If Hiddink was in charge....

[sandman]

I don't think Hiddink is any better than Hughes. He's won a few trophies in an easier league, who's to say Hughes couldn't? Pretty sure most managers worth their salt would've beaten Slovinia too.

Are the same people who want Hiddink the same people who said Sven was "too old" and had "lost his ambition"? Why does this not apply to Hiddink?

Don't get me wrong I'm not saying Hughes is the answer, but I have no idea why people think Hiddink is. He's only being touted because he's 'someone else' imo.

Its a bit early to be pissed isnt it, comparing the two as a football manager is like saying does Strawberry Sauce or French Mustard go better with ice cream?

It has already been pointed out that Hiddinck has acheived;
The European treble (Eredivisie, Dutch Cup and European Cup) with PSV Eindhoven;
Led South Korea to a fourth place finish in the 02 World Cup;
Got Netherlands to the same position in the 98 World Cup
Put Australia in the second round at the 06 World Cup, their (first appearance in over 30 years)
Led Russia to the semi-finals of Euro 08
Won the FA Cup this year with a previously poor Chelsea side.

Hughes has acheived bugger all over a quite a long period for 2 clubs and country!!

[Socrates]

I don't think Hiddink is any better than Hughes. He's won a few trophies in an easier league, who's to say Hughes couldn't? Pretty sure most managers worth their salt would've beaten Slovinia too.

Are the same people who want Hiddink the same people who said Sven was "too old" and had "lost his ambition"? Why does this not apply to Hiddink?

Don't get me wrong I'm not saying Hughes is the answer, but I have no idea why people think Hiddink is. He's only being touted because he's 'someone else' imo.

A team from an easier league that he managed to turn into EUROPEAN CHAMPIONS. Hiddink has a long record of successes and just the occasional failure. Hughes has no success at all. Of course Hiddink is superior. The reason I wouldn't be clamouring for him is indeed the age thing. I want a manager to deliver success over a long period. Hiddink would just be a stop gap.

[gilford]

I'm not necessarily saying Hiddink in, I'm just saying Hughes out! lol

[DoomMerchant]

I don't think Hiddink is any better than Hughes. He's won a few trophies in an easier league, who's to say Hughes couldn't? Pretty sure most managers worth their salt would've beaten Slovinia too.

Are the same people who want Hiddink the same people who said Sven was "too old" and had "lost his ambition"? Why does this not apply to Hiddink?

Don't get me wrong I'm not saying Hughes is the answer, but I have no idea why people think Hiddink is. He's only being touted because he's 'someone else' imo.

A team from an easier league that he managed to turn into EUROPEAN CHAMPIONS. Hiddink has a long record of successes and just the occasional failure. Hughes has no success at all. Of course Hiddink is superior. The reason I wouldn't be clamouring for him is indeed the age thing. I want a manager to deliver success over a long period. Hiddink would just be a stop gap.

who is it then, sir? Name your man.

cheers

[BlueinBosnia]

Hiddinck - proven at this level

Hughes - proven at Blackburn level

Thats the difference, we have a pretty good idea that Hiddink is good enough, no proof whatsoever that Hughes can, in fact quite the opposite.

Sorry, but what is "this" level? Dutch League? As I've said before, all Hiddink has won outside the Netherlands is European Cup once, 20 years ago, and the FA Cup with Chelsea last year. That isn't exactly 'proven' to me. I don't see anyone on here clamouring for Ljupko Petrovic, who has a pretty similar record.

[Vhero]

Hiddinck - proven at this level

Hughes - proven at Blackburn level

Thats the difference, we have a pretty good idea that Hiddink is good enough, no proof whatsoever that Hughes can, in fact quite the opposite.

This is exactly it mate Hughes has never proven his worth. He has made some shocking buys and although I am certainly not one of these people a few hold the fact he was a Rag against him still. He really hasn't done anything to stand out and say "Look I am the right man for the job" in fact he hasn't come near it.

Hold on hold on.... who has he bought that has played at least a half a season that you consider to be "shocking"?

Hughes has a lot of critics at the momemt and rightly so in some aspects, but the one thing that can definitely be said for him is his ability to operate in the transfer market. Every manager will sign some bad players from time to time, but I would argue that even if we do have to change managers, the players he has bought are almost all very good players (obviously TBH, Jo exceptions).

