Pick the manager.

[Mikhail Chigorin]

If I am to be brutally honest under Joe Mercer, City were very successful at winning trophies but apart from winning the title once, our League record was quite poor. His record lags behind the likes of Shankly and Clough by some margin.

The thing about Mercer was not just his football record, much of it was about the man. He was a thorough gentleman that became universally loved and respected. In City terms, he was not simply a manager, he was so much more, The Father of the club. Supported as a manager and loved as a man.

He fully deserves his special place in our history.

My argument to Piccs is solely based on football records in almost identical football circumstances....and Mancini's record is superior. I fully believe that had Mercer been in place today, his record would have seen him sacked or under very severe pressure.
I also think that Taggart would not have survived his early years under today's environment.

Excellent summation, John.

Our League form after 67/68 seemed very inconsistent and the only season after that which looked as though we'd sorted the problem was 71/72, until we fell apart near the end and only finished 4th when it looked, for long periods of time, that we'd win the title again.

At times we'd still play some beautiful football (especially when thrashing the Scum on numerous occasions) and at other times, our play would be indifferent. Mind you, for all the disappointments, it was still better than watching Don Revie's Leeds, grinding out results in a utilitarian and methodical manner.

[City64]

Excellent post John68

i don't mind being quoted, but i don't like the association . I don't agree with Piccs at all on this one. indeed John i feel is correct.

Moreover this debate should take place after the season finishes, the ride isn't over yet.

Furthermore as Slim mentioned elsewhere today about Roberto, trophies we haven't seen for years... keep on doing it Bobby Manc.

Absolutely agree.

I cant help feeling some fans cant handle MCFC being successfull ?

Me ? Im just enjoying the ride i have been waiting for nearly all my life and im not arsed about winning the title EVERY YEAR ........ next year would be good though ! ;)

Oh , and in Mancini we have a thoroughly decent high class passionate manager and guy who HAS delivered against all the odds in a very short space of time. And if anyone mentions the money spent they can fuck off ! ;)

[Piccsnumberoneblue]

There is just so much wrong with that reply mate. So much expectation, based on so very little.

"MONEY...has a direct link with success" (well usually or often but not always). It took City from a long way down to an FA Cup win, a League Title and a Community Shield win. For me that buys Mancini some time to develop the next phase and certainly buys him more than a few months of the subsequent season, which is when you were asking for his execution.

"There was to be a two horse race"....Sez who?... SSN? Talkshite, Radio Manchester? The Mirror, Sun, Mail, Express? Our nearest rivals both strengthened significantly, Hazard, Oscar and Van Penis particularly. We by contrast let de Jong go and weakened. Whoever Mancini's targets were, for whatever reason, be it finance, Marwood or orders from above, Mancini never got anywhere near the likes of de Rossi, Cavani et al, nor any of the above mentioned that we were supposedly in the market for. Yet you thought it was going to be a two horse race. In God's name why?

Why do ignore the evidence of Kaldhoon's own words? It would allow you to understand why 2 windows have gone by and whilst our competitors have bought, we have sold. But for some reason, that has had no impact on your expectations.

"Missing out on top 4 has looked more likely than retaining our title"...Technically a correct statement, but used in the manner to overstate the danger of our demise, just not true. For most of the season, the gap between us and the team lying 5th has been extremely safe. None of the chasing pack has shown much evidence of putting a winning run together, all have been up and down. It is only since that run of quite recent Liverpool, Southampton results that the gap between us and the chasing group has in any way narrowed. At the time you started to call for Mancini's head, we were quite safe.

"It's bloody unfair and irrelevant to compare Bob with Mercer"...Unfair to who or what? Maybe unfair to your argument Mate. As for relevance, never have 2 seasons and the situation been so similar. In the season following our '68 title win, by the same stage of the season, we were sat somewhere near the bottom end of the division. Not 2nd, as we are now. Our results had been abysmal all season and our expectations totally shattered from almost the 1st week of the season. At the similar time of the season, we were on the way to an FA Cup win at Wembley...which is exactly the same position we are in now. Coincidentally, we had also fallen out of the European Cup versus a team few of us had then heard of (Fenerbahce), at the 1st hurdle. I'd say that was extremely relevant Roger....and for the record, check how poorly we were doing the next season too. Legend or not, hero or not, historic figure or not, Mercer's record at that point was far inferior to Mancini's.That is not my opinion, it is a FACT.

