The key to great comedy is timing – something Mark Hughes sweems to have mastered this week. The same goes for his agent, the lovable, cuddly Kia Joorabchian.

As misguided interviews go, this was up there with the best. On the day before the Manchester derby (and on the day itself), a couple of journalists released their exclusive interview with Mark Hughes, which discussed his time at Manchester City and Fulham. In it, he came across as an embittered, jealous loser, like the jilted lover that sits at home swigging vodka and listening to Alanis Morissette (though Sam Wallace over at the Independent was keen to state at the end of his article that Hughes was not bitter. No siree).

On pre-derby day, it was all about City.

“We went through a lot of pain,” Hughes said. “Other people have had the gain.”

Few City fans thought Hughes was fit to lead the team to the top. Many thought he should probably have been given until the end of the season, and City were criticised for the manner of his dismissal, searching for a replacement whilst he was still employed. Now without any bias whatsoever, I can honestly say that City did the right thing. You cannot dismiss a football manager without having a replacement lined up mid-season – it makes no sense whatsoever. It might seem cruel to the manager at the helm, but that’s the life of a manager – he got a £3m pay-off to console himself with. What’s more, it was two years ago – perhaps time to get over it? I’m not sure what pain he went through for other people’s game, apart from not winning many games prior to his dismissal. Whatever, owners who have pumped a billion into a football club are probably entitled to install their own man. And he seems to be doing ok.

But the foolishness of his interview is less about whether he deserved the sack, but how he sees fit to comment on a manager far more successful than he will ever be, and all whilst out of employment, a blatant PR exercise to remind owners of his availability.

“I don’t know the guy personally,” said Hughes of Mancini, “but looking at him from the outside, he comes across as autocratic. It’s either his way or the highway. I’m not sure he indulges players, tries to get to know or understand them. I’m not sure he’s that type of manager.”

A good rule generally when deciding whether to comment on someone you don’t know, is to stay quiet.

“Managing like that in the modern age with modern footballers is more difficult. To be an absolute autocrat and not be flexible in terms of how it’s going to be done and not understand your decisions can impact on players is difficult, because they do. If you manage like that, there are going to be clashes and the likelihood of having clashes with players is, on the law of averages, going to be more prevalent than managers who try to get the best out of players doing it the other way.”

How bizarre to pass comment on how Mancini manages – Hughes must have the brain cells to realise how bitter it makes him look. If only Mancini could have managed more like Hughes and eclipsed his illustrious managerial record. Or perhaps become a bit more laid-back like that rather successful guy down the road – oh, hang on…

So what if there are clashes and fall-outs? Hughes seems to think players should be pampered – well I’m sorry, but that’s drivel .They are paid obscene amounts of money (those at the top) and should do as the manager says. And tough luck if they don’t like it. And there will always be fall-outs with managers and players – no style of management can avoid this.

Click HERE to head to PAGE TWO…