The mancityfans.net football forum

Niall Quinns Discopants wrote:

petrov wrote:No, while it will be a failure and a big one at that, constantly changing is not the answer and something I hope our club will finally learn. Imho the previous manager should of being given till now but its pointless to think about that. If at the end of season after next we're not comfortably top 4 than its bye, bye Bobby but he has to given a couple of seasons.

Hold on. Am I reading this properly. You think Mancini will be big time failure but we should stick with him just so that the club learns the lesson. If Mancini turns out to be complete shite over long period of time, why would they in future stick with a manager for a long while???

I'm supporter of Mancini but I'm also from the school of thought that first you have to find the right man and THEN stick to him for a good while. Managerial stability just for the sake of it serves no purpose. If you are certain that Mancini will be a failure then I think you as a Blue should vote for his sacking. If you were right then that would obviously be the best thing for the Club.

Thats not it at all. Noth making the top 4 would be a big failure this season on the whole clubs part and the manager has his place , a rather large place in it. This does by no means mean he's a useless manager, or is incapable of bringing us success. Just we didn't quite achieve what we set out to.

But.... just sacking him bringing in someone else and we're back to square one. If we fail to come 4th, its being a season of failure in my eyes, but Mancini has already assesed the players and knows their strengths and weaknesses now he needs time to tweak it his own way, get his players in (as long as he doesn't replace Adebayor with Toni, than I'll personally kill him) to play to his style as at the minute we don't have the players to play his system imho.

He needs time to put his own stamp on the football club (as did his predecessor) and if he's not given that he's destined to fail. What I don't want is a kneejerk reaction of "oh, we came 5th. Don't let the door hit ya on the way out". I'd take 2 consecutive 5ths if I knew we'd be a title challenger the season after or at least a CL guarantee.

petrov wrote:

Niall Quinns Discopants wrote:

petrov wrote:No, while it will be a failure and a big one at that, constantly changing is not the answer and something I hope our club will finally learn. Imho the previous manager should of being given till now but its pointless to think about that. If at the end of season after next we're not comfortably top 4 than its bye, bye Bobby but he has to given a couple of seasons.

Hold on. Am I reading this properly. You think Mancini will be big time failure but we should stick with him just so that the club learns the lesson. If Mancini turns out to be complete shite over long period of time, why would they in future stick with a manager for a long while???

I'm supporter of Mancini but I'm also from the school of thought that first you have to find the right man and THEN stick to him for a good while. Managerial stability just for the sake of it serves no purpose. If you are certain that Mancini will be a failure then I think you as a Blue should vote for his sacking. If you were right then that would obviously be the best thing for the Club.

Thats not it at all. Noth making the top 4 would be a big failure this season on the whole clubs part and the manager has his place , a rather large place in it. This does by no means mean he's a useless manager, or is incapable of bringing us success. Just we didn't quite achieve what we set out to.

But.... just sacking him bringing in someone else and we're back to square one. If we fail to come 4th, its being a season of failure in my eyes, but Mancini has already assesed the players and knows their strengths and weaknesses now he needs time to tweak it his own way, get his players in (as long as he doesn't replace Adebayor with Toni, than I'll personally kill him) to play to his style as at the minute we don't have the players to play his system imho.

He needs time to put his own stamp on the football club (as did his predecessor) and if he's not given that he's destined to fail. What I don't want is a kneejerk reaction of "oh, we came 5th. Don't let the door hit ya on the way out". I'd take 2 consecutive 5ths if I knew we'd be a title challenger the season after or at least a CL guarantee.

I obviously didn't understand what you were saying in your original post.

Fair enough, I agree with you.

Niall Quinns Discopants wrote:

ant london wrote:

Niall Quinns Discopants wrote:

Pretty Boy Lee wrote:
I guess the question to this would be was Hughes sacked for failing to build a team capable of top 4 or sacked for building one capable and being unable to guide them there?

If it's the latter surely transfer windows will be irrelevant in judging Mancini's reign?

NO that is NOT the question and has fuck all to do with us as a club now and in future. We could forever speculate whether sacking Reid was the right thing to do or should we have stood firm on Kendall or whatever. None of that MATTERS. What happens to Mancini is what efects us NOW.

