IF We Finish 6th Do You Think Mancini Should Get the Chop?

[Rag_hater]

Yes.
4th or the sack for me.

[Grob]

Hughes was given the boot with the club in 6th after failing to get into the top 4.

Currently we are 6th.

If Mancini finishes 6th he will have failed to hit his target and like his predecessor, and should be given the boot accodingly in a show of consistancy.

on paper, yeah brilliant, but who the fuck else is there? i'd have kept Hughes, as I'd have kept Sven, and I preferred them both to Mancini (stylistically) but surely there is no mileage at all in replacing him this quickly... let's have a bit of continuity - it remains the onlyy thing we have not tried.

Getting the club into the top 4 with a squad full of good players and an open cheque book shouldnt be too hard, im sure theres scores of managers who could do that job. Its worthless listing names here just so others can write them off as 'shit'.

Again, if Hughes was sacked for not hitting his target, I expect the club to be consistant and fire Mancini if he misses his.

I hope he doesnt by the way to dispell any myths that I am a Mancini hater, but I think he will.

so you don't think it's healthy to suggest that this squad helmed by MON, Moyes, Arry, or Hodgson would make it into the Top 4? or that one of Neil Warnock, Fat Sam, Paul Jewell, or Stuart Pearce might be able to get Top 6 easily or even Top 4 as well?

cheers

Seriously, i think it is.

[DoomMerchant]

Hughes was given the boot with the club in 6th after failing to get into the top 4.

Currently we are 6th.

If Mancini finishes 6th he will have failed to hit his target and like his predecessor, and should be given the boot accodingly in a show of consistancy.

on paper, yeah brilliant, but who the fuck else is there? i'd have kept Hughes, as I'd have kept Sven, and I preferred them both to Mancini (stylistically) but surely there is no mileage at all in replacing him this quickly... let's have a bit of continuity - it remains the onlyy thing we have not tried.

Getting the club into the top 4 with a squad full of good players and an open cheque book shouldnt be too hard, im sure theres scores of managers who could do that job. Its worthless listing names here just so others can write them off as 'shit'.

Again, if Hughes was sacked for not hitting his target, I expect the club to be consistant and fire Mancini if he misses his.

I hope he doesnt by the way to dispell any myths that I am a Mancini hater, but I think he will.

so you don't think it's healthy to suggest that this squad helmed by MON, Moyes, Arry, or Hodgson would make it into the Top 4? or that one of Neil Warnock, Fat Sam, Paul Jewell, or Stuart Pearce might be able to get Top 6 easily or even Top 4 as well?

cheers

Seriously, i think it is.

Thank you. I'm glad someone is being sensible. It's a no-brainer for me. I don't want him sacked, but you have to ask what the attraction is to a foreign manager who's proven he can do no better than Hughes, and dull the fucl out of us in the process.

He's got three matches to find a way to figure out what motivates this team, and set it all right in my mind. This is where he makes his money and proves that all those trophies weren't just built on a dodgy league that hands these things out for fun or money or a little of both.

I can almost fucking guaranfuclintee that if Neil Warnock was managing City right now he'd have played Arsenal for a win and fucking ripped them to shreds with the squad we have. Same for Paul Jewell. And i'm not listing some of my fave managers in the world here, just trying to add a bit of pragmatism to this conversation. We can talk about a slew of high flying managers of world football, but i'm not sure that is even the answer.

It's a little bit like this for me...i really need Mancini to be the guy in the Rated R movie. Let me see something. I'm counting on you Roberto Mancini!!

[youtube]qhmcJ7Zg5ko[/youtube]

[BobKowalski]

I can almost fucking guaranfuclintee that if Neil Warnock was managing City right now he'd have played Arsenal for a win and fucking ripped them to shreds with the squad we have. Same for Paul Jewell. And i'm not listing some of my fave managers in the world here, just trying to add a bit of pragmatism to this conversation.

So I am going to have to ask...why isn't Neil Warnock or Paul Jewell managing City?

[carl_feedthegoat]

He was brought in to get 4th and if he doesnt we should get Mourinho in.

I wouldnt mind if we had played exciting football up to this stage but overall it has been fucking drab...........and some clueless gimps reckon Mourinhos teams are shite????????? fuck me....Ive been bored to death with Mancinis style up to now.

