Stability was the answer.

[btajim]

The problem for me is that we don't truly know if stability will be the answer until we try it. Imagine getting a Manager and sticking with him REGARDLESS for 5 seasons. We could be there or thereabouts all season (in the top third of the table) yet not winning anything significant. That's not what the Owners want - but this constant chopping and changing is also not working.

And stability with the Manager... It's worked at The Swamp but it's not been necessary at Stamford Bridge. Mourinho, Grant, Scolari, Hiddink and Ancelotti have been there yet they're still in the top two.

[Im_Spartacus]

so Hughes wasn't the man for you..sack him....and if mancini doesn't cut the mustard...sack him too...what about the next manager and the next...etc? Do we keep hiring and firing them?

In over 50 years of supporting City, I have watched 27 managers come and go....I'm still waiting for the one we dicide to give the time to develop his particular project....or do we keep upour short term policy for another 50 years if one doesn't succeed in the 1st few seasons.

It doesn't matter what the quality of the ingredients you use to bake the cake...They have to be put together and blended correctly...That takes time.

Regarding Mancini, He was brought in to have an immediate positive impact because our ownwers felt that Hughes may not make the top 4. He was brought in to specifically ensure that target was reached. He doesn't have time.

This is a stability thread

What really irritates me is that long term supporters like you and me (40+ years for me) that have seen many ill-thought through sackings - followed by ill-thought through appointments and then same again and again - commented on the need for stability for a change - lets give the manager until the end of the season - and we were subjected to vitriol from the small group of anti-Hughes brigade - dubbed Hughes-lickers etc etc

We wanted stability - that group had to break things into extreme groups - well you reap what you sow - be good if the usual suspects had the pair to come on and admit they were perhaps wrong - but it is not in their character

BobK - fair play to you - you stand your ground - fight your corner etc - but I think what you are missing is remembering the level to which this group of 'usual suspects' just shouted down the rest - so don't be surprised that people are wondering where they are hiding now

What comes first, the sacking or the ill thought through appointment? They are opposite ends of the same shitty stick

Isnt it proving again though that its the ill thought through appointment that leads to the ineveitable sacking. Whatever the rights or wrongs of Hughes' dismissal, it is the next appointment that counts from the moment your manager gets the bullet, not the sacking of the previous incumbent. If you get it wrong, you will be doing it all over again in 6-12 months time.

[Alex Sapphire]

Granted, we had had eight draws on the bounce. I'm sure though as frustrating as the home ones were (and they were the costly ones) most of us would have taken a draw away at Liverpool, Villa and (given their season form) Birmingham.

I think the really damaging draws were Hull Burnley and Wigan because it felt like these teams were being routinely thrashed by quality opposition. The truth was that Burnley had beaten the scum and Wigan had beaten Chelsea, so it's true that "there are no easy fixtures", However...

So far RM has turned the Hull draw into defeat.
We've got Wigan and Burnley on 29/3 and 3/4
Easter could be really interesting

Crucify Him!

[Im_Spartacus]

Granted, we had had eight draws on the bounce. I'm sure though as frustrating as the home ones were (and they were the costly ones) most of us would have taken a draw away at Liverpool, Villa and (given their season form) Birmingham.

I think the really damaging draws were Hull Burnley and Wigan because it felt like these teams were being routinely thrashed by quality opposition. The truth was that Burnley had beaten the scum and Wigan had beaten Chelsea, so it's true that "there are no easy fixtures", However...

So far RM has turned the Hull draw into defeat.
We've got Wigan and Burnley on 29/3 and 3/4
Easter could be really interesting

Crucify Him!

My concern at the time was that the draws would start to slide into defeats, as I truly believed that for the second season running, come October teams had well and truly cracked Hughes' tactics and the results headed south. Fortunately we had better players this time round and the run of defeats before xmas last season turned into a run of draws this season, but the pattern was the same, Hughes was very limited at influencing a game though his own tactical nous, and I just dont think he had a response to a manager who outthought him at his own game, which is why personally I would have sacked him, and maybe why a supposedly more tactically aware manager was brought in

Thus far, it seems not to have worked but I find it hard to believe we would be in any different position with or without Hughes.

[Original Dub]

Because Hughes couldn't organise the team and was shipping goals faster than the Titanic shipped water.

You can berate Mancini for not getting it right in two and bit months but then Hughes didn't get it right in 18 months and there was no sign of it improving. Stability works if you have the right man in charge. You can argue that Mancini is not the right man based on what he does or does not do but using Hughes as a yardstick is woefully ineffective.