Hughes was a Hughes and Mancini is Mancini. If someone is vying Mancini's blood because Hughes was sacked ..... well that would be the dumbest thing I've heard since Dev left the site.

mate, Dev leaving the site was a great day....the annoying fucking cunt

but NO-ONE wants Mancini sacked because they are sore that Hughes got the push

what do you find so fucking difficult to understand about the concept that NONE OF US WAS IN LOVE WITH HUGHES....lots of us thought he had positive qualities as a manager and liked him as a man BUT WE WANTED FUCKING STABILITY

S T A B I L I T Y

Do you fucking understand what that means? In case you don't, just for clarity It does NOT mean "I LOVE MARK HUGHES"

and it certainly does not mean "I WANT ROBERTO MANCINI SACKED BECAUSE I LOVED MARK HUGHES"

idiot

Very strange post.

I've read million of times now how "Hughes sacking means Mancini needs to get 4th or get the boot". Likes of Grob are the main insticators and again in above post PBL seemed to be hinting it. I was also told that NO ONE wants Mancini sacked after this season, yet one third seem to think otherwise provided we don't reach certain targets.

Furthermore, people keep harping on about Hughes in topics about Mancini, like PBL above and you just there. So surely there are deep feelings towards him. Otherwise it would make no sense. Why does this one third don't want S T A B I L I T Y now?

Oh, and stop acting like prick and try and have decent conversations please.

Niall, Mancini's target when he joined the club was to hit 70 points and 4th place. Seeing as the fella before him was given the boot for not having us on course for 4th place (which is open to interpretation), then I feel for consistancy Mancini should pay the price if he misses this target.

Do you not think that would be a fair assessment?

Slim wrote:

DoomMerchant wrote:the question is ridiculous really when said out loud...which is all the more reason to ask why someone would settle with 6th after sacking Hughes.

Here's my point -- sacking Hughes is what it was, i was frustrated at the end of the day, and wasn't sad to see the back of him. But the cold hard facts are that Mancini has done no better, and in fact you could argue that Hughes, imho, had a good shout to get past the filth in the Carling Cup, and also played to the sides advantages in having some fantastic attacking football talent of which few teams, and listen closely...on the ENTIRE FUCLIN PLANET actually possess. Amazing thing to think about when we cannot accomplish 4th in our league.

So why on earth, if Mancini doesn't get the job done, should we feel compelled to settle, again, for inadequate results?

If you wanted Hughes gone, then surely you can't want Mancini to stay if we don't get 4th. Bottom line for me.

It's a matter of principal which i'm arguing, i know. And, no i don't feel that unsettling the team with a new manager will provide progress, and i think we've proven that it didn't provide progress by sacking Hughes, unfortunately.

Karma's got a sting in her tail, and hopefully she won't sting us, but i'm not convinced of that based on the last month. If the ownership believes that Mancini's the man then they should give him a few years to build this club into something we know it can be.

cheers

Hughes:29pts from 17 games.(65pt season)
Mancini:34pts from 18 games.(72pt season)

Hughes:18months in job, 10th and 6th(part season)
Mancini:4months in job, 6th(part season, 4th-7th finish)

If Mancini cannot get 4th after 18 months and only maintain a 1.7ppg average, then by all means, replace him. Sadly even 18 months in the job will give him one full window and two after christmas sale windows, hardly an advantage over a manager who had two summer windows and still couldn't get it right.

To truely compare the 2 though, shouldnt Mancini be sent back in time to June 2008 and a Thaksin led City and try first things first to stop the Jo transfer?

Grob wrote:

Slim wrote:

DoomMerchant wrote:the question is ridiculous really when said out loud...which is all the more reason to ask why someone would settle with 6th after sacking Hughes.

Here's my point -- sacking Hughes is what it was, i was frustrated at the end of the day, and wasn't sad to see the back of him. But the cold hard facts are that Mancini has done no better, and in fact you could argue that Hughes, imho, had a good shout to get past the filth in the Carling Cup, and also played to the sides advantages in having some fantastic attacking football talent of which few teams, and listen closely...on the ENTIRE FUCLIN PLANET actually possess. Amazing thing to think about when we cannot accomplish 4th in our league.

So why on earth, if Mancini doesn't get the job done, should we feel compelled to settle, again, for inadequate results?

If you wanted Hughes gone, then surely you can't want Mancini to stay if we don't get 4th. Bottom line for me.

It's a matter of principal which i'm arguing, i know. And, no i don't feel that unsettling the team with a new manager will provide progress, and i think we've proven that it didn't provide progress by sacking Hughes, unfortunately.

