Mancini (The Ted Hughes and BBS thread)

[johnny crossan]

I don't get this approach. Suddenly when we win well the opposition are "appalling", it was the same against Fulham, West Brom, Wigan, Blackpool, Liverpool, Chelsea, etc etc. Salzburg kept Juventus out twice and they may not be what they were but that's an achievement. We are all ready enough to slaughter the performances when we don't win so just ditch the carping when we do play well and enjoy!

If you want to go OTT JC don't go so far as you lose any point you are trying to make.
Against Fulham we were excellent ( even though Fulham were poor) v WBA,WIgan very good and professional , v BPool not the best but good,v Chelsea excellent,v LPool v good but they weren't very good were they.And pointing out that Salzberg held Juve twice means nothing really as it's on the night that counts.You lumped them all in as if comments were made that the oppos were rubbish each time we won. Proven wrong methinks. Just for reference though is there any of the above you disagree with?

OTT - Perish the thought Doug! A modest plea for optimism that's all it was. Essentially you have to consider why Salzburg didn't perform on the night, I think it was down to us and that same point extends across all our wins, draws and defeats. Your anxiety to prove me wrong suggests insecurity, more stabilizers required on the ladder is my solution. And to answer the question about what parts of your post I disagree with - I'm afraid the "very poor/not the best/good/very good/professional /excellent" taxonomy is far too advanced for me to comment on.

[Douglas Higginbottom]

I don't get this approach. Suddenly when we win well the opposition are "appalling", it was the same against Fulham, West Brom, Wigan, Blackpool, Liverpool, Chelsea, etc etc. Salzburg kept Juventus out twice and they may not be what they were but that's an achievement. We are all ready enough to slaughter the performances when we don't win so just ditch the carping when we do play well and enjoy!

If you want to go OTT JC don't go so far as you lose any point you are trying to make.
Against Fulham we were excellent ( even though Fulham were poor) v WBA,WIgan very good and professional , v BPool not the best but good,v Chelsea excellent,v LPool v good but they weren't very good were they.And pointing out that Salzberg held Juve twice means nothing really as it's on the night that counts.You lumped them all in as if comments were made that the oppos were rubbish each time we won. Proven wrong methinks. Just for reference though is there any of the above you disagree with?

OTT - Perish the thought Doug! A modest plea for optimism that's all it was. Essentially you have to consider why Salzburg didn't perform on the night, I think it was down to us and that same point extends across all our wins, draws and defeats. Your anxiety to prove me wrong suggests insecurity, more stabilizers required on the ladder is my solution. And to answer the question about what parts of your post I disagree with - I'm afraid the "very poor/not the best/good/very good/professional /excellent" taxonomy is far too advanced for me to comment on.

Hahaha which means you do actually agree with the game by game thoughts but I do understand you can't really admit so.

As for optimism I am fine and feel very optimistic but like others on here I also feel I can see where things are not quite as perfect as some might suggest and , shame on me , I dare to say so.Salzberg were absolutely shocking and to suggest otherwise is laughable. City played ok and could easily have scored 7 but for very poor finishing.Salzberg could have scored about , well nil and that's being generous.

[Ted Hughes]

I thought City played some good stuff & did exactly the right thing in that game but are some of you actually expecting people to believe you thought Saltzburg were anything other than shite?

I do not believe there's one single person on here who honestly has that opinion. Behave yourselves for fucks sake & just accept it for what it was; a decent attacking performance against a fucking hopeless team.

[Fesan]

Would salzburg have been as awfull nomatter what team had played them that night?

I think not, I think most of our dominant performances this season have come from our own solid play and not because our opposition let us.

Never seen City play the dominant possesion football we play now and the matches where we make it work (and finish chances) we dominate. Throw in the unlucky/lucky/bad form gamed all teams have each season and you sum up our season so far IMO:-)

[john@staustell]

Would salzburg have been as awfull nomatter what team had played them that night?