You're talking as if he took over a side at the bottom. He took over a side near the top that played football but let in some shit goals. He's turned it into a side full of defenders that can't play football & lets in shit goals. That's supposed to be tactically brilliant but imo tactically brilliant would be solving the defensive problem whilst playing attacking football. Had Hughes managed to achieve that, he would have been brilliant. He almost did, for example v Chelsea then he got injuries then the sack. Any twat can scrape out points by staying in their own half most of the game, especially with the players we've got but going forward & not conceding is much harder, takes a lot longer but is much more suitable for a club of our apparent ambition.

If Mancini is to have any chance of saving his job, he needs plan B, immediately.

As I said you can rip Mancini for what he does or doesn't do but using Hughes as a yardstick is pointless. Hughes was in charge for 18 months won 4 league games away from home, conceded 9 league goals in his last 3 matches and in his only full season finished 10th, after I may add promising a top 6 finish and no excuses and then treated us to the classic excuse that it was better to finish 10th and not have Europe as a distraction.

Or if you want to compare lets take Sven's one and only full season in charge who spent less, had less time in preseason and who finished 9th. Now you can slice and dice the two mens respective talents as manager anyway you want but the records show that Sven shaded it over Hughes.

Anyway we can kill Mancini all day long and I am sure a lot of people will do so with vim and vigour but do it based on his record at City not on some fantasy about Hughes because the facts don't back you up.

You could be onto something here mate - In the same season Sven spent 40 odd million, hughes bettered him with blackburn on a shoe string budget.

Also, we finished 8th under Pearce playing similar football to what we are now but had a lot less money.

So should we go and get Pearce as he had our best finish so far?

The fact remains that we WERE improving on last season and it was significant even to those who wanted hughes gone all last season. Almost everyone except your good self will say the timing was bizzare because we were on course for 35 points at the halway point which was EXACTLY what was asked. We were also playing exciting, attacking football for the most part (no one can do it ALL the time) and had reached our first semi final for fucking YEARS with OUTSTANDING displays against the best in the country (United, Chelsea and Arsenal). It was never going to be an easy ride and we had two or three poor draws (at least 4 draws were decent results) that equated to our "terrible run".

So yes, stability WAS the answer, but we panicked.

The mistake has been made, we just need to rectify it asap. How? I've no idea.

[BobKowalski]

Because Hughes couldn't organise the team and was shipping goals faster than the Titanic shipped water.

You can berate Mancini for not getting it right in two and bit months but then Hughes didn't get it right in 18 months and there was no sign of it improving. Stability works if you have the right man in charge. You can argue that Mancini is not the right man based on what he does or does not do but using Hughes as a yardstick is woefully ineffective.

You're talking as if he took over a side at the bottom. He took over a side near the top that played football but let in some shit goals. He's turned it into a side full of defenders that can't play football & lets in shit goals. That's supposed to be tactically brilliant but imo tactically brilliant would be solving the defensive problem whilst playing attacking football. Had Hughes managed to achieve that, he would have been brilliant. He almost did, for example v Chelsea then he got injuries then the sack. Any twat can scrape out points by staying in their own half most of the game, especially with the players we've got but going forward & not conceding is much harder, takes a lot longer but is much more suitable for a club of our apparent ambition.

If Mancini is to have any chance of saving his job, he needs plan B, immediately.

As I said you can rip Mancini for what he does or doesn't do but using Hughes as a yardstick is pointless. Hughes was in charge for 18 months won 4 league games away from home, conceded 9 league goals in his last 3 matches and in his only full season finished 10th, after I may add promising a top 6 finish and no excuses and then treated us to the classic excuse that it was better to finish 10th and not have Europe as a distraction.

Or if you want to compare lets take Sven's one and only full season in charge who spent less, had less time in preseason and who finished 9th. Now you can slice and dice the two mens respective talents as manager anyway you want but the records show that Sven shaded it over Hughes.

Anyway we can kill Mancini all day long and I am sure a lot of people will do so with vim and vigour but do it based on his record at City not on some fantasy about Hughes because the facts don't back you up.

You could be onto something here mate - In the same season Sven spent 40 odd million, hughes bettered him with blackburn on a shoe string budget.

Also, we finished 8th under Pearce playing similar football to what we are now but had a lot less money.

So should we go and get Pearce as he had our best finish so far?

The fact remains that we WERE improving on last season and it was significant even to those who wanted hughes gone all last season. Almost everyone except your good self will say the timing was bizzare because we were on course for 35 points at the halway point which was EXACTLY what was asked. We were also playing exciting, attacking football for the most part (no one can do it ALL the time) and had reached our first semi final for fucking YEARS with OUTSTANDING displays against the best in the country (U***d, Chelsea and Arsenal). It was never going to be an easy ride and we had two or three poor draws (at least 4 draws were decent results) that equated to our "terrible run".

So yes, stability WAS the answer, but we panicked.

The mistake has been made, we just need to rectify it asap. How? I've no idea.

