Dumb and Dumber: The Leader of The Pack and The Hughes Mistake
Dumb and Dumber
A two-part article from me. It's a bit late, but I've been tied down with a relentless amount of Business Studies homework which I've stopped doing because it's Christmas.
Yeahhhh!!! Take that, education system!
Merry Christmas/Kwanza to all my Bleacher Creatures too.
PART ONE: DUMB - McCarthy:
Just for starters—Is it just me who thinks that Wolverhampton Wanderers manager Mick McCarthy looks like Bert from Sesame Street?
Or Brad Garrett, perhaps?
After beating Tottenham Hotspur 1-0 at White Hart Lane (ran out of tissues on hearing that), McCarthy's Wolves managed to turn their resulting confidence right on its head on visiting injury-ridden Manchester United.
From a 1-0 away win, they suffered a 3-0 away loss to the Red Devils. The reason was that McCarthy had changed the entire squad for that fixture. In that match, he had included virtually unknown players in Zubar, Elokobi and on-loan Mancienne.
McCarthy defended the mass squad swap by claiming that Elokobi had played
200 league games in his career. By employing the divine powers of the goddess Wikipedia, I can tell you that prior to the appearance against United, he had only played 89 domestic league games!
The Wolves' gaffer also claimed that full-back Matthew Hill had played 320 league games. Splitting hairs here, but the goddess Wikipedia has proclaimed that before the United match, Hill had played 317 league games.
However, USA International Marcus Hahnemann was appointed as goalkeeper for
MY VIEW: It was a bit dumb of McCarthy to take out all 10 of his best players rather than leaving a few of them in there to lead the cubs (I know I'm overplaying the Wolves puns). However, they had Hahnemann to put the defenders slightly more at ease, and I could see where McCarthy was coming from.
Not many teams win at Old Trafford anymore, and with their next game at home to Burnley, the risk would've been too high to tire out his best team for a potentially fruitless result against a top team. So, he quite rightly decided to rest the players for a game which they had a better chance of winning; and it worked.
A 2-0 victory at Molineux had renewed the fans trust in McCarthy.The first choice Wolves players' readiness for more winnable games should be viewed as 'worth £42' by more fans.
I just wonder if various opinions of McCarthy's tactical decisions would've changed had his first team played against United and then most were unavailable for the Burnley game resulting in a home lost the following week sorry this sentence doesn't have a comma in it anywhere (now breathe). No team likes losing at home, especially when they're the odds-on favourites to win. Just ask any Spurs fan.
PART TWO: DUMBER - Sacking Mark Hughes:
Twas the night before Saturday
And all through Mark's house
Not an oil rig was stirring
Nor an elephant or desert mouse.
Any Manc on the blue side would think nothing was about to change between the
19th of December and the new year.
Even in the new year, the blues (a.k.a. Blue Manc Group) would only be thinking of bringing in more exotic players from anywhere and everywhere rather than chucking Mark Hughes out of the...well you know the rest.
All went well for the Blueboys in their match at the Middle-Eastlands against Sunderland. They scraped a nail-biting 4-3 win. Their only other win was a 4-2 home win over a lacklustre Arsenal side with a newfound hatred for Adebayor.
All other matches have either been drawn or lost (one of those losses being against Spurs). With that, Hughes had managed his final City game on the 19th of December but won it. Roberto Mancini had been appointed as the new manager of the Blues, leaving Hughes to spend time with another kind of Blues ---> :'(
It had been rumoured that the new Manchester City manager had been approached by Liverpool as part of the process of sacking Rafa Benitez, but Mancini responded by saying that no Liverpool representative had ever tapped him up. He was destined to take Sparky’s place.
MY VIEW: This is dumber than bringing white balloons to an FA Cup match against Sheffield United.
It will only blow up in the directors’ faces, and I hope it does to be honest. The players will be highly apprehensive of a change in manager during the middle of the season, especially when there was NOTHING WRONG WITH THE OLD ONE.
I won't blame the players if they give Mancini a slightly frosty reception.
Craig Bellamy, one of their talismans, might just leave out of protest, leaving a currently injured Adebayor to play upfront, thereby making City’s position in the league worse than their Arab ruler first thought.
An open message to any Manchester City directors or Abu Dhabi group reps who may
come across this article. I will put this simply—The target agreed was 6th, was it not? The current position of Manchester City in the Premiership, prior to the disgraceful and unnecessary sacking of Mark Hughes, WAS 6th!!!
You disgust me. Merry Christmas/Eid.
I can’t believe the ungratefulness of some club directors these days. I know that there have been so many draws at home, and it is rather lucky that City are where they are.
Nevertheless, they’re there! Does it really matter how they got there? What if they won the league by winning matches via default all the time? Would they fire Mancini for not getting the team to play good enough football in so little time? Would they transfer Bellamy for not scoring during a match, or dock his wages?
Boards are so impatient these days. It only becomes clearer that money has rotted the game to its core. There’s no faith in people anymore and club boards want success instantly and as soon as a large wad of cash is thrown in their direction.
It’s not like City is going to be relegated. You have to remember that the manager can only ever do half the job. The playing is ultimately done by the players, and they’re the only ones who can obtain the result.
I’ve never seen any manager run around the entire area of the pitch kicking the ball and then dashing back to be the goalkeeper, so why start now?
Players might be a bit more mentally fragile than the directors realise. This is further proof that they couldn’t give a rodent’s rectum about anything apart from success via money.
Billionaire buyouts—A poison chalice if you ask me.
The club will only end up paying everything back one way or another. You just watch.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?