Where do Hudson and Lamouchi stand in the canon of City managers?

It would probably come as no surprise that neither manager features among City's finest gaffers. Mark Hudson has the joint 5th worst win percentage, alongside Jimmy Goodfellow and only Bobby Gould, Paul Trollope, Graham Williams and Terry Yorath can boast a worse rate. Meanwhile, Sabri Lamouchi's loss percentage is 6th worst in our history, just behind Williams, Trollope, Goodfellow, Yorath and Alan Durban. Hudson's problems were lack of wins, Lamouchi's were too many defeats. Both lie 22nd out of 38 in terms of wins (Lamouchi) and defeats (Hudson), so not great, but reasonable for a team that has struggled like we have this season.

Both managers rank in the bottom 10 for goal scoring. Lamouchi's defensive record is the 13th worst of any City manager, but there's a bit of a surprise as Hudson's side had the 5th best defensive record for any City manager, only bettered by Kenny Hibbitt, Lennie Lawrence, Frankie Burrows and Bill McCandless. In fact, in terms of just league games, Hudson's City would have been ranked 3rd. Quite remarkable considering how poor we were under him (and through the whole season).

Home form, as it has been for the last three seasons at least, has been dire. Hudson's home record overall is the 2nd worst in terms of wins, Lamouchi's is ranked 5th worst. Lamouchi's goals conceded and defeat percentage are also within the bottom 10.

Only McCandless, McCarthy and Harris have better away win percentages than Lamouchi, though only 8 managers have worse way defeat percentages. Hudson's away defensive record is 3rd best among City managers.

Despite a few surprising stats, it's difficult to say that either manager, statistically at least, was better than Solskjaer.

Durban only gets a single mention, my memory not what it was.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Des Parrot

Durban only gets a single mention, my memory not what it was.

---

We're at that level, worse than Alan Durban!!

Apart from the wedding night has your missus ever seen you or are you too busy with these zany stat festivals ?

I don't think this is what she had in mind when she said I do

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY

Apart from the wedding night has your missus ever seen you or are you too busy with these zany stat festivals ?

I don't think this is what she had in mind when she said I do

---

Have I touched a nerve?

Not stats related but have we lost a manager in similar circumstances to sabri before? Ie at the end of their contract rather than sacked (or poached but that hasn't happened since Phil neal has it?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric the Half a Bee

Have I touched a nerve?

---

Call me a relationship counsellor

I think I may have found my calling

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Father Dougal

Not stats related but have we lost a manager in similar circumstances to sabri before? Ie at the end of their contract rather than sacked (or poached but that hasn't happened since Phil neal has it?)

---

Interesting question. I doubt it. Would I be right in assuming that, years ago, managers kept their jobs on some sort of rolling contract until they got sacked? Like players, it was assumed you'd stay at the club until another club bought you. Contracts only really became "in facto" after Bosman.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric the Half a Bee

Interesting question. I doubt it. Would I be right in assuming that, years ago, managers kept their jobs on some sort of rolling contract until they got sacked? Like players, it was assumed you'd stay at the club until another club bought you. Contracts only really became "in facto" after Bosman.

---

Dave Jones was on a rolling contract

Miserable git

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY

Call me a relationship counsellor

I think I may have found my calling

---

Given your lack of success in this field, I doubt it.

It's not the first time you've tried to have a dig at me here. She enjoys watching crap on TV in the evenings. I don't. There are no problems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY

Dave Jones was on a rolling contract

Miserable git

---

There was a time when Jones was the third longest serving manager in the leagues (behind Ferguson and Wenger) - after something like 6 years with Cardiff. I quite liked that - even if he was a miserable git with a talent for blowing play off pushes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1959

There was a time when Jones was the third longest serving manager in the leagues (behind Ferguson and Wenger) - after something like 6 years with Cardiff. I quite liked that - even if he was a miserable git with a talent for blowing play off pushes.

---

It helped that, in most of those seasons we were challenging at the right end of the Championship at some point. In the season where we started badly and never got going in the league, we got to the FA cup final.

The end of season debates always followed the same format - "he'll get us promoted next season", "no he won't he'll bottle it again"..... I remember where I was when he got sacked. New Look, Glasgow. I was delighted, only because he had convinced me that he would never get us promoted, he'd had all the chances in the world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric the Half a Bee

Given your lack of success in this field, I doubt it.

It's not the first time you've tried to have a dig at me here. She enjoys watching crap on TV in the evenings. I don't. There are no problems.