Karma's got a sting in her tail, and hopefully she won't sting us, but i'm not convinced of that based on the last month. If the ownership believes that Mancini's the man then they should give him a few years to build this club into something we know it can be.

cheers

Hughes:29pts from 17 games.(65pt season)
Mancini:34pts from 18 games.(72pt season)

Hughes:18months in job, 10th and 6th(part season)
Mancini:4months in job, 6th(part season, 4th-7th finish)

If Mancini cannot get 4th after 18 months and only maintain a 1.7ppg average, then by all means, replace him. Sadly even 18 months in the job will give him one full window and two after christmas sale windows, hardly an advantage over a manager who had two summer windows and still couldn't get it right.

To truely compare the 2 though, shouldnt Mancini be sent back in time to June 2008 and a Thaksin led City and try first things first to stop the Jo transfer?

Only if it was going to be a genuine, fair comparison, which nobody has ever had even the slightest intention of doing re Hughes.

Grob wrote:

Niall Quinns Discopants wrote:

ant london wrote:

Niall Quinns Discopants wrote:

Pretty Boy Lee wrote:
I guess the question to this would be was Hughes sacked for failing to build a team capable of top 4 or sacked for building one capable and being unable to guide them there?

If it's the latter surely transfer windows will be irrelevant in judging Mancini's reign?

NO that is NOT the question and has fuck all to do with us as a club now and in future. We could forever speculate whether sacking Reid was the right thing to do or should we have stood firm on Kendall or whatever. None of that MATTERS. What happens to Mancini is what efects us NOW.

Hughes was a Hughes and Mancini is Mancini. If someone is vying Mancini's blood because Hughes was sacked ..... well that would be the dumbest thing I've heard since Dev left the site.

mate, Dev leaving the site was a great day....the annoying fucking cunt

but NO-ONE wants Mancini sacked because they are sore that Hughes got the push

what do you find so fucking difficult to understand about the concept that NONE OF US WAS IN LOVE WITH HUGHES....lots of us thought he had positive qualities as a manager and liked him as a man BUT WE WANTED FUCKING STABILITY

S T A B I L I T Y

Do you fucking understand what that means? In case you don't, just for clarity It does NOT mean "I LOVE MARK HUGHES"

and it certainly does not mean "I WANT ROBERTO MANCINI SACKED BECAUSE I LOVED MARK HUGHES"

idiot

Very strange post.

I've read million of times now how "Hughes sacking means Mancini needs to get 4th or get the boot". Likes of Grob are the main insticators and again in above post PBL seemed to be hinting it. I was also told that NO ONE wants Mancini sacked after this season, yet one third seem to think otherwise provided we don't reach certain targets.

Furthermore, people keep harping on about Hughes in topics about Mancini, like PBL above and you just there. So surely there are deep feelings towards him. Otherwise it would make no sense. Why does this one third don't want S T A B I L I T Y now?

Oh, and stop acting like prick and try and have decent conversations please.

Niall, Mancini's target when he joined the club was to hit 70 points and 4th place. Seeing as the fella before him was given the boot for not having us on course for 4th place (which is open to interpretation), then I feel for consistancy Mancini should pay the price if he misses this target.

Do you not think that would be a fair assessment?

I don't think that's really fair mate to be honest. Considering Mancini hasn't had chance to bring his own players in therefore get the side playing the way he wants. Hughes had that priviledge.

And anyway, I see them as different cases. Hughes was brought in by previous regime and Mancini is Sheik's (and his posses) man. Also, Hughes already once spectacularily failed to reach his target so he was walking on a thin line anyway. I assume that if we fail to finish 4th this season AND halfway through the next season we are 8th, owners will give him boot. I'm not saying they necesserily should but I believe that's what they will do. But I don't think we will be 8th then.

Niall Quinns Discopants wrote:

Grob wrote:Niall, Mancini's target when he joined the club was to hit 70 points and 4th place. Seeing as the fella before him was given the boot for not having us on course for 4th place (which is open to interpretation), then I feel for consistancy Mancini should pay the price if he misses this target.

Do you not think that would be a fair assessment?

I don't think that's really fair mate to be honest. Considering Mancini hasn't had chance to bring his own players in therefore get the side playing the way he wants. Hughes had that priviledge.

And anyway, I see them as different cases. Hughes was brought in by previous regime and Mancini is Sheik's (and his posses) man. Also, Hughes already once spectacularily failed to reach his target so he was walking on a thin line anyway. I assume that if we fail to finish 4th this season AND halfway through the next season we are 8th, owners will give him boot. I'm not saying they necesserily should but I believe that's what they will do. But I don't think we will be 8th then.

