It's tempting to keep on going on about Mark Hughes. After some early scepticism I had become a big fan of his, and I think that he was been treated quite shamefully by the club hierarchy. His replacement was not just a bad decision, but one executed in a quite craven and cowardly fashion. But - there comes a point when this sort of thing is just useless. And we've got a very helpful example from just eighteen months ago.
When Eriksson was sacked I was distraught. Or, to be more precise, when it was announced that Eriksson was to be sacked I was distraught. After we lost 8-1 at Middlesbrough my sympathy for him largely dissipated. But it was such a disheartening way to end a season that I wasn't exactly fizzing with excitement for City in the summer of 2008. I was angry with Thaksin and, like many who shared my position, criticised Thaksin for thinking that he was 'bigger than the club.'
True enough. Thaksin himself made a bad decision, and also executed it in a craven and cowardly fashion. But - if one argues that no chairman or owner is bigger than the club, then surely an equivalent argument has to be made regarding managers. Just as our allegiance to City transcends any owner - whether Swales, Thaksin or Khaldoon - then surely the same is true of managers. The eternal, ineffable elements of the club - the fans, the colours, the traditions, the songs - are still there regardless of whether I happen to like the guy in the dugout or not.
Which is a long way of saying that as baffling and infuriating as the last week has been - and as preposterous as the decision was, even by the standards of decisions made by people running MCFC - it has no impact on my enthusiasm for the games against Stoke and Wolves, or on my hope that we might get to the Carling Cup final, or on my love of Nigel de Jong, or on my fear that Pablo Zabaleta might not be quite as solid as I first thought. If I can forgive Hughes for replacing Eriksson, I can certainly forgive Mancini for replacing Hughes.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
good for you our kid. when Hearts changed managers 24 times in 3 years *or whatever, I always thought, well, you know, it IS the owners money. seriously tho, although the timing of this is strange, I think they were hoping for MH to do slightly better than 'alright', if he was to convince them that last year was a transition, and not a bit of a balls-up.
at the time I said, wrong decision, right reasons... they quashed the notion that they were trigger happy, unrealistic, star struck kids in sweet shops... but they are now being called much worse...of course, it's how we go from here that matters. i hear rumours that Mancini achieving top 4 and thereby keeping his job would actually be a bit of a complication to the owners ;) crazy days, but either mancini achieves a minor miracle, or we are likely to pursue the kind of manager who has the credentials only the lunatic fringe could ignore (Capello, Mourinho, Wenger). still, I think that is the best kind of dilemma possible. instability can lead to disaster, but is mediocrity a price worth paying for stability ?
2010 is going to be even bumpier than 2009. But I go into it with renewed enthusiasm and hope.
happy christmas to you and yours, and to everyone reading this.
Preposterous decision? Have you got a loose one? I was sat watching the game last Saturday and feeling exactly the same as I had for most of the 38 years I gone to the games. All my enthusiasm sapped by Hughes' utter incompetence and looking forward to the summer when we could bring in a proper manager. Well done to our owners for acting decisively and getting rid of that awful manager and replacing him with a guy that knows the difference between a tactic and a tictac!
It's one thing to disagree with the decision, but to call it 'preposterous' is, well, preposterous. There were clearly excellent reasons to get rid of Hughes, not least the fact that despite spending £200m+ and having 18 months in the job, we were totally incapable of holding a lead and haplessly open defensively, allowing mediocre teams to get one on one with our defenders with ridiculous ease.
Again, there is an argument that Hughes deserved more time (though not, in my view, one that anyone who had watched our last 10 games could reasonably put forward). But to call the decision preposterous, and to equate what was a perfectly reasoned change of manager with something Swales might have done, is really letting emotion get in the way of reason.
You forgive Mancini?
