Mancini (The Ted Hughes and BBS thread)

[brite blu sky]

Can someone explain how there has been only one reason people are giving in reference to changing tactics during a game. I mean damn you wouldn't think there was another manager effecting the game the way some people go on "HE GOT IT WRONG FROM THE START." Oh right I forgot he gets an email from the opposing manager explaining how they intend to setup against his team, how stupid of me.

I tend to agree with you Truby, i think conventional wisdom around these parts is that you shouldn't pander to other teams ideas and just go and do your own thing. Which y'know has a certain ring to it.

Anyways, you might need to get yerself a tin hat and doff it, you can never tell round here.

good luck though.

[Ted Hughes]

Can someone explain how there has been only one reason people are giving in reference to changing tactics during a game. I mean damn you wouldn't think there was another manager effecting the game the way some people go on "HE GOT IT WRONG FROM THE START." Oh right I forgot he gets an email from the opposing manager explaining how they intend to setup against his team, how stupid of me.

I tend to agree with you Truby, i think conventional wisdom around these parts is that you shouldn't pander to other teams ideas and just go and do your own thing. Which y'know has a certain ring to it.

Anyways, you might need to get yerself a tin hat and doff it, you can never tell round here.

good luck though.

That's the criteria the previous managers were judged on. Some people can still recite in detail, individual substitutions the last one made as proof he didn't know what he was doing, yet now such things are perfectly reasonable mistakes, in fact not mistakes at all.

[brite blu sky]

Can someone explain how there has been only one reason people are giving in reference to changing tactics during a game. I mean damn you wouldn't think there was another manager effecting the game the way some people go on "HE GOT IT WRONG FROM THE START." Oh right I forgot he gets an email from the opposing manager explaining how they intend to setup against his team, how stupid of me.

I tend to agree with you Truby, i think conventional wisdom around these parts is that you shouldn't pander to other teams ideas and just go and do your own thing. Which y'know has a certain ring to it.

Anyways, you might need to get yerself a tin hat and doff it, you can never tell round here.

good luck though.

That's the criteria the previous managers were judged on. Some people can still recite in detail, individual substitutions the last one made as proof he didn't know what he was doing, yet now such things are perfectly reasonable mistakes, in fact not mistakes at all.

TruBlu you might want to throw on an extra couple of layers of skin too while you are digging out the hat!
Ive got a sense you might have opened a wee can of carefully preserved worms here ;)

[Ted Hughes]

Can someone explain how there has been only one reason people are giving in reference to changing tactics during a game. I mean damn you wouldn't think there was another manager effecting the game the way some people go on "HE GOT IT WRONG FROM THE START." Oh right I forgot he gets an email from the opposing manager explaining how they intend to setup against his team, how stupid of me.

I tend to agree with you Truby, i think conventional wisdom around these parts is that you shouldn't pander to other teams ideas and just go and do your own thing. Which y'know has a certain ring to it.

Anyways, you might need to get yerself a tin hat and doff it, you can never tell round here.

good luck though.

That's the criteria the previous managers were judged on. Some people can still recite in detail, individual substitutions the last one made as proof he didn't know what he was doing, yet now such things are perfectly reasonable mistakes, in fact not mistakes at all.

TruBlu you might want to throw on an extra couple of layers of skin too while you are digging out the hat!
Ive got a sense you might have opened a wee can of carefully preserved worms here ;)

Well there's very little point in having a forum if you can't question & criticise a managers starting 11 or substitutions. It's a fair point to ask about his decisions v Stoke. Personally I thought his starting formation was wrong & spoiled the team & his finishing substitution may have been wrong but on the whole I was very pleased with the performance he got from the team 2nd half so he deserves more credit than criticism imo. I can see why people think he fucked up though.