Are you trying to deny that money brings success John? Because that is utterly wrong and you know it. Every season since the inception of the Champions league it has been dominated by G14 clubs, coincidentally the clubs with the money. Every season from the creation of the Premier league it has been won by a club with huge resources. Filth, Arse, a Jack Walker funded Blackburn, Chelsea and us. To deny that money buys success is churlish and feeble.
Following on from that, it means that any comparison with Mercer's time is truly pointless. The game was not dominated by cash in the same way, and City weren't a big spending club when we won it. So rambling on about 68/69/70 seasons is frankly bloody stupid. It has NO relevance with the modern game.
Who thought it was a two horse race? Well check back on this very forum. City supporters thought it was a two horse race, in fact many couldn't see the filth putting in a realistic challenge to us. It was bloody us John, plus all those other agencies you mention. And frankly anybody who who was told our title and European challenges would have petered out by Christmas would have suggested you were a) a rag, b) a pessimist, c) mad or d) a rag. This season has been a huge let down in so many ways and again to say otherwise is simply arguing for arguing's sake. And for some, even the FA Cup wouldn't satisfy their pre season expectations. Strangely I'm somebody who would be delighted with the cup.
In conclusion, there is a lot more wrong with your lightweight response than the truth you were presented with. Forget Mercer as some sort of benchmark John!

But you are right, he was loved for being a true gent, I'll give you that much.

[john68]

Excellent post John68

i don't mind being quoted, but i don't like the association . I don't agree with Piccs at all on this one. indeed John i feel is correct.

Moreover this debate should take place after the season finishes, the ride isn't over yet.

Furthermore as Slim mentioned elsewhere today about Roberto, trophies we haven't seen for years... keep on doing it Bobby Manc.

My apologies Zurich...I should have made it more clear that the quote only applied to the lines regarding Laudrup. I was being lazy.

[john68]

Piccs,
Please don't twist what I said mate...I clearly stated that money brings success...."USUALLY, OFTEN, BUT NOT ALWAYS" I think that makes it pretty clear what I meant. I further acknowledged that the input of money at City had in City's rise. I at no point suggested what you accused me of posting on that issue.

However, your equation that money = success is not wholly true. Whilst you rightly say that those who have been successful have usually been those who have spent or invested heavily, there are also plenty of teams who have spent heavily and not had any success whatsoever.
Money = success is often but not necessarily true mate. It is a tabloid argument used often over the last few years to batter City with, to diminish the efforts of our club, it's management, players and staff. It denies the good efforts of those people as a factor in our rise and success and shows a massive disrespect to the work they have done.

And please don't try and rewrite our history; Mulhearn, Book, Brand, Summerbee, Coleman, Heslop, Bell and Lee were all bought by Mercer. There could well have been others that I have forgotten. Seven of those eight were regulars in our title winning side of '68. Leaving only Pardoe, Doyle, Young and Oakes. That is well over half our team and considering the relevant transfer values of the time, Mulhearn was grossly overpriced by Stockport County, neither Bell, nor Summerbee were cheap and Lee was in fact a club record signing. To suggest that City weren't a big spending club, commensurate with the relative transfer values is just not true.

My comparing the League records of Mercer/Mancini in a season following a title win, considering player recruitment at the transfer values of the times, makes it very relevant indeed. I understand that it is not comfortable for you to accept this but facts are facts.

[Tokyo Blue]

Hello, Wall. How are you today, Wall?

[john68]

Part 2,

Sorry mate but to define your expectations for this season, based on posts on here by other members and those agencies, (SSN, TALKSHITE, RADIO MANCHESTER, THE MIRROR, SUN, MAIL, EXPRESS), I mentioned...Does not need me to comment ant further Mate.

Did you not consider the hard evidence all around you that may have given you a clue? Kaldhoon's statements about investment? The fact that we never significantly strengthened our team when our nearest rivals not only strengthened but did so with our targets? Selling de Jong and not replacing him? Our ongoing policy to attempt to meet the FFPRs?

Are you honestly telling me that you ignored the facts and evidence and lifted your unrealistic hopes on the back of a few posts and the tabloid media? No, Piccs, Please Mate go back and rewrite what you wrote. I can not believe you wrote that.

I too am disappointed Mate, like you, I wanted to push on but my disappointment is not with Mancini nor the team as much as it is with our esteemed Sheik who having invested many many millions, zipped up the wallet just as we were pushing our noses to the fore. A bit like an athlete chasing round the last bend, catching up and stopping to tie his shoe laces as he enters the final straight. I understand and respect the Sheiks reasons, it was not a surprise but a disappointment all the same.