I think not, I think most of our dominant performances this season have come from our own solid play and not because our opposition let us.

Never seen City play the dominant possesion football we play now and the matches where we make it work (and finish chances) we dominate. Throw in the unlucky/lucky/bad form gamed all teams have each season and you sum up our season so far IMO:-)

Good points Fesan.

[Wooders]

I thought City played some good stuff & did exactly the right thing in that game but are some of you actually expecting people to believe you thought Saltzburg were anything other than shite?

I do not believe there's one single person on here who honestly has that opinion. Behave yourselves for fucks sake & just accept it for what it was; a decent attacking performance against a fucking hopeless team.

the point is ted that we have the quality to go and do that to a a lot of teams - teams only play "awfully" if another team is playing them off the field, we rarely seem to have a real go in the prem like we did against salzburg and there is something inherently wrong with that
1 all draw with stoke a good result? Not in my book. We should have had them, easy...

[Ted Hughes]

I thought City played some good stuff & did exactly the right thing in that game but are some of you actually expecting people to believe you thought Saltzburg were anything other than shite?

I do not believe there's one single person on here who honestly has that opinion. Behave yourselves for fucks sake & just accept it for what it was; a decent attacking performance against a fucking hopeless team.

the point is ted that we have the quality to go and do that to a a lot of teams - teams only play "awfully" if another team is playing them off the field, we rarely seem to have a real go in the prem like we did against salzburg and there is something inherently wrong with that
1 all draw with stoke a good result? Not in my book. We should have had them, easy...

I thought the Stoke result was a decent one because we've struggled away against Stoke, we fought back from a poor performance & obviously Bob gave a good teamtalk & the team showed character. In the 2nd half we played proper football, very very high class stuff imo, outclassed them & deserved to win. One stupid mistake cost us.

I also think that the idea the football v Saltzburg was somehow better than anything we've played previously is utter nonsense. They were dire & someone like Spurs would have put 6 or 7 past them. Keegan's 1st division side would have torn them a new arsehole. We did a decent job on the night & had the right attitude but didn't score enough. As Bob says; we need to finish better.

[Lev Bronstein]

Tonight's league table: although the cousins are unbeaten, all the others have lost more than us. Only Chealsea have coceded less goals than us.

I think we'll do Ok when we gel.

[Brad]

Bobby got it spot on today, we played some brilliant attacking football, Bolton were just lucky we didn't convert our chances, we hit the post,and crossbar, could've easily been 4/5 nil.
Same again next week please lads!!

[Swales4ever]

Apologize for posting such a very side note, but:

Why, oh why on the earth, the Sky Knobs, have to put after an interview of the City Manager, the focklin advertising of Silly Frost with Shrek and Berbascrot?

ScumS!... :-)

[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.

Out of interest and not to re-visit this discussion, i have just had a look how the Bolton game compared to Stoke on the guardian Chalkboard thingy. Using the heatmap of where passes were made during the 90. Virtually the same patterns from all the main forward moving players. Particularly Balotelli, Barry, Tevez, Silva. Balotelli again popping up on both sides.
The main difference coming from Yaya marginally more on the right than Miner who was marginally more on the left at Stoke.

I know that football matches are not just made up of passes, but the chalkboards do back up or confirm what you see during the game.
It might appear that this is Mancini's preferred set up at this point, at least for this type of opposition.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/chalkboards/create

[Grob]

Mancini, the opinions seem to go round and round in circles. I dont like him as a man. I dont like him as a manager. I dont think he's a great tactician. I think its dangerous to throw all his eggs in the ballotelli basket (as he will when Tevez leaves), and the ruthless way he has managed some of our players hasnt sat well with me.

But while we continue to get results, I have no complaints. I just want us to win.

[Beefymcfc]

You been away mate?

Mancini, the opinions seem to go round and round in circles.

I dont like him as a man. Don't know him that well to judge, but seems a little sneaky.

I dont like him as a manager. Semi agree as I'm quite sure the team can do what they do without him.