But he knew when he was taking the job he would only have one transfer window and 4th was the target. So as he was in full knowledge of exactly what was expected before he took the job, what would be unfair about sacking him because he missed his target?

Came across an interesting quote in a book called "The Drunkard's Walk" (Leonard Mlodinow). The book examines the impact of randomness on our lives:

"In sports we have developed a culture in which, based on intuitive feelings of correlation, a team's success or failure is often attributed to the ability of the coach. As a result, when teams fail, the coach is often fired. Mathematical analysis, however, has shown that those firings had, on average, no effect on team performance." (prologue page X).

The studies quoted in the supporting footnote include one on the effect of firings in soccer. Another study had the interesting title of "Scapegoating in baseball".

Basically, I believe that how much of the outcome of the entire season can be attributed to Hughes, and how much to Mancini, is impossible to state. I also believe that a manager should be allowed to stay long enough on the job to select his own men, and make the game tactical decisions for a season at the minimum, before an assessment can be done. Hughes was fired too quickly, and I would not want the same for Mancini.

Ted Hughes wrote:

Grob wrote:To truely compare the 2 though, shouldnt Mancini be sent back in time to June 2008 and a Thaksin led City and try first things first to stop the Jo transfer?

Only if it was going to be a genuine, fair comparison, which nobody has ever had even the slightest intention of doing re Hughes.

Because under a Thaksin led manchester city Hughes was denied all money for transfers except Jo....and Shaun, Kompany, Tal Ben Haim and Zabaleta. Not sure exactly how Hughes suffered under Thaksin that Mancini need to go through. Then under ADU during in his first season got Robinho, de Jong, Bridge, Given and Bellamy. After all this he took a team that finished 9th with 55pts and made them 10th with 50pts.

If you want a fair comparison then as we stuck with Hughes after he finished with 90.9% of the previous regime's point total then Mancini in his 19 games in charge should need 90.9% of what Hughes got in the first half of the season which comes to 26 points plus the 29 Hughes accumulated gives us 55pts. (Ironically what Sven got without bags of money)

But no-one is after a fair comparison as Ted said, however it's a fucking mile away from being unfair to the Clueless Tafia.

Slim wrote:

Pretty Boy Lee wrote:

Slim wrote:

Pretty Boy Lee wrote:I guess the question to this would be was Hughes sacked for failing to build a team capable of top 4 or sacked for building one capable and being unable to guide them there?

If it's the latter surely transfer windows will be irrelevant in judging Mancini's reign?

-sigh- It's almost like you are intentionally stupid some times, unfortunately I don't think you are that bright.

Try playing a round of golf with someone else's clubs.

Threre are plenty of examples of new managers getting more out of current squads. Feel free to mouth off tho u ignorant cunt.
m

And just because you are working on your dissertation of self-retardation, does it really warrant the phrase 'ignorant cunt'?

If someone in person called me intentionally stupid, then said I wasn't even bright enough to pull it off because my theory disagreed with their's I'd call them an ignorant cunt.

So either you should be used to hearing it or you talk to people a lot differently on here to the way you do in person.


Now back to the subject matter which was what I 1st tried to discuss. Whether Mancini bought these players or not, I don't think the task assigned to him was unfair or impossible. Take a really good squad of players, not too far off 4th into 4th in a season where it's anyones to grab. If he just missed out playing good football I'd be a little more sympathetic.

Failing it whilst boring the shit out of us and being negative in 80% of our games isn't really inspiring me to want another season of it.

For the record I am no Hughes lover, I don't pine for his return anymore than I do Sven, but sacking a manager mid season when there is no real disaster apparent for me is stupid. Particuarly when the successor is only a marginal improvement on pts, loses both cup spots and bores us to tears.

Pretty Boy Lee wrote:

Slim wrote:

Pretty Boy Lee wrote:

Slim wrote:

Pretty Boy Lee wrote:I guess the question to this would be was Hughes sacked for failing to build a team capable of top 4 or sacked for building one capable and being unable to guide them there?

If it's the latter surely transfer windows will be irrelevant in judging Mancini's reign?

-sigh- It's almost like you are intentionally stupid some times, unfortunately I don't think you are that bright.

Try playing a round of golf with someone else's clubs.