Lonesome, you really are.
dpkmanc, this is a blog, therefore opinion. If JPB feels it is preposterous, that's a fair enough view rather than also preposterous; I personally agree with JPB in that the manner was (if not the final outcome), and that despite tactical failings we would still have made targets. It's a blog, so argue opinions yes, but that brings me to Johnny bloody Crossan. WILL YOU PLEASE PISS OFF. This is a blog. It is about opinions and feelings, simple facts are also easily come across. If you fully disagree with JPB's opinions, stop reading. Other people read this because we are interested, and more often than not agree, with JPB's opinions. Not because we want your shitty little comments rammed down our throats. If you think we give a shit what you think, start your own blog and make it more successful. Otherwise, stop slagging off JPB every chance you get. And stop referring to JPB as 'Lonesome'. It makes you look (most likely correctly) like a tit.
@Cityslacker
Hear, hear, well put.
Seriously, there's a right way to do things and a wrong way. You can still fire a person in a professional manner without being cold, crass, degrading or humiliating. It may indeed ultimately prove to be the right decision but it was the wrong time and executed in the wrong way.
For you, Johnny Crossan, to suggest that Hughes was afforded even a modicum of decency tells me that you reside in state of delusion so wonderfully constructed that no amount of psychedelic drugs could allow me to achieve the state of hallucination in which you currently find yourself.
The only area in which I disagree with CitySlacker is I think you're more than welcome to use any language you want to reveal yourself to be what many of us suspect you are. "Tit" seems to be a little too charitable at the moment.
a little christmas spirit would go a long way lads. time to move on from this, as rapidly as possible. we were split under thaksin, split under hughes, for godssakes let's bury the bloody hatchet and stop laying into each other over what has happened to people who are no longer part of the club. that means being reasonable, perhaps acknowledging that 'preposterous' was not an appropriate adjective to describe a decision a large portion of city fans, and pundits, basically agreed with. don't you see? it's just another way to belittle the opinions of people who happened to be on the other side of the debate to you.... 'controversial' would describe the situation neatly, 'doubtful' would stand as 'preposterous' without the self-righteousness, and 'disappointing' would seem to describing the blogger's feelings on the matter perfectly.
the method is another story altogether....
Was Mark up to the mark? That's the real issue. Getting rid of a manager is always a mess, especially in this case. But that's not the point. The point is that Mark was not inspiring confidence that he could really take City to the very top. And so the owners have changed him. Mess aside, this shows their intent to win the Champions League and nothing less. Yes, they have proved themselves ruthless, but that's what it takes to beat every other club in Europe and put that trophy in the cabinet. What else do City fans want? To be a club of nice losers? Or a club that wins?
And let's not be naive. Every since City have decided to become winners, the majority of the press has been dead set against them. The same press are now exploiting this change of manager event to attack the club further; they couldn't care less about Mark. They want to bring City down. And as far a being sorry for Mark, well I don't because he's going to make a few million out of the whole mediocre mess he made of managing.
OK Jack, you can take your fans and your songs and your colours all the way to the Conference - maybe next time we meet Gillingham we'll win without even needing penalties.
Me, I'll be watching this corrupt, venal, ruthless, badly run club all the way to winning the Champions League
CITY_SLACKER WROTE "that brings me to Johnny bloody Crossan. WILL YOU PLEASE PISS OFF. This is a blog. It is about opinions and feelings, simple facts are also easily come across. If you fully disagree with JPB's opinions, stop reading. Other people read this because we are interested, and more often than not agree, with JPB's opinions. Not because we want your shitty little comments rammed down our throats. If you think we give a shit what you think, start your own blog and make it more successful. Otherwise, stop slagging off JPB every chance you get. And stop referring to JPB as 'Lonesome'. It makes you look (most likely correctly) like a tit."
Your first excursion onto this blog and you feel impelled to devote a substantial part to me. I'm touched - Merry Christmas.
The story of Lonesome, sorry Lonely - I'll re-name him just for you - is a sad but familiar tale. Young southern-based City fan, cruising the Oxford common rooms, and then he falls in with a bad lot. Dear Henry Winter, racist and bigoted he may be, but a talented
poisoner nonetheless.The Telegraph think the world of him. Did you hear him at the Press Conference? First question to Mancini "Do you know the kind of people you'll be working for?" "Did you do any background checks on their character?"
Now he just wants to destroy City. And you my little sewer mouth, along with Lonely, are doing your best to help.
Quite a debut - almost Shintonesque.
Post a Comment