I dont think he's a great tactician. Totally agree. From what I've seen, he makes easy decisions hard to take.

I think its dangerous to throw all his eggs in the ballotelli basket (as he will when Tevez leaves), A scary thought.

and the ruthless way he has managed some of our players hasnt sat well with me. No real problems here, managers perogative.

But while we continue to get results, I have no complaints. I just want us to win. Amen Brother.

[Dameerto]

I love that Guardian chalkboard, it appeals to my inner-geek.

[johnny crossan]

where's the mistletoe?

[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.

Out of interest and not to re-visit this discussion, i have just had a look how the Bolton game compared to Stoke on the guardian Chalkboard thingy. Using the heatmap of where passes were made during the 90. Virtually the same patterns from all the main forward moving players. Particularly Balotelli, Barry, Tevez, Silva. Balotelli again popping up on both sides.
The main difference coming from Yaya marginally more on the right than Miner who was marginally more on the left at Stoke.

I know that football matches are not just made up of passes, but the chalkboards do back up or confirm what you see during the game.
It might appear that this is Mancini's preferred set up at this point, at least for this type of opposition.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/chalkboards/create

I suppose it shows why he moved Balotelli from the left after 15 mins v Stoke as we were losing the ball 50% of the time but as it turned out, we only started to play once he moved him back. We finished each half in that game much stronger than we started, for some reason & got off 195 successful passes in the last 20 mins compared to Stoke's 44 & THEY scored! FFS.

[brite blu sky]

Those chalkboard things are quiet interesting and useful for analysis, as you point out the timeline thing at the bottom gives a great snapshot of the match at any point. First half v second half etc etc.
In reference to the moving about, i suppose the real beauty is that it gives those options to keep the oppo guessing and on their toes. Both in response to them being stronger in one area on the day or by just luring them into a false sense of security and then changing things.

Another aspect is that in both Stoke and Bolton games we were slightly stronger on the right.. ie more play compared with left and slightly more players advanced on the right. if you look at the areas deJong covers it is more over to the right.. kind of supporting Silva more, whereas Barry is left to cover pretty much the whole left hand side. This was still the same when Yaya played v Bolton.

Anyways it is all a bit nerdy.. but interesting for the.. er... nerds amongst us.

We finished each half in that game much stronger than we started, for some reason & got off 195 successful passes in the last 20 mins compared to Stoke's 44 & THEY scored! FFS.

That would confirm that Stoke played like the away team in the second half..

[Ted Hughes]

I thought we were absolutely tremendous 2nd half v Stoke & that chalkboard backs it up imo. If Kolo had used his brains at the end I think that would have ranked as the most impressive match since the takeover for me. It's one thing knocking in a few goals against a disjointed Chelsea team but to come back from struggling like fuck at a 'wet Wednesday' place like Stoke & end up knocking the ball around like Barca is title class imo. Unfortunately, the goal we let in was the opposite & Kolo was Kit Symons' clone for 30 secs.

[brite blu sky]

The goal they let in was a was a massive disappointment after that performance. ( we would be sat joint 2nd on pts ). Another huge mistake to learn from. I know a lot on here thought we were pants v Birmingham, but i still think we were all over them, just no goals. Fulham we were all over them, Stoke in the 2nd half and should have scored more, Bolton we were all over them and should have scored a lot more. Signs are good both at home and away.

The crunch as has been pointed out is how we do against the best teams, but with still a bit of time before meeting them we should have more confidence by then, which looking back now seems to me to have been a factor. Everton is going to be a real test for Mancini and the players, other games too but that one for me stands out.

[Ted Hughes]

Bob needs to get us well drilled on set pieces v Everton. That's the obvious danger. Stop Cahill from getting to the ball. You don't have to win the header, just stop him from getting a clear effort. Then imo if we attack with the kind of determination & skill that we showed v Bolton, Everton can't live with us. Just pass them to death & then spring through their doddering defence.