[Ted Hughes]

Hughes was given the boot with the club in 6th after failing to get into the top 4.

Currently we are 6th.

If Mancini finishes 6th he will have failed to hit his target and like his predecessor, and should be given the boot accodingly in a show of consistancy.

on paper, yeah brilliant, but who the fuck else is there? i'd have kept Hughes, as I'd have kept Sven, and I preferred them both to Mancini (stylistically) but surely there is no mileage at all in replacing him this quickly... let's have a bit of continuity - it remains the onlyy thing we have not tried.

Getting the club into the top 4 with a squad full of good players and an open cheque book shouldnt be too hard, im sure theres scores of managers who could do that job. Its worthless listing names here just so others can write them off as 'shit'.

Again, if Hughes was sacked for not hitting his target, I expect the club to be consistant and fire Mancini if he misses his.

I hope he doesnt by the way to dispell any myths that I am a Mancini hater, but I think he will.

so you don't think it's healthy to suggest that this squad helmed by MON, Moyes, Arry, or Hodgson would make it into the Top 4? or that one of Neil Warnock, Fat Sam, Paul Jewell, or Stuart Pearce might be able to get Top 6 easily or even Top 4 as well?

cheers

Seriously, i think it is.

I think we'd be more or less where we are now under most experienced managers; in with a chance of top 4. The proof of their ability would be in whether they could take it up to top 1 over the next year or so. I recon Hughes, Mancini, Harry, Moyes & Hodgson would all have a good chance of winning a few titles whilst Ferguson, with our resources, would keep us top 2 until he died & win the chump's lg quite a lot.

May as well let Mancini have a chance now though, seeing as he's here. I recon he can do it, although I might end up sleeping through half the games or not watching at all.

[DoomMerchant]

I can almost fucking guaranfuclintee that if Neil Warnock was managing City right now he'd have played Arsenal for a win and fucking ripped them to shreds with the squad we have. Same for Paul Jewell. And i'm not listing some of my fave managers in the world here, just trying to add a bit of pragmatism to this conversation.

So I am going to have to ask...why isn't Neil Warnock or Paul Jewell managing City?

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

[BobKowalski]

I can almost fucking guaranfuclintee that if Neil Warnock was managing City right now he'd have played Arsenal for a win and fucking ripped them to shreds with the squad we have. Same for Paul Jewell. And i'm not listing some of my fave managers in the world here, just trying to add a bit of pragmatism to this conversation.

So I am going to have to ask...why isn't Neil Warnock or Paul Jewell managing City?

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

Fair enough. I've said before that Mancini was hired to get 4th place and if someone is employed to do something and doesn't do it then there will be consequences.

Wouldn't necessarily agree with it but I can see the rationale.

[Slim]

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.

[Pretty Boy Lee]

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.

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?

[ronk]

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?

Hughes was sacked because the rate of improvement was disappointing at times and a run of bad form made it look like we might really struggle to make the top4. It was decided that another coach might be a better prospect to attain CL qualification standard and to continue the job of building this team

[Slim]

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.

[Pretty Boy Lee]

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?

Hughes was sacked because the rate of improvement was disappointing at times and a run of bad form made it look like we might really struggle to make the top4. It was decided that another coach might be a better prospect to attain CL qualification standard and to continue the job of building this team

So should Mancini have been expected to take this team into 4th or was it too soon in the development process?

[ronk]

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?

Hughes was sacked because the rate of improvement was disappointing at times and a run of bad form made it look like we might really struggle to make the top4. It was decided that another coach might be a better prospect to attain CL qualification standard and to continue the job of building this team

So should Mancini have been expected to take this team into 4th or was it too soon in the development process?

I don't think Mancini was expected to get us in to 4th before now, but sometimes people do have unrealistic expectations so everything is possible.

Ultimately, the question of whether Mancini should be retained or not doesn't really depend on whether we get 4th place or not, it depends on whether he's the right person to be manager next season.

[john68]

Looking at the way the football hierarchy seems to be at City, I have wondered just how much power Mancini actually has over football affairs and what the role of Marwood is. Marwood certainly appears to be senior to Mancini.

We do know that Marwood has a position powerful enough to have been a major player in getting rid of Hughes. he is also credited with bringing in Kidd (not Mancini's choice) and also for buying Johnson.

