The mancityfans.net football forum

I do not think it is necessary for a team to be successful.
As Chelski have just proved by Ancoletti winning the prem in his first season.They havent been managerially very stable for the past few years but still keep competing.
I personally think that when something isnt working that change is the way forward.
Benitez had most of his success when he inherited the dippers
Arse have been stable for ages and its doing fuckall for them the only ones it has benefitted is them.
Villa and the toffees are stable and the achieve more or less the same every year.
I fear we will fall in the same trap of trying to be stable and not achieving the main prize in the pursuit of stabilty when we should be aiming to get the best.

Rag_hater wrote:I do not think it is necessary for a team to be successful.
As Chelski have just proved by Ancoletti winning the prem in his first season.They havent been managerially very stable for the past few years but still keep competing.
I personally think that when something isnt working that change is the way forward.
Benitez had most of his success when he inherited the dippers
Arse have been stable for ages and its doing fuckall for them the only ones it has benefitted is them.
Villa and the toffees are stable and the achieve more or less the same every year.
I fear we will fall in the same trap of trying to be stable and not achieving the main prize in the pursuit of stabilty when we should be aiming to get the best.

are you basically saying "Mancini Out"?

ant london wrote:

Rag_hater wrote:I do not think it is necessary for a team to be successful.
As Chelski have just proved by Ancoletti winning the prem in his first season.They havent been managerially very stable for the past few years but still keep competing.
I personally think that when something isnt working that change is the way forward.
Benitez had most of his success when he inherited the dippers
Arse have been stable for ages and its doing fuckall for them the only ones it has benefitted is them.
Villa and the toffees are stable and the achieve more or less the same every year.
I fear we will fall in the same trap of trying to be stable and not achieving the main prize in the pursuit of stabilty when we should be aiming to get the best.

are you basically saying "Mancini Out"?

I suppose I am.
He promised us 4th and didnt deliver.
If he was a man of his word he would do a Keegan and quit.

I saw a banner in the crowd at Burnley yesterday mocking Roberto's and Rafa's promises and Gaurantees of fourth place.
I wish managers wouldnt do that.

stability is definitely a key factor in building a dynasty not just settling for quick fixes but you need the right man for that. is mancini the right man? don't know.

Rag_hater wrote:

ant london wrote:

Rag_hater wrote:I do not think it is necessary for a team to be successful.
As Chelski have just proved by Ancoletti winning the prem in his first season.They havent been managerially very stable for the past few years but still keep competing.
I personally think that when something isnt working that change is the way forward.
Benitez had most of his success when he inherited the dippers
Arse have been stable for ages and its doing fuckall for them the only ones it has benefitted is them.
Villa and the toffees are stable and the achieve more or less the same every year.
I fear we will fall in the same trap of trying to be stable and not achieving the main prize in the pursuit of stabilty when we should be aiming to get the best.

are you basically saying "Mancini Out"?

I suppose I am.
He promised us 4th and didnt deliver.
If he was a man of his word he would do a Keegan and quit.

Keegan didn't quit. He was sacked.Or to be precise, Keegan and board came into agreement that "it'd be best for both parties to go separate ways. So basically sacked. He had said that he wanted to quit football in year and a half and only few days before had reitarated that he'd want to stay until then.

Otherwise your post is pretty poor one. While Chelsea changed managers, they failed to win league for years mainly because of instability. Oh, and there has been great stability in their playing squad, that's almost the same team that won the league last time around. Unless you are saying they won the league because of Sturridge.

Niall Quinns Discopants wrote:

Rag_hater wrote:

ant london wrote:

Rag_hater wrote:I do not think it is necessary for a team to be successful.
As Chelski have just proved by Ancoletti winning the prem in his first season.They havent been managerially very stable for the past few years but still keep competing.
I personally think that when something isnt working that change is the way forward.
Benitez had most of his success when he inherited the dippers
Arse have been stable for ages and its doing fuckall for them the only ones it has benefitted is them.
Villa and the toffees are stable and the achieve more or less the same every year.
I fear we will fall in the same trap of trying to be stable and not achieving the main prize in the pursuit of stabilty when we should be aiming to get the best.

are you basically saying "Mancini Out"?

I suppose I am.
He promised us 4th and didnt deliver.
If he was a man of his word he would do a Keegan and quit.

