Martin Samuel - Who could do better than Mancini?

[Ted Hughes]

My issue is that every time there is justified criticism of a Manchester City manager, I have over the years had an absolute titful of people banging on about how much time things take, whether it is to integrate new players, to learn a style of play or whatever

How do you know those people aren't 100% correct ?

When have we ever tried NOT sacking the manager for a few years ?

[Blue Since 76]

I agree but the point I am making is that if we decide on what our pattern(s) of play are going to be, then we sign players who are amongst the world's best at implementing those patterns, then when players lose form, we just bench them & bring in someone equally adept. Sometimes as a variation we've played a kind of 4-4-2 with people like Silva or Milner trying to do the kind of job Valencia would be doing. Yet when our plan 'A' falls down, we don't have a replacement for Silva or Yaya Toure.

We find Balotelli playing where Utd would have Giggs, Young or Nani, then getting slaugtered for not being any good at it.

Most teams in the world don't have a replacement for a Yaya or Silva.

As for the pattern of play, surely it was down to Mancini to decide on one and then buy players that fit? So either he couldn't decide on a pattern or he can't spot a player.

I've no problem with him making mistakes in purchases, as every manager does. However, the squad is all over the place. It looks like it's been put together by committee - what is Milner for? He's not played in the same position twice, so I don't think Mancini knows either. Nasri - why? Where is he supposed to play or what is his role? Dzeko - If he was bought to change the point of the attack, surely either we should have bought someone who could hold up play or we need to play in a system which gets the ball out wide and into him quickly?

We have a manager who had a decent plan A and team for it. However, if a player is injured or out of form, the replacement is a square peg. And yet we can't use the reserves to completely change the system. So now we're stuck in a system which has lost its way with players who look lost. And Milner on the bench.

[Beefymcfc]

Nice to read all that Ted but the point I was making was that if the powers that be, whether that be Marwood or Cook, could've got rid of the likes of Tevez et al, then it would've opened up funds that Mancini clearly wanted to spend. We know he was in for Sanchez, who is a very good wing player, possibly others, and you've mentioned he's tried different players to fulfil that role to little avail. That alone states that he tried to give himself a plan B but due to player acquisition/ability it actually hindered his progress.

Don't get me wrong here mate, I'm not trying to back Mancini, as I haven't 100% since we appointed him, but I thought it prevelant to look at all factors rather than just labour on the usual 'He's got it wrong'. As you say, a lot of the football we've seen this season has been exquisite so now referring to a few away games where we didn't quite pass the test or certain players not being able to adapt to different positions seems a little, well, petty.

Oh, and the Taggart comparisons, why, just why; is he coming to us? People keep throwing these people into debates as if we should be comparing like for like when the reality is that when he was building his team, at the same stage, was nowhere near where Mancini is. It's as if people are using these names to try and inflate a point when in reality you cannot compare Taggart and his 25 years at the Swamp to Mancini and his 2 years here.

We had best all go away for a decade then eh, because there is nobody in the game fit to lace bacons boots.

What's a matter, have I just pissed on your head and told you it's raining? Go away for 10 years?

You want it now and nothing is going to change that opinion for you. Mourinho is here next season, I'm not going to change that for you either. You want Mancini sacked, have it your way.

You asked what my opinions were on another thread and if you decide to read what I've written through this one and debate those points without coming back without childish and flippant comments, then I'm happy to debate pal.

You seem to be suggesting that there is no way you can compare where Man United are and where we are, because they have had a manager for the last 25 years.

My issue is that every time there is justified criticism of a Manchester City manager, I have over the years had an absolute titful of people banging on about how much time things take, whether it is to integrate new players, to learn a style of play or whatever, look at Fergie, he took x years and look at him now - all bollocks, all excuses to prolong the tenure of someone who keeps proving he hasn't got the balls for a fight, so he can capitulate next season, and the one after.

Bacon managed to integrate the 3/4 new signings immediately into his champions elect - yet someone the other day said that Silva, Milner, Balotelli, Dzeko, coming in well over a year ago is the reason over our team hasn't gelled - excuses again.

It is nothing to do with wanting it now, it is to do with seeing major tactical ineptitude repeat itself game after game, allied to a defeatist mentality we have seen all too often from Mancini when things get tight.

Dreaming of a 10 year + dynasty of success........aside from United, show me one that has worked in the modern game - then show me AC Milan's and Real Madrid's trophy cabinet. We are yearning for something that happens once in a generation across a continent. As a result there is this constant clamour from a sizeable group of City fans to be like united and keep a manager in case he turns out like ferguson - when the likelihood of that happening is so remote its not even funny.

See mate, you are obviously not reading my posts. Nowhere have I stated that I want a long term manager and you will see that nowhere in this thread I have talked about keeping Mancini. What I have done is highlight points for discussion over the course of the season, creating debate.

I said that I will not be talking about the managers tenure until the end of the season because at present we've still not finished. What I will talk about though is what has gone on over the full period, good and bad. You may want to dive on Mancini's back now because you feel he's lost us the league, all by himself, whereas I'm thinking I've got a game to go to tonight and those players and manager need my backing.

Still, as for Taggart, you cannot compare. The bloke has moulded a team over many years which cannot be compared to what we have done over this short period. Taggart may be a cunt but he's an experienced cunt who knows exactly who to bring in and in which positions. We've still not got that luxury where we can afford 1 or 2 players the season to settle in as the majority of the team around them have only been there a season more.

I would say we can be compared to Taggart's building team of yesteryear, but not the finsihed aricle that just needs a few tweeks of today. They are far more advanced I'm afraid.