Is Mancini really in charge or simply employed as the chief coach, working under the orders of Marwood?
Posters have said that things may improve when Mancini has his own players around him but will he be allowed to gather his own squad or be forced to work with only those who are approved by Marwood?

Marwood seems to be very quiet in the background. Lots of power but little criticism gets thrown at him. I do wonder just what Marwood's remit is and whether we maybe wrong in blaming Mancini.

[DoomMerchant]

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.

when you look at those results in comparison i don't think it proves your point really. You could argue that crashing out of both Cups is worse than the small points per game advantage Mancini owns over Hughes.

And look, i'm just being difficult here, because i don't think it would be in the club's best interest to sack Mancini even if he got 7th because, as you pointed out...he needs some transfer windows, and also a training camp, to get his side playing his football. In my mind you have to give him next season as well IF the ownership team thinks he's the man and he wasn't simply a caretaker.

Regardless of my back and forth argumentation to prove a point -- if Hughes wasn't getting good enough results then i don't think you can claim Mancini has moved the needle much if at all.

What do you think of that?

cheers

[mcfc1632]

I think that if you are building a dynasty then it is right to build an infrastructure at all levels - that would see a management hierarchy to oversee development of the facilities, stadium, academy and 1st team squad that can survive disruptions caused by key staff moving on, e,g, coach.

So I think that Mancini is simply that (head coach) - as Jose would be - and that is where football (at the top level) is going.

I for one am grateful for this (although this is not intended to praise Marwood - not sure how good he is). We have seen how individuals that insist on running all aspects of the club lead to a club being fucked normally - for every Wenger able to manage 1st team development in line with an overall business plan there are lots of 'arrys that can leave you bankrupt

I think that Slim's analogy of playing a round of golf with someone else's clubs works. I often use a set of hired clubs when on holiday - and if these are a set of quality clubs I generally play to my handicap - because they are quality I can use my skill to compete. To really get a good round in though I might want to select a favourite type of driver, putter or rescue club to add in.

I think that the CITY management will take the club forward at all levels on a long term basis / strategy that will not only see improved facilities, stadium, academy etc but also a high quality 1st team squad that the 'head coach' of the day will have had input to but which also builds upon what is in place. Again, using the golf analogy - I might fancy the latest driver on the market but I cannot justify swapping the irons yet.

In this lies longevity in terms of success - if success is measured in terms not only of winning trophies but in managing the P&L and fitting within regulations such as those to be introduced by Platini.

It is for such reasons that I am in favour of Mancini over Jose - I 'sense' that he would work with such an overall structure / model - whereas I am not sure that Jose would (although he actually might) - in fact - whilst I wanted stability back before Xmas - it could be argued that Mancini might operate better in such a 'total team' approach than Hughes - who seemed more of a 'I control everything' type of man.

I have wondered if such considerations were made when it came to his sacking - in which case it would be true that Marwood, Cook and Khaldoon pulled the trigger - but is that not their roles in such a model?

For me - a manager of CITY in these modern times needs to be able to play their part in the total structure - whereas I think a lot of fans operate more on the 'beauty parade' approach.

[Slim]

The small difference as you put it extrapolated over the course of a season is the difference between champions league and europa. I think Mancini knew that the season would boil down to these two results, anyone thinking clearly should have been able to see that as well. Staying in touch was going to be the primary goal and that accomplished I believe he can go on and carry out his plan for the rest of the season. And as for impact, I think he has had more impact on the team in four months than Hughes had in 18, although his effect on Bellamy I don't believe is media bullshit, there is some tension there.

[mcfc1632]

I agree - which is why - although I will be gutted big time - if we do not make 4th I would still want Mancini retained and given all next season.

New CITY are a different proposition from the old CITY - I am looking forward to dominating for years to come and we need to build on solid foundations - I think that he could be very good next year - even better if we have CL - CL would accelerate the project and I am too old to be patient.

Things like disputes with players is 'froth' to me - in today's world players need to do their job for which they are well paid - a club of the level CITY will achieve will need to be firm with that - disruptive egos should be moved on - and where possible not brought in. Not particularly commenting on Bellers - I hope the rumours are unfounded (though privately think as you do) - just generally.

Whilst I wanted stability - what is done is done - and as stated in my previous post I think that Mancini could be a better fit than Hughes for the modern model of a football club.

[Pretty Boy Lee]

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