Mancini (The Ted Hughes and BBS thread)

[brite blu sky]

It is clear, to me anyway, and i think it will become clear to others in time, that Mancinio has no sense of humour. Some may say language might be an issue but it could be argued humour is deeper than language. The upshot is that this then predetermines his strategic thinking and tactics, which are clear to some as being misguided and often reckless. This is a typical trait of the humourless and ironically sets up the mentality to have a negative reactive attitude. Lack of play when a child, particularly with other children can be a cause of this, if not treated before adulthood it can lead to serious lack of social skills mainly characterised as a kind of ignorant arrogance where normally humour would supply a sense of self-depreciation to balance things out.

Having gotten involved in things in Manchester, where it has to be said humour plays a large part in the population not topping themselves and is a widely appreciated part of the social scene and general activity of the people, i feel that he may well be hard pushed to avoid things going pear shaped. Again it is ironic that the best therapy for such a problem is to go face to face and toe to toe with protagonists of the deepest darkest humour (just ask Doomy) but this is a risky strategy that can only be taken on with confidence if a basic self-realisation has already occured. For this i must conclude that he may well not last the course. Although i am quite sad at this as humourless people can be so much fun.

Not sure how this relates to training hardships Doug, but it is an argument at least!

[BobKowalski]

I feel in a slightly argumentative mood so on the point about training harder and alledged complaints about it could somebody please explain in what way they train harder. Who says they do and who is it that complains about it?

I ask simply because I do not believe either aspect.For those that believe that they train harder now I would love to know on what evidence it is based.If the answer is a newspaper report please don't bother.

Specifically on the so called double training sessions if anyone out there thinks they happen please tell me when the last one was. There were 1 or 2 when Mancini first arrived which was more about him spending extra time with the players to get to know them as quickly as possible. Perfectly logical if you ask me but they are certainly not even close to a regular feature of training.

If you suggest that there has been some dissatisfaction at the actual training times then I would agree. I don't think the players like the ocassional afternoons sessions and they certainly don't like it when a morning time gets switched to the afternoon at short notice.

As for the sessions themselves there is no doubt they were overall stronger and tougher pre Mancini. That isn't to say which is better for the fitness levels but I would simply s ay factual from what I see.

I will think about the tactics issue.Clear weaknesses in the past and still weaknesses now.

Hang on whilst I get the links to the Sun and NotW.

I recall Shay talking about the lads just want to play footie without all this tactical/team shape malarkey so maybe we are blurring the lines between physical harder and mentally harder. Physically we seem to be in good shape as the game goes on and often we are stronger and better in the 2nd half than the first. You could point to lack of concentration in the last minute or so at Sunderland and Stoke as an area we need to tighten and whether that has a bearing on physical fitness levels although personally I think its a mindset that needs to be acquired and something we are still short of. Paddy and Ade referenced a tough pre-season physically and a good pre-season is often cited as being key to a good season with training geared towards maintaining optimum physical levels during the actual season.

My own take is that its just different under Mancini with a different philosophy and emphasis which takes getting used to. That it is harder than the approach taken by Hughes and his team has been commented upon by some players but whether that is in reference to the greater tactical discipline demanded by Mancini as opposed to the physical exertion required under the respective regimes I will leave others to judge.

Tactically its a no brainer. That is no brains where used under the Hughes regime or at least none were used during the 90 odd minutes of game time. Maybe we needed to be fitter under Hughes as we needed to chase after the ball for longer :)

On a side note the Fulham players commented earlier this season that training under Hughes is more fun than under Roy who used to drill them relentlessly. I guess Fulham are now enjoying the fruits of those 'fun' training sessions.

Thank you for confirming what I thought. No substance at all just reports and hearsay.

On tactics I wouldn't dream of saying Hughes and co were better than Mancini but I would say I am far from convinced that Mancini is good tactically.I do think clear mistakes have been made and Stoke certainly is a case in point at the end where he didn't make the team changes to hold on for the win.Poznan away where he seemed to decide a draw was enough and just gave the initiative away and the points.

On man management I do feel that he is poor bordering on awful but just hope that his approach and the quality we have all the way through the team will be enough. I do wish though that he would stop going on and on about games every 3 days and didn't he say ( in that interview when he spoke about Ade) we had 10 or 11 games before the new year. He must have arranged some behind closed doors!