Threre are plenty of examples of new managers getting more out of current squads. Feel free to mouth off tho u ignorant cunt.
m

Yes, it's called a honeymoon period, of course it rarely if ever lasts 19 games. As you could tell from the training reports we get that Mancini is not happy with certain aspects of our play and the trademark of a good manager is one that marries the squad he inherits to the style he wants to stamp on the side. It would be a lottery win style odds to find 24 players in a squad that match up with his style and therefore will need at least a few players who can be brought in to deliver the aspects of the game he wants.

The only time this isn't an issue is in international management and we have seen in recent times(McLaren is a perfect example) what happens when a manager tries to impose himself wholly on the style of an existing squad without incorporating the capabilities already there.

And just because you are working on your dissertation of self-retardation, does it really warrant the phrase 'ignorant cunt'?

If someone in person called me intentionally stupid, then said I wasn't even bright enough to pull it off because my theory disagreed with their's I'd call them an ignorant cunt.

So either you should be used to hearing it or you talk to people a lot differently on here to the way you do in person.


Now back to the subject matter which was what I 1st tried to discuss. Whether Mancini bought these players or not, I don't think the task assigned to him was unfair or impossible. Take a really good squad of players, not too far off 4th into 4th in a season where it's anyones to grab. If he just missed out playing good football I'd be a little more sympathetic.

Failing it whilst boring the shit out of us and being negative in 80% of our games isn't really inspiring me to want another season of it.

For the record I am no Hughes lover, I don't pine for his return anymore than I do Sven, but sacking a manager mid season when there is no real disaster apparent for me is stupid. Particuarly when the successor is only a marginal improvement on pts, loses both cup spots and bores us to tears.

Are you that fucking retarded that you can't even quote the whole reply or was you being intentionally stupid again? Don't worry I have fixed it up considering the reply was more than someone like you warranted, I think you should learn to appreciate it when you manage to get one.

I am not replying to your point because you failed to have one then and barely have one now, just changing the subject half way through doesn't make your ignorance any less, cunt.

Point is muppet I was engaging in football discussion with no slanging until u got your cyber bully on.

You do it all the time tho champ, talk shit for no reason but to prove you're a big shot. My theory is you have a tiny cock.

Pretty Boy Lee wrote:Point is muppet I was engaging in football discussion with no slanging until u got your cyber bully on.

You do it all the time tho champ, talk shit for no reason but to prove you're a big shot. My theory is you have a tiny cock.

OOOOOOooooffffff...... the classic "tiny cock" kill shot. I wonder if there's any way back from that for Slim?

Niall Quinns Discopants wrote:

Pretty Boy Lee wrote:Point is muppet I was engaging in football discussion with no slanging until u got your cyber bully on.

You do it all the time tho champ, talk shit for no reason but to prove you're a big shot. My theory is you have a tiny cock.

OOOOOOooooffffff...... the classic "tiny cock" kill shot. I wonder if there's any way back from that for Slim?

My secret shame :(

So you wanting to engage in a football discussion is why you not only focused on my 'talking shit' but deleted my entire post except for my 'talking shit'? You know, the part that was the football discussion?

Your initial (lack of)point was that in order for a manager to be successful in his goals, it shouldn't matter who the team was assembled by as long as the players are capable. Of course this is complete and utter bullshit because either the manager is effective at making an impact on the team, or he isn't required at all. If he is effective on making an impact on the team, the style and effectiveness will reflect that manager in which case he would need some players who mirrored that and were capable of carrying out the jobs the manager wanted doing(the chances of getting 24 players who can are lottery level remote...I seem to recall writing this already). If the manager doesn't matter as long as the players are there, then we may as well have beanie as manager.

Like I said, you don't have a point, you tried skewing your point to make out like Mancini's lack of entertainment should equal results or the other way around, which wasn't your point at all...god knows at least it was on target for the thread matter and you actually have the makings of a point(however much you have just repeated what Grob said before the Arsenal game), it wasn't original(we should be used to this from you), but also it wasn't the point you were trying to make until you figured out(or did you) that you didn't really have a point to begin with.

Now, I would normally let your utter nonsense about footballing matters go, but you replied to my post not the other way around, and as you have degenerated into silly childish little insults that aren't even remotely clever, I assume you are also out of stolen and regurgitated ideas that also don't relate to this thread.

Last option out of the window now as Scousers can catch us. So minimum of 6th. Meaning 73% of people here think Robbie Manc should stay over the summer.

Niall Quinns Discopants wrote:Last option out of the window now as Scousers can catch us. So minimum of 6th. Meaning 73% of people here think Robbie Manc should stay over the summer.

99 voters so far. Good turn out.