[Swales4ever]

Dunno why it always happens to me to start on the opposite side of Ted's fence... while I widely like his football brain... bloody my poor two neurons... :-)
Anyway... to me line up at Britannia was perfectly accorded to a wise game plan issued to hold control of their agressivity [non-staminal?] and to take progressively possession of the ball and the game whilst the Potteries faded. I may partly agree that what watched in the first half was not a complete success on such a strategy, but I'd also like to counter that the beauty of EPL is actually that every game you face an opponent worth to pose an actual threat. I mean the Mighty Blues are not the only side which had been put under pressure for 20-30 minutes there...
On the contrary I widely disagree on Roberto choice of entering AJ instead of Vieira or any other solution deemed to increase the control in the middle of the park and thus sterilize the game (could have also been JL plus moving Vinnie to midfield). I could even understand where the choice came from - the idea of keep the challange up to Adam every game - but it was wrong nonetheless, also because the option of defending by means of posing a major attacking threat could had been more logical on a different, non frozen pitch, but not there, given those conditions..
hope it's understandable enough... :-)

[Ted Hughes]

Dunno why it always happens to me to start on the opposite side of Ted's fence... while I widely like his football brain... bloody my poor two neurons... :-)
Anyway... to me line up at Britannia was perfectly accorded to a wise game plan issued to hold control of their agressivity [non-staminal?] and to take progressively possession of the ball and the game whilst the Potteries faded. I may partly agree that what watched in the first half was not a complete success on such a strategy, but I'd also like to counter that the beauty of EPL is actually that every game you face an opponent worth to pose an actual threat. I mean the Mighty Blues are not the only side which had been put under pressure for 20-30 minutes there...
On the contrary I widely disagree on Roberto choice of entering AJ instead of Vieira or any other solution deemed to increase the control in the middle of the park and thus sterilize the game (could have also been JL plus moving Vinnie to midfield). I could even understand where the choice came from - the idea of keep the challange up to Adam every game - but it was wrong nonetheless, also because the option of defending by means of posing a major attacking threat could had been more logical on a different, non frozen pitch, but not there, given those conditions..
hope it's understandable enough... :-)

My criticism of Mancini's formation v Stoke is purely because of this; v Fulham, everything worked almost perfectly. He was forced to make a change at right back for Stoke as Zabba was injured. He decided to play Balotelli too which is understandable. Baloteli replaced Jo, so 2 changes, simple.

Actually though, Balotelli didn't replace Jo, Silva replaced Jo, because Balotelli was played on the right & centre rather than the left & Silva went to the left. So from our best performance of the season, we've now made two changes of personnel & two positional changes; 4 changes. It upset the flow of the team. We were outplayed for 20/30 mins by Stoke & Balotelli was hopeless. Mancini then changed the team back to the Fulham formation with Balo on the left & instantly the team started passing the ball & Balotelli started to get involved. The whole team started to play like we did the week before & that continued throughout the game. Imo the reason we started badly was because of Mancini's team selection & he's done similar things in many other games this season; changing players positions as well as changing the team. Imo it's failed on almost every occasion he's done it & he's been forced to change it several times during the games to try & fix it.

It's not the best way to do it at this stage imo as the players don't know each other well enough to click together when too many changers are made at once. When that happens it's a gamble rather than a plan.

[brite blu sky]

My criticism of Mancini's formation v Stoke is purely because of this; v Fulham, everything worked almost perfectly. He was forced to make a change at right back for Stoke as Zabba was injured. He decided to play Balotelli too which is understandable. Baloteli replaced Jo, so 2 changes, simple.

Actually though, Balotelli didn't replace Jo, Silva replaced Jo, because Balotelli was played on the right & centre rather than the left & Silva went to the left. So from our best performance of the season, we've now made two changes of personnel & two positional changes; 4 changes. It upset the flow of the team. We were outplayed for 20/30 mins by Stoke & Balotelli was hopeless. Mancini then changed the team back to the Fulham formation with Balo on the left & instantly the team started passing the ball & Balotelli started to get involved. The whole team started to play like we did the week before & that continued throughout the game. Imo the reason we started badly was because of Mancini's team selection & he's done similar things in many other games this season; changing players positions as well as changing the team. Imo it's failed on almost every occasion he's done it & he's been forced to change it several times during the games to try & fix it.

It's not the best way to do it at this stage imo as the players don't know each other well enough to click together when too many changers are made at once. When that happens it's a gamble rather than a plan.

Im not convinced by your argument Ted. For the simple reason, Balotelli started on the left, Silva on the right. Then he came central and then he was on the right. A short time later he was back on the left and Silva back on the right. All this moving was in the first half. So one of two things, they either roamed around as they felt like it or Mancini told them when to switch, but there was no clear pattern to speak of and it wasn't as clear cut as you try to make out. Even in the second half Balotelli was over on the right and also in the center.