All we ever have is reports and hearsay. This does not automatically make them inaccurate or that they lack substance. After all your own informative training reports fall into this category and I do not dismiss them as lacking substance. As for the Stoke/Pozen comparison that smacks of having your cake and eating it. In Pozen Mancini decided to shut up shop and take the point and it didn't work. Against Stoke he elected not to surrender the initiative and shut up shop and again it didn't work. I said in a different thread re Stoke that if he had decided to shut up shop and Stoke equalized Mancini would be slated for doing what you now advocate. With hindsight we are all tactical geniuses.

Mancini when it comes to man management is not Mr Warmth. Some players will hate it, others will be indifferent and some will thrive. It is what it is and it isn't going to change. Tactically compared to Hughes he is a genius but I will concede that Hughes is not the most taxing benchmark.

I rarely listen to Mancini's press conferences because I know what he will say 'hard game' 'Barclays Premier League' 'This is football' although I do think he will go tonto at some stage as the warning signs are there. When that left eye starts twitching you just know he is simmering nicely. Ancelotti uses the left eyebrow so maybe the eyes are an Italian thing.

[Douglas Higginbottom]

I feel in a slightly argumentative mood so on the point about training harder and alledged complaints about it could somebody please explain in what way they train harder. Who says they do and who is it that complains about it?

I ask simply because I do not believe either aspect.For those that believe that they train harder now I would love to know on what evidence it is based.If the answer is a newspaper report please don't bother.

Specifically on the so called double training sessions if anyone out there thinks they happen please tell me when the last one was. There were 1 or 2 when Mancini first arrived which was more about him spending extra time with the players to get to know them as quickly as possible. Perfectly logical if you ask me but they are certainly not even close to a regular feature of training.

If you suggest that there has been some dissatisfaction at the actual training times then I would agree. I don't think the players like the ocassional afternoons sessions and they certainly don't like it when a morning time gets switched to the afternoon at short notice.

As for the sessions themselves there is no doubt they were overall stronger and tougher pre Mancini. That isn't to say which is better for the fitness levels but I would simply s ay factual from what I see.

I will think about the tactics issue.Clear weaknesses in the past and still weaknesses now.

Hang on whilst I get the links to the Sun and NotW.

I recall Shay talking about the lads just want to play footie without all this tactical/team shape malarkey so maybe we are blurring the lines between physical harder and mentally harder. Physically we seem to be in good shape as the game goes on and often we are stronger and better in the 2nd half than the first. You could point to lack of concentration in the last minute or so at Sunderland and Stoke as an area we need to tighten and whether that has a bearing on physical fitness levels although personally I think its a mindset that needs to be acquired and something we are still short of. Paddy and Ade referenced a tough pre-season physically and a good pre-season is often cited as being key to a good season with training geared towards maintaining optimum physical levels during the actual season.

My own take is that its just different under Mancini with a different philosophy and emphasis which takes getting used to. That it is harder than the approach taken by Hughes and his team has been commented upon by some players but whether that is in reference to the greater tactical discipline demanded by Mancini as opposed to the physical exertion required under the respective regimes I will leave others to judge.

Tactically its a no brainer. That is no brains where used under the Hughes regime or at least none were used during the 90 odd minutes of game time. Maybe we needed to be fitter under Hughes as we needed to chase after the ball for longer :)

On a side note the Fulham players commented earlier this season that training under Hughes is more fun than under Roy who used to drill them relentlessly. I guess Fulham are now enjoying the fruits of those 'fun' training sessions.

Thank you for confirming what I thought. No substance at all just reports and hearsay.

On tactics I wouldn't dream of saying Hughes and co were better than Mancini but I would say I am far from convinced that Mancini is good tactically.I do think clear mistakes have been made and Stoke certainly is a case in point at the end where he didn't make the team changes to hold on for the win.Poznan away where he seemed to decide a draw was enough and just gave the initiative away and the points.

On man management I do feel that he is poor bordering on awful but just hope that his approach and the quality we have all the way through the team will be enough. I do wish though that he would stop going on and on about games every 3 days and didn't he say ( in that interview when he spoke about Ade) we had 10 or 11 games before the new year. He must have arranged some behind closed doors!