Keegan didn't quit. He was sacked.Or to be precise, Keegan and board came into agreement that "it'd be best for both parties to go separate ways. So basically sacked. He had said that he wanted to quit football in year and a half and only few days before had reitarated that he'd want to stay until then.

Otherwise your post is pretty poor one. While Chelsea changed managers, they failed to win league for years mainly because of instability. Oh, and there has been great stability in their playing squad, that's almost the same team that won the league last time around. Unless you are saying they won the league because of Sturridge.

Do you know if Danny got a medal?If he did I'd like to say well done Danny.I dont think he is such a bad lad myself.Back onto Chelski.In my way of thinking since they got rid of the special one they havent done so bad.They are the F.A cup holders been in a CL final and competed in the prem all that time.All that while they were undergoing a fair bit of managerial turmoil so stability wasn't an issue for them.As you say the majority of the team has stayed the same and in that aspect I think you are right in that we have to get a certain standard of player and that will take us a long way but the other half of the story as into what manager we have it will not affect us I think if we chop and change until we can find the man who will complete the jigsaw.

Niall Quinns Discopants wrote:

Rag_hater wrote:

ant london wrote:

Rag_hater wrote:I do not think it is necessary for a team to be successful.
As Chelski have just proved by Ancoletti winning the prem in his first season.They havent been managerially very stable for the past few years but still keep competing.
I personally think that when something isnt working that change is the way forward.
Benitez had most of his success when he inherited the dippers
Arse have been stable for ages and its doing fuckall for them the only ones it has benefitted is them.
Villa and the toffees are stable and the achieve more or less the same every year.
I fear we will fall in the same trap of trying to be stable and not achieving the main prize in the pursuit of stabilty when we should be aiming to get the best.

are you basically saying "Mancini Out"?

I suppose I am.
He promised us 4th and didnt deliver.
If he was a man of his word he would do a Keegan and quit.

Keegan didn't quit. He was sacked.Or to be precise, Keegan and board came into agreement that "it'd be best for both parties to go separate ways. So basically sacked. He had said that he wanted to quit football in year and a half and only few days before had reitarated that he'd want to stay until then.

Otherwise your post is pretty poor one. While Chelsea changed managers, they failed to win league for years mainly because of instability. Oh, and there has been great stability in their playing squad, that's almost the same team that won the league last time around. Unless you are saying they won the league because of Sturridge.

So Ancelotti managed to take someone elses team and immediately make it better?

A thing that Hughes was completely incapable of doing, and which Mancini thus far also seems rather incapable of doing. I'm glad you pointed out Ancelotti's achievement of winning the league with the same side he inherited.

I know they are far ahead of us in terms of quality in the squad, but the whole point of bringing a new manager into ANY club is because the board thinks that the present incumbent should be doing better / a new manager could do better with those players. It seems that despite your dislike for Hughes being unable to work with the existing players, you have made exactly the same excuses for Mancini, whilst lauding Ancelotti for doing the exact opposite.

I'm not necessarily anti-Mancini, but I struggle to follow your reasoning at times mate.

chelsea have had stability in terms that the core squad has changed very little for the last 4 or 5 years - a core squad that is capabable of challenging on all levels - Hughes/Mancini have not had that benefit. I dare say Mancini and Hughes would have done quite well with that chelsea team

chelsea have had stability in terms that the core squad has changed very little for the last 4 or 5 years - a core squad that is capabable of challenging on all levels - Hughes/Mancini have not had that benefit. I dare say Mancini and Hughes would have done quite well with that chelsea team

chelsea have had stability in terms that the core squad has changed very little for the last 4 or 5 years - a core squad that is capabable of challenging on all levels - Hughes/Mancini have not had that benefit. I dare say Mancini and Hughes would have done quite well with that chelsea team

chelsea have had stability in terms that the core squad has changed very little for the last 4 or 5 years - a core squad that is capabable of challenging on all levels - Hughes/Mancini have not had that benefit. I dare say Mancini and Hughes would have done quite well with that chelsea team

chelsea have had stability in terms that the core squad has changed very little for the last 4 or 5 years - a core squad that is capabable of challenging on all levels - Hughes/Mancini have not had that benefit. I dare say Mancini and Hughes would have done quite well with that chelsea team

johnpb78 wrote:

