A call for Patience and realism

[Citizen of Legoland]

I'm sorry but at this present moment in time, I find it hard to believe that Pellegrini is a better manager than Mancini. The realism is that we are still shit in europe and given the talent in the squad, it's totally unacceptable. Mancini's record wasn't brilliant but I saw nothing last night to suggest, Pellegrini will fare better. Domestically Mancini was and still is head and shoulders above Pellegrini.

6 games!!! If we'd won at Villa as we should have done, we'd be second and nobody would be bleating. Fact is Villa got lucky and we lost, so we put it behind us and get on to the next game. If we're 9 points behind top team at New Year, then we can judge.

 

[bobmcfc]

I kind of wanted to win the league this season and if you look at how shit united have been then there will be no excuses come the end of the season

None at all

 

[mscenterh750]

I'm sorry but at this present moment in time, I find it hard to believe that Pellegrini is a better manager than Mancini. The realism is that we are still shit in europe and given the talent in the squad, it's totally unacceptable. Mancini's record wasn't brilliant but I saw nothing last night to suggest, Pellegrini will fare better. Domestically Mancini was and still is head and shoulders above Pellegrini.

6 games!!! If we'd won at Villa as we should have done, we'd be second and nobody would be bleating. Fact is Villa got lucky and we lost, so we put it behind us and get on to the next game. If we're 9 points behind top team at New Year, then we can judge.

Yes 6 games and not the toughest either, also shipping 3 at Cardiff and Villa, again last night, does not fill me with confidence at all. Pisses me off all this shit about luck, take your chances, get tactics right and stop defending like clowns, that would be a start.

 

[Citizen of Legoland]

I'm sorry but at this present moment in time, I find it hard to believe that Pellegrini is a better manager than Mancini. The realism is that we are still shit in europe and given the talent in the squad, it's totally unacceptable. Mancini's record wasn't brilliant but I saw nothing last night to suggest, Pellegrini will fare better. Domestically Mancini was and still is head and shoulders above Pellegrini.

6 games!!! If we'd won at Villa as we should have done, we'd be second and nobody would be bleating. Fact is Villa got lucky and we lost, so we put it behind us and get on to the next game. If we're 9 points behind top team at New Year, then we can judge.

Yes 6 games and not the toughest either, also shipping 3 at Cardiff and Villa, again last night, does not fill me with confidence at all. Pisses me off all this shit about luck, take your chances, get tactics right and stop defending like clowns, that would be a start.

I understand your frustration and I can see your point that we should have done better against the calibre of teams we have played, but this stretches back to Sunderland, Southampton, Norwich, Swansea and Wigan last year when Mancini was in charge, so is MP really to blame? He's already got more points than RM in the CL with 4 games to go.

One thing winners don't do is panic or quit at the first hurdle.

And if luck doesn't exist - why is there a word for it? :)

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

Talk to any rags and they will tell you they hated Mancini because they feared him.

Most Rags (and neutral fans) I know felt that we should have won the league comfortably every season that Mancini was there and that we won despite him, not because of him. This was especially pronounced in Europe.

I always argued that his job was a lot harder (and he did it a lot better, generally) than anyone outside the club realised. But the impression from opposition fans was always that he would do a lot better with a different manager.

The problem is that many of Mancini's critics assumed that because the new manager isn't Mancini, he must be better. This is, of course, arrant nonsense. Nothing in Pellegrini's CV marked him out as a realistic candidate for the City job, and he hasn't done much since he got the job to alter that perception. You write that, "His record was awful. We had as many points after one game this season as we finished with last year. Just because there are problems under this manager doesn't mean there weren't any under the last one. " but don't acknowledge that our three points have come from beating a pub team from the Czech republic, a gift the draw never gave Mancini. Your greatest error, though, is in your last sentence; Mancini is no longer the issue, and " Just because there are problems under the last manager doesn't mean there weren't any under this one." Nor do I think qualifying from a group including Plzen and Moscow can be seen as an improvement on our record of the last two years, especially when you remember how truly awful the manager's performance against the one quality team in the group. Pellegrini may show that the rules and the draw can favour some clubs each year, but he's also shown that he needn't be taken seriously in the CL.

