Has ever a manager had such an unjustifiably high opinion of himself as Mark Hughes?
Earlier this week, he was moaning that he's the most under-rated manager in the top-half of the Premiership. Which considering Blank Chequebook City lie in 10th is a tad ironic in itself.
"Harry [Redknapps]’s done a good job, similar to the one I’ve done myself — he gets a bit more credit than I do, mind, but there you go," Hughes moaned.
"If you look at the other managers around me, a lot of plaudits are given to them and I don’t get many. Roy Hodgson at Fulham has been mentioned as a possible for manager of the year — and he has indeed done a good job."
OK, let's compare the records of Hughes, Redknapp and Hodgson, and see if the Welsh one is being hard done by.
NO OF PREMIERSHIP PLACES CLUB HAS RISEN SINCE MANAGER TOOK OVER:
Redknapp: 12 (20th to 8th)
Hodgson: 11 (18th to 7th)
Hughes: -1 (9th to 10th)
POINTS PER GAME:
Redknapp: 1.71 (41 games, 21 wins, 10 draws, 11 defeats)
Hughes: 1.45 (55 games, 24 wins, 8 draws, 23 defeats)
Hodgson: 1.39 (64 games, 24 wins, 17 draws, 23 defeats)
(Note: includes cup games, stats provided by Soccerbase.com)
NET TRANSFER MONEY SPENT:
Hughes: £82.7 million
Redknapp £39 million
Hodgson: £19.35 million
VALUE FOR MONEY RATIO:
(Money spent divided by points per game - lower is obviously better)
Hodgson: 13.9
Redknapp 22.8
Hughes 57.0
So, by my calculations, Hodgson has been four times better value than Hughes, while even big spending Redknapp has delivered over twice as much value.
Not to mention the fact that both Hodgson and Redknapp have both overseen a meteroic rise up the table, while Hughes has dropped City down a place, depsite breaking the British transfer record and spending more money than both his "peers" combined.
Still feeling under-rated Mark?
Comments