[Piccsnumberoneblue]

The players you mention were bought over three seasons, there was hardly some huge splash of cash. As we all know, Allison was watching Bell at Gigg Lane and he describes running him down as City wanted to buy him and couldn't afford the transfer fee straight away. Its hardly a sign that we were a wealthy big spending club is it? We were on our arse financially as Malcolm struggled to persuade the powers that be to come up with the lucre. In fact (you like your facts) Bell, Doyle, Heslop, Pardoe, Oakes, Young and Summerbee were all part of the team that played their way out of the second division. maybe a comparison with a modern day Swansea might be more informative?
Of course I seem to have forgotten the huge wage bill involved at the time, where City spent so much Uefa had to step in and come up with measures to prevent other clubs doing what we were. . . . . Of course they didn't, because we weren't.
In fact we are the third highest payers in WORLD SPORT, behind Barcelona and Madrid, but ahead of filth, Chelsea, Milan, Munich, Inter, well all other clubs in fact. Money buys success in modern sport John, we have it now, we didn't then.
Your point about the players that we signed, illustrates the difference quite nicely thank you, when you talk of Mulhearn being over priced when we bought him from Stockport. It sounds almost quaint, BECAUSE FOOTBALL IN GENERAL AND MANCHESTER CITY IN PARTICULAR ARE VASTLY DIFFERENT NOW! For fucks sake John give over with it now. It is beyond dispute.

Now you asked the question, "who said it was going to be a two horse race?" and I answered. The media in general, City forums included, pundits, commentators and various experts. That is the answer. The threads are still here to look at.What more can I do to reply? As it happens, I wasn't one of them, as I thought Mancini didn't address our problems of a lack of width and pace in the side, and that the rot had set in from Christmas/New Year during the season.

I will also categrotically state this. The trophies won't dry up if Bob goes. They will if the Sheikh does. Money matters most.

[john68]

Piccs,

MONEY = SUCCESS. That my mate is whole core of your argument. It is the foundation of your expectations and the source of your disappointment. It is the reason given for your defence of Mercer's comparative record versus Mancini.

Whilst I readily agree with your assertion that all the recent successful teams have had huge investment behind them, you totally ignore the fact that there is a long litany of clubs who have not had success, despite huge investment.

You seem to define your level of expectation as being commensurate with the amount of investment to the exclusion of any other factors.
The long list of Mancini's achievements, in Italy and at City is evidence of his ability...You ignore that.
The speed Mancini achieved that success...You ignore.
The evidence of Kaldhoon's statements...You ignore.
The lack of investment and strengthening over last 2 transfer windows...You ignore
You choose to ignore so many factors that define the success and failure of a club. Please don't forget that whoever you replace Mancini with will be subject to the same situations and circumstances that presently surround Mancini. There will be no guarantees of money and he will be expected to operate under the exact same conditions presently imposed on Mancini by his superiors.

I must also mention the huge imbalance of your almost forensic negative analysis of Mancini's record at City. You are extremely quick to jump onto his case for his perceived failures, yet you are not quite so quick to balance that by acknowledging his successes to the same extent.

[Im_Spartacus]

Piccs,

MONEY = SUCCESS. That my mate is whole core of your argument. It is the foundation of your expectations and the source of your disappointment. It is the reason given for your defence of Mercer's comparative record versus Mancini.

Whilst I readily agree with your assertion that all the recent successful teams have had huge investment behind them, you totally ignore the fact that there is a long litany of clubs who have not had success, despite huge investment.

You seem to define your level of expectation as being commensurate with the amount of investment to the exclusion of any other factors.
The long list of Mancini's achievements, in Italy and at City is evidence of his ability...You ignore that.
The speed Mancini achieved that success...You ignore.
The evidence of Kaldhoon's statements...You ignore.
The lack of investment and strengthening over last 2 transfer windows...You ignore
You choose to ignore so many factors that define the success and failure of a club. Please don't forget that whoever you replace Mancini with will be subject to the same situations and circumstances that presently surround Mancini. There will be no guarantees of money and he will be expected to operate under the exact same conditions presently imposed on Mancini by his superiors.

I must also mention the huge imbalance of your almost forensic negative analysis of Mancini's record at City. You are extremely quick to jump onto his case for his perceived failures, yet you are not quite so quick to balance that by acknowledging his successes to the same extent.

John, there is a 92% correlation between the wage bill of a club, and te overall position in the league structure in England. Investment in transfer fees is perhaps a red herring when predicting the success of a football team.

City over the 90s and last decade were one of the 8% - clubs who had high wage bills that dont tally with their league position, another notable example is sheff weds.

