Mark Hughes Quits Fulham

[Quiet Lion]

 
hilts_coolerking

You can point to theoretical flaws but the fact is that Benitez and Ancelotti are better managers than Mark Hughes by any objective measure.  If Hughes has not had the plum jobs they have had there is a reason for that.  If someone wants to offer a convincing argument in support of the claim that Hughes is as good as those two, if not better, then I'm willing to be persuaded.  Pointing out that he hasn't been at the clubs they have is not such an argument; it's mitigation for his lack of achievement.  Besides he did have a plum job at Man City, with megabucks to spend, and was bombed out in 18 months.

To be fair it is not a theoretical flaw, it is a gaping chasm in the validity of your argument. 

[hilts_coolerking]

When did I say that? I haven't even said he's better than CA or RF. I'm just saying that your theory, that the manager with the best CV or list of achievements is always the best, is not a fact. Am I right or wrong?

When did I say that?  What I said, before you grabbed hold of the wrong end of the stick with both hands, is that Ancelotti and Benitez are better managers than Mark Hughes.  Any objective measure will tell you that.  You've done nothing to prove that statement to be false and it appears you might even agree with it.  I said nothing about whether I consider them to be better managers than Guardiola, Shankley, Wenger et al.

If you don't agree with it, perhaps you could explain why you believe Mark Hughes is as good as or better than Benitez or Ancelotti.  You said yesterday you thought there might be a case for him being a better fit for the Villa job, given our current circumstances, than those two, but that is a different argument.

[hilts_coolerking]

To be fair it is not a theoretical flaw, it is a gaping chasm in the validity of your argument.

An argument to which you have as yet offered no reply.  Like I say, I'm willing to be persuaded by any convincing argument which sets out why Hughes is a better manager - or even just as good as - Ancelotti or Benitez but so far no-one has even tried.

[villa for life]

it's all personal opinion isn't it? A bit like with strikers - some people think those who score the most can be defined as the best and others think it is more complex than that..

[hilts_coolerking]

it's all personal opinion isn't it? A bit like with strikers - some people think those who score the most can be defined as the best and others think it is more complex than that..

Indeed but sometimes it is as simple as saying Darren Bent is a better striker than Brett Ormerod.

[Percy McCarthy]

To be fair it is not a theoretical flaw, it is a gaping chasm in the validity of your argument.

An argument to which you have as yet offered no reply.  Like I say, I'm willing to be persuaded by any convincing argument which sets out why Hughes is a better manager - or even just as good as - Ancelotti or Benitez but so far no-one has even tried.

Perhaps because no-one, as far as I can recall, has stated it.

You think, sorry, know, that CA and RF are better than Hughes. This is, according to you, what makes it a fact: their achievements, up to now, in the game. Have I got that right?

[eastie]

Ancelotti, Hughes, moyes and Benitez are all good condensers and each would do a good job- my worry is we might end up with mclaren and he is not in my opinion of the calibre of the other 4.

[Quiet Lion]

An argument to which you have as yet offered no reply.  Like I say, I'm willing to be persuaded by any convincing argument which sets out why Hughes is a better manager - or even just as good as - Ancelotti or Benitez but so far no-one has even tried.

  I am not arguing against what you are saying as such, just that method at which you arrive at your conclusion is flawed.     Not taking account of the clubs and situations managers find themselves in when assesing their merits means that what you are claiming as an objective measure is actually not. An analogy is watching how the fortunes of Formula One drivers change when the relative perfomace of their cars / teams change.

[villa for life]

Another analogy, the headmaster/mistress of a top private school gets better A level results than the local comp...
Who's the better headmaster/headmistres?
You can't tell, till you look at the "value added"

[hilts_coolerking]

Perhaps because no-one, as far as I can recall, has stated it.

You think, sorry, know, that CA and RF are better than Hughes. This is, according to you, what makes it a fact: their achievements, up to now, in the game. Have I got that right?