So if you are using such info to support your argument it undermines it im afraid.
On that basis i'm not buying your argument even though i was swayed by what you wrote as it sounds convincing.

At Fulham Silva was more confined to the right and Jo to the left, but i would argue a very simple reason that didnt change so much, was that Fulham were so obliging we didn't have to keep trying different things or moving around.

[Ted Hughes]

My criticism of Mancini's formation v Stoke is purely because of this; v Fulham, everything worked almost perfectly. He was forced to make a change at right back for Stoke as Zabba was injured. He decided to play Balotelli too which is understandable. Baloteli replaced Jo, so 2 changes, simple.

Actually though, Balotelli didn't replace Jo, Silva replaced Jo, because Balotelli was played on the right & centre rather than the left & Silva went to the left. So from our best performance of the season, we've now made two changes of personnel & two positional changes; 4 changes. It upset the flow of the team. We were outplayed for 20/30 mins by Stoke & Balotelli was hopeless. Mancini then changed the team back to the Fulham formation with Balo on the left & instantly the team started passing the ball & Balotelli started to get involved. The whole team started to play like we did the week before & that continued throughout the game. Imo the reason we started badly was because of Mancini's team selection & he's done similar things in many other games this season; changing players positions as well as changing the team. Imo it's failed on almost every occasion he's done it & he's been forced to change it several times during the games to try & fix it.

It's not the best way to do it at this stage imo as the players don't know each other well enough to click together when too many changers are made at once. When that happens it's a gamble rather than a plan.

Im not convinced by your argument Ted. For the simple reason, Balotelli started on the left, Silva on the right. Then he came central and then he was on the right. A short time later he was back on the left and Silva back on the right. All this moving was in the first half. So one of two things, they either roamed around as they felt like it or Mancini told them when to switch, but there was no clear pattern to speak of and it wasn't as clear cut as you try to make out. Even in the second half Balotelli was over on the right and also in the center.

So if you are using such info to support your argument it undermines it im afraid.
On that basis i'm not buying your argument even though i was swayed by what you wrote as it sounds convincing.

At Fulham Silva was more confined to the right and Jo to the left, but i would argue a very simple reason that didnt change so much, was that Fulham were so obliging we didn't have to keep trying different things or moving around.

Well if he did start on the left it can't have been for long because I was posting on here about it at the time asking the question if Balotelli had left his position as we were a mess. Balotelli moved back towards the right later in the game but by that time the team was playing with a nice rhythm, so making such moves isn't neccessarily so disruptive. Until we reverted to the formation as at Fulham, we were dogshit & actually being outpassed on the ground by Stoke. Afterwards our passing improved 100% & Balotelli was much happier & much more effective coming from the left than the right. Bob said that was the position we were missing so why, as soon as he gets the chance to play the player he's been waiting for, in that position he moves him God knows. (Well obviously it was so Kolarov can cross to him but it upset the team changing so early).

Silva wasn't confined to the right at Fulham, he was drifting from there all over the shop almost in a free role & brilliantly he did in that role too as he did at Stoke when he moved around. He's better left to do as he pleases imo.

[Slim]

My criticism of Mancini's formation v Stoke is purely because of this; v Fulham, everything worked almost perfectly. He was forced to make a change at right back for Stoke as Zabba was injured. He decided to play Balotelli too which is understandable. Baloteli replaced Jo, so 2 changes, simple.

Actually though, Balotelli didn't replace Jo, Silva replaced Jo, because Balotelli was played on the right & centre rather than the left & Silva went to the left. So from our best performance of the season, we've now made two changes of personnel & two positional changes; 4 changes. It upset the flow of the team. We were outplayed for 20/30 mins by Stoke & Balotelli was hopeless. Mancini then changed the team back to the Fulham formation with Balo on the left & instantly the team started passing the ball & Balotelli started to get involved. The whole team started to play like we did the week before & that continued throughout the game. Imo the reason we started badly was because of Mancini's team selection & he's done similar things in many other games this season; changing players positions as well as changing the team. Imo it's failed on almost every occasion he's done it & he's been forced to change it several times during the games to try & fix it.