Niall Quinns Discopants wrote:

Rag_hater wrote:

ant london wrote:

Rag_hater wrote:I do not think it is necessary for a team to be successful.
As Chelski have just proved by Ancoletti winning the prem in his first season.They havent been managerially very stable for the past few years but still keep competing.
I personally think that when something isnt working that change is the way forward.
Benitez had most of his success when he inherited the dippers
Arse have been stable for ages and its doing fuckall for them the only ones it has benefitted is them.
Villa and the toffees are stable and the achieve more or less the same every year.
I fear we will fall in the same trap of trying to be stable and not achieving the main prize in the pursuit of stabilty when we should be aiming to get the best.

are you basically saying "Mancini Out"?

I suppose I am.
He promised us 4th and didnt deliver.
If he was a man of his word he would do a Keegan and quit.

Keegan didn't quit. He was sacked.Or to be precise, Keegan and board came into agreement that "it'd be best for both parties to go separate ways. So basically sacked. He had said that he wanted to quit football in year and a half and only few days before had reitarated that he'd want to stay until then.

Otherwise your post is pretty poor one. While Chelsea changed managers, they failed to win league for years mainly because of instability. Oh, and there has been great stability in their playing squad, that's almost the same team that won the league last time around. Unless you are saying they won the league because of Sturridge.

So Ancelotti managed to take someone elses team and immediately make it better?

A thing that Hughes was completely incapable of doing, and which Mancini thus far also seems rather incapable of doing. I'm glad you pointed out Ancelotti's achievement of winning the league with the same side he inherited.

I know they are far ahead of us in terms of quality in the squad, but the whole point of bringing a new manager into ANY club is because the board thinks that the present incumbent should be doing better / a new manager could do better with those players. It seems that despite your dislike for Hughes being unable to work with the existing players, you have made exactly the same excuses for Mancini, whilst lauding Ancelotti for doing the exact opposite.

I'm not necessarily anti-Mancini, but I struggle to follow your reasoning at times mate.

I'm not lauding Ancellotti! I think he is one of the best managers in the world. I knew it when he came to Chelsea and expected him to do well.

I also think that it's fair reasoning that if there's a genuinely better manager out there who can improve side both short and long term then Club should go for them. Personally I could think numerous of managers better than Hughes but I can't think of many managers available better than Mancini. My subjective opinion, one which I kept on repeating throughout Hughes era.

Regarding Chelsea, they were foolish to sack Jose. After that they took punts with numerous of managers simply not good enough for/no previous experience of as high profile job like Grant and Scolari. Hiddink is super excellent manager but simply not interested on moving to Club management which I can understand.

ant london wrote:chelsea have had stability in terms that the core squad has changed very little for the last 4 or 5 years - a core squad that is capabable of challenging on all levels - Hughes/Mancini have not had that benefit. I dare say Mancini and Hughes would have done quite well with that chelsea team

Slim wrote:chelsea have had stability in terms that the core squad has changed very little for the last 4 or 5 years - a core squad that is capabable of challenging on all levels - Hughes/Mancini have not had that benefit. I dare say Mancini and Hughes would have done quite well with that chelsea team

BlueinBosnia wrote:chelsea have had stability in terms that the core squad has changed very little for the last 4 or 5 years - a core squad that is capabable of challenging on all levels - Hughes/Mancini have not had that benefit. I dare say Mancini and Hughes would have done quite well with that chelsea team

*all of you* are well funny

Stability is one component of success. Having the right men in the right positions is another. The Chelsea team and squad has been stable even if the managerial position has not - although in Ancelotti I suspect that this instability is over. City have not been stable in terms of either team/squad or managerial position partly because our squad has not been good enough so there has been a rapid injection of players irrespective of manager along with managerial instability meaning that players have been bought and discarded dependant upon who the manager is.

I expect that there will be further squad restructing in the summer although not on the previous scale with an emphasis on quality not quantity. Mancini I recall reading does not want to fill the squad with 'more of the same'. Also Mancini unlike Hughes is happy to work within the club system where players are indentified by Marwood and co that can bring real value ie Johnson.

Irrespective of whatever people think of Mancini, 'too negative, too boring' or whatever, the one thing that he does bring which is valued by the club is not only his willingness to work with the club in taking it forward (ie he does not say its 'my way or no way') but his ability to organise the team and make things more solid. From solidity and stability the club and the team can grow and progress.