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

6 games!!! If we'd won at Villa as we should have done, we'd be second and nobody would be bleating. Fact is Villa got lucky and we lost, so we put it behind us and get on to the next game. If we're 9 points behind top team at New Year, then we can judge.

Yes 6 games and not the toughest either, also shipping 3 at Cardiff and Villa, again last night, does not fill me with confidence at all. Pisses me off all this shit about luck, take your chances, get tactics right and stop defending like clowns, that would be a start.

I understand your frustration and I can see your point that we should have done better against the calibre of teams we have played, but this stretches back to Sunderland, Southampton, Norwich, Swansea and Wigan last year when Mancini was in charge, so is MP really to blame? He's already got more points than RM in the CL with 4 games to go.

One thing winners don't do is panic or quit at the first hurdle.

And if luck doesn't exist - why is there a word for it? :)

Sorry, who else is to blame? And by the way, what makes you say Mancini was in charge against Norwich? I think if you blame Mancini for last season's defeats you can't blame anyone other than Pellegrini for this season. He hasn't actually got more CL points than Mancini, and certainly not more than the 10 points he got two seasons ago. And your thoughts on winners are very interesting. I thought winning was their main characteristic, something which Pellegrini has managed in only half of his PL games and half of his CL games so far. Nor am I clear what the "first hurdle" you refer to is, seeing as Bayern was the ninth competitive match City have played this season.

-- Thu Oct 03, 2013 2:28 pm --

6 games!!! If we'd won at Villa as we should have done, we'd be second and nobody would be bleating. Fact is Villa got lucky and we lost, so we put it behind us and get on to the next game. If we're 9 points behind top team at New Year, then we can judge.

Yes 6 games and not the toughest either, also shipping 3 at Cardiff and Villa, again last night, does not fill me with confidence at all. Pisses me off all this shit about luck, take your chances, get tactics right and stop defending like clowns, that would be a start.

I understand your frustration and I can see your point that we should have done better against the calibre of teams we have played, but this stretches back to Sunderland, Southampton, Norwich, Swansea and Wigan last year when Mancini was in charge, so is MP really to blame? He's already got more points than RM in the CL with 4 games to go.

One thing winners don't do is panic or quit at the first hurdle.

And if luck doesn't exist - why is there a word for it? :)

Sorry, who else is to blame? And by the way, what makes you say Mancini was in charge against Norwich? I think if you blame Mancini for last season's defeats you can't blame anyone other than Pellegrini for this season. He hasn't actually got more CL points than Mancini, and certainly not more than the 10 points he got two seasons ago. And your thoughts on winners are very interesting. I thought winning was their main characteristic, something which Pellegrini has managed in only half of his PL games and half of his CL games so far. Nor am I clear what the "first hurdle" you refer to is, seeing as Bayern was the ninth competitive match City have played this season.

-- Thu Oct 03, 2013 2:28 pm --

Talk to any rags and they will tell you they hated Mancini because they feared him.

Most Rags (and neutral fans) I know felt that we should have won the league comfortably every season that Mancini was there and that we won despite him, not because of him. This was especially pronounced in Europe.

I always argued that his job was a lot harder (and he did it a lot better, generally) than anyone outside the club realised. But the impression from opposition fans was always that he would do a lot better with a different manager.