No I always said that the timing was odd. I never once called for Hughes to be sacked midseason. He should have been sacked last summer or we should have waited until this summer before any decision was made. That said after the Spurs game you would have to be blind or stupid not to realise that the game was up for Hughes. You cannot be in charge for 18 months and serve up that sort of directionless, mindless display or watch as Lennon ripped Sylvinho to shreds without any leadership being shown from the man paid to lead. It just ain't going to happen.

Like it or not (and clearly you don't) Mancini is just doing what Mancini does. And that is get the team playing the way he thinks you need to play if you want to compete at the top. Its all concentration, awareness and thinking about the game. Which is pretty much what all the top sides do. Chelsea are nothing if not well drilled. Its almost a default setting and when things get tough every player automatically knows what to do and where to go. For us it isn't automatic because we are still learning. Capello now has the England side well drilled and when first appointed he was placing players in positions on the pitch. Mourinho does the same, Ancelotti, Mancini it doesn't really matter. With a team that is trying to be one of the elite the first thing they are going to do is tighten them up, drill them and smack them round the head until they learn to be alert and concentrate for 90 or 120 mins.

Whatever top manager we employ you're going to get what we currently get or at least a variation on the theme. What you ain't going to get is 'charge' and lets try and score lots of goals which is pretty much what we had.

We are trying to break into the European elite of football. You don't do this by emulating the local eleven from the Dog&Duck.

[Ted Hughes]

Because Hughes couldn't organise the team and was shipping goals faster than the Titanic shipped water.

You can berate Mancini for not getting it right in two and bit months but then Hughes didn't get it right in 18 months and there was no sign of it improving. Stability works if you have the right man in charge. You can argue that Mancini is not the right man based on what he does or does not do but using Hughes as a yardstick is woefully ineffective.

You're talking as if he took over a side at the bottom. He took over a side near the top that played football but let in some shit goals. He's turned it into a side full of defenders that can't play football & lets in shit goals. That's supposed to be tactically brilliant but imo tactically brilliant would be solving the defensive problem whilst playing attacking football. Had Hughes managed to achieve that, he would have been brilliant. He almost did, for example v Chelsea then he got injuries then the sack. Any twat can scrape out points by staying in their own half most of the game, especially with the players we've got but going forward & not conceding is much harder, takes a lot longer but is much more suitable for a club of our apparent ambition.

If Mancini is to have any chance of saving his job, he needs plan B, immediately.

As I said you can rip Mancini for what he does or doesn't do but using Hughes as a yardstick is pointless. Hughes was in charge for 18 months won 4 league games away from home, conceded 9 league goals in his last 3 matches and in his only full season finished 10th, after I may add promising a top 6 finish and no excuses and then treated us to the classic excuse that it was better to finish 10th and not have Europe as a distraction.

Or if you want to compare lets take Sven's one and only full season in charge who spent less, had less time in preseason and who finished 9th. Now you can slice and dice the two mens respective talents as manager anyway you want but the records show that Sven shaded it over Hughes.

Anyway we can kill Mancini all day long and I am sure a lot of people will do so with vim and vigour but do it based on his record at City not on some fantasy about Hughes because the facts don't back you up.

You could be onto something here mate - In the same season Sven spent 40 odd million, hughes bettered him with blackburn on a shoe string budget.

Also, we finished 8th under Pearce playing similar football to what we are now but had a lot less money.

So should we go and get Pearce as he had our best finish so far?

The fact remains that we WERE improving on last season and it was significant even to those who wanted hughes gone all last season. Almost everyone except your good self will say the timing was bizzare because we were on course for 35 points at the halway point which was EXACTLY what was asked. We were also playing exciting, attacking football for the most part (no one can do it ALL the time) and had reached our first semi final for fucking YEARS with OUTSTANDING displays against the best in the country (U***d, Chelsea and Arsenal). It was never going to be an easy ride and we had two or three poor draws (at least 4 draws were decent results) that equated to our "terrible run".

So yes, stability WAS the answer, but we panicked.

The mistake has been made, we just need to rectify it asap. How? I've no idea.

No I always said that the timing was odd. I never once called for Hughes to be sacked midseason. He should have been sacked last summer or we should have waited until this summer before any decision was made. That said after the Spurs game you would have to be blind or stupid not to realise that the game was up for Hughes. You cannot be in charge for 18 months and serve up that sort of directionless, mindless display or watch as Lennon ripped Sylvinho to shreds without any leadership being shown from the man paid to lead. It just ain't going to happen.