It's not the best way to do it at this stage imo as the players don't know each other well enough to click together when too many changers are made at once. When that happens it's a gamble rather than a plan.

-Zabs was suspended, not injured.
-We made three changes, Milner for Yaya, Richards for Zabs, Mario for Jo. (and then switching positions)

Apart from that, a solid few points there.

My belief is that Mario is a showpony when we need a workhorse, rather than making the selfless runs, chasing down that 50-50 touch and drawing players out of position for Silva and Tevez to work their magic, he was looking to be the centre of attention and making runs/occupying space that cramped our other players.

And Milner is not physically imposing enough to play a high line like Yaya did and create a foil for Tevez, hardly his fault but not the right role for him and that falls on Mancini.

[Ted Hughes]

My criticism of Mancini's formation v Stoke is purely because of this; v Fulham, everything worked almost perfectly. He was forced to make a change at right back for Stoke as Zabba was injured. He decided to play Balotelli too which is understandable. Baloteli replaced Jo, so 2 changes, simple.

Actually though, Balotelli didn't replace Jo, Silva replaced Jo, because Balotelli was played on the right & centre rather than the left & Silva went to the left. So from our best performance of the season, we've now made two changes of personnel & two positional changes; 4 changes. It upset the flow of the team. We were outplayed for 20/30 mins by Stoke & Balotelli was hopeless. Mancini then changed the team back to the Fulham formation with Balo on the left & instantly the team started passing the ball & Balotelli started to get involved. The whole team started to play like we did the week before & that continued throughout the game. Imo the reason we started badly was because of Mancini's team selection & he's done similar things in many other games this season; changing players positions as well as changing the team. Imo it's failed on almost every occasion he's done it & he's been forced to change it several times during the games to try & fix it.

It's not the best way to do it at this stage imo as the players don't know each other well enough to click together when too many changers are made at once. When that happens it's a gamble rather than a plan.

-Zabs was suspended, not injured.
-We made three changes, Milner for Yaya, Richards for Zabs, Mario for Jo. (and then switching positions)

Apart from that, a solid few points there.

My belief is that Mario is a showpony when we need a workhorse, rather than making the selfless runs, chasing down that 50-50 touch and drawing players out of position for Silva and Tevez to work their magic, he was looking to be the centre of attention and making runs/occupying space that cramped our other players.

And Milner is not physically imposing enough to play a high line like Yaya did and create a foil for Tevez, hardly his fault but not the right role for him and that falls on Mancini.

Oh aye forgot about Milner, that made 5 technical changes in my book 2 positional, 3 personnel.

Imo it's hard to tell 100% how these blokes will work out because a lot can change over a year or so once players settle in. I agree about Balotelli but he really is so talented that he could actually end up being both a show pony & our best player. Either we adapt to him, he adapts to us or we dump him in the end though. I agree with Bob that Balotelli could literally score in every game but it could be that he'll have to if he's to be worth a shirt. Whether he's the right player for our team I don't know but I hope he is as he really will produce some magic at times. There's a touch of Rodney Marsh about him but I still maintain we'd have won the league if we'd kept Rodney so I'll wait & see for now.

[brite blu sky]

Well if he did start on the left it can't have been for long because I was posting on here about it at the time asking the question if Balotelli had left his position as we were a mess. Balotelli moved back towards the right later in the game but by that time the team was playing with a nice rhythm, so making such moves isn't neccessarily so disruptive. Until we reverted to the formation as at Fulham, we were dogshit & actually being outpassed on the ground by Stoke. Afterwards our passing improved 100% & Balotelli was much happier & much more effective coming from the left than the right. Bob said that was the position we were missing so why, as soon as he gets the chance to play the player he's been waiting for, in that position he moves him God knows. (Well obviously it was so Kolarov can cross to him but it upset the team changing so early).

Silva wasn't confined to the right at Fulham, he was drifting from there all over the shop almost in a free role & brilliantly he did in that role too as he did at Stoke when he moved around. He's better left to do as he pleases imo.