The problem is that many of Mancini's critics assumed that because the new manager isn't Mancini, he must be better. This is, of course, arrant nonsense. Nothing in Pellegrini's CV marked him out as a realistic candidate for the City job, and he hasn't done much since he got the job to alter that perception. You write that, "His record was awful. We had as many points after one game this season as we finished with last year. Just because there are problems under this manager doesn't mean there weren't any under the last one. " but don't acknowledge that our three points have come from beating a pub team from the Czech republic, a gift the draw never gave Mancini. Your greatest error, though, is in your last sentence; Mancini is no longer the issue, and " Just because there are problems under the last manager doesn't mean there weren't any under this one." Nor do I think qualifying from a group including Plzen and Moscow can be seen as an improvement on our record of the last two years, especially when you remember how truly awful the manager's performance against the one quality team in the group. Pellegrini may show that the rules and the draw can favour some clubs each year, but he's also shown that he needn't be taken seriously in the CL.

-- Thu Oct 03, 2013 2:28 pm --

Talk to any rags and they will tell you they hated Mancini because they feared him.

Most Rags (and neutral fans) I know felt that we should have won the league comfortably every season that Mancini was there and that we won despite him, not because of him. This was especially pronounced in Europe.

I always argued that his job was a lot harder (and he did it a lot better, generally) than anyone outside the club realised. But the impression from opposition fans was always that he would do a lot better with a different manager.

The problem is that many of Mancini's critics assumed that because the new manager isn't Mancini, he must be better. This is, of course, arrant nonsense. Nothing in Pellegrini's CV marked him out as a realistic candidate for the City job, and he hasn't done much since he got the job to alter that perception. You write that, "His record was awful. We had as many points after one game this season as we finished with last year. Just because there are problems under this manager doesn't mean there weren't any under the last one. " but don't acknowledge that our three points have come from beating a pub team from the Czech republic, a gift the draw never gave Mancini. Your greatest error, though, is in your last sentence; Mancini is no longer the issue, and " Just because there are problems under the last manager doesn't mean there weren't any under this one." Nor do I think qualifying from a group including Plzen and Moscow can be seen as an improvement on our record of the last two years, especially when you remember how truly awful the manager's performance against the one quality team in the group. Pellegrini may show that the rules and the draw can favour some clubs each year, but he's also shown that he needn't be taken seriously in the CL.<br /><br />-- Thu Oct 03, 2013 2:28 pm --<br /><br />

6 games!!! If we'd won at Villa as we should have done, we'd be second and nobody would be bleating. Fact is Villa got lucky and we lost, so we put it behind us and get on to the next game. If we're 9 points behind top team at New Year, then we can judge.

Yes 6 games and not the toughest either, also shipping 3 at Cardiff and Villa, again last night, does not fill me with confidence at all. Pisses me off all this shit about luck, take your chances, get tactics right and stop defending like clowns, that would be a start.

I understand your frustration and I can see your point that we should have done better against the calibre of teams we have played, but this stretches back to Sunderland, Southampton, Norwich, Swansea and Wigan last year when Mancini was in charge, so is MP really to blame? He's already got more points than RM in the CL with 4 games to go.

One thing winners don't do is panic or quit at the first hurdle.

And if luck doesn't exist - why is there a word for it? :)

Sorry, who else is to blame? And by the way, what makes you say Mancini was in charge against Norwich? I think if you blame Mancini for last season's defeats you can't blame anyone other than Pellegrini for this season. He hasn't actually got more CL points than Mancini, and certainly not more than the 10 points he got two seasons ago. And your thoughts on winners are very interesting. I thought winning was their main characteristic, something which Pellegrini has managed in only half of his PL games and half of his CL games so far. Nor am I clear what the "first hurdle" you refer to is, seeing as Bayern was the ninth competitive match City have played this season.

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

6 games!!! If we'd won at Villa as we should have done, we'd be second and nobody would be bleating. Fact is Villa got lucky and we lost, so we put it behind us and get on to the next game. If we're 9 points behind top team at New Year, then we can judge.

Yes 6 games and not the toughest either, also shipping 3 at Cardiff and Villa, again last night, does not fill me with confidence at all. Pisses me off all this shit about luck, take your chances, get tactics right and stop defending like clowns, that would be a start.

