Mark Hughes Quits Fulham

[pauliewalnuts]

Dr. Um, please also note that many of the achievements that Ancelotti and Benitez have are from 5 or more years ago and Hilts is at pains to talk about who is best "now", not in the past and not in the future - RIGHT NOW

Even if you look at the last five years, Ancelotti still slips in a Champions League, a PL title, an FA Cup and a UEFA Super Cup.

In other words, barring league cups, Aston Villa's entire trophy haul for 80 odd years.

[Chris Smith]

With managers a lot of their work happens out of sight, they get judged on results - which are facts - far more than players do

Within the context of the targets they've been set. You only have to see the lack of consensus among a few people on this site to who would be better for us now to realise that is far more subjective than is being suggested.

[villa for life]

Pires won a hell of a lot in his time, too.

[hilts_coolerking]

Your whole reasoning is simplistic, it's been pointed out by far more patient men than me but you will accept no other view point. You have decided that more trophies automatically means better when it is only one of many factors. If you were a big enough man to accept that it is just your opinion and that others are also valid it would have nipped this whole boring exchange in the bud.

If you think Hughes is a better manager than Ancelotti or Hughes, and that I should reconsider what I know, then perhaps you would explain why.  Perhaps you can also explain what all these other factors are and why they mean that Hughes's career to date means he can be considered in the same class as Ancelotti and Benitez.

What other conclusion can be reached about their merits as managers, based on their careers up until now?  If I hear a convincing argument that Ancelotti and Benitez are no better than Hughes then I'm happy to be persuaded but so far there has been nothing offered.  If, as you say, other opinions of their relative merits are valid, let's hear them and put them to the test. 

So far, despite various people taking umbrage at me for saying I know it to be true, no-one has actually been bold enough to say that it isn't.  All there has been is unrelated arguments, i.e. that Hughes may be a better fit for the Villa job, given our current circumstances; or that one day Hughes may prove himself to be as good as Ancelotti and Benitez (without saying what leads them to believe that).

[Drummond]

Dr. Um, please also note that many of the achievements that Ancelotti and Benitez have are from 5 or more years ago and Hilts is at pains to talk about who is best "now", not in the past and not in the future - RIGHT NOW

Ancellotti won the league and FA Cup a year ago. He finished second in the league this time behind the team that have won it more than any other and four out of the last five years, that was classed as failing.

Benitez won the Italian Cup in August, he won the World Club cup in December, that's fairly recent and not long after he left as his team weren't doing so well in the league.

Hughes did ok though his team finished  a place lower in the league than his predecessor's and really the only club you could argue that perhaps he shouldn't have finished above was Villa.

[Chris Smith]

I don't think Benitez could have done as good a job with Wales as Hughes. I don't think Ancelotti could have got Fulham to 8th in the table last season. I wouldn't claim that either was unequivocal proof of superiority because it does not take in to account context. You think it is all 100% objective, I don't.

If by making a good job of managing a small department you get put in charge of larger one and are a success at that does that mean you have become a better manager or were you always good only didn't have the opportunities previously?

[hilts_coolerking]

Ancellotti won the league and FA Cup a year ago. He finished second in the league this time behind the team that have won it more than any other and four out of the last five years, that was classed as failing.

Benitez won the Italian Cup in August, he won the World Club cup in December, that's fairly recent and not long after he left as his team weren't doing so well in the league.

Hughes did ok though his team finished  a place lower in the league than his predecessor's and really the only club you could argue that perhaps he shouldn't have finished above was Villa.

Exactly right.  And yet stating that Ancelotti and Benitez are better managers than Hughes has inexplicably caused a fuss.

[Rancid custard]

I bet Ireland is rubbing his hands at the prospect of Hughes coming here... and if he does, we'll never get rid of him.

[Percy McCarthy]

It's stretching a point too far to keep this up because we differ as to whether the word "believe" or "know" should be used, surely? 

I tend to use the word 'believe' when I mean 'believe', and the word 'know' when I mean 'know' - saves confusion. You think you know but really you just believe, as with the careers of the candidates ongoing it's impossible to know and ridiculous to say that you do. Never mind, most seem to have worked that out now anyway.