Like it or not (and clearly you don't) Mancini is just doing what Mancini does. And that is get the team playing the way he thinks you need to play if you want to compete at the top. Its all concentration, awareness and thinking about the game. Which is pretty much what all the top sides do. Chelsea are nothing if not well drilled. Its almost a default setting and when things get tough every player automatically knows what to do and where to go. For us it isn't automatic because we are still learning. Capello now has the England side well drilled and when first appointed he was placing players in positions on the pitch. Mourinho does the same, Ancelotti, Mancini it doesn't really matter. With a team that is trying to be one of the elite the first thing they are going to do is tighten them up, drill them and smack them round the head until they learn to be alert and concentrate for 90 or 120 mins.

Whatever top manager we employ you're going to get what we currently get or at least a variation on the theme. What you ain't going to get is 'charge' and lets try and score lots of goals which is pretty much what we had.

We are trying to break into the European elite of football. You don't do this by emulating the local eleven from the Dog&Duck.

But we beat Chelsea a few weeks before h was sacked, that being 3 days after beating Arsenal.

[Original Dub]

Because Hughes couldn't organise the team and was shipping goals faster than the Titanic shipped water.

You can berate Mancini for not getting it right in two and bit months but then Hughes didn't get it right in 18 months and there was no sign of it improving. Stability works if you have the right man in charge. You can argue that Mancini is not the right man based on what he does or does not do but using Hughes as a yardstick is woefully ineffective.

You're talking as if he took over a side at the bottom. He took over a side near the top that played football but let in some shit goals. He's turned it into a side full of defenders that can't play football & lets in shit goals. That's supposed to be tactically brilliant but imo tactically brilliant would be solving the defensive problem whilst playing attacking football. Had Hughes managed to achieve that, he would have been brilliant. He almost did, for example v Chelsea then he got injuries then the sack. Any twat can scrape out points by staying in their own half most of the game, especially with the players we've got but going forward & not conceding is much harder, takes a lot longer but is much more suitable for a club of our apparent ambition.

If Mancini is to have any chance of saving his job, he needs plan B, immediately.

As I said you can rip Mancini for what he does or doesn't do but using Hughes as a yardstick is pointless. Hughes was in charge for 18 months won 4 league games away from home, conceded 9 league goals in his last 3 matches and in his only full season finished 10th, after I may add promising a top 6 finish and no excuses and then treated us to the classic excuse that it was better to finish 10th and not have Europe as a distraction.

Or if you want to compare lets take Sven's one and only full season in charge who spent less, had less time in preseason and who finished 9th. Now you can slice and dice the two mens respective talents as manager anyway you want but the records show that Sven shaded it over Hughes.

Anyway we can kill Mancini all day long and I am sure a lot of people will do so with vim and vigour but do it based on his record at City not on some fantasy about Hughes because the facts don't back you up.

You could be onto something here mate - In the same season Sven spent 40 odd million, hughes bettered him with blackburn on a shoe string budget.

Also, we finished 8th under Pearce playing similar football to what we are now but had a lot less money.

So should we go and get Pearce as he had our best finish so far?

The fact remains that we WERE improving on last season and it was significant even to those who wanted hughes gone all last season. Almost everyone except your good self will say the timing was bizzare because we were on course for 35 points at the halway point which was EXACTLY what was asked. We were also playing exciting, attacking football for the most part (no one can do it ALL the time) and had reached our first semi final for fucking YEARS with OUTSTANDING displays against the best in the country (U***d, Chelsea and Arsenal). It was never going to be an easy ride and we had two or three poor draws (at least 4 draws were decent results) that equated to our "terrible run".

So yes, stability WAS the answer, but we panicked.

The mistake has been made, we just need to rectify it asap. How? I've no idea.

No I always said that the timing was odd. I never once called for Hughes to be sacked midseason. He should have been sacked last summer or we should have waited until this summer before any decision was made. That said after the Spurs game you would have to be blind or stupid not to realise that the game was up for Hughes. You cannot be in charge for 18 months and serve up that sort of directionless, mindless display or watch as Lennon ripped Sylvinho to shreds without any leadership being shown from the man paid to lead. It just ain't going to happen.

Like it or not (and clearly you don't) Mancini is just doing what Mancini does. And that is get the team playing the way he thinks you need to play if you want to compete at the top. Its all concentration, awareness and thinking about the game. Which is pretty much what all the top sides do. Chelsea are nothing if not well drilled. Its almost a default setting and when things get tough every player automatically knows what to do and where to go. For us it isn't automatic because we are still learning. Capello now has the England side well drilled and when first appointed he was placing players in positions on the pitch. Mourinho does the same, Ancelotti, Mancini it doesn't really matter. With a team that is trying to be one of the elite the first thing they are going to do is tighten them up, drill them and smack them round the head until they learn to be alert and concentrate for 90 or 120 mins.

Whatever top manager we employ you're going to get what we currently get or at least a variation on the theme. What you ain't going to get is 'charge' and lets try and score lots of goals which is pretty much what we had.