So I think you're probably pointing the finger at the likes of RSC who hasn't been given a chance yet... or worse still Tevez or Barry... or both...

Actually, just put me out of my misery and tell me who these "shocking" players are?

As for the OP - Any top four challenging manager who draws his last 3 home games will be under pressure, so Hiddink would be in the same boat. That said, I think there is more excitement when we don't win from the doom and gloomers that I don't think would be as venomous if it wasn't Hughes.

Alright I admit I over exaggerate with the word shocking but you have listed 2 yourself Jo and TBH are two terrible buys for the price. I admit Bellamy turned out a lot better than people thought he would and RSC still hasn't done anything which is obviously putting pressure on him.

[Socrates]

I don't think Hiddink is any better than Hughes. He's won a few trophies in an easier league, who's to say Hughes couldn't? Pretty sure most managers worth their salt would've beaten Slovinia too.

Are the same people who want Hiddink the same people who said Sven was "too old" and had "lost his ambition"? Why does this not apply to Hiddink?

Don't get me wrong I'm not saying Hughes is the answer, but I have no idea why people think Hiddink is. He's only being touted because he's 'someone else' imo.

A team from an easier league that he managed to turn into EUROPEAN CHAMPIONS. Hiddink has a long record of successes and just the occasional failure. Hughes has no success at all. Of course Hiddink is superior. The reason I wouldn't be clamouring for him is indeed the age thing. I want a manager to deliver success over a long period. Hiddink would just be a stop gap.

who is it then, sir? Name your man.

cheers

I want a manager that
a) can stay for a long time and build a dynasty
b) can successfully implement a stategy of playing good attack minded football
and c) has already won trophies as a manager

Hiddink fails on point a. Mourinho fails on point b and is doubtful on point a as he doesn't seem to stay long anywhere and leaves a bit of a mess behind

THe only 2 successful young managers that fit the bill are Mancini and Rijkaard. Mancini finally finished his contract with Inter recently and is definitely available now. Rijkaard could surely be tempted by our project, would be worth a try?

[lets all have a disco]

I don't think Hiddink is any better than Hughes. He's won a few trophies in an easier league, who's to say Hughes couldn't? Pretty sure most managers worth their salt would've beaten Slovinia too.

Are the same people who want Hiddink the same people who said Sven was "too old" and had "lost his ambition"? Why does this not apply to Hiddink?

Don't get me wrong I'm not saying Hughes is the answer, but I have no idea why people think Hiddink is. He's only being touted because he's 'someone else' imo.

A team from an easier league that he managed to turn into EUROPEAN CHAMPIONS. Hiddink has a long record of successes and just the occasional failure. Hughes has no success at all. Of course Hiddink is superior. The reason I wouldn't be clamouring for him is indeed the age thing. I want a manager to deliver success over a long period. Hiddink would just be a stop gap.

who is it then, sir? Name your man.

cheers

I want a manager that
a) can stay for a long time and build a dynasty
b) can successfully implement a stategy of playing good attack minded football
and c) has already won trophies as a manager

Hiddink fails on point a. Mourinho fails on point b and is doubtful on point a as he doesn't seem to stay long anywhere and leaves a bit of a mess behind

THe only 2 successful young managers that fit the bill are Mancini and Rijkaard. Mancini finally finished his contract with Inter recently and is definitely available now. Rijkaard could surely be tempted by our project, would be worth a try?

want a manager that
a) can stay for a long time and build a dynasty
b) can successfully implement a stategy of playing good attack minded football
and c) has already won trophies as a manager

[Dronny]

I don't think Hiddink is any better than Hughes. He's won a few trophies in an easier league, who's to say Hughes couldn't? Pretty sure most managers worth their salt would've beaten Slovinia too.

Are the same people who want Hiddink the same people who said Sven was "too old" and had "lost his ambition"? Why does this not apply to Hiddink?

Don't get me wrong I'm not saying Hughes is the answer, but I have no idea why people think Hiddink is. He's only being touted because he's 'someone else' imo.

