Henry Winter On Mancini

[Bluemoon115]

All the points are wrong with the exception of the striker. That is the problem at the club. You can't win the League with our available strikers - that is Not Mancini's fault. I don't see how it can be

His strikers. After his boy was sold.

 

[Thenumber1blue]

Clichy is very average. Good pace but going forward he can offer nothing. Evra, Baines, Cole, Coentrao, Marcelo, Adriano, Alba or Alaba are much much better. But City have bigger problems - no wingers and mobile centre-midfielders.

Oh dear

Oh dear x2 evra and cole lol

 

[cibaman]

Exactly. Winter in effect says that City don't need a new manager as long as the existing manager overhauls his tactical approach and completely rethinks his attitude towards man-management.

The question is whether Mancini is too stubborn to do that, and I agree with the poster above who suggests that he is. So if you accept Winter's assessment of the situation, it means that we may well in fact need a new manager.

mancini should be totally stubborn and do exactly what he feels is right,he belives he is a winner and knows he is right and thats exactly what we need at the club someone who is incharge 100 percent.we should back him all the way,he wont get it right all the time but with backing he will get it right,let me ask you this is fergie stubborn.

I don't think Mancini's stubborness is, in and of itself, a problem. It's how it manifests itself. As you say, Baconchops is stubborn, no doubt - but he started this season obviously keen to change Utd's shape, move away from the orthodox 4-4-2, play with Kagawa behind the striker(s) etc. They tried it a couple of times early on, it didn't really work, and so he pretty much dumped it and went back to what he and Utd know best. Mancini started the season keen to introduce the 3-5-2, tried it, it hasn't worked, but he's kept persisting with it in tough (hugely important) matches, the Everton game being the latest - and arguably most ludicrous - example.

Nobody expects him to get things right every time, all managers make mistakes. Not learning from a mistake which has cost us countless times this season is, however, something which merits criticism. Whether it's enough to warrant the boot is a matter of opinion; for what it's worth, I've very much been of the opinion that he should stay, but the Southampton and, even more so, the Everton matches have made me start questioning him more than ever. But either way, his performance as manager this season has been every bit as 'criticism-worthy' as that of individual players.

When Mancini took over from Hughes he immediately changed our defensive organisation and introduced zonal marking. But for the rest of 2009/10 he retained Hughes's basic 4-4-2 formation albeit with a much more defensive approach.

At the start of the next season he switched to 4-2-3-1 with Yaya behind a single striker, still adopting a fairly defensive approach.

At the start of last season he switched to a 4-2-2-2 system with the emphasis on attacking play resulting in a deluge of goals. He also frequently switched to 3 at the back to see out games, a tactic that usually worked.

This season he's played 3 at the back more often but its still been basically a back 4. He's generally stuck with last season's formation, although in a few games recently he's reverted to 4-2-3-1.

He's obviously got the tactics wrong at times in individual games, but I'm struggling to recognise this image of him as being stubborn or tactically inflexible or unwilling to ditch a system that isnt working.

 

[BibbyBlue85]

Clichy is very average. Good pace but going forward he can offer nothing. Evra, Baines, Cole, Coentrao, Marcelo, Adriano, Alba or Alaba are much much better. But City have bigger problems - no wingers and mobile centre-midfielders.

People would probably say you're either a Rag, WUM or you know absolutely nothing about football. My money is on you being all 3

 

[sh249]

mancini should be totally stubborn and do exactly what he feels is right,he belives he is a winner and knows he is right and thats exactly what we need at the club someone who is incharge 100 percent.we should back him all the way,he wont get it right all the time but with backing he will get it right,let me ask you this is fergie stubborn.

I don't think Mancini's stubborness is, in and of itself, a problem. It's how it manifests itself. As you say, Baconchops is stubborn, no doubt - but he started this season obviously keen to change Utd's shape, move away from the orthodox 4-4-2, play with Kagawa behind the striker(s) etc. They tried it a couple of times early on, it didn't really work, and so he pretty much dumped it and went back to what he and Utd know best. Mancini started the season keen to introduce the 3-5-2, tried it, it hasn't worked, but he's kept persisting with it in tough (hugely important) matches, the Everton game being the latest - and arguably most ludicrous - example.

Nobody expects him to get things right every time, all managers make mistakes. Not learning from a mistake which has cost us countless times this season is, however, something which merits criticism. Whether it's enough to warrant the boot is a matter of opinion; for what it's worth, I've very much been of the opinion that he should stay, but the Southampton and, even more so, the Everton matches have made me start questioning him more than ever. But either way, his performance as manager this season has been every bit as 'criticism-worthy' as that of individual players.

When Mancini took over from Hughes he immediately changed our defensive organisation and introduced zonal marking. But for the rest of 2009/10 he retained Hughes's basic 4-4-2 formation albeit with a much more defensive approach.

At the start of the next season he switched to 4-2-3-1 with Yaya behind a single striker, still adopting a fairly defensive approach.

At the start of last season he switched to a 4-2-2-2 system with the emphasis on attacking play resulting in a deluge of goals. He also frequently switched to 3 at the back to see out games, a tactic that usually worked.

This season he's played 3 at the back more often but its still been basically a back 4. He's generally stuck with last season's formation, although in a few games recently he's reverted to 4-2-3-1.

He's obviously got the tactics wrong at times in individual games, but I'm struggling to recognise this image of him as being stubborn or tactically inflexible or unwilling to ditch a system that isnt working.

Two separate points for me. Don't see him as tactically inflexible - if anything, I think he's changed tactics/systems too often (CL matches most obvious examples). But I can't fathom any reason why he has stuck with the 3 at the back so often this season, despite us struggling so badly with it. Whether it's born of stubborness or not, it has cost us badly at times.

 

[I'm no cynic but...]

Most successful clubs in this country have something in common. They have continuity. They don' t sack their managers every 5 minutes because everything's not perfect all the time. Maybe we should give this continuity thing a try ? It might just work !

Like who? - remember you have said clubs?? I only see the RAGs and to tll you the truth - they have one of the best managers of my generation

Maybe the poster was referring to the most successful clubs over the years. Bill Shankly at Liverpool and that old git at Tottenham a few decades ago spring to mind. Also, Arsenal haven't done too badly over recent years, reaching the QF stage of the Champions League more often than any other English club.

Add Paisley, Revie, Graham and, maybe, Clough to the list.

Changing managers every couple of seasons just doesn't work and, as all City fans should know, it is expensive and often leads to chaos. Having said that, maybe these named managers held long careers at their clubs because they were damned good at their jobs!

 

[I'm no cynic but...]

All this "worst defence of the title" rubbish doesn't ring true with me. We're still second, so is every other team in the league having the worst season ever as well ? Is United's current squad truly a record breaking one ? I don't think so and to be honest they are no where near 15 points better than us. How they are I can't explain but they've had much better squads in the past and the standard of the league is now stronger.

I've just had a look at the table or 1968/69, the year we were defending our last championship, and we finished 13th that year with 40 points from 42 games. Translated into a 38 game season and with the current 3 points for a win, it would be like saying that City finished the season on a fraction short of 50 points. And this was with Mercer and Allison running the club.

 

[John.des]

I cant imagine what Mancini learnt from the mistakes he did vs Bayern and Napoli in last season to make sure City will be better prepared in next years CL group.

And then we couldnt win a match at home, lost eveytime away from home. And people were coming up with excuses for Ajax loss because we were unbeaten in the league.

After these I doubt he learnt anything from the matches vs D. Kijev, Sporting, Bayern, Napoli, Dortmund, Real, Ajax matches.
Some of these teams have better squad than ours, some of them have nowhere near as good squad as ours.
But probably the only thing Mancini can come up with is the signings we missed out on.

Henry W. is very clever. We dont have to fire him, we have to just make sure he completely changes the way he plays in Europe since 2006 every year.
And the way he handles players front of the press and possibly behind the scenes.
Joke.

It is like we did better not fire Hughes but wait until he turnes himself into Marcelo Lippi or Guardiola. What a mistake we did.

 

[jay_mcfc]

Having four good strikers was our downfall with Mancini. He changed from 4-2-3-1 to fit in two strikers when there was no need to. Had he stuck with this formation all season, we'd be in much better shape;

------------Hart

Zab----Komp----Nasty----Clichy

--------Milner---Barry

Silva--------Yaya----------Balotelli

----------Aguero

That is a title winning team. We have not the players for 4-4-2. 3-5-2 makes sense on paper but hasn't worked on the field.

 

[I'm no cynic but...]

Having four good strikers was our downfall with Mancini. He changed from 4-2-3-1 to fit in two strikers when there was no need to. Had he stuck with this formation all season, we'd be in much better shape;

------------Hart

Zab----Komp----Nasty----Clichy

--------Milner---Barry

Silva--------Yaya----------Balotelli

----------Aguero

That is a title winning team. We have not the players for 4-4-2. 3-5-2 makes sense on paper but hasn't worked on the field.

This line-up is really 4-4-2 as it contains two of the four strikers that you allude to. Balotelli was neither a midfielder or a wide man.