Well my point is that he wasn't stuck where you suggested in your argument, if you look at the chalkboards thing Tevez, Silva, Milner and Balotelli are all using the full width. During the game it was evident they kept swapping around quite fluidly. I noticed Balotelli move in centrally and Silva drift out in response.

I take your point that we should have started the way we left off at Fulham. But i dont think that the ultimate aim is to have the players so fixed, so if they cant start in slightly different positions then it is a bit of a joke.
You have also to take into account what Tru Blu stated, that some credit has to be given to Stoke.

[Ted Hughes]

Well if he did start on the left it can't have been for long because I was posting on here about it at the time asking the question if Balotelli had left his position as we were a mess. Balotelli moved back towards the right later in the game but by that time the team was playing with a nice rhythm, so making such moves isn't neccessarily so disruptive. Until we reverted to the formation as at Fulham, we were dogshit & actually being outpassed on the ground by Stoke. Afterwards our passing improved 100% & Balotelli was much happier & much more effective coming from the left than the right. Bob said that was the position we were missing so why, as soon as he gets the chance to play the player he's been waiting for, in that position he moves him God knows. (Well obviously it was so Kolarov can cross to him but it upset the team changing so early).

Silva wasn't confined to the right at Fulham, he was drifting from there all over the shop almost in a free role & brilliantly he did in that role too as he did at Stoke when he moved around. He's better left to do as he pleases imo.

Well my point is that he wasn't stuck where you suggested in your argument, if you look at the chalkboards thing Tevez, Silva, Milner and Balotelli are all using the full width. During the game it was evident they kept swapping around quite fluidly. I noticed Balotelli move in centrally and Silva drift out in response.

I take your point that we should have started the way we left off at Fulham. But i dont think that the ultimate aim is to have the players so fixed, so if they cant start in slightly different positions then it is a bit of a joke.
You have also to take into account what Tru Blu stated, that some credit has to be given to Stoke.

The key to the balance of the team v Fulham was that Jo did as he was told; occupying the left of the attack & then also getting on the end of goal kicks, getting into the box or cutting in to shoot. Balotelli looked ok & the team looked balanced when he did the same job. That's hardly a fixed position, it's just doing a job in a nicely balanced team. At Fulham It gave everyone space to operate & everyone looked happy. It's not a slight change to stick Silva there & put Balo on the other side, it's a pretty big change. If you're going to do that, at least wait til we need to do it if the game's passing us by rather than changing a winning formation on a tactical whim. If everyone on here is honest they will say that they wanted as near as damn it the same formation as at Fulham . Some even wanted Jo to play. Bob saw some kind of tactical loophole & off he went at a tangent. We're not ready for that stuff yet.

[brite blu sky]

Well if he did start on the left it can't have been for long because I was posting on here about it at the time asking the question if Balotelli had left his position as we were a mess. Balotelli moved back towards the right later in the game but by that time the team was playing with a nice rhythm, so making such moves isn't neccessarily so disruptive. Until we reverted to the formation as at Fulham, we were dogshit & actually being outpassed on the ground by Stoke. Afterwards our passing improved 100% & Balotelli was much happier & much more effective coming from the left than the right. Bob said that was the position we were missing so why, as soon as he gets the chance to play the player he's been waiting for, in that position he moves him God knows. (Well obviously it was so Kolarov can cross to him but it upset the team changing so early).

Silva wasn't confined to the right at Fulham, he was drifting from there all over the shop almost in a free role & brilliantly he did in that role too as he did at Stoke when he moved around. He's better left to do as he pleases imo.

Well my point is that he wasn't stuck where you suggested in your argument, if you look at the chalkboards thing Tevez, Silva, Milner and Balotelli are all using the full width. During the game it was evident they kept swapping around quite fluidly. I noticed Balotelli move in centrally and Silva drift out in response.

I take your point that we should have started the way we left off at Fulham. But i dont think that the ultimate aim is to have the players so fixed, so if they cant start in slightly different positions then it is a bit of a joke.
You have also to take into account what Tru Blu stated, that some credit has to be given to Stoke.