I understand your frustration and I can see your point that we should have done better against the calibre of teams we have played, but this stretches back to Sunderland, Southampton, Norwich, Swansea and Wigan last year when Mancini was in charge, so is MP really to blame? He's already got more points than RM in the CL with 4 games to go.

One thing winners don't do is panic or quit at the first hurdle.

And if luck doesn't exist - why is there a word for it? :)

Sorry, who else is to blame? And by the way, what makes you say Mancini was in charge against Norwich? I think if you blame Mancini for last season's defeats you can't blame anyone other than Pellegrini for this season. He hasn't actually got more CL points than Mancini, and certainly not more than the 10 points he got two seasons ago. And your thoughts on winners are very interesting. I thought winning was their main characteristic, something which Pellegrini has managed in only half of his PL games and half of his CL games so far. Nor am I clear what the "first hurdle" you refer to is, seeing as Bayern was the ninth competitive match City have played this season.<br /><br />-- Thu Oct 03, 2013 2:35 pm --<br /><br />

Talk to any rags and they will tell you they hated Mancini because they feared him.

Most Rags (and neutral fans) I know felt that we should have won the league comfortably every season that Mancini was there and that we won despite him, not because of him. This was especially pronounced in Europe.

I always argued that his job was a lot harder (and he did it a lot better, generally) than anyone outside the club realised. But the impression from opposition fans was always that he would do a lot better with a different manager.

The problem is that many of Mancini's critics assumed that because the new manager isn't Mancini, he must be better. This is, of course, arrant nonsense. Nothing in Pellegrini's CV marked him out as a realistic candidate for the City job, and he hasn't done much since he got the job to alter that perception. You write that, "His record was awful. We had as many points after one game this season as we finished with last year. Just because there are problems under this manager doesn't mean there weren't any under the last one. " but don't acknowledge that our three points have come from beating a pub team from the Czech republic, a gift the draw never gave Mancini. Your greatest error, though, is in your last sentence; Mancini is no longer the issue, and " Just because there are problems under the last manager doesn't mean there weren't any under this one." Nor do I think qualifying from a group including Plzen and Moscow can be seen as an improvement on our record of the last two years, especially when you remember how truly awful the manager's performance against the one quality team in the group. Pellegrini may show that the rules and the draw can favour some clubs each year, but he's also shown that he needn't be taken seriously in the CL.

 

[Citizen of Legoland]

Yes 6 games and not the toughest either, also shipping 3 at Cardiff and Villa, again last night, does not fill me with confidence at all. Pisses me off all this shit about luck, take your chances, get tactics right and stop defending like clowns, that would be a start.

I understand your frustration and I can see your point that we should have done better against the calibre of teams we have played, but this stretches back to Sunderland, Southampton, Norwich, Swansea and Wigan last year when Mancini was in charge, so is MP really to blame? He's already got more points than RM in the CL with 4 games to go.

One thing winners don't do is panic or quit at the first hurdle.

And if luck doesn't exist - why is there a word for it? :)

Sorry, who else is to blame? And by the way, what makes you say Mancini was in charge against Norwich? I think if you blame Mancini for last season's defeats you can't blame anyone other than Pellegrini for this season. He hasn't actually got more CL points than Mancini, and certainly not more than the 10 points he got two seasons ago. And your thoughts on winners are very interesting. I thought winning was their main characteristic, something which Pellegrini has managed in only half of his PL games and half of his CL games so far. Nor am I clear what the "first hurdle" you refer to is, seeing as Bayern was the ninth competitive match City have played this season.

Yeah, forgot he'd gone by the Norwich game. Unfortunately I come from an age when the FA Cup was the last game of the season and can never get used to anything else - better throw Kiddy into the blame game!

However what I was trying to put across is that, yes we are not getting as many positive results against 'lower' teams as we should, but this isn't a new phenomenon - it was happening last season too, and to judge a new manager in comparison so early is a little unfair. The blame for any loss should be apportioned to the manager AND the players - I'm sure they're all as perplexed as we are as to how one week we can dismantle the rags and yet succumb to Villa the next game. I trust they are working on it, although it seems some people are dusting off their Forward With Franny placards ready for the next hiccup.

