Mark Hughes' sacking, was it deserved?
As we all know, Mark Hughes has been sacked by cash rich City and been replaced with Roberto Mancini. Was this a deserved sacking or not? I don't think so.
Mark Hughes' pros and cons:
Pros:
Signed great attacking players.
City have only lost twice, less then any other team.
Had the confidence of most of his players.
Beat Arsenal and Chelsea
Are only 6 points off the top 4 with a game in hand
Cons:
However good his attacking signings were his defensive signings were a lot worse
Robinho, Adebayor, Toure and Lescott have all been playing rubbishly.
8 straight draws is not what you'd expect from a cash strapped team.

Hughes was clearly not the owner's man and the only reason why he wasn't sacked earlier was that they couldn't find a good replacement. Getting Mancini is a great gamble as he is very young for a manager and has only played 4 games in England. He talks with all the arrogance and self-confidence as Mourinho, setting the league title as his target next season. Pull the other one. It was also embarisingly obvious that City had approached Mancini a month ago and not as Gary Cook had said on Wednesday.