Mark Hughes Quits Fulham

[hilts_coolerking]

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.

The bases for my opinions are perfectly valid, supported as they are by objective analysis.  Valid enough, in fact, for you to agree with the conclusions.  But while we're on the subject of invalids, on what are you basing your opinion that Hughes is a 'future star of the game'.  What's he dones thus far to lead you to that conclusion?

[Quiet Lion]

I see I may have over estimated you.

[Percy McCarthy]

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*

Yes, although amazingly, that know-nothing incompetent who ripped the Villa off for four years somehow managed to fluke the Villa defence into doing it better than Rafa the genius did with Liverpool. But one particular expert poster on here thinks it's shit, so it's probably shit, whatever Rafa and the anti-Christ think.

[hilts_coolerking]

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.

So all this ridiculous toing and froing for the last 24 hours boils down to me saying "I know such and such" whereas you prefer to say "I believe such and such", and yet we both agree on the substance?  If you're not confident enough about your opinions (and I can't believe that's true of you) to say "I know such and such" and prefer to qualify it, that's fine but it's got nothing to do with me or how I express myself.  I'm happy with what I said and I'm 100% confident it's true.  As I've said (many times now) Hughes may or may not go on to prove himself to be a better manager than the other two, although it'll take more than a couple of reasonable finishes at lower league clubs to convince me of that.  Also, there is a case to say he may be a better fit for the Villa job than the other two, as things stand; I don't hold to that view myself and have said why.  I accept others think differently.  But as of today I know Ancelotti and Benitez are better managers than Mark Hughes.

For the life of me I can't understand why you've decided to cause such a fuss about this relatively minor point.

[hilts_coolerking]

I see I may have over estimated you.

I'm brighter than you think I am but not as bright as you think you are.

[villa for life]

hilts -you are getting some stick because of the last sentence in your post - to say that you "know" that Ancelotti and Benitez are better managers than Hughes is a huge claim. What's more, you not only claim that, you claim that you know that!

[Chris Smith]

I know that on current form Benitez is the worst of the three and that Hughes over achieved while Ancelotti was sacked for his performance.

[hilts_coolerking]

hilts -you are getting some stick because of the last sentence in your post - to say that you "know" that Ancelotti and Benitez are better managers than Hughes is a huge claim. What's more, you not only claim that, you claim that you know that!

As I've said to the rest, tell me why Hughes should be regarded in the same class as the other two.

[TheSandman]

I think we need to refer to this thread: http://www.heroesandvillains.info/forumv3/index.php?topic=43689.0

Is it a fact that Hughes is a poorer manager than Benitez, is it a perception or is it an opinion? My opinion is that it is an opinion. It is a valid opinion (I'm tempted to agree with it) as it can be supported by evidence but then so can the opposing view. My point is that for all the talk of Benitez being a better manager than Hughes and this supposedly being pointed to by all objective measures is false. Football is not scientific or objective. If it was Man United would win pretty much all their games as their team is so much better than other ones and betting on football would be a piece of piss. It is completely wrong to compare Hughes' performance at Blackburn to Rafa's at Liverpool or Carlo's at Chelsea. Different clubs, different times and differing dependent and independent variables. Therefore my opinion is that it is not an absolute truth.

However, I would rather have Ancelotti or Benitez as manager than Hughes. But I'm not absolutely sure I will prove to be right with Benitez. As my perception of him is that he may have lost it, that he is on his way down and may be bat shit mental which is why I cannot guarantee he would do a better job than Hughes and why if our board share my perception I can understand them going for Hughes instead of him. I find it harder to argue this about Ancelotti but maybe they believe he will be a better fit for Villa than him. I still think Hughes is a decent enough appointment which is why I am unhappy to see a lot of people dismissing his quality (by all means reject him on grounds of being an utter prick though!) as we can do so much worse.

However, the subject is about as academic as this post is long boring as I don't see Hughes being our new manager now.

[Ger Regan]

Can we go back to discussing spurs' accounts please?

[DeKuip]

hilts -you are getting some stick because of the last sentence in your post - to say that you "know" that Ancelotti and Benitez are better managers than Hughes is a huge claim. What's more, you not only claim that, you claim that you know that!

Exactly.

I THINK that Alex Ferguson is a better manager than Ian Holloway - but if both were given 12 months in charge of say Tamworth, Ian Holloway might well make a better job of it.

I would be happy with either Ancelotti or Hughes in charge of the Villa - but looking at the technically average squad the new manager will inherit no-one could say for sure which of those two would do a better job with them. It's all a matter of opinion and guesswork on our part, none of us KNOW.