We are trying to break into the European elite of football. You don't do this by emulating the local eleven from the Dog&Duck.

You have a LOT of faith in him Bob and I hope you're right I really do.

However, you intimate a transitional period with the highlighted above and a transitional period was not an option... or at least if it was an option it has to be over NOW. Otherwise we won't achieve top four and the decision will have been completely pointless.

Like I say, I hope you're right and all this "discipline" pays off FROM NOW ON.

Every passing week/match isn't telling me this though and that's THE ONLY problem I have. Honest to God if he turns this shite around, I'll be the first to hold my hand up.

But I refuse to do so until I see improvement, and so should you TBH.

[BobKowalski]

No I always said that the timing was odd. I never once called for Hughes to be sacked midseason. He should have been sacked last summer or we should have waited until this summer before any decision was made. That said after the Spurs game you would have to be blind or stupid not to realise that the game was up for Hughes. You cannot be in charge for 18 months and serve up that sort of directionless, mindless display or watch as Lennon ripped Sylvinho to shreds without any leadership being shown from the man paid to lead. It just ain't going to happen.

Like it or not (and clearly you don't) Mancini is just doing what Mancini does. And that is get the team playing the way he thinks you need to play if you want to compete at the top. Its all concentration, awareness and thinking about the game. Which is pretty much what all the top sides do. Chelsea are nothing if not well drilled. Its almost a default setting and when things get tough every player automatically knows what to do and where to go. For us it isn't automatic because we are still learning. Capello now has the England side well drilled and when first appointed he was placing players in positions on the pitch. Mourinho does the same, Ancelotti, Mancini it doesn't really matter. With a team that is trying to be one of the elite the first thing they are going to do is tighten them up, drill them and smack them round the head until they learn to be alert and concentrate for 90 or 120 mins.

Whatever top manager we employ you're going to get what we currently get or at least a variation on the theme. What you ain't going to get is 'charge' and lets try and score lots of goals which is pretty much what we had.

We are trying to break into the European elite of football. You don't do this by emulating the local eleven from the Dog&Duck.

But we beat Chelsea a few weeks before h was sacked, that being 3 days after beating Arsenal.

Yes we did. And you know what? Beating Chelsea will not keep Mancini in his job anymore then it did Hughes. Beating the top sides ala Everton at the moment is not going to mean jackshit unless as a manager you make City one of the the top clubs in England/Europe along the way.

[Ted Hughes]

Agree totally with OD in that I'd be delighted if Mancini turned it round. I have no reason whatsoever to want him to fail, he seems like a nice chap. I have no preference for any other manager over him if he comes up with the goods. I just want good football & if he can't provide it I'd rather have someone else before the club does become completely unstable.

[BobKowalski]

You have a LOT of faith in him Bob and I hope you're right I really do.

However, you intimate a transitional period with the highlighted above and a transitional period was not an option... or at least if it was an option it has to be over NOW. Otherwise we won't achieve top four and the decision will have been completely pointless.

Like I say, I hope you're right and all this "discipline" pays off FROM NOW ON.

Every passing week/match isn't telling me this though and that's THE ONLY problem I have. Honest to God if he turns this shite around, I'll be the first to hold my hand up.

But I refuse to do so until I see improvement, and so should you TBH.

There isn't a transitional option. Mancini has to do all this and achieve top 4 spot. Which is why there is all this speculation about Mancini under pressure etc. I do see an improvement or at least I see what he is trying to do and that it is getting there. In an interview he said it would take 3 months to get the squad where he wants them to be. Its just a question of whether he can keep the results on the positive side whilst he does it and can convince the players, the board, the fans its the right way forward. If he can't do this then he is toast.

[Im_Spartacus]

You have a LOT of faith in him Bob and I hope you're right I really do.

However, you intimate a transitional period with the highlighted above and a transitional period was not an option... or at least if it was an option it has to be over NOW. Otherwise we won't achieve top four and the decision will have been completely pointless.

Like I say, I hope you're right and all this "discipline" pays off FROM NOW ON.

Every passing week/match isn't telling me this though and that's THE ONLY problem I have. Honest to God if he turns this shite around, I'll be the first to hold my hand up.

But I refuse to do so until I see improvement, and so should you TBH.

There isn't a transitional option. Mancini has to do all this and achieve top 4 spot. Which is why there is all this speculation about Mancini under pressure etc. I do see an improvement or at least I see what he is trying to do and that it is getting there. In an interview he said it would take 3 months to get the squad where he wants them to be. Its just a question of whether he can keep the results on the positive side whilst he does it and can convince the players, the board, the fans its the right way forward. If he can't do this then he is toast.