Ultimately no one knows whether Mancini can take City to winning the PL and more. But at the very least he will bring City to the point where we can challenge for the PL and qualify for the CL. It may be that we need someone else to close the deal but for the next season or two we do need some continuity. We may froth and moan over this or that performance or result but we also need to have some degree of long term prespective otherwise we will be forever ripping things up and starting again which will ultimately get us nowhere.

BobKowalski wrote:Stability is one component of success. Having the right men in the right positions is another. The Chelsea team and squad has been stable even if the managerial position has not - although in Ancelotti I suspect that this instability is over. City have not been stable in terms of either team/squad or managerial position partly because our squad has not been good enough so there has been a rapid injection of players irrespective of manager along with managerial instability meaning that players have been bought and discarded dependant upon who the manager is.

I expect that there will be further squad restructing in the summer although not on the previous scale with an emphasis on quality not quantity. Mancini I recall reading does not want to fill the squad with 'more of the same'. Also Mancini unlike Hughes is happy to work within the club system where players are indentified by Marwood and co that can bring real value ie Johnson.

Irrespective of whatever people think of Mancini, 'too negative, too boring' or whatever, the one thing that he does bring which is valued by the club is not only his willingness to work with the club in taking it forward (ie he does not say its 'my way or no way') but his ability to organise the team and make things more solid. From solidity and stability the club and the team can grow and progress.

Ultimately no one knows whether Mancini can take City to winning the PL and more. But at the very least he will bring City to the point where we can challenge for the PL and qualify for the CL. It may be that we need someone else to close the deal but for the next season or two we do need some continuity. We may froth and moan over this or that performance or result but we also need to have some degree of long term prespective otherwise we will be forever ripping things up and starting again which will ultimately get us nowhere.

Can't argue too much with that mate.

I am pretty sure we will do better next year than this year if he stays, and on that basis as unhappy as I am at times with his team setup, we can't really complain if we are moving in the right direction, which I think we ALL believe we will under Mancini next year.

Chelsea are doing well, because they are playing as a team for many years already now, like many people already said.

BobKowalski wrote:Stability is one component of success. Having the right men in the right positions is another. The Chelsea team and squad has been stable even if the managerial position has not - although in Ancelotti I suspect that this instability is over. City have not been stable in terms of either team/squad or managerial position partly because our squad has not been good enough so there has been a rapid injection of players irrespective of manager along with managerial instability meaning that players have been bought and discarded dependant upon who the manager is.

I expect that there will be further squad restructing in the summer although not on the previous scale with an emphasis on quality not quantity. Mancini I recall reading does not want to fill the squad with 'more of the same'. Also Mancini unlike Hughes is happy to work within the club system where players are indentified by Marwood and co that can bring real value ie Johnson.

Irrespective of whatever people think of Mancini, 'too negative, too boring' or whatever, the one thing that he does bring which is valued by the club is not only his willingness to work with the club in taking it forward (ie he does not say its 'my way or no way') but his ability to organise the team and make things more solid. From solidity and stability the club and the team can grow and progress.

Ultimately no one knows whether Mancini can take City to winning the PL and more. But at the very least he will bring City to the point where we can challenge for the PL and qualify for the CL. It may be that we need someone else to close the deal but for the next season or two we do need some continuity. We may froth and moan over this or that performance or result but we also need to have some degree of long term prespective otherwise we will be forever ripping things up and starting again which will ultimately get us nowhere.

I disagree that stability is one of the components of success.As you say Chelski have been through plenty of turmoil but still managed to compete.So this says to me that quality is more important.

Rag_hater wrote:I do not think it is necessary for a team to be successful.
As Chelski have just proved by Ancoletti winning the prem in his first season.They havent been managerially very stable for the past few years but still keep competing.
I personally think that when something isnt working that change is the way forward.
Benitez had most of his success when he inherited the dippers
Arse have been stable for ages and its doing fuckall for them the only ones it has benefitted is them.
Villa and the toffees are stable and the achieve more or less the same every year.
I fear we will fall in the same trap of trying to be stable and not achieving the main prize in the pursuit of stabilty when we should be aiming to get the best.

how about robinho for manager?perfect solution for you right?