The mancityfans.net football forum

Just out of curiosity. What do you think? That is certainly something many people have hinted in past months but where do you stand now?

as i said in t'other thread, no.

I think a lot of the people slagged off for wanting to see the previous manager kept on were always arguing for stability - it was only the haters to chose to portray them otherwise - so it would be double-standards to not want that now - responding no for me

if we finish 6th then he will not have contributed any kind of improvement since his appointment and I will no doubt tut and wonder why we so harshly sacked Mark Hughes.
I will not be calling for us to make the same mistake again though, no.
An interesting flurry of new diversionary threads from you Antii. Good way of avoiding answering some very direct questions posed in threads that you've contributed a little less to lately.

No, it doesn't make sense but it didn't make sense to sack the last bloke so who knows what will happen?

Sixth isn't a lot worse than fifth, and both would be a failure. Whose failure, though? Mancini shouldn't be accountable for what Hughes did, and if our best players don't perform that's more about their attitude than his lack of ability. As fans, we will see for ourselves in the next three matches whether or not Mancini and the players are up for it, or whether he will have to shovel out those all too happy to take their huge wages without doing much in return. We might just see how committed Bellamy and Tevez really are.

guv111 wrote:Sixth isn't a lot worse than fifth, and both would be a failure. Whose failure, though? Mancini shouldn't be accountable for what Hughes did, and if our best players don't perform that's more about their attitude than his lack of ability. As fans, we will see for ourselves in the next three matches whether or not Mancini and the players are up for it, or whether he will have to shovel out those all too happy to take their huge wages without doing much in return. We might just see how committed Bellamy and Tevez really are.

I think we found a couple of them in the derby. Pity, since you'd normally expect players who came through the academy to be more committed

No. You could argue that Mancini was brought in to finish 4th but I think it is fairly obvious that the results under Mancini have statistically been better.

I am confident that with a summer transfer window that will allow him to bring the missing pieces for his puzzle in, we will also see an improvement on the sometimes boring football he plays.

guv111 wrote:Sixth isn't a lot worse than fifth, and both would be a failure. Whose failure, though? Mancini shouldn't be accountable for what Hughes did, and if our best players don't perform that's more about their attitude than his lack of ability. As fans, we will see for ourselves in the next three matches whether or not Mancini and the players are up for it, or whether he will have to shovel out those all too happy to take their huge wages without doing much in return. We might just see how committed Bellamy and Tevez really are.

the latest in a series of very very odd posts by you regarding several of our best players.

Are you related to Senator McCarthy? I just don't get where you see all these conspiracies regarding the committment/attitude of our players?

In any event, as others have indicated above. I, and others who were deemed to be pro-Hughes, were always more pro-stability than pro-Taffia (even if lots of us did actually like/rate our previous manager in any event)

ant london wrote:

guv111 wrote:Sixth isn't a lot worse than fifth, and both would be a failure. Whose failure, though? Mancini shouldn't be accountable for what Hughes did, and if our best players don't perform that's more about their attitude than his lack of ability. As fans, we will see for ourselves in the next three matches whether or not Mancini and the players are up for it, or whether he will have to shovel out those all too happy to take their huge wages without doing much in return. We might just see how committed Bellamy and Tevez really are.

the latest in a series of very very odd posts by you regarding several of our best players.

Are you related to Senator McCarthy? I just don't get where you see all these conspiracies regarding the committment/attitude of our players?

In any event, as others have indicated above. I, and others who were deemed to be pro-Hughes, were always more pro-stability than pro-Taffia (even if lots of us did actually like/rate our previous manager in any event)

Has to be a no to sacking Mancini. He was perceived to be the man to take us forward so let's give him the chance. Had to laugh though at the idea that if we finish 6th it's the fault of the attitude of our two best players this season.

ant london wrote:the latest in a series of very very odd posts by you regarding several of our best players.

Are you related to Senator McCarthy? I just don't get where you see all these conspiracies regarding the committment/attitude of our players?