The first hurdle refers to the first biggest obstacle faced (not the number of games), which seems to be last night's result judging by the views of most people. Other's may judge it the second (after Cardiff) or third (after Villa) hurdle - whatever - it's a hurdle! And if the team are going to become champions of anything, they need to know how to get over them.

 

[kp220]

I'll apologise now if anyone has said the same thing already but I haven't got the time to read all the pages "just in case".

I don't know if anybody else felt like me after last nights game... It was exactly like I had felt when the final whistle went and Wigan had beaten us to win the FA Cup at Wembley... I felt like the players had actually let me down personally and robbed me and the rest of us of something we should have had - the cup !

I completely understand the argument about being outnumbered in midfield, Silva not being fit enough etc. etc. but I can't get away from the feeling that most of the players who started the game last night were clever enough to work out what was going wrong and contrive to stop it happening all by themselves.... Is it not part of the captains responsibility to make the others aware of a problem and try and solve it ? Instead of this, the majority of them just disappeared and let Bayern run over them.

Or is it just me expecting people who earn millions of pounds a year playing football to have a degree of intelligence ?

 

[mancity1]

I'll apologise now if anyone has said the same thing already but I haven't got the time to read all the pages "just in case".

I don't know if anybody else felt like me after last nights game... It was exactly like I had felt when the final whistle went and Wigan had beaten us to win the FA Cup at Wembley... I felt like the players had actually let me down personally and robbed me and the rest of us of something we should have had - the cup !

I completely understand the argument about being outnumbered in midfield, Silva not being fit enough etc. etc. but I can't get away from the feeling that most of the players who started the game last night were clever enough to work out what was going wrong and contrive to stop it happening all by themselves.... Is it not part of the captains responsibility to make the others aware of a problem and try and solve it ? Instead of this, the majority of them just disappeared and let Bayern run over them.

Or is it just me expecting people who earn millions of pounds a year playing football to have a degree of intelligence ?

It's a fair point you make.

Mistakes , gaffs , goal keeper slip ups , poor attempt at ensuring one is caught offside aside the players and in particular the captain/ leader(s) can actually have an impact on where the players position themselves when they have possession and when they don't.

More often than not they know if some set up in that domain is going awry well before the people sitting on the bench do who are usually just following the movement of the ball.

As I said earlier we could have parked ten men behind the ball all game ( it has been known to occur or at least perceived as being the case ) and maybe just maybe restricted Bayern to fewer than 12 shots on target ( preytell maybe got that extra body in the way to ensure precious Joe didn't have to lay glove on Ribery's " bullet" and Robben's " howitzer ".

A sign of weakness you say , submission you say maybe but better than ensuring the likes of Kompany , Nasri and Yaya to name three that unfortunately don't possess the running stamina to chase shadows for more than 30 minutes were left a bit more sharp and on the right side of happiness for Saturdays encounter.

Its not rocket science , it won't always meet with the ire of a manager who gesticulates to all and sundry pre , during and post match you sit your ass on the pitch where I tell you and don't move till I tell you in an accent that none of players would understand or be able to hear especially one that might be seen by all and sundry that watched that those tactics sure bored the hell out of me and left Bayern to dwell on a 1-0 win ( 2 goals may mean alot in the wash up if it comes down to for and against ) or preytell a point apiece , with Bayern having 18 shots and none on target with City 0-0 on their ledger.

Yep footballers and managers are always the brightest cue in the rack when it comes to lateral thinking but they can play the game better than us miserly watchers from a far.

I wonder if I asked VK in the aftermath how parking the bus would have altered the result what he would have said.

Probably he would have said well I don't know but if we played that game over again 10 times we might have been lucky enough to edge it 3-3 on one occasion.