---

Oh get a grip

I am doing some gentle rib tickling not trying to upset you ff sake

Sort yourself out you soppy tart

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1959

There was a time when Jones was the third longest serving manager in the leagues (behind Ferguson and Wenger) - after something like 6 years with Cardiff. I quite liked that - even if he was a miserable git with a talent for blowing play off pushes.

---

He was over rated imo

Neither manager bought a player. The problems with the squad lie in last summer's farce.

Lamouchi is the best of a bad bunch of managers we've had this season and Morison's tactics and squad building are the root cause of our on pitch issues, with a large slice of Tan's decision making contributing to the whole mess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pedro de la Rosa

Neither manager bought a player. The problems with the squad lie in last summer's farce.

Lamouchi is the best of a bad bunch of managers we've had this season and Morison's tactics and squad building are the root cause of our on pitch issues, with a large slice of Tan's decision making contributing to the whole mess.

---

I think that's a pretty fair summary. Hudson went with a more defensive approach. Lamouchi tried to be a bit more attacking. Both approaches had their strengths and weaknesses. Hudson's lack of goals was always going to be a problem, while Lamouchi's defence was likewise. Somewhere in the middle was nothingness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pedro de la Rosa

Neither manager bought a player. The problems with the squad lie in last summer's farce.

Lamouchi is the best of a bad bunch of managers we've had this season and Morison's tactics and squad building are the root cause of our on pitch issues, with a large slice of Tan's decision making contributing to the whole mess.

---

Lamouchi was as good as we were likely to get

But that was until this morning

Onwards

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY

Lamouchi was as good as we were likely to get

But that was until this morning

Onwards

---

So, if Lamouchi was as good as we were going to get, that makes Hudson not quite as bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric the Half a Bee

So, if Lamouchi was as good as we were going to get, that makes Hudson not quite as bad.

---

Lamouchi's last two were nothing games, especially after the game on the Thursday night where the players left everything out there. The first game, he'd been there 5 minutes. He didn't have Robinson for most of his time at the club. Hudson was terrible here, the players and results were getting worse and worse. What were the positives?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pedro de la Rosa

Lamouchi's last two were nothing games, especially after the game on the Thursday night where the players left everything out there. The first game, he'd been there 5 minutes. He didn't have Robinson for most of his time at the club. Hudson was terrible here, the players and results were getting worse and worse. What were the positives?

---

There are no positives with either. Warnock had a far more positive hit with Huddersfield. He was a success there, not that I'm suggesting he'd have had the same impact here.

Lamouchi's stats for his time here aren't great. He kept us up but we had the second worst stats of all the sides that were embroiled in the relegation battle since February. Some of his stats are among the worst in Cardiff managerial history.

Carry on thinking that Hudson was shite and Lamouchi was great. They were both roughly on a par. I'm not blaming either of them, btw. They both had the same group of players, who also take responsibility for things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric the Half a Bee

It would probably come as no surprise that neither manager features among City's finest gaffers. Mark Hudson has the joint 5th worst win percentage, alongside Jimmy Goodfellow and only Bobby Gould, Paul Trollope, Graham Williams and Terry Yorath can boast a worse rate. Meanwhile, Sabri Lamouchi's loss percentage is 6th worst in our history, just behind Williams, Trollope, Goodfellow, Yorath and Alan Durban. Hudson's problems were lack of wins, Lamouchi's were too many defeats. Both lie 22nd out of 38 in terms of wins (Lamouchi) and defeats (Hudson), so not great, but reasonable for a team that has struggled like we have this season.

Both managers rank in the bottom 10 for goal scoring. Lamouchi's defensive record is the 13th worst of any City manager, but there's a bit of a surprise as Hudson's side had the 5th best defensive record for any City manager, only bettered by Kenny Hibbitt, Lennie Lawrence, Frankie Burrows and Bill McCandless. In fact, in terms of just league games, Hudson's City would have been ranked 3rd. Quite remarkable considering how poor we were under him (and through the whole season).

Home form, as it has been for the last three seasons at least, has been dire. Hudson's home record overall is the 2nd worst in terms of wins, Lamouchi's is ranked 5th worst. Lamouchi's goals conceded and defeat percentage are also within the bottom 10.

Only McCandless, McCarthy and Harris have better away win percentages than Lamouchi, though only 8 managers have worse way defeat percentages. Hudson's away defensive record is 3rd best among City managers.

Despite a few surprising stats, it's difficult to say that either manager, statistically at least, was better than Solskjaer.