A team from an easier league that he managed to turn into EUROPEAN CHAMPIONS. Hiddink has a long record of successes and just the occasional failure. Hughes has no success at all. Of course Hiddink is superior. The reason I wouldn't be clamouring for him is indeed the age thing. I want a manager to deliver success over a long period. Hiddink would just be a stop gap.

who is it then, sir? Name your man.

cheers

I want a manager that
a) can stay for a long time and build a dynasty
b) can successfully implement a stategy of playing good attack minded football
and c) has already won trophies as a manager

Hiddink fails on point a. Mourinho fails on point b and is doubtful on point a as he doesn't seem to stay long anywhere and leaves a bit of a mess behind

THe only 2 successful young managers that fit the bill are Mancini and Rijkaard. Mancini finally finished his contract with Inter recently and is definitely available now. Rijkaard could surely be tempted by our project, would be worth a try?

want a manager that
a) can stay for a long time and build a dynasty
b) can successfully implement a stategy of playing good attack minded football
and c) has already won trophies as a manager

What's he ever done for the Catalans!

[BlueinBosnia]

A team from an easier league that he managed to turn into EUROPEAN CHAMPIONS. Hiddink has a long record of successes and just the occasional failure. Hughes has no success at all. Of course Hiddink is superior.

Dutch teams have won the European Cup a total of 6 times. The same number as German clubs, 2 more than Portuguese, and 5 more than France. It's an easy league for the same reason Scotland is- a few teams have historically dominated (since 1964, the league has been won by only 4 different clubs- PSV, Fejenoord, Ajax & Alkmaar(only twice)). Of his 10 seasons managing in the Eerstedivisie, he failed to capture the league 4 times. Also, in the European Cup winning campaign, Hiddink's team failed to win a game in open play after the last 16 (quarters and semis on away goals, final on pens).

Failed with Russia. Big time.

Netherlands w/c 1998- lost third place to a country at its first international competition.

South Korea w/c 2002- should not have got so far. Lost to a team playing in their 2nd World Cup (the first being 1954).

Managed in Spain for 4 years. Won diddly squat (admittedly, he didn't see 2 seasons through, due to friction with the clubs' hierarchy).

[Socrates]

I don't think Hiddink is any better than Hughes. He's won a few trophies in an easier league, who's to say Hughes couldn't? Pretty sure most managers worth their salt would've beaten Slovinia too.

Are the same people who want Hiddink the same people who said Sven was "too old" and had "lost his ambition"? Why does this not apply to Hiddink?

Don't get me wrong I'm not saying Hughes is the answer, but I have no idea why people think Hiddink is. He's only being touted because he's 'someone else' imo.

A team from an easier league that he managed to turn into EUROPEAN CHAMPIONS. Hiddink has a long record of successes and just the occasional failure. Hughes has no success at all. Of course Hiddink is superior. The reason I wouldn't be clamouring for him is indeed the age thing. I want a manager to deliver success over a long period. Hiddink would just be a stop gap.

who is it then, sir? Name your man.

cheers

I want a manager that
a) can stay for a long time and build a dynasty
b) can successfully implement a stategy of playing good attack minded football
and c) has already won trophies as a manager

Hiddink fails on point a. Mourinho fails on point b and is doubtful on point a as he doesn't seem to stay long anywhere and leaves a bit of a mess behind

THe only 2 successful young managers that fit the bill are Mancini and Rijkaard. Mancini finally finished his contract with Inter recently and is definitely available now. Rijkaard could surely be tempted by our project, would be worth a try?

want a manager that
a) can stay for a long time and build a dynasty
b) can successfully implement a stategy of playing good attack minded football
and c) has already won trophies as a manager

I forgot d) that we have a cat in hell's chance of getting...

[BobKowalski]

That's the problem. No one knows! Hughes is still on his early steps in his managerial career and tactically looks like deer caught in the headlights on many occasions.

I really don't get this early steps in his managerial career bit. Hughes has been a top flight manager for 10 years now. Mourinho has been managing for 9 years. Hughes started with Wales. Mourinho effectively started with a mid table Portuguese side. Yet to hear people bang on about it you would think that this is Hughes first job in management and that Mourinho started way before him and got all the breaks.

Ok I agree Hughes looks like beginner compared to Mourinho but seriously early steps? How long do you want to give him? Into his fifties say?

