You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Manuel Pellegrini interview
- Thread starter neel
- Start date
TCIB
Well-Known Member
Define being found out though and i am not looking to dissolve the main point at all. What i mean is Pellegrini had almost no power and was a caretaker essentially. No major purchases were coming from his say so or anything close to it. Txiki knows Pep so well he would not even have to have shifty conversations as to who Txiki should target (they probably did though). Conte and Mourinho had the power to buy and sell players, Pellegrini had to "make do". The comparisons are unfair as the variables take huge sway in your.He was found out in the league (like Conte/Mou) following the title win, and this will be the biggest challenge for Pep next season.
I just saw your "Mancini>Pellegrini" post to and that is imo a bit simplistic to say the least. Both are fine managers imo and given the same circumstances we have no idea what would happen. I like both managers i should note!
Define being found out though and i am not looking to dissolve the main point at all. What i mean is Pellegrini had almost no power and was a caretaker essentially. No major purchases were coming from his say so or anything close to it. Txiki knows Pep so well he would not even have to have shifty conversations as to who Txiki should target (they probably did though). Conte and Mourinho had the power to buy and sell players, Pellegrini had to "make do". The comparisons are unfair as the variables take huge sway in your.
I just saw your "Mancini>Pellegrini" post to and that is imo a bit simplistic to say the least. Both are fine managers imo and given the same circumstances we have no idea what would happen. I like both managers i should note!
Being found out meaning simply that the opposition knew exactly how we would play and as a result our attacking threat deteriorated and defense became a mess. He did nothing to change despite some embarrassing results, and kept on saying we will continue to play the same way. And who was the player who said they don't study much about the opposition before a game ? Even if Pellers had no power, he was given Otamendi, Sterling, De Bruyne and Delph in his last season, and we ended up 4th on GD, with something like 66 points.
I like him though and he had more success than Mourinho had at Chelsea during the same period, but given a choice, I will take Mancini over him.
citytilllidie
Well-Known Member
What? You mean Pep's going to get found out next year? Don't think so pal. They've found him out this year and dey don't like it!He was found out in the league (like Conte/Mou) following the title win, and this will be the biggest challenge for Pep next season.
Vienna_70
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 18 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 36,900
- Location
- 100, 32, 106, +79, 19
- Team supported
- Treble Winners 2022/23.
Great interview from a man, who took a lot of unnecessary and undeserved stick while managing Manchester City.
He was very likeable and very principalled, as proved by his backing and selection of Big Willy in the 2016 League Cup final.
That first season was just brilliant.
He was very likeable and very principalled, as proved by his backing and selection of Big Willy in the 2016 League Cup final.
That first season was just brilliant.
Mancini > Pellegrini
There’s an argument for both and I love both of them.
Fair to say both were great managers, both received some stick off City fans on here, imo Pellers got a lot more stick and it was disgusting what Pellers got.
That said, it’s in the past now, and we have the best manager in the world these days but without the work of firstly Mancini and subsequently Pellers who knows of Pep would even have agreed to come to City.
We’re lucky bastards aren’t we?
Nebuchadnezzar
Well-Known Member
Liked how Pellegrini came across as a person during his time here and as others have said, the football in the first season was something else. He didn't really have it in his nature to gee up the team to do it for successive years, but I guess when you're hired as a stop-gap you don't really need to.
It is quite funny when people say he got too much stick then their defence of him is he is likeable and a gent etc haha. If you want to defend him point out positives about him doing his job rather than traits.
He done an ok job, nothing more nothing less.
He done an ok job, nothing more nothing less.
It is quite funny when people say he got too much stick then their defence of him is he is likeable and a gent etc haha. If you want to defend him point out positives about him doing his job rather than traits.
He done an ok job, nothing more nothing less.
Same could of been said about Roberto Mancini (who was also tactically inflexible at times) doing an ok job as well. Both managers were eventually"found out" and the decision to replace both have been the right calls.
Last edited:
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
Good old Manuel. Talking a lot but saying nothing. I spoke to two leading journalists about him, both very intelligent guys rather than muppets like Custis, and he clearly drove them crazy.