But the strength of that correlation proves that there is a clear and specific link between the wage bill and the final league placing, which is true whichever of the English professional leagues you are in. The reasons the clubs with the highest wage bill win stuff is because try get rid of a manager who is not fulfilling the potential of the players the club have invested in.

Interestingly there is almost no correlation at all, 54% between transfer outlay and league position, with Chelsea and city being exceptions in the last few years

But the plain fact is that if you buy the best players, the market forces dictate they will be paid higher than lesser players, and if you have lots of top players, eg, a higher wage bill, you will do better than those who have a lower wage bill

[bigblue]

John, thank you for spreading the voice of reason amongst the panicked and lost souls of mcf.net

Piccs, you are one of the most negative people that I have ever encountered. If you cannot enjoy a season where City are 2nd in the league and fighting for an FA Cup, then I'm sorry buy "fun" and "enjoyment" seem to be out of reach for you in this lifetime.

Laudrup is a good manager, but look at what he has won. Danish league vs subpar managers and talent. League Cup where most of the top teams rest their big stars. And you are conveniently forgetting that Swansea already had a strong team spirit and attractive style of play before he joined them.

To compare him with Sir Bobby Manc is madness!!!

Fuck Laudrup, Fuck Martinez, Fuck Hiddink, Fuck AVB, Fuck Jose, Fuck Del Bosque, Fuck Pep, Fuck the anit-christ himself slur bacon, VIVA MANCINI

[bigblue]

John, there is a 92% correlation between the wage bill of a club, and te overall position in the league structure in England [1]. Investment in transfer fees is perhaps a red herring when predicting the success of a football team.

City over the 90s and last decade were one of the 8% - clubs who had high wage bills that dont tally with their league position, another notable example is sheff weds [2].

But the strength of that correlation proves that there is a clear and specific link between the wage bill and the final league placing, which is true whichever of the English professional leagues you are in. The reasons the clubs with the highest wage bill win stuff is because try get rid of a manager who is not fulfilling the potential of the players the club have invested in.

Interestingly there is almost no correlation at all, 54% between transfer outlay and league position, with Chelsea and city being exceptions in the last few years [3]

But the plain fact is that if you buy the best players, the market forces dictate they will be paid higher than lesser players, and if you have lots of top players, eg, a higher wage bill, you will do better than those who have a lower wage bill

Not that I'm doubting you, but to use so many stats as the basis for your argument:

[1] Citation needed
[2] Citation needed
[3] Citation needed

[Im_Spartacus]

Not that I'm doubting you, but to use so many stats as the basis for your argument:

[1] Citation needed
[2] Citation needed
[3] Citation needed

Soccernomics: I'd copy the chapter but its on me kindle

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/0007457 ... mdp_mobile

I'd urge anyone interested in the statistical side of the game to take a read

[rocket blue]

Piccs,

MONEY = SUCCESS. That my mate is whole core of your argument. It is the foundation of your expectations and the source of your disappointment. It is the reason given for your defence of Mercer's comparative record versus Mancini.

Whilst I readily agree with your assertion that all the recent successful teams have had huge investment behind them, you totally ignore the fact that there is a long litany of clubs who have not had success, despite huge investment.

You seem to define your level of expectation as being commensurate with the amount of investment to the exclusion of any other factors.
The long list of Mancini's achievements, in Italy and at City is evidence of his ability...You ignore that.
The speed Mancini achieved that success...You ignore.
The evidence of Kaldhoon's statements...You ignore.
The lack of investment and strengthening over last 2 transfer windows...You ignore
You choose to ignore so many factors that define the success and failure of a club. Please don't forget that whoever you replace Mancini with will be subject to the same situations and circumstances that presently surround Mancini. There will be no guarantees of money and he will be expected to operate under the exact same conditions presently imposed on Mancini by his superiors.

I must also mention the huge imbalance of your almost forensic negative analysis of Mancini's record at City. You are extremely quick to jump onto his case for his perceived failures, yet you are not quite so quick to balance that by acknowledging his successes to the same extent.

well said!only this

[john68]

Sparty,

Once again, I will clearly state my point, FOR THE THIRD TIME IN THIS THREAD, which is that the equation that MONEY = SUCCESS is true...USUALLY, OFTEN BUT NOT ALWAYS. Please don't fall into the same trap as Piccs, because you would be wrong to consider I am denying money as a factor towards success. I think your stats pretty clearly match what I have clearly stated.

The point I am making in this debate is that money is not the only factor and that Piccs appears to have completely ignored those other factors and any effect they may have had. I have listed some of them, there may well be more that we don't know about, some are more significant than others but all will have had some effect.