[Beefymcfc]

thank fuck we've figured out that Mancini is a fantastic manager.

I was worried that he was the cold, impersonal, fearful, vindictive cocksucker that lost us the league this season.

Just...yknow..."sayin."

Fuck me, we've got another one!

I think you're bang on the money there though.

"we're gonna need a bigger boat"

cheers

Try the Titanic.

Cheers

[Ted Hughes]

I agree but the point I am making is that if we decide on what our pattern(s) of play are going to be, then we sign players who are amongst the world's best at implementing those patterns, then when players lose form, we just bench them & bring in someone equally adept. Sometimes as a variation we've played a kind of 4-4-2 with people like Silva or Milner trying to do the kind of job Valencia would be doing. Yet when our plan 'A' falls down, we don't have a replacement for Silva or Yaya Toure.

We find Balotelli playing where Utd would have Giggs, Young or Nani, then getting slaugtered for not being any good at it.

Most teams in the world don't have a replacement for a Yaya or Silva.

As for the pattern of play, surely it was down to Mancini to decide on one and then buy players that fit? So either he couldn't decide on a pattern or he can't spot a player.

I've no problem with him making mistakes in purchases, as every manager does. However, the squad is all over the place. It looks like it's been put together by committee - what is Milner for? He's not played in the same position twice, so I don't think Mancini knows either. Nasri - why? Where is he supposed to play or what is his role? Dzeko - If he was bought to change the point of the attack, surely either we should have bought someone who could hold up play or we need to play in a system which gets the ball out wide and into him quickly?

We have a manager who had a decent plan A and team for it. However, if a player is injured or out of form, the replacement is a square peg. And yet we can't use the reserves to completely change the system. So now we're stuck in a system which has lost its way with players who look lost. And Milner on the bench.

That's exactly what I've just been saying.

There's no such thing as 'stuck with it' though. It's now time to make a decision on how we're going to do the job & swap players we don't need, for players we do.

As for no team having replacements for Yaya & Silva; Barca have a bunch of them & more coming through. It's a matter of spotting the right men for the job. It doesn't have to be exact, just a viable alternative.

[brite blu sky]

I'd say it is quite obvious what is being looked for and the best clues to that would be the way they were going under Bob at the end of last season. The passing game was evolving at that time and many of us on here were saying that with some reinforcements who could pass the ball we would be on the path to a barca style control of games.

Now with hindsight this style is only sustainable with Silva and Yaya, or just one of them if the rest of the team is playing on top form and relaxed. Barry looks comfortable with that when there is someone else to pass with. Nasri will be able to but has been trying to hard to do too much himself and has only shown real faith in Clichy.
Point being that most of the team are very good passers and quick enough to play that game, but the general confidence to do so hinges too much on Silva and Yaya's presence.

Mancini would have probably bought different player imo, but there was the quota of homegrown to deal with. It may be possible that Milner came in mainly for that reason. He still needs to find a proper role, but like Zabba he may just be better as one of those players who can play in multiple positions and be relied on.

All in all though the transition to getting a squad that can interchange positions on the pitch and play a certain style that is basically good enough to win all games because we hold the ball nearly all of the time is nearly there. Basically it is there when all is perfect, not so much if other factors like confidence or injuries come into it.

The players I'm not sure are fitting that style are Dzeko, Balotelli, Tevez, DeJong and Milner.
The other aspect to that style is that on losing possession it must be regained immediately. Watch how quick barca are at closing down, it is frightening. City dont do that... well they did it in one or two games and were absolutely stunning, could have been BB cant recall.

If all that is plan A then as some have chatted about all season, what is plan B etc. I don't know why we have Dzeko, he is tall and a goal scorer. If he was for a plan B we would see him come on and AJ come on and throw crosses in.. so that's not it then.
Similarly I don't know directly why Balo was bought apart from he has potential and is a goal scorer. and is not small. Tevez is good but he tries to do everything on his own and is imo not right for the plan A.

The best shot I can make is that Mancini and the staff are making a shot at learning by error a plan B, get the tools and see what can be created with them. It hasn't worked so far, but I am one of those who sits firmly in this is early days camp.

Just to add, and it is not my preference in any way or form, but barca also do not have a plan B. Categorically do not, if what they do does'nt work they just keep going and do it a bit more frantically that's it. but as we all know they usually end up winning, so why should they have a plan B they nearly never use? Could that be Mancini's and the clubs aim?

[Swales4ever]

Just to add, and it is not my preference in any way or form, but barca also do not have a plan B. Categorically do not, if what they do does'nt work they just keep going and do it a bit more frantically that's it. but as we all know they usually end up winning, so why should they have a plan B they nearly never use? Could that be Mancini's and the clubs aim?

now now, hold on!
Pep won't become *** officially *** coward and clueless until appointed as next City manager. only then Piccsnumberoneblue and Moses shall start showing their support for stability.


great post, actually... :-)

[Mikhail Chigorin]

Frank Reikjard.

Kidding?

I wouldn't want to see Bobby Manc leave City but, if he ever did, Frank Rijkaard is the only manager I'd want to replace him.

All the praise that gets heaped upon Guardiola for the way in which he has 'built' Barcelona, completely ignores/overlooks all the foundations that were laid, in the the first place, by Rijkaard. Guardiola, fine manager that he's proving to be, was fortunate to have inherited a very good side to start with.

I also love the football that Rijkaard always tries to get his teams to play.....in some strange way, I just feel that his own future and that of City are two paths that are waiting to be eventually mingled and that really would be an exciting combination.