gillie wrote:Ted Hughes wrote:I don't like stuff like that incident with Mancini & Gollum, it lacks class (although Mancini showed real class in apologising). If we get Mourinho we get that every fucking week & City become secondary to him.
No arguing that Mourinho gets results but I'd much rather Mancini started playing more attacking football & stayed in the job. Unfortunately I recon Hughes was sacked to clear the way for Mourinho, if he'll agree to come.
Ted i am beginning to wonder if Mancini can actually play the attack minded game unless he is forced to by a given situation.I think he is ultra defensive which is strange as he was one helluva forward when he played.
Tbh, I don't buy into the idea that Mancini is working to some clever master plan of any kind, in fact, as far as City are concerned, I don't think he has even the slightest clue what his best team or formation is. I think he's at home with certain formations so he falls back on them in big games but he doesn't know all the strengths & weaknesses of the City players or what jobs they can do or the reality of playing against various PL opposition, so he puts players in, hoping they'll do the same job as the guy at Inter would have done & finds they don't so has to change it. It takes a lot of time & mistakes to really learn about the players & find out who can do what job with whom & we sacked the last bloke while he was still in the middle of doing it.
Mancini's team at Fulham was effectively chucking tactics out of the window & going for it. It worked but I imagine he feels he's not quite in control tactically when we play like that. Over time perhaps he'll get used to the PL & his players, sign one or two & develop systems that suit it (if he's allowed to).