You took great exception to me stating last night that they are better managers than Hughes.  It seems logical to conclude that is because you disagree.

If you are now saying you don't disagree then fine.  I'm glad you've finally seen sense.  Although if you do agree, I'm puzzled as to why you apparently think their achievements (and Hughes's lack of) has little to do with it and would have to ask what you're basing it on.

If you do disagree, and you do think Hughes is as good a manager, or better, than Ancelotti and Benitez then perhaps you'd like to explain why you think that. 

[taylorsworkrate]

Ancelotti, Hughes, moyes and Benitez are all good condensers and each would do a good job- my worry is we might end up with mclaren and he is not in my opinion of the calibre of the other 4.

Help Randy sort all our debt into one manageable monthly payment.

[hilts_coolerking]

  I am not arguing against what you are saying as such, just that method at which you arrive at your conclusion is flawed.     Not taking account of the clubs and situations managers find themselves in when assesing their merits means that what you are claiming as an objective measure is actually not. An analogy is watching how the fortunes of Formula One drivers change when the relative perfomace of their cars / teams change.

So although you think the method is flawed, the conclusion is correct?  As I said, your argument about not having been at the same clubs, while correct, is not an argument that Hughes is as good a manager as Benitez or Ancelotti; it is a mitigation for his lack of achievement.  It does not indicate that had Hughes had the same opportunities as Ancelotti or Benitez, that he would have achieved the same as them.  He may have done, he may not; I have seen nothing outstanding in his career, no evidence of exceptional skill, to indicate he would have.

What I'm still looking for is a convincing argument that Hughes can be considered as good as or better than Ancelotti or Benitez.

[pauliewalnuts]

You think, sorry, know, that CA and RF are better than Hughes. This is, according to you, what makes it a fact: their achievements, up to now, in the game. Have I got that right?

Hey Perc, Rafa's a massive fan of zonal marking isn't he?

*wink*

[Quiet Lion]

I am not commenting on the conclusion. There would seem little point.

Personally I may think that Benitez is a fucking train wreck. He finished below Hughes last season they were in the Premier League together. You may point that the situation with the owners at Liverpool made things difficult for Rafa, I could then counter the point that the situation at City made it difficult for Hughes. I may see Rafa as damaged goods and Hughes as a future star of the game.

They key difference is you would claim your view point  is based on objective measures, while I undertand that without accounting for variables that are too many to detail it is essentially down to opions, and that you can compare appled to oranges all day long and you will never be talking from a position where the basis for your opinions are valid.

[Percy McCarthy]

Perhaps because no-one, as far as I can recall, has stated it.

You think, sorry, know, that CA and RF are better than Hughes. This is, according to you, what makes it a fact: their achievements, up to now, in the game. Have I got that right?

You took great exception to me stating last night that they are better managers than Hughes.  It seems logical to conclude that is because you disagree.

If you are now saying you don't disagree then fine.  I'm glad you've finally seen sense.  Although if you do agree, I'm puzzled as to why you apparently think their achievements (and Hughes's lack of) has little to do with it and would have to ask what you're basing it on.

If you do disagree, and you do think Hughes is as good a manager, or better, than Ancelotti and Benitez then perhaps you'd like to explain why you think that. 

I don't disagree, I just don't know. You say you do know, that's what I disagree with. My opinion is that perhaps Hughes might be a better Villa manager, and that's based on where we are as a club as much as on the respective merits of the candidates. If Randy is planning to get Ancelotti in and surround him with the kind of players he had at Milan, I'm with you. He's proved himself at that level. If the financial backing is going to be similar to what we've seen the last four years - and I'm not knocking it - I think Hughes - with his record of exceeding expectations wherever he's been - could maybe take us a couple of steps closer to a point where we could attract the kind of players and coaches that so-called elite clubs do.

You say 'by any measure' CA and RF are better. Here's a couple for you: exceeding expectations at low-to-middle ranking Premiership clubs; exceeding expectations at international level.