The key to the balance of the team v Fulham was that Jo did as he was told; occupying the left of the attack & then also getting on the end of goal kicks, getting into the box or cutting in to shoot. Balotelli looked ok & the team looked balanced when he did the same job. That's hardly a fixed position, it's just doing a job in a nicely balanced team. At Fulham It gave everyone space to operate & everyone looked happy. It's not a slight change to stick Silva there & put Balo on the other side, it's a pretty big change. If you're going to do that, at least wait til we need to do it if the game's passing us by rather than changing a winning formation on a tactical whim. If everyone on here is honest they will say that they wanted as near as damn it the same formation as at Fulham . Some even wanted Jo to play. Bob saw some kind of tactical loophole & off he went at a tangent. We're not ready for that stuff yet.

Well we are not going to agree Ted thats for sure. Mancini will do what he wants and i would bet more that Stoke was more what he wants than the set up at Fulham.
You could also argue that Jo stayed on the left because he cant play all over the park, whether he was asked to or not. Plus you have no idea what the players have been asked to do, none of us do. And even if we did it wouldn't make any difference to the argument, because Bob could have decided when he only had Jo that the best thing was to keep him on the left, even if that is not what he would really want.
Based on your argument we would have to stick to what apparently worked in the last game. How do you then progress to what you really want to set up unless you just go and do it?

[Ted Hughes]

Well if he did start on the left it can't have been for long because I was posting on here about it at the time asking the question if Balotelli had left his position as we were a mess. Balotelli moved back towards the right later in the game but by that time the team was playing with a nice rhythm, so making such moves isn't neccessarily so disruptive. Until we reverted to the formation as at Fulham, we were dogshit & actually being outpassed on the ground by Stoke. Afterwards our passing improved 100% & Balotelli was much happier & much more effective coming from the left than the right. Bob said that was the position we were missing so why, as soon as he gets the chance to play the player he's been waiting for, in that position he moves him God knows. (Well obviously it was so Kolarov can cross to him but it upset the team changing so early).

Silva wasn't confined to the right at Fulham, he was drifting from there all over the shop almost in a free role & brilliantly he did in that role too as he did at Stoke when he moved around. He's better left to do as he pleases imo.

Well my point is that he wasn't stuck where you suggested in your argument, if you look at the chalkboards thing Tevez, Silva, Milner and Balotelli are all using the full width. During the game it was evident they kept swapping around quite fluidly. I noticed Balotelli move in centrally and Silva drift out in response.

I take your point that we should have started the way we left off at Fulham. But i dont think that the ultimate aim is to have the players so fixed, so if they cant start in slightly different positions then it is a bit of a joke.
You have also to take into account what Tru Blu stated, that some credit has to be given to Stoke.

The key to the balance of the team v Fulham was that Jo did as he was told; occupying the left of the attack & then also getting on the end of goal kicks, getting into the box or cutting in to shoot. Balotelli looked ok & the team looked balanced when he did the same job. That's hardly a fixed position, it's just doing a job in a nicely balanced team. At Fulham It gave everyone space to operate & everyone looked happy. It's not a slight change to stick Silva there & put Balo on the other side, it's a pretty big change. If you're going to do that, at least wait til we need to do it if the game's passing us by rather than changing a winning formation on a tactical whim. If everyone on here is honest they will say that they wanted as near as damn it the same formation as at Fulham . Some even wanted Jo to play. Bob saw some kind of tactical loophole & off he went at a tangent. We're not ready for that stuff yet.

Well we are not going to agree Ted thats for sure. Mancini will do what he wants and i would bet more that Stoke was more what he wants than the set up at Fulham.
You could also argue that Jo stayed on the left because he cant play all over the park, whether he was asked to or not. Plus you have no idea what the players have been asked to do, none of us do. And even if we did it wouldn't make any difference to the argument, because Bob could have decided when he only had Jo that the best thing was to keep him on the left, even if that is not what he would really want.
Based on your argument we would have to stick to what apparently worked in the last game. How do you then progress to what you really want to set up unless you just go and do it?

I'm assuming you didn't read or hear the quotes from Bob a few weeks ago about how his team wasn't functioning because he needed Balotelli to get fit & play on the left?