[Original Dub]

Right so some really interesting points in this thread now:

Mourinho took over some mid-table team from Portugal and MADE them a top side domestic side? Bit insulting to what Porto had achieved before he came along IMO.

Rijkard and Mancini... hell, even Guardiola... all marquee managers that have never taken on the pressure of BUILDING a club INTO a top top club.

One of them might be able to do it. Hughes might be able to do it. The foreign managers that have come over to the premier league have been plenty, but few have broken the top four's stranglehold.... in fact, I'm struggling to think of one. The amount that did great things in other countries and came over and ultimately failed miserably...

At this stage I don't know the answer... we've come so far with Hughes that starting again with one of the ones mentioned would be a bigger risk IMO.... maybe in an ideal world someone like hughes could have been handed the club by someone like Hiddink who had taken us into the top four before retiring.... and then you could compare how hughes did when handed the same means these other managers were handed...

Its a telling time right now and like someone mentioned in one of the better articles I've read since our last match, its the results over the next few weeks that will determine how we look back at this run of draws... a couple of losses against Arsenal, Chelsea and one other and it will be confirmed we have hit a rut... a win against arsenal and even, ironically, a draw against Chelsea and another win and we're looking back on it as a slight wobble...

Confidence is what's lacking the most... soon we should find out whether its a lack of player management or the players themselves.

[BobKowalski]

Right so some really interesting points in this thread now:

Mourinho took over some mid-table team from Portugal and MADE them a top side domestic side? Bit insulting to what Porto had achieved before he came along IMO.

Mourinho started at Leiria who were a mid table side and got them to their best ever finish and then went to Porto on the back of that. Technicly Mourinho started at Benfica but left after a handful of games - new chairman/had row with Jose/Jose says bollocks to it and ups and leaves and went to Leiria. Standard stuff from Jose really :)

But its really about leadership, ability to inspire, confidence etc. Thats what you are buying in with people like Mourinho and Hiddink and seemingly Ancelotti so far. Its less about tactics and team selection which we can argue about until we are blue in the face but there is a reason why I don't get paid millions to manage a football team because I know jack shit about such matters. Will they always succeed at every job? No they won't. Jose may win back to back Serie A titles but he still may get the sack for not winning the CL so is he a failure? Judged on the criteria of why he was employed then yes he is but such failure is relative. Capello won La Liga with Real Madrid and was sacked. Still a good manager with a proven record though.

To be honest I am not interested in this dynasty crap either. Hire a top coach. Win some trophies, maybe even some of the big ones. He fucks off. We hire another top coach. Stir and repeat. Quite why we have decided the only 'proper' route to success is to have a manager for 20 years as if somehow this validates us and anything we win.

I don't know whether we are scared of employing a top line coach or that we are scared of sacking Hughes because he may go on to manage say Juventus or Barca amd win...yeak ok I couldn't type that with a straight face. Maybe its just because Hughes is in our comfort zone and is familiar to us He speaks our language about committment and effort and seems to hate taggert or whatever it is but we do seem to cling to him as if frightened of letting go.

[DoomMerchant]

Right so some really interesting points in this thread now:

Mourinho took over some mid-table team from Portugal and MADE them a top side domestic side? Bit insulting to what Porto had achieved before he came along IMO.

Rijkard and Mancini... hell, even Guardiola... all marquee managers that have never taken on the pressure of BUILDING a club INTO a top top club.

One of them might be able to do it. Hughes might be able to do it. The foreign managers that have come over to the premier league have been plenty, but few have broken the top four's stranglehold.... in fact, I'm struggling to think of one. The amount that did great things in other countries and came over and ultimately failed miserably...

At this stage I don't know the answer... we've come so far with Hughes that starting again with one of the ones mentioned would be a bigger risk IMO.... maybe in an ideal world someone like hughes could have been handed the club by someone like Hiddink who had taken us into the top four before retiring.... and then you could compare how hughes did when handed the same means these other managers were handed...

Its a telling time right now and like someone mentioned in one of the better articles I've read since our last match, its the results over the next few weeks that will determine how we look back at this run of draws... a couple of losses against Arsenal, Chelsea and one other and it will be confirmed we have hit a rut... a win against arsenal and even, ironically, a draw against Chelsea and another win and we're looking back on it as a slight wobble...

