| spot on article about hughes on 09:20 - Mar 14 with 4900 views | smegma |
Not according to posters on here we ain't. Within 2 games people were on here slating Warnock and saying how better organised we looked. I disagreed and got shouted down.What amazes me is our tactics on Saturday were as negative as Harts first game in charge who got absolute dogs abuse from the fans, a game we actually won FFS. I think the honeymoon is well and truly over for Sparky and I havn't been impressed so far. I'm just hoping that Adel can return and with our front two we have the ammunition to beat some teams but we'll always have to score at least two to get something from the remaining games as our defence is like a sieve. | | |  |
| spot on article about hughes on 09:44 - Mar 14 with 4849 views | adhoc_qpr |
I think Hughes has definately made a couple of mistakes - the team selections at Bolton and Blackburn stand out - but ultimately he must be scratching his head at what to do with this bunch of brainless, chronically off form, self destructing players!
I thought sacking Warnock was a gamble worth taking, but actually a lot of the things i was blaming Warnock's management for seem to be inherent issues with the players... | | | |
| spot on article about hughes on 10:13 - Mar 14 with 4809 views | Neil_SI |
I never really expected any sort of honeymoon period, simply because of Hughes' history that shows he's a slow starter. The way he operates is for the long term, so had he had a pre-season behind him, we might have seen much better results.
So the timing of his appointment was the strange thing here and he is still applying a long term strategy to a short term problem. And the board wanted a short term solution and went for someone who doesn't do that.
That's what I find strange. Neil Warnock was replaced clearly because there was a period of games coming up that the board felt Hughes would get more points from to retain our Premier League status. Now we're getting a different vibe that's more cautious and about being here for the long haul. That's the tune that should have been played from the outset.
Overall though, I like long term planners, so if this works out, I'll be interested to see how it materialises and pans out. I've never been that inspired by Mark Hughes' style, but I'm willing to see where he goes with it over a period of time.
My biggest complaint about him to date, and what's been blatantly obvious to my eyes, is that his eyes are only on the top end of the game. After six weeks here, he was still saying and still is to some degree, that he's still working out and understanding what he's got in the building.
That tells me this is a man (and his team) who didn't know enough about Queens Park Rangers as a club and what kind of players it has. Perhaps it points to the fact that they don't really look at Championship based clubs and below and their strategy is a different one, probably more geared towards continental players.
But QPR had been a Premier League club for some months before he took the job, so for someone out of work to not really know that much about the players is surprising from my point of view. Especially if you're on the look out for a club, you'd do your home work (even if you were going for a bigger club as we'd be potential opposition).
Right now, he's having to go through a lot of the process that we already know, because he's still working out what the players are and aren't capable of and discovering new things each week, including some problems he never knew existed before (which he said about the Blackburn game) but have been widespread issues for us for a long time.
All of these things and the fact that he's not really someone who engages with fans in the way QPR fans might expect, means that he's always going to have a bit of a hard time being accepted here. There's still time for it to work out though, so we've all got to get behind him and the players and give it a real good go as it's only to our benefit and advantage that we do so. | | | |
| spot on article about hughes on 10:44 - Mar 14 with 4774 views | BerkoRanger |
A reaaly good read and a top post, Neil. | | | |
| spot on article about hughes on 11:00 - Mar 14 with 4745 views | SpiritofGregory |
That's a good post. | | | |
| spot on article about hughes on 11:01 - Mar 14 with 4742 views | JonDoeman |
Confused, when he arrived it was with glowing references from his previous players, Nedum and Bobby signed for him, and now this piece makes him out to be a bit of CnT. Not by a Fulham by any chance is it? | |
| |
| spot on article about hughes on 11:15 - Mar 14 with 4718 views | adhoc_qpr |
Thats what i thought too - but looking at his Twitter he seems to be a Manure fan.
It's very dismissive of his managerial achievements at Blackburn, Fulham (may not match last years 8th) and Wales too. | | | |
| spot on article about hughes on 11:19 - Mar 14 with 4713 views | Jamie |
Onouha had a choice of Blackburn or QPR.
Zamora had a choice of Fulham Reserves or QPR.
| | | |
| spot on article about hughes on 11:55 - Mar 14 with 4657 views | QPunkR |
That article hasn't changed my opinion of him one bit.
He's still a t0$$er!!  | |
| |
| spot on article about hughes on 18:03 - Mar 14 with 4499 views | baz_qpr |
I think its a little more complicated than the run of games ahead. The board would have had Warnocks wish list to approve, persuade etc. They would have had some idea of the state of the dressing room, they would have assessed the fact that only one home win against 9 man chelsea in the extraordinary derby game. They would have been exasperated by the Sunderland game with the defensive line up that went so badly wrong and the comeback second half. They would have heard Warnock saying that he needed virtually a new team publicly, and looked at the current side of which 90% were Warnock signings and asked why Swansea and Norwich did not need a wholesale new team.
They would have looked at how much outlay they would have to make, and whether after the disappointing signings (Luke Young excepted) at the end of the transfer window whether Warnock was the right man to spend their money or get the best out of the supposed pedigree of players they were buying.
They would then have looked at who was available with suitable experience and a decent record and given they inherited the manager they would have then made a decision on the back of a total freefall 1 win in 13 outside the relegation zone on goal difference and come to the conclusion that on paper Mark Hughes would look a much better bet.
Whether or not Faurlin's injury was a factor or the decision already made, who knows, but that injury more than any other event or change of manager for a club like us wholly reliant on two or three players, was the killer moment. | | | |
| spot on article about hughes on 20:35 - Mar 14 with 4432 views | kropotkin41 |
Here's hoping, quite simply, that we don't get to the end of the season and think, ah well we might as well have gone down with NW as with MH! | |
| ‘morbid curiosity about where this is all going’ |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