---

in fairness to Hudson and Lamouchi, we had a massive budget to work with when we were under Solskjaer comparatively speaking

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rjk

in fairness to Hudson and Lamouchi, we had a massive budget to work with when we were under Solskjaer comparatively speaking

---

Of course, hence why I said "statistically at least".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric the Half a Bee

There are no positives with either. Warnock had a far more positive hit with Huddersfield. He was a success there, not that I'm suggesting he'd have had the same impact here.

Lamouchi's stats for his time here aren't great. He kept us up but we had the second worst stats of all the sides that were embroiled in the relegation battle since February. Some of his stats are among the worst in Cardiff managerial history.

Carry on thinking that Hudson was shite and Lamouchi was great. They were both roughly on a par. I'm not blaming either of them, btw. They both had the same group of players, who also take responsibility for things.

---

Lamouchi was not great. He was far from that. He is also far superior to the other two we had this season. Hudson and Morison were shite. There are mitigating circumstances around Lamouchi's time here that neither Morison nor Hudson had. He hadn't been at the club a week by the time we'd played his second game. Our last two games literally did not matter. Morison signed this shower of shite and Hudson worked with them all season and we couldn't score in a brothel under him (or Morison). Eventually, things were going to go defensively, too, as players lost confidence and our attacking woes were so obvious, teams could pile men forwards against us. We were going down under Hudson. After his new manager bounce of 7 points from his first three, we got 11 points from his remaining games and by the time he was sacked, we hadn't won in 9.

As always, interesting and impressive stats from Eric and, as often happens, they serve to back up what was a gut feeling that I wouzld guess other City fans besides me share. Lamouchi was a schizophrenic City manager - away from home, I was able to watch the team with a fair degree of confidence because they discovered an ability to win games against teams around us, although when it came to sides in the top half of the table, a fading Watford apart, results weren’t great.

When it came to home games, Lamouchi was making us worse - after wins over Reading and the wurzels which suggested better to come, we lost our way completely culminating in a pathetic ten minutes or so against Huddersfield- people can say the game was meaningless (I would have liked to have seen more of an effort to get the draw which would have stopped people like me saying we would have gone down without Reading’s points deduction), but, based on what people told me, that match turned some away from Lamouchi.

Lamouchi rightly realised we had to start scoring more goals.- he was helped in that regard by a signing he played no part in obtaining, but this was balanced by the loss of our best attacker for most of his time in charge. Tactically, I credit him for realising we had to play with two up front and this meant he went with three centrebacks to try and retain our impressive goals against record, but this didn’t work and, with our goalkeeper looking more vulnerable, we lost our previous defensive efficiency.

Lamouchi felt like an improvement on Hudson to me, but not much of one - he got in a mess with substitutions once or twice and was too loyal to the likes of Ojo, Sawyers and Simpson who, to me were kept in the side in front of younger alternatives he seemed to think were less used to Championship football than they actually were.

Like one or two others have said, it seemed to me we could have appointed Lamouchi for a year or two this week and then sacked him in about four months time, so I’m not particularly unhappy to see him go, but the problem is that I have no faith in our owner coming up with the manager who will come up with improvements which are essential if we are to avoid the drop in 23/24.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1959

There was a time when Jones was the third longest serving manager in the leagues (behind Ferguson and Wenger) - after something like 6 years with Cardiff. I quite liked that - even if he was a miserable git with a talent for blowing play off pushes.

---

He had to keep selling his best players, he did a great job when you look back, and we played good football!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric the Half a Bee

It would probably come as no surprise that neither manager features among City's finest gaffers. Mark Hudson has the joint 5th worst win percentage, alongside Jimmy Goodfellow and only Bobby Gould, Paul Trollope, Graham Williams and Terry Yorath can boast a worse rate. Meanwhile, Sabri Lamouchi's loss percentage is 6th worst in our history, just behind Williams, Trollope, Goodfellow, Yorath and Alan Durban. Hudson's problems were lack of wins, Lamouchi's were too many defeats. Both lie 22nd out of 38 in terms of wins (Lamouchi) and defeats (Hudson), so not great, but reasonable for a team that has struggled like we have this season.

Both managers rank in the bottom 10 for goal scoring. Lamouchi's defensive record is the 13th worst of any City manager, but there's a bit of a surprise as Hudson's side had the 5th best defensive record for any City manager, only bettered by Kenny Hibbitt, Lennie Lawrence, Frankie Burrows and Bill McCandless. In fact, in terms of just league games, Hudson's City would have been ranked 3rd. Quite remarkable considering how poor we were under him (and through the whole season).

