john68 wrote:Beefy,
The scenarios of the Mercer/Allison era and that of Mancini are not as different as you would at first think. In fact there are many similarities that make KK's question quite relevent. KK questioned fans attitudes proir to Mercer/Allison winning any major trrophies and with little previous evidence to suggest they would be as successful as they became. Which was the whole point.
Following promotion (65-66), Mercer/Allison stated the aim was SURVIVAL. They used the words; "CONSOLIDATE OUR POSITION IN DIVISION 1). Like Mancini's target of 4th, which is considered by many to show a lack of ambition, the formers' target could also be interpreted as lacking ambition too.
During the previous season (66-67) we had hardly set the World alight. We finished 15th, gaining only 39pts (rounded up to 51pts at 3 for a win) and in 42 games, we had scored only 43 goals (1 goal per game with a bonus 1 chucked in). We conceded 52 goals. We spent a large part of that season looking at a relegation battle and the record shows that, despite our memories of a great attacking force, that City side (at that time) had a similar scoring record to that of Mancini.
At the start of our Championship season, we had little evidence to consider we might go on to become the League Champions and the attacking force we proved to be and after 13 games, our points total was exactly the same as that of Mancini's today. Don't think for 1 moment that our league winning season was all roses. the record shows; D, L, L, in the first 3 games and the press were considering us as a relegation side. Games 4-8 were all wins (4 home games and 1 away game) only Forest being a scalp of note. Arsenal (A), the rags (H) and Sunderland , who became relegated, (A) were consecutively lost and after losing the derby, the MuEN reported that "normality had returned to the [football] World. Like today, Mercer/Allison considered we had a striking problem and before game 12, they brought in Francis Lee (Mercer's last piece of the jigsaw). Unlike today, when a problem was identified, players could be brought in immediately without having to wait for transfer windows. Mancini has already identified our problem (we know that) but was unable to land his summer targets and is now stuck with waiting until the next window opens.
My conclusion is that, like Mancini, Mercer/Allison were still building a team and until Lee came in, it remained unfinished. When Lee arrived, things changed and we struck out and upwards. My thoughts are that the 2 regimes are remarkebly similar and once Mancini has got Mario back or landed his strike target, you will then see the finished article. Only then will we be able to make a definitive judgement. Until Lee became the last piece of the jigsaw and Mercer/Allison could make the changes they wished, there was very little evidence (as now) that we may become successful.
Fucking hell John, that was 2 days ago! And what's with the War & Peace, you know we can only have one-liners on here now ;-)
Good post mate and to be truthful, I think I'm playing more of a Devils' Advodate at the moment. Just the same, I know you compare the 2 but in my own opinion there is just no comparison. When Mercer came in he made an instant impact on the club by not only gaining promotion, but winning the division; something that buys you time in any sport. And like you say, his aim from then on was to keep us in the league which every fan would have been well happy with. The rest, as they say, is history.
Now apart from the points situation there is no real comparison. Mancini didn't come in when we were in trouble, we were actually 5th in the league going into a group of easily winnable games. He then moved on to
not get us in the position that we wanted and in that time show us that his tactics and formations were not as fluid as I'd thought they'd be. The Rags, Arsenal and Spurs games saw the depths of misery that only few could imagine when it come to gaining that 4th spot. On top of that were the Cup games that we crashed out of under his stewardship, Cup games many were betting on to end our drought since those heady days long ago.
You also state about being able to buy anytime which was also a massive bonus, but in reality it is exactly the same now but all about planning. We bought Mario, who could've been the back-up for Dzeko, but we still already had the likes of Ade, RSC, Bellers, Robbie and Jo on the books, so why didn't Mancini manage that situation ensuring that the likes of Ade (who has proved to be a top-notch striker) were up to speed with what was going on and made sure he was onside for this season. That's what management is all about, getting the best out of your staff in a professional manner in order to attain a set goal; that's why Prem managers are paid the big bucks.
So yeah, good post mate and you nearly had me thinking 'Actually, we are alright aren't we', but when I think about it, and after watching every single game since he's been here (2 or 3 times usually - sad, I know), I still have big reservations on where we are going. The problem is, from the heart, I want to believe that Mancio and Kidd are the new Mercer/Allison combo, and that is why I am still willing to see how things go. I said I'd give it until the Brum game to see how I felt and from those games I've been left a little numb. Now I'm giving it the next 4 - 6 to make an accurate assessment based on all elements - heart, head, stomach and arse - and if all them have me doing things I like, then I'll stay on the fence. However, if my heart is waning, my head is pounding, my stomach is churning and my arse is falling out, then this Blue Boy won't be holding the punches when it comes to the 'Mancini' question.
But for both our sakes, let's hope that Mancini gets his players on the pitch as I'm sure we all have one thing in common, and that's for City to win, regardless of anything else ;-)