Beefymcfc wrote: Fucking hell, see what I mean. If you cannot enjoy that I haven't got a scoobies. His 1st season, his last, have you heard yourself. Like I say, it's all about opinion and yours is just juvenile and wrong. Of course, I'm just a cunt who enjoyed all that period, that progression over 3 years that took us to from nowhere to somewhere, but those 2 years, as you see it eh? I even enjoyed the last as I wasn't expecting too much. Jeez! Pathetic. PS. I'm no Mancini licker or Pellers hater, I'm just a City fan, but from what you have said we are runwaway Premier League Champions (at least 10 points), FA Cup winners, League Cup runners up with a sprinkling of Champions League finalists, we are that good. You said it (from the last 2 seasons), our ability, and squad, is that good that nobody should be standing in our way. I'll love it (Keegan'eqsue) if we do it but at the same time I'll hold you to this come the end of the season. No pressure.
Seems on the flip side beefy, you just want to be an obstinate cunt and totally ignored the point being made.
Who said anything about 'not enjoying', about 'runaway league winners'? Certainly not me, but you seem to want to paint a critical view as an extreme, when all it is, is a critical view that you dont like because it is different to your own. Come back with some fucking substance to your argument mate, because whats pathetic is your response based on 'we won some trophies so i dont want to discuss ANYTHING negative about that period"
Whilst i get your mentality/views, its a small time attitude for the reality of where the club is today. Winning trophies doesnt make everything else disappear, and there will be occasions in the future too where winning a trophy papers over underlying problems
The question I raised, is the level of contribution the manager has at any given time vs the level of contribution just having good players has. This isnt just applicable to city and Mancini, its applicable to any club and any manager.
Let me give you a couple of examples.
Example 1 - Real Madrid
Real Madrid have consistently has a policy of buying up all the superstars and at any given time have a fantastic squad of players. They change their manager every other season, and with it half a dozen new players. So it should follow from the stabilitiy theory, that the new players would need time to gel and the manager would need time to impart his tactics. Yet despite all this, they still win the league and cups fairly regularly, and still get to the qf of the champs league most seasons.
So is that by virtue of the sheer quality of their squad overcoming the upheaval, or is it because some of the managers are better than others at getting more out of that squad of players which at any given time over that period has been of a similar quality? It's most definitely a combination of the two, but it seems no matter how bad the manager, over the last 15 or so years, they still finish in qf of champs league and 2nd in the league at worst - that tells me that regardless of the manager, their squad ability has a natural level of attainment.
Example 2 - Rags
Manchester United on the other hand, more recently have had a transfer policy in recent years which has still seen them spend money, but by and large on younger players. They have slowly lost the quality they had in their squad over the last 10 years yet have still managed to finish in the top 2 every year and generally qf or better in the champs league. Even though their squad was getting worse by the year, they not only maintained their performance, they actually got the highest points total for a 2nd placed team, and won the league last season. Yet now another variable has changed, their manager, they look a bit of a mess and all the old cliches are coming out about giving the manager time to settle, seemingly in preparation for the fact that they seem extremely likely to finish in a lower league position than they have for the last 20 seasons.
With that in mind, they still have a better than average squad - this year we may actually see though, what is the natural level of that squad now they have a mediocre manager in charge. Yet when real madrid get a mediocre manager they still finish 2nd? How can that be if it's not massively weighted towards the basic currency of the number of good footballers in your squad?
So please Beefy, cut the hyperbole and faux indignation, but by all means debate the point......because the two examples above show the value of a top quality squad versus the variable of good and less good managers. The actual outcomes would seem to be massively weighted towards the quality of the squad, how can you say otherwise? If this wasnt the case, we could have Norwich City or any number of clubs challenging for the title when they stumble upon a great manager wouldnt we?
In summary, all i've ever said about Mancini, is that he has grave faults which in my view, shouldnt just be overlooked because we are so grateful to win a trophy after being shit for so long, which seems to be the only angle you can come up with.
I believe time will show us that any number of managers of varying ability can, and will win the league at city with the quality of squad the club aspires to maintain. But equally, whilst other managers will fail to win trophies, I very much doubt that with a squad at this level, like real madrid, would drop below 2nd place in the league based on pure ability, unless the manager was an absolute lemon like warnock.
So when somebody above said 'i could have managed city to win the league' - whilst clearly a ridiculous statement on the surface, the basis of that point is valid, if your squad's natural level is to finish in the top 2, it doesn't take a genius manager to win the league......it will take a great manager to sustain success though.