Home form, as it has been for the last three seasons at least, has been dire. Hudson's home record overall is the 2nd worst in terms of wins, Lamouchi's is ranked 5th worst. Lamouchi's goals conceded and defeat percentage are also within the bottom 10.

Only McCandless, McCarthy and Harris have better away win percentages than Lamouchi, though only 8 managers have worse way defeat percentages. Hudson's away defensive record is 3rd best among City managers.

Despite a few surprising stats, it's difficult to say that either manager, statistically at least, was better than Solskjaer.

---

Warnock would have done a far better job short term, I agree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pedro de la Rosa

Neither manager bought a player. The problems with the squad lie in last summer's farce.

Lamouchi is the best of a bad bunch of managers we've had this season and Morison's tactics and squad building are the root cause of our on pitch issues, with a large slice of Tan's decision making contributing to the whole mess.

---

Both didn't have a left-back all season, a dodgy keeper, I would have added Strkers but Kabba was pretty good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY

Lamouchi was as good as we were likely to get

But that was until this morning

Onwards

---

I'd agree, I think we'll end up with worse, and get relegated, I don't trust them to get this appointment right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric the Half a Bee

There are no positives with either. Warnock had a far more positive hit with Huddersfield. He was a success there, not that I'm suggesting he'd have had the same impact here.

Lamouchi's stats for his time here aren't great. He kept us up but we had the second worst stats of all the sides that were embroiled in the relegation battle since February. Some of his stats are among the worst in Cardiff managerial history.

Carry on thinking that Hudson was shite and Lamouchi was great. They were both roughly on a par. I'm not blaming either of them, btw. They both had the same group of players, who also take responsibility for things.

---

I think Lamouchi was under far greater pressure, he inherited a squad with the best Striker missing no left back, and a dodgy keeper and we were hovering above the relegation zone, we couldn't score, had no confidence and he just about got us over the line, I'm sure Hudson would have taken us down.
The results may look similar, but Sabri will prove to be the better Manager over time, this was a very difficult job. He got the best out of Kabba, I doubt Hudson would have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric the Half a Bee

There are no positives with either. Warnock had a far more positive hit with Huddersfield. He was a success there, not that I'm suggesting he'd have had the same impact here.

Lamouchi's stats for his time here aren't great. He kept us up but we had the second worst stats of all the sides that were embroiled in the relegation battle since February. Some of his stats are among the worst in Cardiff managerial history.

Carry on thinking that Hudson was shite and Lamouchi was great. They were both roughly on a par. I'm not blaming either of them, btw. They both had the same group of players, who also take responsibility for things.

---

He would have, he does everywhere he goes, in that situation when a team is struggling at the bottom of the league, he is the man to get the team safe, If Sabri had gone there and Warnock had come here, they would have gone down and we would have been safe weeks before.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by North Cardiff Blue

He had to keep selling his best players, he did a great job when you look back, and we played good football!

---

Another Dave Jones myth. He didnt have to keep selling his best players and he didnt work on a shoestring budget (often claimed) . Bothroyd - never sold - left for nothing. Ledley -never sold- bid from Stoke rejected- left for nothing. Whitts never sold left for nothing.

Obviously there were sales players had ambitions of playing at a higher level.

However Jones was backed and we held on to players we could have sold for big money.

Gives me no pleasure to say it as he seems a quality bloke and a city stalwart but the tactics and football under Hudson were the worst I’ve seen at this level for a very long time, genuinely awful. If we had carried on with him for the season to me we would have been down without any question.

Lamouchi had good games and awful games (the awful games clearly as bad as we looked under Hudson) but in general you felt like he was trying to get the team playing a certain way and had a plan for each game. Definitely helped by the Kaba and Wickham additions as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hilts

Another Dave Jones myth. He didnt have to keep selling his best players and he didnt work on a shoestring budget (often claimed) . Bothroyd - never sold - left for nothing. Ledley -never sold- bid from Stoke rejected- left for nothing. Whitts never sold left for nothing.

Obviously there were sales players had ambitions of playing at a higher level.

However Jones was backed and we held on to players we could have sold for big money.

---

From memory without looking into it.

Chopra, McCormack, Loovens, Ramsey, Johnson, Jerome, Alexander, Hasselbeck, and Heaton were any of them sold?

I may be off the mark, but I seem to remember he had to sell a big name most years?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LA Bluebird

Lamouchi had good games and awful games (the awful games clearly as bad as we looked under Hudson) but in general you felt like he was trying to get the team playing a certain way and had a plan for each game.

