Rags Gutted Mancini Has Gone.

[Socrates]

...

[Socrates]

I will forever think of Mancini very very fondly for what he did and what he gave us.

BUT if you cannot see that he was massively flawed and that:

- we very nearly did throw the title winning season away when we should have romped it

- that last season was a farce and

- he routinely had the squad performing at way way less than the sum of its parts in terms of quality due to his handling of the players

Then you are being willfully blind to things staring you right in the face. If you want to do that then that's your choice but there is no need to call and slag those who can remain more objective whilst still fully supporting the team

Why should we have romped it? Because we had the bestest players and we know they were the bestest because we paid extortionate prices for them, so they must be, right? Nevermind the fact that the majority of these players had never won a league title before and were battling against a more experienced squad outside the City walls. We finished just 6 points off the record points total for this league ffs.

I don't get this whole 'we should have romped it' thing either.

We achieved 89 points - an impressive total in its own right.

Then you have to consider that United achieved 89 points too. Like they were last season, they were generally a winning machine in our title-winning season. They particularly had a tough run in Jan/Feb of that season, playing all of the top sides except us, and we expected them to drop points. But they won all of those games and went on a great run.

To win the league easily that season we would have had to achieve a points tally in the high-90s or greater. I honestly fail to see how anyone can sensibly believe that to be a reasonable view.

Mancini definitely had flaws. His stubbornness got the better of him on too many occasions, and his record in the CL was a disappointment. After the FA Cup Final last season, I didn't disagree with the decision to remove him as manager, as it seemed like the time had come for a change. But I'm surprised that some people expected so much of us in winning our first title in such a long time.

Exactly, this idea we should have magically gone through the season without a bad patch really drives me nuts. We had Yaya and Kompany out at the same time and teams figured out how to frustrate us. We still overcame all that to finish strongly and get a huge points haul. Don't forget our huge 1-0 win over the rags that put us in the driving seat, that was no fluke and that took every bit of the new winning mentality. By all means debate mancini's flaws but to argue we won our first title in over 2 generations "in spite" of him is delusional bollocks.

[Beefymcfc]

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.

I did debate the point and that's why you answered in length, you needed to debate it.

The difference with any appointment is where we are at any point in time. Sven came in and took over a complete mess. He started out well but was undermined by the owner (in my opinion). Hughes followed and was thrown into a position that was totally alien to him. He tried his hardest but at least left us on great foundations to move on from. Then Mancini, who took a bunch of individuals, some good, some bad, and turned them into a CL competing, FA Cup winning, League Champions within a very short space of time. What's to be argued about that? Yes, he fell apart during the last season but beneath all that happened he still made 2nd and a Cup Final. If all that has been said has an inckling of truth to it, could it not be considered that he overacheived with the dissent and back-stabbing going on behind the scenes?

As for Pellers, he's now in the same boat as all 3 that I've mentioned. He's at a starting point that has to be taken into account and for most we now have a team, on paper, that can win the PL, do very well in the CL and have a good run in the cup. The problem with your analysis is that you are mounting pressure on a new manager by insisting that the team we had should have been running away with titles, not taking into account the players as well. If that's the case, and with the quality we have added (unlike last year) then we should win the PL with a near record total and pushing for the CL final. Nothing wrong with that I suppose because on paper you are probably correct but it will be down to Pellers to juggle and coax that set of players to the very top.

I reckon he can do it because, like you said, the quality is there for all to see. The problems arise if somehow we slip and have to look at lads from the forum to take over as, as you say, anybody could do this job.

[Breks]

I've been winning trophies for years on Fifa and football manager. I'm well qualified i would guarantee at least a treble that would be an under achievement though for me if i'm honest.

[mr_nool]

I've been winning trophies for years on Fifa and football manager. I'm well qualified i would guarantee at least a treble that would be an under achievement though for me if i'm honest.

Somehow I doubt your man management skills.

[Beefymcfc]

I've been winning trophies for years on Fifa and football manager. I'm well qualified i would guarantee at least a treble that would be an under achievement though for me if i'm honest.

Somehow I doubt your man management skills.

I bet he can push their buttons though ;-)




*TAXIIIIIIIII*

[Breks]

What have i got to do to get a vote of confidence around here. My credentials speak for themselves.

[Socrates]

What have i got to do to get a vote of confidence around here. My credentials speak for themselves.

Not calling your fellow blues "rags" would be a good start.

[JamieMCFC]

I guarantee in 15 or so years most of the truth will come out about what happened behind the scenes during Mancini's time here. At least two players will come out with autobiographies.

[Niall Quinns Discopants]

You mean because Hughes made history by winning us cups and league titles. WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU ON ABOUT???