All we ever have is reports and hearsay. This does not automatically make them inaccurate or that they lack substance. After all your own informative training reports fall into this category and I do not dismiss them as lacking substance. As for the Stoke/Pozen comparison that smacks of having your cake and eating it. In Pozen Mancini decided to shut up shop and take the point and it didn't work. Against Stoke he elected not to surrender the initiative and shut up shop and again it didn't work. I said in a different thread re Stoke that if he had decided to shut up shop and Stoke equalized Mancini would be slated for doing what you now advocate. With hindsight we are all tactical geniuses.

Mancini when it comes to man management is not Mr Warmth. Some players will hate it, others will be indifferent and some will thrive. It is what it is and it isn't going to change. Tactically compared to Hughes he is a genius but I will concede that Hughes is not the most taxing benchmark.

I rarely listen to Mancini's press conferences because I know what he will say 'hard game' 'Barclays Premier League' 'This is football' although I do think he will go tonto at some stage as the warning signs are there. When that left eye starts twitching you just know he is simmering nicely. Ancelotti uses the left eyebrow so maybe the eyes are an Italian thing.

haha I knew you would say that about the Stoke and Poznan games and I 100% disagree.Against Poz we had just taken the initiative against a very average side and we were drawing the game.Only drawing and instead of going for the win with most of a half to play he stopped trying. Poznan weren't in the game at that point and we said come on then let's see what you have got. We found out!

Against Stoke we had just scored and were winning the game with less than 10 minutes left on the clock. It was clear to a blind man that Stoke would throw everything they had at us and we didn't need to score again to win.We should have looked to keep the ball and keep players in position and covering in particular their key players.

Wrong on both counts and for me neither was hindsight but very very clear at the time.

As for his mananagement and whether it will be a problem only time will tell. As for his press conferences I agree not worth listening to as he broadly says the same thing whoever the opposition is. No problem with that as he tries to avoid leading questions which is what most managers do.I just hope he is a quality tactician but as I say the jury is still out for me. I have seen games where good changes have been made but in essence they were made because he got it wrong at the start rather than recacting to something that happened in the game.

[Beefymcfc]

Seems we've moved onto Mancini v Hughes - AGAIN!

Whether it be tactics or training, there can only be one thing that sorts it - Points. You can talk all you want but when it comes down to it, only our position can dictate who is better. One other consideration has got to be the quality of the player.

So, at this point in the season, and against the teams we've played, who's gained the most points?




Where's MRM when you need his graph, not seen it for a while?

[colonel_muck]

hughes was better. but i'm clinging onto the fulham performance for the time being.

[MaineRoadMemories]

Where's MRM when you need his graph, not seen it for a while?

You not read the official matchday thread? Tut Tut ;-)

[Beefymcfc]

Where's MRM when you need his graph, not seen it for a while?

You not read the official matchday thread? Tut Tut ;-)

I did mate, but missed a bit 'cos the Mrs booked us in to view a house!

Any chance of the facts mate, save me trawling?

[Chinners]

I'm still sitting mouth wide opened that anyone would use the Sun & NOTW as 'evidence' at all .... mind boggling stuff

[Beefymcfc]

I'm still sitting mouth wide opened that anyone would use the Sun & NOTW as 'evidence' at all .... mind boggling stuff

Oiiiiiiii, they're quality reads, I know, you post them on here ;-)

[Beefymcfc]

Had to trawl for it myself, cheers pal ;-)

Anyway, that say's it all for me. No progression in points whatsoever even with a better squad. Hughes had a season and then hit the rocks in transiton. Mancini has had 2 half season's but could now go onto wina few games and change those stats in his favour - or maybe not!

Didn't want Hughes sacked, don't want Mancini sacked, but surely you can't argue one is better than the other?

Subject: ***Official Stoke v City Match Thread***

Strange set of stats to sum up the season so far. Ultimately we are no better than last season; just lucky that the rest of the title challengers have all got less points than they had this time last season.

• 26 points this season
• 26 points against the same teams last season
• And also 26 points collected last season from the first 15 games.