[Original Dub]

Well if he did start on the left it can't have been for long because I was posting on here about it at the time asking the question if Balotelli had left his position as we were a mess. Balotelli moved back towards the right later in the game but by that time the team was playing with a nice rhythm, so making such moves isn't neccessarily so disruptive. Until we reverted to the formation as at Fulham, we were dogshit & actually being outpassed on the ground by Stoke. Afterwards our passing improved 100% & Balotelli was much happier & much more effective coming from the left than the right. Bob said that was the position we were missing so why, as soon as he gets the chance to play the player he's been waiting for, in that position he moves him God knows. (Well obviously it was so Kolarov can cross to him but it upset the team changing so early).

Silva wasn't confined to the right at Fulham, he was drifting from there all over the shop almost in a free role & brilliantly he did in that role too as he did at Stoke when he moved around. He's better left to do as he pleases imo.

Well my point is that he wasn't stuck where you suggested in your argument, if you look at the chalkboards thing Tevez, Silva, Milner and Balotelli are all using the full width. During the game it was evident they kept swapping around quite fluidly. I noticed Balotelli move in centrally and Silva drift out in response.

I take your point that we should have started the way we left off at Fulham. But i dont think that the ultimate aim is to have the players so fixed, so if they cant start in slightly different positions then it is a bit of a joke.
You have also to take into account what Tru Blu stated, that some credit has to be given to Stoke.

The key to the balance of the team v Fulham was that Jo did as he was told; occupying the left of the attack & then also getting on the end of goal kicks, getting into the box or cutting in to shoot. Balotelli looked ok & the team looked balanced when he did the same job. That's hardly a fixed position, it's just doing a job in a nicely balanced team. At Fulham It gave everyone space to operate & everyone looked happy. It's not a slight change to stick Silva there & put Balo on the other side, it's a pretty big change. If you're going to do that, at least wait til we need to do it if the game's passing us by rather than changing a winning formation on a tactical whim. If everyone on here is honest they will say that they wanted as near as damn it the same formation as at Fulham . Some even wanted Jo to play. Bob saw some kind of tactical loophole & off he went at a tangent. We're not ready for that stuff yet.

Well we are not going to agree Ted thats for sure. Mancini will do what he wants and i would bet more that Stoke was more what he wants than the set up at Fulham.
You could also argue that Jo stayed on the left because he cant play all over the park, whether he was asked to or not. Plus you have no idea what the players have been asked to do, none of us do. And even if we did it wouldn't make any difference to the argument, because Bob could have decided when he only had Jo that the best thing was to keep him on the left, even if that is not what he would really want.
Based on your argument we would have to stick to what apparently worked in the last game. How do you then progress to what you really want to set up unless you just go and do it?

I'm assuming you didn't read or hear the quotes from Bob a few weeks ago about how his team wasn't functioning because he needed Balotelli to get fit & play on the left?

I remember that as clear as day.

[Beefymcfc]

We're shit, and we know we are.............

Edit: Sorry, wrong thread. Mean't for the CC Thread ;-)

[brite blu sky]

I'm assuming you didn't read or hear the quotes from Bob a few weeks ago about how his team wasn't functioning because he needed Balotelli to get fit & play on the left?

I do remember, i dont see what that has to do with the discussion though tbh.

[Ted Hughes]

I'm assuming you didn't read or hear the quotes from Bob a few weeks ago about how his team wasn't functioning because he needed Balotelli to get fit & play on the left?

I do remember, i dont see what that has to do with the discussion though tbh.

Well, it's Bob basically saying that he wants the same set up I was asking for with a left sided striker. I assumed you'd not seen those quotes because you seemed to be suggesting that's not the case &that Bob wants something else. It's pretty obvious to me that he played Jo there last week but for some reason decided to change it this week, even though he'd been saying he was waiting for Balotelli to do that very job, then he changed it back when it didn't work. I would have thought it was at the absolute heart of the discussion.

[brite blu sky]

I'm assuming you didn't read or hear the quotes from Bob a few weeks ago about how his team wasn't functioning because he needed Balotelli to get fit & play on the left?

I do remember, i dont see what that has to do with the discussion though tbh.

Well, it's Bob basically saying that he wants the same set up I was asking for with a left sided striker. I assumed you'd not seen those quotes because you seemed to be suggesting that's not the case &that Bob wants something else. It's pretty obvious to me that he played Jo there last week but for some reason decided to change it this week, even though he'd been saying he was waiting for Balotelli to do that very job, then he changed it back when it didn't work. I would have thought it was at the absolute heart of the discussion.