I don't doubt the veracity of your stats mate and as a general concept, they pretty much mirror what is commonly thought, but it would be interesting to know what teams were used and over what period. Cheers Pal.

[City64]

How did Blackburn Rovers do last night ?

Just wondering !

[Im_Spartacus]

Sparty,

Once again, I will clearly state my point, FOR THE THIRD TIME IN THIS THREAD, which is that the equation that MONEY = SUCCESS is true...USUALLY, OFTEN BUT NOT ALWAYS. Please don't fall into the same trap as Piccs, because you would be wrong to consider I am denying money as a factor towards success. I think your stats pretty clearly match what I have clearly stated.

The point I am making in this debate is that money is not the only factor and that Piccs appears to have completely ignored those other factors and any effect they may have had. I have listed some of them, there may well be more that we don't know about, some are more significant than others but all will have had some effect.

I don't doubt the veracity of your stats mate and as a general concept, they pretty much mirror what is commonly thought, but it would be interesting to know what teams were used and over what period. Cheers Pal.

1992-2009 - from what I recall there was a full data set for around 55-60 teams, the missing data was mainly for the smaller clubs many of whom are privately owned or do not have to submit to premier league or championship rules on providing accounts.

The conclusion of this section of the book was that statistically, changing the manager doesn't make any difference if the club is being managed correctly behind the scenes, with Lyon being a prime example of a team who won 7 titles with 4 different managers with a settled back room team dealing with everything other than training and match day tactics

[Pretty Boy Lee]

There wads similar bunch of stats in a book I read ages ago. It was called something along the lines of "why England lose"

[john68]

Cheers Sparty,

My first comment is that is is an interesting subject and would make a great thread topic. Made even more interesting because it includes teams from outside the Prem (eg Lyon).
Get it sorted mate....:-)

The other thing I would add is that the study took evidence over a number of years. It would be even more interesting to see in further detail how the paths that the successful clubs followed and how smoothly or otherwise those paths rose. Just for interest sake, I have traced the positional paths since 1986-87 of the English G14 clubs and added Chelsea.

the rags...11th...2nd...11th...13th...6th...2nd....1st...1st....2nd...1st...1st...2nd...1st...1st...1st...3rd...1st...3rd...3rd.. 2nd...1st...1st...1st...2nd...1st...2nd

Arsenal.....4th....6th....1st....4th....1st...4th...10th...4th...12th...5th..3rd...1st...2nd...2nd..2nd...1st...2nd...1st..2nd... 4th...4th...3rd...4th...3rd...4th...3rd

L'Pool.......2nd...1st.....2nd...1st....2nd...6th....6th...8th....4th...3rd...4th...3rd...7th...4th...3rd..2nd...5th...4th...5th... 3rd...3rd...4th...2nd...7th...6th...8th

Chelsea....14th..18th...21st...5th...11th..14th..11th..14th...11th..11th..6th...4th...3rd...5th...6th..6th....4th..2nd...1st... 1st...2nd...2nd...3rd...1st...2nd...6th

The yellow highlights correspond...the rags: when taggart took over. Arsenal: when Wenger took over. L'Pool When Souness took over, it signalled a period of regular management changes. Chelsea: when Abramovitch bought the club.

[john68]

Sparty,

At 1st glance, that data would seem to confirm the money = success equation with the qualification of "usually, often but not always". The rags, Arsenal and L'Pool would have all benefitted during that time from the huge increase of income from the restructured CL on top of their large fan bases and commercial success.

It would also seem to challenge the book's assertion that changes of manager had little effect ona club's success.
In the 3 seasons prior to taggart, the rags had finished 4th each time. Apart from his 2nd season, the change from Atkinson to taggart seems to have had quite a detrimental effect on the rags finishing position.
Wenger's arrival seems to have had an almost opposite positive and immediate effect on Arsenal success.
It would also seem to show that Souness had a detrimental effect on L'Pool form, from which they don't seem to have ever fully recovered.
The assertion may generally hold true throughout the rest of the teams studied and maybe it is only at the very top that this anomoly shows.

Those stats also seem to show that whilst money pushes teams upwards to a higher level, once at that level, there is significant positional movement with the top teams waxing and waning, dropping a little and then recovering. It seems quite normal for a team to drop a couple of positions.

With regard to City, this season we seem pretty well set to finish as runners up and that seems to correspond pretty much with the above data. All the other major clubs have done it and it seems quite normal.

I would appreciate your thoughts.