[holtepaul]

Ancelotti has managed

Regianna, Parma, Juve , Milan and Chelsea

Now , from reading Wiki - he had success as EVERY club. Regianna - promoted, Parma 2nd , Juve 2nd, Milan League winners, Champs league winners, Chelsea league winners cup winners, 2nd.

success at EVERY club - in fact, with Ancelotti - finishing 2nd seems to be deemed a failure. And don't tell me he was at big clubs. all the teams he took over had won BUGGER ALL - and there was a reason he got the job - coz the predessor had been sacked ! - he then got those clubs challenging, which they wasn't before he came.

Benitez

Took over a good Valencia - WON the league , finished 5th, WON the league and Uefa Cup - thus maintaining success over 3 years, which means you cant just put it down to what he inherited. He then went to Liverpool, where he took over an OKish side, and they got to 5th and a cup final (better than we have acheived for a while) , he then WON the Euro cup mainly with the side he inherited granted, but then BUILT his own side and 5 years later pushed Man U to the final two weeks of the season.

Thus - sustained success over 5 yrs - building his side.

Hughes - over last 7 yrs

Wales - didn't acheive anything before jumping ship at first opportunity for Blackburn
Blackburn - got to 7th - then jumped ship as soon as as Man City offerred him a better opportunity
Man City - sacked after underperforming (open to debate I admit) but still spent nearly 100m and acheived nowt
Fulham - quit after one year as soon as (it appeared) an opportunity came
Villa ? - well if it is - 5th job in 7 years ?

So where is this evidence that Hughes is "better suited to Villa where we are now" - he has NO credentials for building sides - he has never stayed at anywhere long enough to build a team. it seems to me we are looking at the "possibility" with Hughes. Well if thats the case,we might as well get Alex McLeish ! - he has all the hallmarks of Hughes, only he has won things !

So - he isn't a "long term" manager, he hasn't built a side , he has never won anything

THAT is why he is not as good as Benitez and Ancelotti

I rest my case for the prosecution your honour !!!

[adrenachrome]

Your whole reasoning is simplistic, it's been pointed out by far more patient men than me but you will accept no other view point. You have decided that more trophies automatically means better when it is only one of many factors. If you were a big enough man to accept that it is just your opinion and that others are also valid it would have nipped this whole boring exchange in the bud.

If you think Hughes is a better manager than Ancelotti or Hughes, and that I should reconsider what I know, then perhaps you would explain why.  Perhaps you can also explain what all these other factors are and why they mean that Hughes's career to date means he can be considered in the same class as Ancelotti and Benitez.

What other conclusion can be reached about their merits as managers, based on their careers up until now?  If I hear a convincing argument that Ancelotti and Benitez are no better than Hughes then I'm happy to be persuaded but so far there has been nothing offered.  If, as you say, other opinions of their relative merits are valid, let's hear them and put them to the test. 

So far, despite various people taking umbrage at me for saying I know it to be true, no-one has actually been bold enough to say that it isn't.  All there has been is unrelated arguments, i.e. that Hughes may be a better fit for the Villa job, given our current circumstances; or that one day Hughes may prove himself to be as good as Ancelotti and Benitez (without saying what leads them to believe that).

I see what you are saying up to a point. If I was forced to construct a table based on who is the better manger, I would place Ancelotti and Benitez above Hughes. So I would agree with you.

But when trying to solve a specific problem the adjective "better" is vacuous outside of context, and it is the details that make up this context which is the real issue.  The foundation of this context is the relative strength of our current position, or where we are now: there is nothing like a consensus even on that on this forum.

For example, we have a large number of very promising youngsters. Those of us paying close attention have worked out that it is now a strategic policy that we must use this resource more than we have before. This does not mean that we will not shell out for a decent player: that is a false dichotomy. Even the most brilliant of all the best managers, if he wants to achieve his objective over a limited term, will be reticent to take the risks to do this. Why should he? By many criteria, Appy Arry rates higher than Hughes, but you sure as hell wouldn't want him to achieve this task.   

The big hitters would no doubt energise the fan base and provide some excitement, but they are unlikely to be suited to taking the risk of damaging their reputation by deserting the pragmatic methods which got them where they are.

I think Benitez might work, but then I thought GH might work, so what do I know.
 