---

I genuinely never felt that way. Most of the time I had no idea what style of football Lamouchi was trying to employ or what his plan was for games. Some of his team selections seemed totally random.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric the Half a Bee

It would probably come as no surprise that neither manager features among City's finest gaffers. Mark Hudson has the joint 5th worst win percentage, alongside Jimmy Goodfellow and only Bobby Gould, Paul Trollope, Graham Williams and Terry Yorath can boast a worse rate. Meanwhile, Sabri Lamouchi's loss percentage is 6th worst in our history, just behind Williams, Trollope, Goodfellow, Yorath and Alan Durban. Hudson's problems were lack of wins, Lamouchi's were too many defeats. Both lie 22nd out of 38 in terms of wins (Lamouchi) and defeats (Hudson), so not great, but reasonable for a team that has struggled like we have this season.

Both managers rank in the bottom 10 for goal scoring. Lamouchi's defensive record is the 13th worst of any City manager, but there's a bit of a surprise as Hudson's side had the 5th best defensive record for any City manager, only bettered by Kenny Hibbitt, Lennie Lawrence, Frankie Burrows and Bill McCandless. In fact, in terms of just league games, Hudson's City would have been ranked 3rd. Quite remarkable considering how poor we were under him (and through the whole season).

Home form, as it has been for the last three seasons at least, has been dire. Hudson's home record overall is the 2nd worst in terms of wins, Lamouchi's is ranked 5th worst. Lamouchi's goals conceded and defeat percentage are also within the bottom 10.

Only McCandless, McCarthy and Harris have better away win percentages than Lamouchi, though only 8 managers have worse way defeat percentages. Hudson's away defensive record is 3rd best among City managers.

Despite a few surprising stats, it's difficult to say that either manager, statistically at least, was better than Solskjaer.

---

Surely points per game is a more meaningful statistic than win or loss percentages.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taunton Blue Genie

Surely points per game is a more meaningful statistic than win or loss percentages.

---

In a historical context, because of the old system of 2 points for a win, it isn't just a case of converting wins to 3 points. There used to be more draws until 3 points for a win was introduced.

My tuppence (fwiw) is that Hudson inherited a decent defensive set-up and can't really be commended for the goals against fugure assigned to him.

Lamouchi, at the very least got us scoring goals, which was vital to keep us up.

Overall, they were managerial dregs - something that Tan did get right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by North Cardiff Blue

From memory without looking into it.

Chopra, McCormack, Loovens, Ramsey, Johnson, Jerome, Alexander, Hasselbeck, and Heaton were any of them sold?

I may be off the mark, but I seem to remember he had to sell a big name most years?

---

Chopra was sold for £5m, we bought him back for £4m and sold him again for £1.5m.
McCormack went for a low 6 figure sum.
Loovens went for just over £2m
Ramsey was a steal at £5m
Johnson was sold for £5m
Jerome went for around £4m
Alexander's contract expired and he wasn't played at the end of his last season to avoid activating an appearance bonus.
Hasselbaink retired.
Heaton went on a free to Bristol City.

In addition, Chris Gunter went to Spurs for anything between £2-4m.

6 players left during Jones's time with us for £2m and more. Our seventh best transfer fee was £750k, miraculously paid to us for Steve McLean.

In all bar Jones's last season did we sell at least one player for millions, though in 2009/10 we used funds from the sale of Roger Johnson to spend millions on Chopra.

It is widely known that Jones and Ridsdale had a general policy of paying little or nothing in transfer fees and using that money to pay decent wages instead.

It might be interesting to note that 3 of the 6 million pound transfer fee players were bought during the time Jones was with us - Johnson, Loovens and Chopra, so it was hardly a case that Jones was regularly turning his transfers into million pound players.

In both 2009/10 and 2010/11 we spent more on transfers than we recouped.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Lone Gunman

I genuinely never felt that way. Most of the time I had no idea what style of football Lamouchi was trying to employ or what his plan was for games. Some of his team selections seemed totally random.

---

No doubt, he had his share of shockers when it came to team selection. But at least on the field for me it felt like it made sense what he was trying to do… get the ball back and quickly get it to our big front men. He was definitely helped by having two strikers that the previous managers didn’t have for the whole time, but he also got Etete playing somewhat effectively in the role.

Hudson I genuinely had no clue what the plan was other than to run about a bit and pass the ball around. It’s a low bar but to me Lamouchi cleared it. For whatever that is worth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric the Half a Bee

In a historical context, because of the old system of 2 points for a win, it isn't just a case of converting wins to 3 points. There used to be more draws until 3 points for a win was introduced.

---

Fair dinkum, old fruit.