More interesting is that last season the manager was sacked when he reached 29 points.
Mancini has 2 games to get 4 points otherwise he could be axed (trajectory and all that) ;-p

[Chinners]

I'm still sitting mouth wide opened that anyone would use the Sun & NOTW as 'evidence' at all .... mind boggling stuff

Oiiiiiiii, they're quality reads, I know, you post them on here ;-)

rumbled

[BobKowalski]

I'm still sitting mouth wide opened that anyone would use the Sun & NOTW as 'evidence' at all .... mind boggling stuff

My bad its just that I couldn't find the Mail or the Daily Star links that I endlessly bookmark for the inside scoop on all things City.

[Chinners]

heh heh

[brite blu sky]

Interesting posts, and certainly interesting seeing DH get his tail in the air. Ran out of steam a bit though.. because the bottom line is we just dont know.

Whether it be tactics or training, there can only be one thing that sorts it - Points. You can talk all you want but when it comes down to it, only our position can dictate who is better. One other consideration has got to be the quality of the player.

Not quoting this fro any other reason than it makes the simple point that points are the gauge. That seems irrefutable or whatever you call it. But it doesn't tell the whole story...

For me this is the key difference that Bob K pointed out very well.

Mancini or the team doing the buying have taken a more long term approach with non PL players and younger players which means a greater settling in period. Its a riskier strategy even if the quality of the individuals has been substantially upgraded. Mancini is though more of a gambler than Hughes (irony of ironies given everyone slates Mancini for the polar opposite) when it comes to player selection. Given would have got the nod over Hart under Hughes and Boyata would not have featured at all. Mancini is prepared to risk untried talent in big matches if they have in his opinion the necessary ability and temperament. Sometimes it pays off and sometimes it doesn't thereby adding to the pressure on Mancini in the short term. This short term pressure Mancini is prepared to take as he believes it is for the long term good and it is this willingness to look at the long term along with his coaching abilities that make him a superior manager to Hughes.

Longer term thinking.

Personally i have found myself warming to Mancini against my will.. and it is this aspect of his way.. the evident long termism.

The key argument for me at this stage where the points tally is the same, is that under Hughes we would have progressed to some extent i'm sure, but we would not be in a position or set up to progress a lot. What we had with Hughes would be roughly about it.. a bit better.. as in a 4th spot team some years. With Mancini you get a much stronger sense that we will be far and away better than that.. and the longer it goes on the more that will be the case.
Now i cant define that other than what Bob K has pointed out, there is a longer term thinking. Also clear signs that he is not going to fuck about with players like Adebayor.

It isn't easy to express but perhaps the idea that with Hughes there really wasn't much more in the tank, with Mancini you get the sense that we are only just starting.

Does that make any sense to anyone?

[Beefymcfc]

Interesting posts, and certainly interesting seeing DH get his tail in the air. Ran out of steam a bit though.. because the bottom line is we just dont know.

Whether it be tactics or training, there can only be one thing that sorts it - Points. You can talk all you want but when it comes down to it, only our position can dictate who is better. One other consideration has got to be the quality of the player.

Not quoting this fro any other reason than it makes the simple point that points are the gauge. That seems irrefutable or whatever you call it. But it doesn't tell the whole story...

For me this is the key difference that Bob K pointed out very well.

Mancini or the team doing the buying have taken a more long term approach with non PL players and younger players which means a greater settling in period. Its a riskier strategy even if the quality of the individuals has been substantially upgraded. Mancini is though more of a gambler than Hughes (irony of ironies given everyone slates Mancini for the polar opposite) when it comes to player selection. Given would have got the nod over Hart under Hughes and Boyata would not have featured at all. Mancini is prepared to risk untried talent in big matches if they have in his opinion the necessary ability and temperament. Sometimes it pays off and sometimes it doesn't thereby adding to the pressure on Mancini in the short term. This short term pressure Mancini is prepared to take as he believes it is for the long term good and it is this willingness to look at the long term along with his coaching abilities that make him a superior manager to Hughes.

Longer term thinking.

Personally i have found myself warming to Mancini against my will.. and it is this aspect of his way.. the evident long termism.