[hilts_coolerking]

I think we need to refer to this thread: http://www.heroesandvillains.info/forumv3/index.php?topic=43689.0

Is it a fact that Hughes is a poorer manager than Benitez, is it a perception or is it an opinion? My opinion is that it is an opinion. It is a valid opinion (I'm tempted to agree with it) as it can be supported by evidence but then so can the opposing view. My point is that for all the talk of Benitez being a better manager than Hughes and this supposedly being pointed to by all objective measures is false. Football is not scientific or objective. If it was Man United would win pretty much all their games as their team is so much better than other ones and betting on football would be a piece of piss. It is completely wrong to compare Hughes' performance at Blackburn to Rafa's at Liverpool or Carlo's at Chelsea. Different clubs, different times and differing dependent and independent variables. Therefore my opinion is that it is not an absolute truth.

However, I would rather have Ancelotti or Benitez as manager than Hughes. But I'm not absolutely sure I will prove to be right with Benitez. As my perception of him is that he may have lost it, that he is on his way down and may be bat shit mental which is why I cannot guarantee he would do a better job than Hughes and why if our board share my perception I can understand them going for Hughes instead of him. I find it harder to argue this about Ancelotti but maybe they believe he will be a better fit for Villa than him. I still think Hughes is a decent enough appointment which is why I am unhappy to see a lot of people dismissing his quality (by all means reject him on grounds of being an utter prick though!) as we can do so much worse.

However, the subject is about as academic as this post is long boring as I don't see Hughes being our new manager now.

A good post.  One comment I would make though is that comparisons about performances at different clubs at different times can be made and are made, all the time.  And conclusions can be drawn and are drawn from them.  Otherwise you could substitute Hughes name for Glenn Roeder, Alan Ball or any other very poor manager and say exactly the same about him: i.e. you can't say Ancelotti and Benitez are better than Glenn Roeder because they haven't done the same jobs.  Meaning, you could never say that any one manager was better than any other.  Meaning there would be no pantheon of great managers, like those Percy referred to yesterday.  So (and I hesitate to say this because no doubt some bright spark will pipe up to the contrary) I think it's is perfectly possibile to say I know Matt Busby was a better manager than John Sitton, despite them coming from different eras, having been at different clubs and all the rest of it.

The grey area comes at the point at which you are no longer confident in being able to identify the gap between any two managers.  So I would say I know Ancelotti and Benitez are better managers than Mark Hughes, but I wouldn't say I know David Moyes is a better manager than Martin O'Neill, because I don't.

[hilts_coolerking]

I THINK that Alex Ferguson is a better manager than Ian Holloway - but if both were given 12 months in charge of say Tamworth, Ian Holloway might well make a better job of it.

And if Holloway did that, would you seriously begin to doubt your view that Ferguson is a better manager?

[Percy McCarthy]

 

  But as of today I know Ancelotti and Benitez are better managers than Mark Hughes.

For the life of me I can't understand why you've decided to cause such a fuss about this relatively minor point.

Well, IMO, it was you who caused a fuss by continuing to assert your opinion as fact, when there are countless examples that prove your logic to be flawed.

For instance, Christmas 1989, when the Man Utd fans at Villa Park were watching their team getting stuffed and singing 'Fergie, Fergie, on the dole', by your logic George Graham was a better manager than theirs. How did that 'fact' pan out?

As regards certain managers suiting certain jobs, who else could have took on the 'shambles' at the Villa in '87, with Doug Ellis as their boss, and leave us three years later as the second best team in the country, the only English team in Europe, with  players like McGrath, Yorke and Platt in the squad? That achievement was bordering on the miraculous IMO.

Were there better managers than Graham Taylor available? Maybe. Could anybody in the world done that particular job better? Well, I suppose that depends if you think somebody else could have won us the league. I'm pretty sure they couldn't, but I don't actually know.

[pauliewalnuts]

For instance, Christmas 1989, when the Man Utd fans at Villa Park were watching their team getting stuffed and singing 'Fergie, Fergie, on the dole', by your logic George Graham was a better manager than theirs. How did that 'fact' pan out?

At that point, George Graham was a better manager than Ferguson, though. That's the point.

Ferguson had lots of potential, which he went on to fulfill in spades, but at that point, he'd achieved comparatively little.

Mark Hughes may well go on to be a great manager, he might even top Ferguson's achievements, but at this point we don't know. There are thousands of examples of managers who have been ranked as very good when in the early stages of their career, but have gone on to achieve fuck all.

Looked at that way, i can see why people would use trophies won as a measure of managers, as that is fact - achievements in the bank, not achievements which you think might happen.

That was certainly the case when people on here spent four years telling us how meaningful O'Neill's two league cups and bunch of Scottish trophies were, anyway, although that seems not to be the case now.