I'll never forget his last game, every other cross came in we conceded. As soon as Mancini took over that stopped. I agree absolutely we'd be in the mix but not where we are and that banner would still be there.

We wouldnt have attracted the better players as in Silva, Aguero, Balotelli, Yaya etc under Hughes, he was not charasmatic enough.
So we would still be waiting for our trophy drought to end and possibly hovering around the 4/5 place.
The more i see of Hughes the more he annoys me to be honest.

From a neutral i was disgusted at his sacking. Much like Houghtons from Newcastle.

But now it seems like a great decision from both clubs.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Money played a part if that's what you are getting at.
But I couldn't imagine Balotelli playing under Hughes.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

I don't imagine any City players playing without money, we're not all like you Spurs, our players don't all support the club and play for free you know.

Agree with the OP we'd be fighting it out with Spurs and Liverpool for fourth, our defensive record would let us down. We'd definitely have no David Silva, we'd probably have no FA Cup (although maybe a Carling Cup?), we'd definitely not have beaten United 6-1, and we'd probably have bought most of the overpriced English players that Liverpool have instead of them.

Didn't Modric show his loyalty for spurs with a massive pay rise?

Why not?
Apart from playing for a club competing for all major honours playing in the best league in the world I don't know really.
He could be back at Inter Milan playing in an inferior league and struggling at that.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

I must say your football was deligyhtful under hughes.I remember you dismantling Arsenal easily.In fact all teams that tried to play open footie with City would get a beating BUT

god your defence made Arsenal's defence look like Italy 90. I dont think I have ever seen more pathetic defending especially at setpieces and the main reason was Hughes stuck with Given.

to be frank I dont think Hart is that amazing, he is actually so similar to Szchesney, they both have great confidence, read aerial balls well, sweep nice and early BUT their reactions arent the greatest.

They let in deliveries that they should be saving.
Mancini is an organiser, nothing amazing but a damn good organiser.i want to compare him to capello but Capello is so clueless I feel its unfair to Bobby.Mancini set up the team so that they dont lose.

Players like Silva and Yaya took up responsibility to sort out what happens in front of goal.if you have great players like Aguero, you never have to worry about that sort of stuff, all you do is organise your team and tell them what to do when they lose the ball, something foreign to hughes.

Given wasn't the problem, I thought he was decent under Hughes and I was suprised when he got dropped really. The problem was the four infront of him - Richards upped his game under Mancini, not Hughes, Kolo & Lescott were a terrible central defensive pairing, and Wayne Bridge is just another in a long line of inept LBs we have had over the years.

I don't think it's really overrating Mancini, I just think he is of that higher calibre manager than Hughes, Hughes had no plan b, couldn't outwit Ferguson for toffee, and would never have been able to attract that top level quality of player like Silva, Aguero etc.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

*Their reactions aren't the greatest?! Hart's reaction speed is one of his prime attributes, the amount of times I've seen him come out and block one on ones that the striker should put away, or block a close range shot in the area is unbelievable. If anything his weaknesses are his distribution and that he seems to parry it back into danger a lot of the time.

Harts distribution is twice as good when he plays for England.

Adebayor would still be at the club. As would Santa Cruz and Bellamy - and to be fair to Hughes he did know how to get the best out of those two players. Tevez would probably not want out (although you never know with that guy he did get on well with Hughes by all accounts). I could see us making a move for someone like Baines, and Bridge would still be in the picture, even if only as back up. I don't think Richards would have featured that much (he lost his way under Hughes), and thus he may have even left. And we may well have ended up losing Hart permanently (with Hughes remaining loyal to Given). Ireland would probably still be at the club.

Adam Johnson would still have signed - I believe he was a target long before Mancini came on the scene. I could see Yaya being signed under Hughes as there was rumours we were interested at that time. And he'd probably have gone for another central defender - maybe someone like Cahill from Bolton. I also could see Hughes making a move for Torres. Another English-based midfielder would also have been signed for top whack. Maybe even Nasri from Arsenal, or Arteta from Everton (just to pss them off even more than Hughes already had done!!!).

The season that Hughes was fired, I still believe we would have lost out to Spurs in the race for 4th place. Last season we probably would have got 4th place, but doubt we would have got 3rd. Given the draw we had for the FA Cup last season, we'd have probably still reached the semi-finals but lost out to United. Hughes also would have gone for it in the Carling Cup, and given the draw that we would have had had we overcome West Brom, we could well have ended up winning that - the only difficult game would have been against Arsenal in the semi-finals. We may also have done better in the Europa League, as Hughes would have prioritised for that (and we did do well the previous time we were in the competition under Hughes).

Was I happy at the time Hughes was sacked? Not really. Am I happy now that Hughes isn't at the club and we've instead got Mancini? Yep, no doubt about that whatsoever.

Just watching Eggheads and apparently Hughes is still City's manager.


...and they're bringing in a congestion charge for Manchester.

Rock and roll inky

I think mancini oozes class and professionalism. He is likely to go into city folklore. Hughes will be someone who managed before mancini and that is all

The decision to sack Hughes was correct, but done for the wrong reasons.
At least the reasons stated were wrong x

i honestly think we'd be about 6th under hughes.

spurs have upped their game and would be top 4. chelsea and utd would still be there, probably with arsenal.

liverpool have got a bit better so we'd be around 6th

ManCity

But then by the very same token there is nothing to suggest that we wouldn't have progressed under Hughes either.

Having said that, I genuinely don't think we'd have progressed as much under Hughes as we have under Mancini.

Tevez would have OWNED the club. No way would Hughes have stood up to him like Bobby has.

Mancini won the title in Italy three years running... and i know there will be people who say JUVENTUS were relegated....
..but that doesn't account for 3 years.
He lost his job because he couldn't progress in the C/League.
Call me old-fashioned but i'll take a bit of domestic league success.
We have won the title twice in our history and i would like to add to that. Thanks.

Ripley, we may well have progressed under Hughes, we may well have regressed.

RSC and Bridge are two stand out reasons why I think we'd have regressed.