Problem is, that "3rd month" we are in now involves some difficult games against our direct rivals, and it is hard to see us keeping our shit together, having already been dumped out of the cup and not bothered trying to beat another of our direct rivals in that 3rd month.

[Ted Hughes]

Anyone else seen this quote attributed to Shay Given? I saw it on a really shite blog which is just some twat doing a hatchet job on City but it's down as an actual quote. Wondering where the quote is from. Doesn't sound to promising for Mancini if it's genuine;


Asked if he thought it was too early for people to be questioning Mancini's position, Given said: "Yes. It is a big club, obviously, and there is huge expectation at the club now, but we have to just try and take a deep breath and try and finish the season on a high.

"We are very much in contention for fourth spot and we've got to focus on that. Hopefully we can do that and then reassess things in the summer."

[Im_Spartacus]

Anyone else seen this quote attributed to Shay Given? I saw it on a really shite blog which is just some twat doing a hatchet job on City but it's down as an actual quote. Wondering where the quote is from. Doesn't sound to promising for Mancini if it's genuine;


Asked if he thought it was too early for people to be questioning Mancini's position, Given said: "Yes. It is a big club, obviously, and there is huge expectation at the club now, but we have to just try and take a deep breath and try and finish the season on a high.

"We are very much in contention for fourth spot and we've got to focus on that. Hopefully we can do that and then reassess things in the summer."

He was on Sky sports doing an interview earlier, most probably something to do with that, but I was only half listening. I got it on now so no doubt it will be on again shortly and i'll report back.

[john68]

Tokyo,
I will try and naswer you question as fully as I can Mate but there were both footballing and societal difference that make any direct comparison to the present more difficult. They may in fact answer a few questions too.

MEDIA
When doing some City research, I noted that the reportage of football on a daily basis, compared to now was almost negligable. Apart from the MuEN Pink (Saturday evening-post match) there was very little coverage of football, unless something worth reporting was happening. There was very little in-depth analysis, unless it was a feature. Pre match previews were usually only a couple of paragraphs.
TV had MOTD, but only highlights and local TV did a pre match feature for 1 hour covering all the north west teams.
I think this is significant because there was very little pressure from the media, either on the clubs or on the opinions of fans. Football was reported by football writers who knew the game and other related (lifestyle etc) matters were usually ignored.
FOOTBALL
Mercer?Allison actually took 3 season to win the League, not 2. (65-66, 66-67, 67-68). The starting point was in Division 1 were we had struggled the previous season. It could be said that though the whole journey was a longer haul, the targets on the way were more achievable.
In 65-66 we won Div2, success but against a lower quality of opposition.
In 66-67, we were told pre season that the target was to consolidate our Div1 position and we did that. That season however was dire. For much of it we were near the bottom and relegation was almost always a spectre that loomed over our shoulder. We had successes but not that many.
We won the league in 67-68 but we started very badly. we then had a run of success and got near the top, before fading again. It was fits and starts until we put a run together after the new year. Even then we had our failures and ionly a matter of weeks before the end of the season were sat down in 5th and seemingly out of it. The rags were the favourites and it was only their failure wuth a bout 3 games to go that let us in with a chance...that we took.

Those mate are the facts....I will post my opinions seperately.

[john68]

Times were different in the 60s and I blame much of the change (for the worse) on the media.
Whereas football was usually covered by football writers for football purposes...match reports etc, now we have a subversive media that digs out anything and everything it can about clubs and players, even down to the minutiae of their lifestyles. It panders to the celeb culture that it has created and then having built it up...ensures that it knocks it back down again.
For me, the worst part is that the media demands only SUCCESS NOW. It ignores the reality that success usually and historically is an evolvement that takes time. Time is not allowed, anyone seen to be failing from the very start is destroyed.
Whether we like to admit or not, whether we believe we are free thinkers who make up our own minds or not, the vast majority are victims of what we read incessantly, on a daily basis. We become part of the society that demands "what we want...NOW."

...and therein lies the danger....Nobody is given time. Failure, even temporary failure is not tolerated. Results NOW have become all important.
At City, we have GOT to succeed NOW...there is a demand for the marquee celeb footballer. There is the belief that titles can be bought without the necessity of the work and time to gel a team together. Every failure is seen in gut wrenching extremes, when the reality is that it takes time
I tried to make a thread some time ago about Mercer and whether he would have been given the time or at what point he would have been seen as a failure. I wasn't allowed and it was dragged into a Hughes in/out debate...But I honestly think that Mercer could have been in danger under today's pressures and not allowed to gradually evolve and build his team.