In any event, as others have indicated above. I, and others who were deemed to be pro-Hughes, were always more pro-stability than pro-Taffia (even if lots of us did actually like/rate our previous manager in any event)

I think that after some hit and miss performances the point is a valid one. We can't just turn up for the Burnelys and the Birminghams; we also need to work our socks off against the Tottenhams and the Villas. As I've said, we shall see. Hardly condemning anyone before the fact, is it?

His target was given as 4th place - but targets mean nothing to Manchester City. i.e. Sven told top half yet still sacked.

4th - Keep
5th - Unsure
6th - Do one

In the context of football, a scoreless draw away at Arsenal is a good result for any team, INCLUDING Barcelona and Scum etc. And Arsenal never really looked like scoring. In fact until Given got injured we were taking over the game.

Also we know that, although we lost in the Scum game, we matched them man for man second half and were the better side. Just the players failed to deliver, whilst chasing a winner, what the manager has asked for and drummed into them time after time after time - concentration.

So I really think these discussions can wait until after the Villa game at least (if we lose), or after the Spuds game (if we lose), or most probably after the West Ham game.

Probability suggests we will win these 2 home games. Spuds are notably poor away (I dont care about their PAST record with us, all our players and manager are different), and Villa have been shown to tire alarmingly toward the end of games (2 games against Chelsea)- hopefully we have enough about us to take advantage of these 2 situations.

Then Mancini will be God.

Thread - 'Is Mancini actually God?'

Otherwise he should be given more time to train them and get in the players he wants. Any change is yet another City gamble.

ant london wrote:

guv111 wrote:Sixth isn't a lot worse than fifth, and both would be a failure. Whose failure, though? Mancini shouldn't be accountable for what Hughes did, and if our best players don't perform that's more about their attitude than his lack of ability. As fans, we will see for ourselves in the next three matches whether or not Mancini and the players are up for it, or whether he will have to shovel out those all too happy to take their huge wages without doing much in return. We might just see how committed Bellamy and Tevez really are.

the latest in a series of very very odd posts by you regarding several of our best players.

Are you related to Senator McCarthy? I just don't get where you see all these conspiracies regarding the committment/attitude of our players?

In any event, as others have indicated above. I, and others who were deemed to be pro-Hughes, were always more pro-stability than pro-Taffia (even if lots of us did actually like/rate our previous manager in any event)

Agree, agree, agree, I wonder if this time stability will be accepted as a reason to keep a Manager?

It's impossible to second guess our Boardroom decisions and I think that will continue unfortunately. Targets mean nothing to them so he could easily be here if we finished 7th or he could be gone if we finish 4th as odd as that sounds.

• Sven - sacked for finishing on target if not ahead
• Hughes - Kept job for missing target of UEFA
• Hughes - sacked for being on target for 6th and a cup
• Mancini - ??

I get the impression that Cook and Marwood are constantly looking for the easy answer and will be lured into making decisions far too quickly if someone is bending their ear.

What is for certain though is if we do end up finishing behind Spurs, Villa and Liverpool then Cook, Marwood and even Khaldoon will have to answer the Sheik questioning of why no improvement has being secured from changing manager mid-season. To that there is no easy answer.

Even tho it`s been absolutely mind numbing at times and wow at others I think he deserves a transfer window to show his full hand next season at the least...so no from me. Stability is more important than a knee jerk reaction to not getting 4th.

guv111 wrote:

ant london wrote:the latest in a series of very very odd posts by you regarding several of our best players.

Are you related to Senator McCarthy? I just don't get where you see all these conspiracies regarding the committment/attitude of our players?

In any event, as others have indicated above. I, and others who were deemed to be pro-Hughes, were always more pro-stability than pro-Taffia (even if lots of us did actually like/rate our previous manager in any event)

I think that after some hit and miss performances the point is a valid one. We can't just turn up for the Burnelys and the Birminghams; we also need to work our socks off against the Tottenhams and the Villas. As I've said, we shall see. Hardly condemning anyone before the fact, is it?