The key argument for me at this stage where the points tally is the same, is that under Hughes we would have progressed to some extent i'm sure, but we would not be in a position or set up to progress a lot. What we had with Hughes would be roughly about it.. a bit better.. as in a 4th spot team some years. With Mancini you get a much stronger sense that we will be far and away better than that.. and the longer it goes on the more that will be the case.
Now i cant define that other than what Bob K has pointed out, there is a longer term thinking. Also clear signs that he is not going to fuck about with players like Adebayor.

It isn't easy to express but perhaps the idea that with Hughes there really wasn't much more in the tank, with Mancini you get the sense that we are only just starting.

Does that make any sense to anyone?

You see mate, ths is what I don't see - more hope. When I watch games I'm looking for consistency in areas that prove we are progressing, and that those players out there know exactly how they need to play to attain the goal. Has that happened or do players look uneasy in certain positions? Does the play flow from game to game with consistent performances, individually or as a team? And that's what I don't see as yet and moreover see changes in tactics that actually suit our opponents, ie. 2 new inexperienced players coming in together against a team like Arsenal, or more recently, bringing off an all-rounder to put on an attacking player when the reality was we needed to hold the ball and kill the game. Certain things that have actually had a direct influence on results and cost us points in my opinion. There are many other times when he just doesn't seem to have done his homework and needs to change tact early, which for me shows not that he got it right by changing, but got it wrong in the 1st place.

As for the comparison, there is only 1 definite way to gauge who is the best manager, and that is the scores on the doors and in that sense, they are equal regardless of what each brings to the party. You could say that Hughes was sorting it out from the front whilst Mancio is sorting it from the back, couldn't you?

I'd like to believe that Mancio was all over it, but I'm afraid I'm like you, it's just a hope thing where I'm looking for glimpses to cling to like the Fulham game but for every one like that, I've seem 5 that are the total oposite.

Forza Mancini.

[Lev Bronstein]

Interesting posts, and certainly interesting seeing DH get his tail in the air. Ran out of steam a bit though.. because the bottom line is we just dont know.

Whether it be tactics or training, there can only be one thing that sorts it - Points. You can talk all you want but when it comes down to it, only our position can dictate who is better. One other consideration has got to be the quality of the player.

Not quoting this fro any other reason than it makes the simple point that points are the gauge. That seems irrefutable or whatever you call it. But it doesn't tell the whole story...

For me this is the key difference that Bob K pointed out very well.

Mancini or the team doing the buying have taken a more long term approach with non PL players and younger players which means a greater settling in period. Its a riskier strategy even if the quality of the individuals has been substantially upgraded. Mancini is though more of a gambler than Hughes (irony of ironies given everyone slates Mancini for the polar opposite) when it comes to player selection. Given would have got the nod over Hart under Hughes and Boyata would not have featured at all. Mancini is prepared to risk untried talent in big matches if they have in his opinion the necessary ability and temperament. Sometimes it pays off and sometimes it doesn't thereby adding to the pressure on Mancini in the short term. This short term pressure Mancini is prepared to take as he believes it is for the long term good and it is this willingness to look at the long term along with his coaching abilities that make him a superior manager to Hughes.

Longer term thinking.

Personally i have found myself warming to Mancini against my will.. and it is this aspect of his way.. the evident long termism.

The key argument for me at this stage where the points tally is the same, is that under Hughes we would have progressed to some extent i'm sure, but we would not be in a position or set up to progress a lot. What we had with Hughes would be roughly about it.. a bit better.. as in a 4th spot team some years. With Mancini you get a much stronger sense that we will be far and away better than that.. and the longer it goes on the more that will be the case.
Now i cant define that other than what Bob K has pointed out, there is a longer term thinking. Also clear signs that he is not going to fuck about with players like Adebayor.

It isn't easy to express but perhaps the idea that with Hughes there really wasn't much more in the tank, with Mancini you get the sense that we are only just starting.

Does that make any sense to anyone?

It computes captain.

Actually, to back up your point, for the most part Mancini has bought young (the exception being Vieira, but I think that's to have an experienced winner to add solidity to the young ones).

I get the feeling that he's still testing out players as if he isn't certain how they fit in to the system, just a feeling, I've no evidence. Hopefully, he'll sort it out and we'll have a clearer idea of his strategy.