[Im_Spartacus]

Times were different in the 60s and I blame much of the change (for the worse) on the media.
Whereas football was usually covered by football writers for football purposes...match reports etc, now we have a subversive media that digs out anything and everything it can about clubs and players, even down to the minutiae of their lifestyles. It panders to the celeb culture that it has created and then having built it up...ensures that it knocks it back down again.
For me, the worst part is that the media demands only SUCCESS NOW. It ignores the reality that success usually and historically is an evolvement that takes time. Time is not allowed, anyone seen to be failing from the very start is destroyed.
Whether we like to admit or not, whether we believe we are free thinkers who make up our own minds or not, the vast majority are victims of what we read incessantly, on a daily basis. We become part of the society that demands "what we want...NOW."

...and therein lies the danger....Nobody is given time. Failure, even temporary failure is not tolerated. Results NOW have become all important.
At City, we have GOT to succeed NOW...there is a demand for the marquee celeb footballer. There is the belief that titles can be bought without the necessity of the work and time to gel a team together. Every failure is seen in gut wrenching extremes, when the reality is that it takes time
I tried to make a thread some time ago about Mercer and whether he would have been given the time or at what point he would have been seen as a failure. I wasn't allowed and it was dragged into a Hughes in/out debate...But I honestly think that Mercer could have been in danger under today's pressures and not allowed to gradually evolve and build his team.

What you write here is right on the button.

However if we accept that we are NOT in the 60's, 70's or even 80's, we are in the premier league era which demands success and instant gratification (rightly or wrongly), why therefore do we keep thinking with the mentality of decades passed and that loyalty to a manager will somehow result in a better performance.

There is only really one proven example that time matters, old baconface. Aside from that, the "stick with your manager" line is pretty weak, as ultimately they all fail under their own steam. The only reason to stick with a poorly performing manager is if you are confident that you DEFINATELY have the man.

I dont think anyone is confident that either Hughes or Mancini are/were definately "the" man who will lead us to success over a decade, which is why I believe that the appointment of Mourinho is the only way to stop the arguments amongst city fans.

[BobKowalski]

Times were different in the 60s and I blame much of the change (for the worse) on the media.
Whereas football was usually covered by football writers for football purposes...match reports etc, now we have a subversive media that digs out anything and everything it can about clubs and players, even down to the minutiae of their lifestyles. It panders to the celeb culture that it has created and then having built it up...ensures that it knocks it back down again.
For me, the worst part is that the media demands only SUCCESS NOW. It ignores the reality that success usually and historically is an evolvement that takes time. Time is not allowed, anyone seen to be failing from the very start is destroyed.
Whether we like to admit or not, whether we believe we are free thinkers who make up our own minds or not, the vast majority are victims of what we read incessantly, on a daily basis. We become part of the society that demands "what we want...NOW."

...and therein lies the danger....Nobody is given time. Failure, even temporary failure is not tolerated. Results NOW have become all important.
At City, we have GOT to succeed NOW...there is a demand for the marquee celeb footballer. There is the belief that titles can be bought without the necessity of the work and time to gel a team together. Every failure is seen in gut wrenching extremes, when the reality is that it takes time
I tried to make a thread some time ago about Mercer and whether he would have been given the time or at what point he would have been seen as a failure. I wasn't allowed and it was dragged into a Hughes in/out debate...But I honestly think that Mercer could have been in danger under today's pressures and not allowed to gradually evolve and build his team.

Welcome to the age of 24/7 media. Its like a gaping maw that consumes everything and shits it out the other end. The one thing you can do to a limited degree is control the media and it helps if you have them onside. At the moment we do not have the media onside. The media perceives us as a club in disarray and 3 games away from sacking the manager. Lose tomorrow and the heat will be turned up even further. You will be analysing the game with the pros and the cons and everyone else will be screaming for blood (italian, chilled and served with pate) and threads will be popping up about the drivel Mancini speaks and the garbage footie etc etc followed by more reports of fan unrest, player unrest and boardroom unease.

On the bright side though if Mancini can get 4th spot with all this he's a fucking genius :)

[john68]

Bob,
Thanks mate but I don't need a welcome to the age of 24'7 media. I am quite alive and have been all through the changes to it.
Everyone understands the media, its motives and its adendas. Evryone understands that the media with its subversive and all pervading destructive pressures is a destructiver force when against you but almost everyone ignores "knowing it" and reacts to it in just the way they want you to.
I understand that in the thirst for all things football and on here, City means that every last word printed or stated in the media is swallowed up greedily. But why...why...why...does anyone take any fuclin notice of it. For city, it has destroyed many pasts, it is destroying ther present and sure as eggs are fuclin eggs, it will destroy our future...ONLY IF WE ALLOW IT.

The most important thing it will destroy at the club is our stability.