Confidence is what's lacking the most... soon we should find out whether its a lack of player management or the players themselves.

it's really always both from my perspective. Saying that a manager has all the right pieces and the players are just not getting it done is as damning to the manager as anything else you can say. If your teams can't or won't play for you or within your plan or program then you're well and truly fucked.

cheers

[Vhero]

Dutch League an Easy League? I don't think anybody can say any league is an Easy league and when you take a team from mid table to top then it don't matter how "easy" it is. It's still as hard over there as its harder to get the bigger/better players. It's like saying the championship is an easier league (I am not saying it is)all because their is less talent over their but when your in that league and you got just as much talent as them you will find its not as easy as you think. If you get my point?? I think I'm wording it correctly?

[BlueinBosnia]

Dutch League an Easy League? I don't think anybody can say any league is an Easy league and when you take a team from mid table to top then it don't matter how "easy" it is. It's still as hard over there as its harder to get the bigger/better players. It's like saying the championship is an easier league (I am not saying it is)all because their is less talent over their but when your in that league and you got just as much talent as them you will find its not as easy as you think. If you get my point?? I think I'm wording it correctly?

PSV had won the league the two seasons prior to him taking the helm (although he was assistant manager at the time). But there's been a 3-team stranglehold on that league for the past 45 years, with the title only leaving those 3 clubs twice (Alkmaar both times). It's essentially the same as the Scottish league in that respect. So if you took over, say, Hearts, then success comparable to Hiddink's would be a laudable achievement. However, he was in charge of the equivalent of Rangers.

[Socrates]

Dutch League an Easy League? I don't think anybody can say any league is an Easy league and when you take a team from mid table to top then it don't matter how "easy" it is. It's still as hard over there as its harder to get the bigger/better players. It's like saying the championship is an easier league (I am not saying it is)all because their is less talent over their but when your in that league and you got just as much talent as them you will find its not as easy as you think. If you get my point?? I think I'm wording it correctly?

PSV had won the league the two seasons prior to him taking the helm (although he was assistant manager at the time). But there's been a 3-team stranglehold on that league for the past 45 years, with the title only leaving those 3 clubs twice (Alkmaar both times). It's essentially the same as the Scottish league in that respect. So if you took over, say, Hearts, then success comparable to Hiddink's would be a laudable achievement. However, he was in charge of the equivalent of Rangers.

Winning the European Cup with the equivalent of Rangers isn't an achievement then? I suppose not compared to getting a draw against Germany with Wales.

[BlueinBosnia]

Dutch League an Easy League? I don't think anybody can say any league is an Easy league and when you take a team from mid table to top then it don't matter how "easy" it is. It's still as hard over there as its harder to get the bigger/better players. It's like saying the championship is an easier league (I am not saying it is)all because their is less talent over their but when your in that league and you got just as much talent as them you will find its not as easy as you think. If you get my point?? I think I'm wording it correctly?

PSV had won the league the two seasons prior to him taking the helm (although he was assistant manager at the time). But there's been a 3-team stranglehold on that league for the past 45 years, with the title only leaving those 3 clubs twice (Alkmaar both times). It's essentially the same as the Scottish league in that respect. So if you took over, say, Hearts, then success comparable to Hiddink's would be a laudable achievement. However, he was in charge of the equivalent of Rangers.

Winning the European Cup with the equivalent of Rangers isn't an achievement then? I suppose not compared to getting a draw against Germany with Wales.

That was out of context. That comparison I made was within their league. The Dutch league is of a higher calibre (shown by the fact that Dutch teams have won the European Cup on 6 occasions- only 3 nations have been more succesful in that regard), but winning that league at any point in the past 45 years as a manager of one of their big 3 is no great achievement.

1986-1991. 6 European Cups, 5 winners.
Steuea Bucharest
Porto
PSV
Milan x2
Red Star Belgrade

PSV hardly look massive underdogs on that list. And they didn't win a match in open play after the Round of 16. In fact, their stats were as follows:
P 9 W 3 D 5 L 1

Just for a brief (if somewhat irrelevant) comparison, our record after 9 league matches under Hughes was:
P 9 W 5 D 3 L 1

[Beefymcfc]

Long term, I don't think Hiddink would have done as well. Short term, he'd have done the same!