[brite blu sky]

Yeah Beefy, i can see the view you have.. in fact i would say it is all too obvious, unfortunately. The trouble with what i expressed is that it is totally unprovable.. it is just a sense. And as we all know the trouble with senses and feelings is that they could be just wishful thinking! The only gauge i have myself is that i know i try to 'see it as it is' and try to take onboard the reality of what we see. All the points you have made, the fact that we have no consistency, struggle at home, no proven striker other than Tevez that is reliable.. etc etc etc.
Other things like last season getting played off the fuclin park by Everton, now that hasn't happened since and we definately look more solid, we can get a grip on games when we are playing badly. I'm assuming that is Mancini's doing (it could be just that the players have been playing longer together and have improved!), and i'm assuming he is/has been sorting a building from the back mentality. I see the players he has brought in and get the feeling that i can see what he is up to. The reality is though that we have barely got the midfield going, never mind sorted. There are signs for sure and the players you can have confidence in, but it still feels a bit touch and go. As for the attack i dont think or have any sense that it is anywhere near even competent. To be honest it has been a total shambles most of the time.
Yet through all that you get the sense that something is building, players finding their feet, occasionaly firing, very often being oh so close to connecting but not quite, so many killer passes in all our games so far just didnt quite work, we are often slow and methodical and let the initiative go.. like we are playing in honey or something. But all this gives a sense that we are close.. almost connecting, almost cutting through teams. Occasionally we get glimpses and maybe more recently we have had a full 30 mins or more of it working.. even if still a bit mechanical.
The thing is you can probably say these things about any team, but i think that we have progressed slowly with Mancini and like i said in the other post that Bob K pointed out, there is a long term mentality with Bob and ultimately that means slow methodical build with short term loss leaders ( as in playing Balotelli at Stoke to gain him experience over any effectiveness in the game) that pay off in the longer term. If that thinking is correct then when we start to get on song then we will lurch to an altogether higher level in a short space of time.

But we are talking about football, so may well be talking complete Chinners quality b*ll*x !

[Tru_Blu]

Can someone explain how there has been only one reason people are giving in reference to changing tactics during a game. I mean damn you wouldn't think there was another manager effecting the game the way some people go on "HE GOT IT WRONG FROM THE START." Oh right I forgot he gets an email from the opposing manager explaining how they intend to setup against his team, how stupid of me.

[Ted Hughes]

Mancini has bought young players because he's been told to (IT'S NOW CLUB POLICY) & because Hughes has already bult up a really good top 6/7 ish squad full of experienced players. It just needed time to gel & a couple more players along with weeding out the ones that were just short term, to evolve into a top 4/5 squad which was always likely to happen, even if we'd sacked Hughes & left next doors cat in charge. Hughes, Fat Sam, Neil Warnock, any fucker would have that squad more or less where it is with the £100M worth of new players we've brought in. Most of the work was done last season & the season before building with scores of new players who've never met & shaking off the effects of Frank.

The players everyone's moaning about now are mainly the new ones who are mostly taking time to get to their best, just as the new players were last season. This time next year, Milner & Co will be settled like Vinny & DeJong are now.

Bob's doing fine & the last couple of games have shown potential of something perhaps a bit special to come. Good. Let's hope that happens THEN we can all say what a fantastic job he's done rather than the one he's done so far, which is ok but nothing special, just like Hughes. Lets kiss his arse when he achieves his goals & deserves it, not beforehand.

[Douglas Higginbottom]

"interesting seeing DH get his tail in the air"

That sounds good. I said aI was feeling a little argumentative :)I was making comparisons about training and I don't think I was saying one is better or worse than the other. Merely that there were differences and issues within them that just don't compute with comments made. It always winds me up a little when people quote whats in the press just because it sort of suits the biased argument they want to pursue.The fact that they are actually crap seems irrelevant.

And on tactics I don't think I was making direct comparisons or trying to say who was better and why. Just merely saying that for me Mancini has a lot to prove.He seems to be going in the right direction but we have been for over 2 years now. I cant be bothered reading all the words spouted on here because there is little depth to them and as yet there has arguably not been enough time to say anything has been proven either way.I will continue to watch and look for the continued development that will see us get top 4 and hopefully at least 1 good cup run.