Stability does not mean the same manager, change is fine as long as the sense of purpose and the direction are the same. Shankly took time to build his Liverpool, when he went, Paisley and subsequently the Boot Room continued that path and kept the success going. It was only when the direction was changed under Souness that it felt to bits.
Mercer and Allison did the same for us. Allison on his own failed as did Saunders but when Book went back to the Mercer path and reinstated what we had done under Mercer, we had success again. It was the changes by Allison (2) that fucled it up.
The rags have benefitted under taggart as have Arsenal who though they have not won recently, have remained at the top and competing.

The hard job is choosing a path to travel and then sticking with it through thick and thin. Learning where the weaknesses are over time and strengthening them and making progress upwards...and sticking with it even if that progress seems too slow....it is still progress.

Over the years, we have never learned the lesson that it is the constant change in direction that caused us to fail. Each manager coming in and doing it differently and then not being given the time to finish the job. We were progressing with Hughes. There had been massive changes within the club and did we really expect that there would never be any downs. There were under every successful manager. The downs have to be dealt with and then progress restarts again. Mancini has come in and instead of taking the weaknesses he inherited and simply working to improve them, he has started back at the beginning...his beginning.
It looks as if we have gone backwards the 1st job that most managers do before starting their own journey is to demolish what the previous tenant has left them. There are no quick fixes...the 1st few yards of any manager are always the hard yards. We have to learn to suffer them...be patient...and supportive.
Until we learn that...we will never create the dynasty that we crave.

[wesmancity]

Wilf Wild------------------------1932-1946----------14 years (Won F.A Cup, First Division)
Les Mcdowall-------------------1950-1963----------13 years
Ernest Mangnall----------------1912-1924-----------12 years
Sam Omerod--------------------1895-1902------------7 years
Joe Mercer--------------------1965-1971--------------6 years (First Div Champ, FA Cup, Lea Cup, Uefa Cup)
Peter Hodge---------------------1926-1932----------6 years
Harry Newbould----------------1906-1912------------6 years
Tony Book (2nd Time)----------1974-1979------------5 years (League Cup)
Kevin Keegan--------------------2001-2005------------4 years
Tom Maley----------------------1902-1906-----------4 years (won the F.A Cup)
Lawrence Furniss--------------1889-1893-------------4 years
Joe Royal-------------------------1998-2001-------------3 years
Peter Reid------------------------1990-1993-------------3 years
Billy McNeill---------------------1983-1986-------------3 years
Jock Thomson------------------1947-1950------------3 years
Edward Kitchen---------------1884-1887-------------3 years
John Bond-------------------------1980-1983-----------3 years
Stuart Pearce---------------------2005-2007------------2 years
Frank Clark-----------------------1996-1998------------2 years
Brian Horton--------------------1993-1995-------------2 years
Mel Machin------------------------1987-1989----------2 years
Malcolm Allison----------------1971-1973------------2 years
George Povser------------------1963-1965------------2 years
Frederick Hopkinson ---------1880-1882--------------2 years
Walter Chew-------------------1887-1889-------------2 years
Joshua Parlby-------------------1893-1895-------------2 years
Mark Hughes----------------------2008-2009------------1 year
Sven-Goran Eriksson-----------2007-2008------------1 year
Alan Ball--------------------------1995-1996------------1 year
Howard Kendall------------------1989-1990-----------1 year
Malcolm Allison (2nd Time)---1979-1980------------1 year
David Ashworth---------------1924-1925------------1 year
Albert Alexander--------------1925-1926-------------1 year
Sam Cowen--------------------1946-1947-------------1 year
Jimmy Frizzell---------------------1986-1987----------8 months
Johnny Hart----------------------1973-1973-----------5 months
Ron Saunders----------------------1973-1974----------5 months
John Benson------------------------1983-1983---------4 months
Roberto Mancini------------------2009-Present--------3 months
Wilf Wild (2nd Time)---------1947-1947-------------2 months
Tony Book-----------------------1973-1973-----------1 month
Phil Neal--------------------------1996-1996------------6 weeks
Steve Coppell--------------------1996- 1996-----------4 weeks

Not one manager who has been successful with Manchester City won anything in their first 2 seasons.

Plus.....


The four most successful mangers in the English League never won out for the few season bar one who was Bob Paisley, but he did take over from Bill Shankly who build the side.

Brian Clough
Derby County , managed the team from 1967 to 1973 didn’t win anything till the 71/72 season so that’s 4 years

Nottingham Forest, managed the team from 1975 to 1993 didn’t win anything till 1978 so that’s 3 years.

Alex Ferguson
The Scum, started managing them from 1986 and the utd faith full put a banner at old Trafford saying "Three years of excuses and it's still crap. Ta ra Fergie." Sound like something I hear on here! Alex then won them a cup so it took him 3 years.

Bill Shankly
Started at Liverpool in 1959 an won his first trophy in 1965 so that’s 6 years

Bob Paisley
Started at Liverpool in 1974 an won his first trophy in 75