Palace have just got promoted with a side that, after deducting murray and zaha, zaha of-which pretty much single handedly got them through the play offs, you would bet on matching derbys magical total.
Then there's hull who got promoted automatically even after losing 15 games.
Then cardiff, who are poor champions. However, their just-above-mediocre performances have been a hell lot more consistent than the other 23 teams in this division.
Question is, does anyone see any of these teams lasting more than a season?
Even though i think the teams entering the championship wont be anything to worry about, this season has seriously lacked any of the sunderland-newcastle front runners and if we got things together 7 games earlier, things could have gone alot differently. We'll be competing with teams like bolton and ipswitch, along with watford, fester, maybe QPR, maybe brighton if they dont keep internally imploding.
Oh well. To next season, which should be red and white
The promoted sides
posted on 28/5/13
Rev, maybe it's because he played for Man U that he keeps getting jobs.
posted on 28/5/13
Think you might've nailed it there Jacko. Ince and Hughes are both shocking but both get work.
posted on 28/5/13
I'm sure being ex United helps but so does being a world class player who won trophies. Ince can probably do a job at a league one side but he's very limited. Hughes isn't as bad as you say SHH. He was poor at QPR and average at City. His other jobs have been decent. All managers go through bad patches. Before this season no one wanted Steve Bruce but he's done a great job with Hull. You could say all the things about him that is said about Hughes and Ince. Sometimes it doesn't work out and other times managers are a good fit. Maybe Hughes will be good at Stoke.
posted on 29/5/13
I genuinely don't see any evidence of him being a good manager. He was poor at QPR, City, Fulham. He had one very good season at Blackburn, but that was it. Okay, he did reasonably well for Wales but expectations were different there and his failure looked like success. Plus, the Fulham debacle proved he is completely devoid of loyalty.
Steve Bruce is different - there's always been something about him as a manager. Boring git, but he was unlucky at Sunderland and looked good elsewhere.
posted on 29/5/13
Was Hughes that bad at Fulham? I agree his behaviour at the end of that season was lacking in class but I thought he finished the season quite well and they wanted to keep him. They finished 8th that season which seems above average for a team like Fulham. Can't really credit him for getting into Europe via the fair play rules though!
As for Bruce, I seem to remember him behaving pretty poorly when leaving Wigan after two months to join Palace. He also has had some poor seasons over his career.
posted on 30/5/13
Ha ha. Not saying this proves me right, cos obviously it's all opinion, but just thought I'd share it: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/22710396
Anyone who rates Hughes want to take a bet with me that if he lasts a season at Stoke, they'll finish lower than they ever did under Pulis?
posted on 30/5/13
It's weird when your club appoints a manager that you reckon is useless. You want him out but kicking off, booing and moaning isn't going to help anyone. It's a pretty rubbish situation as a football fan.
I had it with Cotterill. I just couldn't understand why on earth we gave him the job and why people didn't think he was as bad as I did (I kicked off and moaned about it) At least with McLeish on paper you could make an argument that he was a step up. Having won promotion and trophies.
I can see where that Stoke fans coming from. But I don't think Hughes is as bad as some say. I'd say it's 50/50 if he'll be better or worse thsn Pulis. Unless you're getting one or two of the best in the world, all managerial appointments are a gamble to some extent.
posted on 30/5/13
Yeah, it was a horrible feeling with McLeish. That was one of my least enjoyable feelings as a football fan because I just knew he was going to be a failure and I really couldn't stand the man.
The Stoke one is weird - why get rid of Pulis unless you were going top get better in or go in a different direction. For me, Hughes is just a worse version of Pulis.
posted on 30/5/13
SHH, he's on a hiding to nothing isn't he?! Like Benitez at Chelsea who's done a fairly decent job really. If Gus Hiddink had come back as interim manager and won the Europa league and got them to 3rd in league he would have been a heroe. Not to mention getting Torres back to some decent form. Also Steve Kean was never going to succeeed at Blackburn even though he was doing a good job in the Championship.
Hughes will have to do better than Pulis to win them over and that won't be easy. It's ironic that they sacked Pulis because the apparently the fans have had enough of the negative long ball tactis, even though he established them as a Prem side. Yet Hughes could coem in play nicer looking football (which is unlikely in itself) and finish lower in the table and be criticised for it.
posted on 30/5/13
I get your point about Benitez and kean, but think they're very different situations. Benitez always knew he was interim manager and he has a very different standing in the game - he's won so much. And Kean was just a nobody who took a chance to make the jump. If he succeeded, great - if he failed he was back to where he started.
It could be very bad for Hughes, though. If he gets involved in a proper relegation scrap with them then there's not gonna be many clubs that'll take him after.
The Pulis thing is very odd. I'm friends with a very big family of Stoke fans and not one of them wanted him gone, and they claim not have known a single other fan who did either. He never finished below 14th, which I think's pretty amazing for a team of their stature.