You seem to be attacking the caharacters of players to explain shit performances by Mancini's team yet the same players have produced outstanding performances against those same teams earlier, in fact even under Mancini. Grossly unfair.

Dronny wrote:

ant london wrote:

guv111 wrote:Sixth isn't a lot worse than fifth, and both would be a failure. Whose failure, though? Mancini shouldn't be accountable for what Hughes did, and if our best players don't perform that's more about their attitude than his lack of ability. As fans, we will see for ourselves in the next three matches whether or not Mancini and the players are up for it, or whether he will have to shovel out those all too happy to take their huge wages without doing much in return. We might just see how committed Bellamy and Tevez really are.

the latest in a series of very very odd posts by you regarding several of our best players.

Are you related to Senator McCarthy? I just don't get where you see all these conspiracies regarding the committment/attitude of our players?

In any event, as others have indicated above. I, and others who were deemed to be pro-Hughes, were always more pro-stability than pro-Taffia (even if lots of us did actually like/rate our previous manager in any event)

Agree, agree, agree, I wonder if this time stability will be accepted as a reason to keep a Manager?

Of course - seeing as most of the questions seem to come from the old Hughes haters - they seem to need to think that there is some anti-Mancini movement - it will be presented by them as a success for their POV - whilst the reality is that most of us are just reasonable pro-CITY fans which will be the real reason this forum will not be seeking a change

john@staustell wrote:In the context of football, a scoreless draw away at Arsenal is a good result for any team, INCLUDING Barcelona and Scum etc. And Arsenal never really looked like scoring. In fact until Given got injured we were taking over the game.

Also we know that, although we lost in the Scum game, we matched them man for man second half and were the better side. Just the players failed to deliver, whilst chasing a winner, what the manager has asked for and drummed into them time after time after time - concentration.

So I really think these discussions can wait until after the Villa game at least (if we lose), or after the Spuds game (if we lose), or most probably after the West Ham game.

Probability suggests we will win these 2 home games. Spuds are notably poor away (I dont care about their PAST record with us, all our players and manager are different), and Villa have been shown to tire alarmingly toward the end of games (2 games against Chelsea)- hopefully we have enough about us to take advantage of these 2 situations.

Then Mancini will be God.

Thread - 'Is Mancini actually God?'

Otherwise he should be given more time to train them and get in the players he wants. Any change is yet another City gamble.

I want to keep Mancini but playing for a point at Arsenal is a mistake of Alan Ball magnitude.

If you dressed up Portsmouths players in Arsenal shirts would a point be a good result? I said I expected Arsenal to lose to Spurs because I thought Barca's brilliance disguised the fact that arsenal were hopeless. They duly lost, lost to Wigan & then we played for a point because our manager was scared of them. It was tactically & strategically a disaster. They clearly hadn't thought it through.

The point only becomes useful if Spurs fail to beat Bolton & we fail to beat Villa. There's no use in being level with Spurs on points when they're playing Burnley at home last game. It was a brainless, hopeless, pathetic piece of planning & as I've said before, the managerial equivalent of Steve Lomas keeping the ball in the corner when we needed to score to stay up. We needed 3 points at Arsenal & a defeat would have left us with the same situation as we're in now. We had nothing to lose. It was strategic incompetence verging on a sackable offence.

mcfc1632 wrote:Of course - seeing as most of the questions seem to come from the old Hughes haters - they seem to need to think that there is some anti-Mancini movement - it will be presented by them as a success for their POV - whilst the reality is that most of us are just reasonable pro-CITY fans which will be the real reason this forum will not be seeking a change

You said you didn't use threads that had nothing to do with Hughes as a platform to launch into a tirade against the anti-Hughes camp, yet here we are...AGAIN...2nd time in this thread alone.

Address the fucking thread for what it is and not what you assume it means, and when I tell you that the Hughes-lickers were the ones making the most noise in defence of attacks that were never there, maybe we can refer back to this.