Guardian. on 15:46 - Oct 24 with 813 views | TacticalR |
Deciphering twitter insults is obviously something of a fine art. | |
| |
| Good piece in the Guardian. on 17:03 - Oct 24 with 729 views | PinnerPaul |
Hughes doesn't know his best 11, in or out of context is a completly non sensical remark along with "he has his favourites."
All managers pick the best (in their opinion) 11 before each match.
On that day that is their best team, all 11 "favourites" of them.
Its what they are paid for and what every manager does.
Except for MH's detractors other manager's changes are astute tactical adjustments, whereas MH "doesn't know his best team"
| | | |
| Good piece in the Guardian. on 17:13 - Oct 24 with 715 views | Northernr |
| Good piece in the Guardian. on 17:03 - Oct 24 by PinnerPaul |
Hughes doesn't know his best 11, in or out of context is a completly non sensical remark along with "he has his favourites."
All managers pick the best (in their opinion) 11 before each match.
On that day that is their best team, all 11 "favourites" of them.
Its what they are paid for and what every manager does.
Except for MH's detractors other manager's changes are astute tactical adjustments, whereas MH "doesn't know his best team"
|
Ahh Paul, can always rely on you. If I said today was a day with a Y in it you'd find a way to disagree.
"All managers pick the best (in their opinion) 11 before each match."
And if that 11 changes both in personnel and in shape before every match over three months and you win none of them then I think it's pretty fair to say the manager doesn't know exactly what his best starting 11 is.
He thought he knew what it was before Swansea. He thought it was a 4-1-4-1 with Diakite in a holding midfield position and Cisse as the lone striker with support from Taarabt, but he was wrong. It was a disaster. He thought after Spurs and Chelsea that it was a 4-4-2 with Faurlin and Granero in midfield and then West Ham took us apart so he was wrong. He thought it was a 4-1-4-1 with Mbia holding midefield before West Brom and so on.
If he knows his best starting 11 why is it changing every week? Why is the shape of the team changing every week? [Post edited 1 Jan 1970 1:00]
| | | |
| Good piece in the Guardian. on 17:22 - Oct 24 with 703 views | TW_R |
| Good piece in the Guardian. on 17:03 - Oct 24 by PinnerPaul |
Hughes doesn't know his best 11, in or out of context is a completly non sensical remark along with "he has his favourites."
All managers pick the best (in their opinion) 11 before each match.
On that day that is their best team, all 11 "favourites" of them.
Its what they are paid for and what every manager does.
Except for MH's detractors other manager's changes are astute tactical adjustments, whereas MH "doesn't know his best team"
|
So why did he pick SWP for all the games and then just suddenly drop him?
Or why does he play with 1 upfront against Spurs and, after playing really well, decide to play 2 upfront against West Ham?
Why did Taraabt not start a game for so long?
The fact is, we haven't played the same 11 once this season. That's why people say MH "doesn't know his best team". If he knew his best team, he wouldn't keep making changes. He doesn't stick with a set formation and he doesn't stick with set personnel. Hardly non-sensical.
Where are these "astute tactical adjustments"? What games have we achieved anything in using his "astute tactical adjustments"? The fact is, there haven't been any. In fact I think he is very slow to react to certain situations on the pitch. 2-0 down at home to West Ham and it takes 60 minutes for him to realise our best creative player is on the bench.
Edit - Yeah - and what Northern said! [Post edited 1 Jan 1970 1:00]
|  | | |
| Good piece in the Guardian. on 17:32 - Oct 24 with 680 views | Jamie |
I think Hughes does know what his best 11 is and the way he'd set them up but between injuries, form and Park he's been backed into a corner whereby it hasn't been possible.
The panicked tinkering so far though has been disappointing. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
