|
Post by blueeyedcptcook on Nov 21, 2012 7:49:10 GMT
|
|
|
Post by cpr on Nov 21, 2012 8:24:07 GMT
The fat bearded West Ham blogger might be one of Hughes' mates. Sacking Hughes might not add up The problem for Tony Fernandes at Queens Park Rangers, and for all owners, is that the only way to build a club is to place faith in a coach and his vision. Invariably, this means an equal investment in players, staff and the remodelling of academies and training facilities. In terms of results, there is no indication this season that Rangers are going to turn around under Mark Hughes, so continued support now is merely a leap of faith. In training: Hughes puts his squad through their paces on Tuesday as his future hangs in the balance Yet the alternative, to remove Hughes and his entourage and start again, is fraught with expense and difficulty with no certainty of alleviating the crisis, either. West Ham United stuck with Avram Grant and went down, West Bromwich Albion sacked Roberto Di Matteo and stayed up. Wigan Athletic kept Roberto Martinez and stayed up, Wolverhampton Wanderers dismissed Mick McCarthy and went down. The only concrete guarantee is that the cost of replacing the manager, his backroom boys and overhauling the squad twice in one season is horrific. This alone may be what buys Hughes the time to turn Rangers around. Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-2235979/Luis-Suarez-win-Footballer-The-Year-Award--Martin-Samuel.html#ixzz2CqN9mPJg Follow us: @mailonline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
|
|
Sabas
Dave Sexton
Posts: 2,349
|
Post by Sabas on Nov 21, 2012 9:39:09 GMT
Just sources on twitter who are usually reliable about QPR info. Hence reason why I said 'apparently' and 'if true'. Club are not exactly going to issue him an ultimatum and then go public with it though, are they. No, but why not. By using Aesopian language the owners can say a lot actually.
|
|
|
Post by harlowranger on Nov 21, 2012 10:09:26 GMT
The fat bearded West Ham blogger might be one of Hughes' mates. Sacking Hughes might not add up The problem for Tony Fernandes at Queens Park Rangers, and for all owners, is that the only way to build a club is to place faith in a coach and his vision. Invariably, this means an equal investment in players, staff and the remodelling of academies and training facilities. In terms of results, there is no indication this season that Rangers are going to turn around under Mark Hughes, so continued support now is merely a leap of faith. In training: Hughes puts his squad through their paces on Tuesday as his future hangs in the balance Yet the alternative, to remove Hughes and his entourage and start again, is fraught with expense and difficulty with no certainty of alleviating the crisis, either. West Ham United stuck with Avram Grant and went down, West Bromwich Albion sacked Roberto Di Matteo and stayed up. Wigan Athletic kept Roberto Martinez and stayed up, Wolverhampton Wanderers dismissed Mick McCarthy and went down. The only concrete guarantee is that the cost of replacing the manager, his backroom boys and overhauling the squad twice in one season is horrific. This alone may be what buys Hughes the time to turn Rangers around. Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-2235979/Luis-Suarez-win-Footballer-The-Year-Award--Martin-Samuel.html#ixzz2CqN9mPJg Follow us: @mailonline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook Both Wigan and Wolves will have more points than what we have after 19 games at Christmas though . Wigan had 15 points Wolves had 17 points My guess is we will have far less than that after 7 more games.
|
|
Sabas
Dave Sexton
Posts: 2,349
|
Post by Sabas on Nov 21, 2012 10:16:23 GMT
MH - "If I dress Ephraim in yellow, maybe he'll start playing like someone from Norwhich..." while Ehmer, Hoilett and Hogan observe SWP training.
|
|
ingham
Dave Sexton
Posts: 1,896
|
Post by ingham on Nov 21, 2012 10:20:18 GMT
Maybe the Board would do well to consider why Hughes isn't working out before they start fantasising about some other improbable 'saviour'.
How many managers really work out? Fulham are 'stable', but get through a remarkable number of managers, like Chelsea. Apart from Ferguson - and Wenger, which is a very unusual situation - managers do all right for a while, then it goes 'wrong'.
But that 'win-win-win' mentality plays them false. We come to believe that winning is some kind of norm. So the machine isn't working properly if we lose.
It is. The machine is designed to produce a superabundance of failure. Winning for one means defeat for another. And there isn't a mechanism big enough to lever all the other Clubs into conveniently losing just the QPR games, so we can deceive ourselves that each new manager is a wonder-worker.
For us to win, they must lose. If we owned them, fine. Come to think of it, if Hughes managed them all, they would.
But from any individual club's point of view, almost all the money and almost all the resources - players, crowds, and things like luck - are at other with all the other Clubs. And we get our players and managers from those other Clubs.
Once they've found out that they were useless for their own purposes. Or once the manager decided that Fulham were less 'ambitious' than QPR.
We get just a tiny portion of what's available in terms of talent, money, and the luck that ensures that decisions go our way.
But our way of thinking turns the pyramid upside down, and assumes we have the strength and skill to balance the entire league on our fingertip exactly the way we want, when there's no chance of that at all.
Even decent, lower-league managers like Holloway and Warnock move around a lot. Other clubs quickly tire of them once they're not winning. Or the managers move on, hungry for new challenges which are usually no different to the old ones.
The absurdity of telling ourselves that we can make everything go our way all the time - which is what manager sacking implies - makes it impossible for restless directors to recognise reality when they see it.
They might build on that. But they can't face up to it. They know nothing. The Club has very little going for it. What it does have is routinely squandered through indifference or incompetence.
Even supporters talk as if a small Club should be tucked in nicely behind the bigger ones, at the very worst. The legendary goal of 'mid-table', which means, effectively, the giants at the very top, then most of Newcastle, Villa, Everton, Liverpool and Spurs, say.
And then us.
We might 'settle for' 4th from bottom now, but only because Hughes has done so badly.
Not that we are alone. One reason there is always an opportunity to overperform a little is that all the other clowns are busily promoting the same delusion for one reason or another.
Assuming that the bad years are an aberration, rather than perfectly normal. And certainly not a lesson to learn. Not a challenge to overcome. But just something you can finesse away by bribing a 'manager' and a more or less random bunch of players - merely whoever happens to be available at the time, unwanted, essentially, by other clubs - to do the job.
So we get ourselves into a mindset where a manager's bad run is some kind of freakish anomaly, not something to be expected because, like the directors, he just isn't in control.
OK, we can probably do better than Hughes. But for how long will Hughes's successor do 'better', before he is scrapped?
The days when smaller Clubs overperformed impressively are gone. There are smaller Clubs like ours in the top flight because there are more places in the top flight than the bigger Clubs can fill.
Be careful what you wish for, they say. Try to understand how the game works, I would say.
A Club which did that, and forgot about the 'business plan' and all the other nonsense - it might be dangerous.
|
|
Sabas
Dave Sexton
Posts: 2,349
|
Post by Sabas on Nov 21, 2012 11:06:59 GMT
Managing a club isn't a witchcraft designed on chance, it involves real skills.
Let's be honest - we haven't played any real good quality football in the Premiership (in recent years) - neither under Warnock, nor Hughes.
While fellow ex-Championshipists Swansea, Norwhich, West Ham, Southampton at times manage to look brilliant effortlessly. Spending, constructing their squad wisely - having an actual plan - off and on the pitch.
So - was our Championship winning season a fluke? How could we lose the plot so spectacularly; how did we turn into THIS? Selling shirts, building planes and playing reality-show football...
|
|