 

[the-ecstacy-of-eight]

I completely understand the argument about being outnumbered in midfield, Silva not being fit enough etc. etc. but I can't get away from the feeling that most of the players who started the game last night were clever enough to work out what was going wrong and contrive to stop it happening all by themselves.... Is it not part of the captains responsibility to make the others aware of a problem and try and solve it ? Instead of this, the majority of them just disappeared and let Bayern run over them.

Or is it just me expecting people who earn millions of pounds a year playing football to have a degree of intelligence ?

You're not alone in your thoughts mate.

Today I am very, very disappointed with the majority of the players as well as the management. I'd been led to believe that this 4-2-2-2 thing was a fluid formation; that is was adaptable to change during the game without the need for substitutions, and at least able to morph into a more solid 4-2-3-1 without needing much tactical savvy. But the players didn't respond to the problems that everybody could see we were experiencing last night....

and neither did the management (until half time)

Like I said very, very disappointed.

 

[vintiz]

Well we would never have won bayern. Esp we did a chelsea. Which isn't part of the 'holistic' process.

Bout having patience I think a lot on hear are backing the manager to a great deal.

You'll only start seeing people 'over react' if we fail to pick more than 6 points after our next 3 PL games

 

[RandomJ]

Why do people keep saying "he will learn" or "he's learning"? We have one of the most expensive squads in world football with some mouth watering talent in most positions so why the hell are we giving a pensioner work experience? We should have hired a winner with a proven track record and by that I mean trophies and a lot of them to take us to the next level. Instead we're pissing about with a guy who looks overwhelmed by the job and just going backwards.

I'd understand a call for patience if we'd hired an up and coming young manager with fresh ideas but we didn't we hired a guy who thinks 4-4-2 is the cutting edge of football tactics and who isn't going to improve with time because of his age. Such a baffling appointment.

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

I understand your frustration and I can see your point that we should have done better against the calibre of teams we have played, but this stretches back to Sunderland, Southampton, Norwich, Swansea and Wigan last year when Mancini was in charge, so is MP really to blame? He's already got more points than RM in the CL with 4 games to go.

One thing winners don't do is panic or quit at the first hurdle.

And if luck doesn't exist - why is there a word for it? :)

Sorry, who else is to blame? And by the way, what makes you say Mancini was in charge against Norwich? I think if you blame Mancini for last season's defeats you can't blame anyone other than Pellegrini for this season. He hasn't actually got more CL points than Mancini, and certainly not more than the 10 points he got two seasons ago. And your thoughts on winners are very interesting. I thought winning was their main characteristic, something which Pellegrini has managed in only half of his PL games and half of his CL games so far. Nor am I clear what the "first hurdle" you refer to is, seeing as Bayern was the ninth competitive match City have played this season.

Yeah, forgot he'd gone by the Norwich game. Unfortunately I come from an age when the FA Cup was the last game of the season and can never get used to anything else - better throw Kiddy into the blame game!

However what I was trying to put across is that, yes we are not getting as many positive results against 'lower' teams as we should, but this isn't a new phenomenon - it was happening last season too, and to judge a new manager in comparison so early is a little unfair. The blame for any loss should be apportioned to the manager AND the players - I'm sure they're all as perplexed as we are as to how one week we can dismantle the rags and yet succumb to Villa the next game. I trust they are working on it, although it seems some people are dusting off their Forward With Franny placards ready for the next hiccup.

The first hurdle refers to the first biggest obstacle faced (not the number of games), which seems to be last night's result judging by the views of most people. Other's may judge it the second (after Cardiff) or third (after Villa) hurdle - whatever - it's a hurdle! And if the team are going to become champions of anything, they need to know how to get over them.

I don't actually agree that we shouldn't be judging Pellegrini. Quite obviously the club had judged him before they appointed him, and judged him suitable for the job, but he'll be judged on his results even now to assess the quality of that judgement. He will have agreed targets for the season with the club, and they won't be any easier than those expected of Mancini and if Pellers looks unlikely to live up to expectations he's in trouble. It is far too early to to say that he's unlikely to reach the club's minimum demands, but by Christmas I think the club will consider it has firm evidence one way or another.

