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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sign in if you want to comment
The promoted sides
Page 2 of 2
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.
Page 2 of 2