[Rip Van We Go Again]

With managers a lot of their work happens out of sight, they get judged on results - which are facts - far more than players do

Within the context of the targets they've been set. You only have to see the lack of consensus among a few people on this site to who would be better for us now to realise that is far more subjective than is being suggested.

Chris, are you for Hughes?
Prior to Houllier's appointment you wanted someone to manage us who 'had a history of silverware'
Hughes doesn't fit that bill, unless you're counting his stupid fucking hair.

[KevinGage]

There have been plenty of managers appointed in the past based on glittering success elsewhere. Vialli at Watford, BFR at Coventry, Houllier to us and so forth.

Their past honours don't automatically transfer over to their new club.
Based on trophies only, Vialli was a better manager than Graham Taylor. But who was more suited to the Watford job and who ultimately achieved more based on that clubs targets?

I've nailed my colours to the mast as far as an Ancelotti or Van Gaal are concerned. If there is any possibility they would be interested we should exhaust all avenues.

But I can see where Percy and Chris are coming from and their argument certainly isn't without merit.

[Percy McCarthy]

Your whole reasoning is simplistic, it's been pointed out by far more patient men than me but you will accept no other view point. You have decided that more trophies automatically means better when it is only one of many factors. If you were a big enough man to accept that it is just your opinion and that others are also valid it would have nipped this whole boring exchange in the bud.

If you think Hughes is a better manager than Ancelotti or Hughes, and that I should reconsider what I know, then perhaps you would explain why.  Perhaps you can also explain what all these other factors are and why they mean that Hughes's career to date means he can be considered in the same class as Ancelotti and Benitez.

What other conclusion can be reached about their merits as managers, based on their careers up until now?  If I hear a convincing argument that Ancelotti and Benitez are no better than Hughes then I'm happy to be persuaded but so far there has been nothing offered.  If, as you say, other opinions of their relative merits are valid, let's hear them and put them to the test. 

So far, despite various people taking umbrage at me for saying I know it to be true, no-one has actually been bold enough to say that it isn't.  All there has been is unrelated arguments, i.e. that Hughes may be a better fit for the Villa job, given our current circumstances; or that one day Hughes may prove himself to be as good as Ancelotti and Benitez (without saying what leads them to believe that).

Your whole reasoning is simplistic, it's been pointed out by far more patient men than me but you will accept no other view point. You have decided that more trophies automatically means better when it is only one of many factors. If you were a big enough man to accept that it is just your opinion and that others are also valid it would have nipped this whole boring exchange in the bud.

If you think Hughes is a better manager than Ancelotti or Hughes, and that I should reconsider what I know, then perhaps you would explain why.  Perhaps you can also explain what all these other factors are and why they mean that Hughes's career to date means he can be considered in the same class as Ancelotti and Benitez.

What other conclusion can be reached about their merits as managers, based on their careers up until now?  If I hear a convincing argument that Ancelotti and Benitez are no better than Hughes then I'm happy to be persuaded but so far there has been nothing offered.  If, as you say, other opinions of their relative merits are valid, let's hear them and put them to the test. 

So far, despite various people taking umbrage at me for saying I know it to be true, no-one has actually been bold enough to say that it isn't.  All there has been is unrelated arguments, i.e. that Hughes may be a better fit for the Villa job, given our current circumstances; or that one day Hughes may prove himself to be as good as Ancelotti and Benitez (without saying what leads them to believe that).

God help us. The point is everything you say might be true. Apart from you saying that you know it is. Nobody can prove you wrong, because it is not a matter of fact, and they don't know either. But most people admit it.

Sorry about the quote mishap.

[hilts_coolerking]

I tend to use the word 'believe' when I mean 'believe', and the word 'know' when I mean 'know'. You think you 'know', when really you just 'believe', as with the careers of the candidates ongoing it's impossible to 'know' and ridiculous to say that you do. Never mind, most seem to have worked that out now anyway.

I know what I know; you evidently don't.  Anyway, you've totally missed the point again: what part of "careers to date" are you struggling with?  Whether in future, Mark Hughes goes on to be mentioned as the equal of Ancelotti and Moyes is not something I've made any definitive statement about.  You're the one who has brought that up, not me.  As you should know.