Different times, different resources mate, you are being particularly disingenuous with that comment as seems to be the style when people want to scream 'but look at our trophies'

Who knows if Hughes would have won a trophy that season, but what I do know, is that to win an FA cup and move from 5th to 3rd cost the club £170m, then a further £80m to move from 3rd to 1st.

So its hardly a fair comparison is it, and as much as I couldnt stand hughes the same as you, i cant just ignore that Hughes was well positioned to win a trophy when he was sacked, which perversely is why I think he was sacked when he was to stop short sighted fools getting giddy about silverware complaining about sacking the manager that brought us the first trophy in 40 years, and ignoring the glaring flaws in his makeup.

Following on from my previous post above, I personally dont think its unreasonable to say that Hughes could have finished 2nd last season. Not sure he had it in his locker to win the league, as Mancini definitely was a better manager, but I dont think the gulf between him and mancini is as big as some would suggest givent he same resources, both had massive tactical blindspots which were ultimately both mens downfall.

I know. I know for a fact that Hughes would have won square root of fuck all for us. Why, I hear you ask. Well because he is shit manager who has never won anything.

[Breks]

Not calling your fellow blues "rags" would be a good start.

Did i call you a rag?

[Socrates]

Not calling your fellow blues "rags" would be a good start.

Did i call you a rag?

Lol yes, but it was with passion so is forgiven. Not a good sign for your man management skills though ;)

[Slim]

Soccs, you have been in fine form since your break.

Now just shut up and sod off you rag.

[dazby]

I know. I know for a fact that Hughes would have won square root of fuck all for us. Why, I hear you ask. Well because he is shit manager who has never won anything.

He was on his way to winning a league cup for us.

[Niall Quinns Discopants]

I know. I know for a fact that Hughes would have won square root of fuck all for us. Why, I hear you ask. Well because he is shit manager who has never won anything.

He was on his way to winning a league cup for us.

Right, yeah, no.

[Socrates]

Soccs, you have been in fine form since your break.

Now just shut up and sod off you rag.

Silence was never my strong point.

[Breks]

Lol yes, but it was with passion so is forgiven. Not a good sign for your man management skills though ;)

Ha ha, cheers

[Im_Spartacus]

The problem with your analysis is that you are mounting pressure on a new manager by insisting that the team we had should have been running away with titles

To be fair mate, Pellegrini has said himself that city have the strongest squad. It seems he doesn't mind the pressure that this brings, perhaps he thrives off it, some people work that way.

I still though cant see anything in your post that really addresses the question of what a teams natural position would be based on squad quality and an average manager, versus the impact of a good or bad manager, because this is what the thread was about - a great manager returns more than the sum of the parts, I dont think we have had one of those yet at city in my lifetime, mancini performed, in my opinion, only around the level I would expect any other experienced manager to perform.

In fact i would go as far as to say that other than about 6 months under Sven, we have never performed over and above the sum of the parts in decades.

There arent many managers about who can do this - we may never get one - in which case, i revert back to the economic necessity to keep buying the best players to win trophies.

The problems arise if somehow we slip and have to look at lads from the forum to take over as, as you say, anybody could do this job.

I did just check my post before quoting this, and that really isn't what I said is it?

[Beefymcfc]

The problem with your analysis is that you are mounting pressure on a new manager by insisting that the team we had should have been running away with titles

To be fair mate, Pellegrini has said himself that city have the strongest squad. It seems he doesn't mind the pressure that this brings, perhaps he thrives off it, some people work that way.

I still though cant see anything in your post that really addresses the question of what a teams natural position would be based on squad quality and an average manager, versus the impact of a good or bad manager, because this is what the thread was about - a great manager returns more than the sum of the parts, I dont think we have had one of those yet at city in my lifetime, mancini performed, in my opinion, only around the level I would expect any other experienced manager to perform.

In fact i would go as far as to say that other than about 6 months under Sven, we have never performed over and above the sum of the parts in decades.

There arent many managers about who can do this - we may never get one - in which case, i revert back to the economic necessity to keep buying the best players to win trophies.

The problems arise if somehow we slip and have to look at lads from the forum to take over as, as you say, anybody could do this job.

I did just check my post before quoting this, and that really isn't what I said is it?

So, what you are saying is that because we brought in the money and bought a few players then we should be automatic winners?

I'll go back to my first and say that you are now expecting us to win the PL by at least 10 points, make the CL finals and at least compete for domestic cups (semi-finals at least).

I hope you're right.

[Im_Spartacus]

So, what you are saying is that because we brought in the money and bought a few players then we should be automatic winners? I'll go back to my first and say that you are now expecting us to win the PL by at least 10 points, make the CL finals and at least compete for domestic cups (semi-finals at least). I hope you're right.

Wasting my time mate, you havent responded to a single point, because you cant.

Go and troll somewhere else