VillaChris Posted May 9, 2015 Share Posted May 9, 2015 Been thinking for a while why Mark Hughes dosen't get more credit as a manager. I think he's done a brilliant job at Stoke. Looking at when he took over after 7 years of Pulis I thought they'd really struggle but after a weak first few months of his reign I think he's also got them playing some excellent football, some of his signings like Diouf on a free, Bojan for about a million and Aranoutovic for 2m have been great pickups and you also need to remember they've lost key players to bad injuries this season. Odemwingie was injured in August and didn't return until two weeks ago, they lost Victor Moses in March for the season and Bojan in January so that's arguably their first choice attacking line up. Crouch can't start games atm either and Shawcross was out for a month. He's got them to 9th with a decent chance of overhauling Swansea in 8th. Are we just dismissing him because of a terrible few months at QPR? Even then he did initally keep them up before the obviously abysmal next season. Sometimes though if a manager moves 5-6 times in his career it's inevitable he'll just rock up at a club that's a bad fit for him and QPR was that. The Stoke job he's doing is akin to what he did at Blackburn when he had them finishing regularly in the top 7 and even the season at Fulham when they finished 8th I think. His spell at Man. City is imo very difficult to judge as you need to remember within two months of him taking over expectations there pretty much rocketed overnight in terms where they wanted to finish and he probably wasn't a good enough manager need to be trusted long term to deliever them. He still signed Kompany, Zabelata, De Jong though, all integral parts of the title wins. So yeah I think it's lazy when people just bracket him in with the likes of Pulis and Big Sam. He's spent a lot less money in recent years than Steve Bruce for example. I think he's got a bit more about him as a manager and with hindsight he'd have been a very good pick up for us around 2011. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arj Guy Posted May 9, 2015 Share Posted May 9, 2015 Most boring manager in the league imo. Doing a good job at Stoke though 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VillaChris Posted May 9, 2015 Author Share Posted May 9, 2015 Yes he's low key but that's just his nature. Probably another reason why it didn't work for him at Man. City, he wasn't comfortable being in the media spotlight after every result. I'm much rather watch a Mark Hughes team over a season than Pulis or Big Sam though. Stoke are decent to watch nowadays. I went to Stoke-Arsenal in December and they murdered Arsenal for an hour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted May 9, 2015 Share Posted May 9, 2015 Steady Eddie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoelVilla Posted May 9, 2015 Share Posted May 9, 2015 Think he is doing good at Stoke. He have made some very bad transfers in the past though. Lescott and the ones at QPR. Santa Cruz was a brilliant signing to make up for some of the mistakes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCJonah Posted May 9, 2015 Share Posted May 9, 2015 We should have hired him when we went for houllier. We'd have had a much more enjoyable 5 years. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VillaChris Posted May 9, 2015 Author Share Posted May 9, 2015 Think he is doing good at Stoke. He have made some very bad transfers in the past though. Lescott and the ones at QPR. Santa Cruz was a brilliant signing to make up for some of the mistakes. At Blackburn as Santa Cruz was probably his biggest disaster at Man. City. You have to remember in those early days Man. City were like kids in a sweet shop spending ridiculous amounts on players who were nowhere near elite level. Different ownership but Sven also blew a ridiculous amount on players the year before so they had a really unbalanced squad the first season Hughes was there and everyone demanding a top 4 finish. QPR was a disaster, no argument from me. It seems around that time he cut his ties with Kia Jorbacchin looking at the transfer deals at Stoke so that was a good decision for his managerial career. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted May 9, 2015 Share Posted May 9, 2015 He is a strange manager, done well on a budget at Blackburn, Fulham and Stoke. Given an unlimited budget and **** up QPR. Did OK at City and was unfairly treated He can spot a player and seems a goo motivator Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post MrDuck Posted May 9, 2015 Popular Post Share Posted May 9, 2015 Yes, its important to be able to motivate the goo 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont_do_it_doug. Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 Good manager. I think putting him in the same bracket as Big Sam is fair. Wasn't unfairly treated at City IMO. He was never going to be good enough for what they wanted to achieve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isa Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 We should have hired him when we went for houllier. We'd have had a much more enjoyable 5 years. He'd just been hired by Fulham. Should've gone for him after Houllier though when he clearly wanted the job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCJonah Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 We should have hired him when we went for houllier. We'd have had a much more enjoyable 5 years. He'd just been hired by Fulham. Should've gone for him after Houllier though when he clearly wanted the job. Ah I forget when he walked out on Fulham. Can't believe we went for McLeish when he was available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexbelowsound Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 I thought the story was that he'd pissed Lerner off by announcing we were in talks with him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 yeah I think I read that Lerner and Al fayed had some business relationship and he didnt like how he walked out on Fulham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexbelowsound Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2011/jun/16/mark-hughes-aston-villa As Alex McLeish entered into discussions with Aston Villa on Wednesday, angry fans must wonder why their club did not pursue Mark Hughes instead. The day after a managerial vacancy opened at Villa Park the former Wales manager exercised a break clause in his Fulham contract to leave the west London club. "This decision to leave Fulham has not been influenced by any outside party," Hughes said at the time. "Neither myself nor my representative have approached or have been approached by another club." That is of course not to say Hughes did not bat his eyelashes towards the former European Cup winners. Villa acknowledged it privately at the time, but were said not to have pursued him because they considered the manner of his departure unseemly. Yet Hughes's is as nothing against McLeish's resignation by email from Birmingham City to join Blues' bitterest rivals. So where did Hughes go wrong? Well, Digger hears Villa was the wrong bigger club for him to move up the managerial ladder. Fans at Fulham's last game of the season, which confirmed an eighth-place finish in the Premier League, saw Hughes receive short shrift from Mohamed Al Fayed during the chairman's lap of honour. It was clear then that theirs was not a match made in heaven. Unfortunately for any Villa ambitions Hughes may have harboured, Fayed is very close to Doug Ellis, who is still heard at Villa Park, and it is believed Fayed was asked to write a reference for the Welshman. Throw in the fact that Hughes is said to see himself enjoying a more generous budget than he received at Fulham (he did previously work for Sheikh Mansour) and it becomes clearer why he might have been overlooked in favour of McLeish. The Villa owner, Randy Lerner, is believed to be keen to reduce expenditure. For all these reasons Hughes misses out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 (edited) Do football managers actually need written references or is it just Randy Edited May 10, 2015 by Zatman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VillaChris Posted May 10, 2015 Author Share Posted May 10, 2015 Did anyone see the spending table MOTD put on last night when discussing him. Stoke only spent 8m this season, even less than us so I'd say he'd have accepted working under austerity here. Even back in 2011 we were still spending 4m on Hutton and 10m on CNZ so it hadn't yet been cut to what Lambert had to work with. We had a goalscorer in Bent and a reasonably solid defence with a few players he'd worked with before like Given, Dunney and Collins internationally. One day a Villa insider will write about what actually happened in summer 2011 and I will certainly buy that book no matter how much it costs. Sums up the complete lack of logic from the boardroom since 2010 that we don't appoint a manager because we don't like the way he's left his previous club....and then appoint a very unpopular one who resigns by email. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa89 Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 why Mark Hughes dosen't get more credit as a manager. Because he's an arsehole. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodders0223 Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 TBF he is a colossal prick. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomaszk Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 Last two posts really made me laugh. He is a bellend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts