Mancini or Pep era?

mancini I would say had the hardest job, getting over that first hurdle. Then again mancini couldn't match the dominating force pep has.

mancinin got us those almighty highs, pep has given us a straight line high

both brilliant.... Also not bad is the fact that our last three managers have all won league titles for us, not many clubs will match that
 
Kazzydeyna said:
Ladies and gentlemen, exhibit one in the "I used to like City when they were shit cos it made me feel cool by association in my own mind and then a manager came along who made us into winners and I, for one, will never forgive him for that"

People can and do have differing opinions on Mancini, and all of our managers, but to my mind it is IMPOSSIBLE to be a city fan and have any animus towards him. Hughes yes, for sure. Coppell, Ball, Clarke, yes absolutely. Several others, yes of course. But tell me how, as a city fan, you can have any bad feeling towards the manager who won us the first trophies of many of our lifetimes? And before you play the "he was horrid to the players and the man who washes their underwear " card , if that is your yardstick who appointed you as the arbiter of acceptable behaviour?

Have a listen to vinny talking about the 2012 team. In fact any of that team talking about themselves as a group. The consistent message is that there was a first class team spirit throughout the whole club.

Mancini turned us from a 40 year laughing stock into a team that every team in England feared and did so in record time. Without mancini there is no pep at city.
Click to expand...

Somebody give this man a Pulitzer award. I hope you dropped your keyboard right after you made this post!
 
The bottom line is that we have had both Bobby and Pep eras and I loved them both, along with Manuel's first season. Clearly the Pep era is better with the quality and entertainment level of football and dominant success. I never thought I would see City win a domestic quadruple or that Best Team in the Land and All the World could be considered close to the truth by a reasonable non City fan (if there is such a thing). If I only cared about success I would save my money and look for the score after each game but I go because I love watching good football as well as because I love City and hate being parted from this unique and wonderful club. So the best football (and best success) is with Pep. Also with Pep is the sustained dominance. The downside with Bobby was that once we got success and a great team he couldn't sustain it.

The only negative I can think about the Pep era is that (probably due to the success and the fear of the RHB - red history boys) there has been a lot of frustration such as VAR and even worse, biased VAR, biased refs, increasingly persistent attacks by the RHB through their media puppets, the ball ache of FFP/UEFA/IC-AC/CAS etc. When Bobby was in charge I had never heard of Miguel Delaney, James "Jabba the Cünt" Corbett, Nicholas McGeehan, Rob Harris or came across the numerous trolls that hang on their coat tails.

Bobby's era was so special. not just because of what he achieved but because of what it meant: real, recognised success, which felt so much greater because it came after so many years of crushed hopes, disappointment and arrogant rag sneering. I didn't think City were ever going to surpass my City high points of Charlton and Gillingham but the FA Cup SF defeat of the rags felt like a trophy in itself. I was fed up with Bobby following the Wigan FA cup defeat and the fracturing within the team but when I look back at that era, I still hold much of the joy that I experienced then.
 
Mancini for me. Some of the best moments supporting city with a great team, full of characters.

I know people have said this, but I felt like Mancini understood the fans and the club more.

Even the players we have now, I just don’t feel a connection with them - Jesus, Mahrez, cancelo,Walker, rodri - I don’t really care about them. that Mancini side was full of big characters and passionate personalities, something I think we are lacking now
 
Last edited:
Mancini was typical charming Italian who got himself under fans skin and was kinda like a girl you kissed first, but he is absolutely not comparable with Pep and I don't miss the drama his management was producing one iota.
 
i♥city! said:
Mancini for me. Pep has done tremendously well but the winning mentality was already in place when Pep came here. Mancini took a team of average players,pushed them to the edge and turned them into Champions. I know some might say " its not about who did it first, its about who did it right" but in this case doing it first against bacon face and the gang (refs, FA,pundits, media houses, ex players etc) means a lot in my books. Pep is the better manager but Mancini would always be number 1.




Only deez.
Click to expand...

that was never a team of average players he won the title with. So, if you use "took a team of average players", then "replaced many of them with world class ones" should follow. Not pushed them to the edge and made them Champions. You must mixed him with Ranieri.

It was probably the best assembled striking force ever in football, supported by yaya, silva and Nasri in their prime. He probably can take some credit for back end as Kompany and Zabaleta went from average to world class players, but that side was assembled as a group of mostly already established stars whole Europe wanted to buy and was by no mean a group of average players.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.