I can see where you are coming from Ted, but i am simply pointing out that we dont know what Bob's instructions are specifically, or if players are conforming with that or not. So my point is not about what Bob wants it is more about the fact that we cant really know. So when you are arguing that it should have been set up like Fulham, maybe it was and Mario fucled about. But also in addition to that there was a lot more movement across the width of the park by the all the front players compared with Fulham. Check the Guardian chalkboards for clear conformation of that.
So the conclusion for that is that either the players or Mancini decided they should move around more. As i mentioned that could be in response to Stoke, the point made by Tru Blu, that you have pretty much ignored.

My contention with what you have written is that you used the examples of Balotelli's positioning to argue that Bob got the set up wrong. And so i pointed out that Balotelli was initially on the left then moved and continued to move about and swap with Silva. By pointing that out im saying it undermines your basic argument and weakens what you are saying.

On the basis of that but in a more general sense i would say that the first half performance was down to more things than Bob having set it up wrong, something you dont want to seem to acknowledge at all. I have no idea why, but as i have said in other threads in discussion with you, it seems almost as if you have a downer on Mancini and therefore pin all misfortune or things not going to plan on him and him alone.
Dont get me wrong, your arguments are good, but in danger of being skewed by analysing things based only on Bob being at fault and not other factors.

[Ted Hughes]

I'm assuming you didn't read or hear the quotes from Bob a few weeks ago about how his team wasn't functioning because he needed Balotelli to get fit & play on the left?

I do remember, i dont see what that has to do with the discussion though tbh.

Well, it's Bob basically saying that he wants the same set up I was asking for with a left sided striker. I assumed you'd not seen those quotes because you seemed to be suggesting that's not the case &that Bob wants something else. It's pretty obvious to me that he played Jo there last week but for some reason decided to change it this week, even though he'd been saying he was waiting for Balotelli to do that very job, then he changed it back when it didn't work. I would have thought it was at the absolute heart of the discussion.

I can see where you are coming from Ted, but i am simply pointing out that we dont know what Bob's instructions are specifically, or if players are conforming with that or not. So my point is not about what Bob wants it is more about the fact that we cant really know. So when you are arguing that it should have been set up like Fulham, maybe it was and Mario fucled about. But also in addition to that there was a lot more movement across the width of the park by the all the front players compared with Fulham. Check the Guardian chalkboards for clear conformation of that.
So the conclusion for that is that either the players or Mancini decided they should move around more. As i mentioned that could be in response to Stoke, the point made by Tru Blu, that you have pretty much ignored.

My contention with what you have written is that you used the examples of Balotelli's positioning to argue that Bob got the set up wrong. And so i pointed out that Balotelli was initially on the left then moved and continued to move about and swap with Silva. By pointing that out im saying it undermines your basic argument and weakens what you are saying.

On the basis of that but in a more general sense i would say that the first half performance was down to more things than Bob having set it up wrong, something you dont want to seem to acknowledge at all. I have no idea why, but as i have said in other threads in discussion with you, it seems almost as if you have a downer on Mancini and therefore pin all misfortune or things not going to plan on him and him alone.
Dont get me wrong, your arguments are good, but in danger of being skewed by analysing things based only on Bob being at fault and not other factors.

I don't know how many times I've said since the Stoke game that I thought Bob did a good job on the whole & deserved praise but it could be heading for double figures. It seems you either have to kiss his arse 90% of the time or you get accused of having a problem with him on here.

I think he changed the team formation & it was a mistake. I think that his biggest faults have been; 1) failing to get the best out of the team as an attacking unit & 2) making too many experimental changes to the team & formation before we've had chance to gel. I think he's cost us points & endangered our UEFA position through those faults .

Recently he's improved on attacking v WBA, Fulham & 2nd half v Stoke. He still has a tendency to overdo the changes though imo.

I've been consistent on those points all season & will continue to be if I think it's wrong. It's got absolutely fuck all to do with having any kind of downer on Bob, it's about having an honest opinion of what I'm seeing on the pitch. I think he often causes as many problems for himself as the opposition do with his changes.