We must remember that Mark Hughes was expected to get 70 points in the season 2009-10 - enough for fourth - but by Christmas he was gone. When sacked he had got 29 points from 17 matches, which was only 2 points below target! Of his 17 matches he had lost 2. From his first 6 matches he had got 15 points! When things went wrong the club acted quickly - and ruthlessly. Pellegrini isn't in trouble yet, but things had better improve quickly or he will be another victim of the dreaded "trajectory of results". And I bet Pellegrini won't get away with 70 points. Or scraping out of this group in the CL.

 

[Falastur]

I don't actually agree that we shouldn't be judging Pellegrini. Quite obviously the club had judged him before they appointed him, and judged him suitable for the job, but he'll be judged on his results even now to assess the quality of that judgement. He will have agreed targets for the season with the club, and they won't be any easier than those expected of Mancini and if Pellers looks unlikely to live up to expectations he's in trouble. It is far too early to to say that he's unlikely to reach the club's minimum demands, but by Christmas I think the club will consider it has firm evidence one way or another.

We must remember that Mark Hughes was expected to get 70 points in the season 2009-10 - enough for fourth - but by Christmas he was gone. When sacked he had got 29 points from 17 matches, which was only 2 points below target! Of his 17 matches he had lost 2. From his first 6 matches he had got 15 points! When things went wrong the club acted quickly - and ruthlessly. Pellegrini isn't in trouble yet, but things had better improve quickly or he will be another victim of the dreaded "trajectory of results". And I bet Pellegrini won't get away with 70 points. Or scraping out of this group in the CL.

I'm undecided on Pellegrini atm: I want him to come good and think it would hurt the club's image if we sacked him before at least January if not the end of the season, but I'm not sure whether I believe he has the capacity and I'm not sure whether sacking him soon would in fact help us.

But a couple of notes on Hughes:

1) he wasn't the board's choice. He was hired by Shinawatra with the specific brief to keep us mid-table on a minuscule budget. We all knew he wasn't going to win trophies because the board hadn't hired a manager with that ability, so it's hardly any surprise that Mansour's men then wanted him gone. It's to their immense credit that they kept him on for 18 months and gave him the budget to spend, especially when he only barely outperformed Sven's previous campaign. The board knew they wanted a top manager but gave him a chance, and essentially let him reach his peak before getting rid. Short of employing him for 3 or 4 seasons and letting him make us a laughing stock by spending £500m on never getting out of mid-table, I'm not sure how they could've been nicer to him.

2) On the trajectory of results - look at the results again. There was a trajectory - sure, it was a stupid business jargon phrase, but his team were tailing off. He favoured the Kevin Keegan school of football with a truly appalling defensive awareness, and we had drawn a league record seven games in a row, and he had humiliated us by consistently allowing other teams to score two or three past us at home. We may have got 15 points from the first 18, but that just makes the 14 points from the next 33 even worse. He was never going to hit the 70 points target, he would've maybe just about equalled his points total from the previous season (what was it? 59? That's another 30 from 19 games, so about what his season form was on track for, and that's not even taking into account how badly we had tailed off).

I'm not raising this as a reason Pellegrini won't be sacked. Expectation is so much higher now, Pelle was hired to do a job changing our tactics and outlook which he is clearly struggling to do, and I think very few of us actually believe he has it in him to succeed here, so goodness knows what the board think. But I think using Hughes' example to discuss whether or not he will be sacked is like comparing a car and a spoon.

 

[cibaman]

Sorry, who else is to blame? And by the way, what makes you say Mancini was in charge against Norwich? I think if you blame Mancini for last season's defeats you can't blame anyone other than Pellegrini for this season. He hasn't actually got more CL points than Mancini, and certainly not more than the 10 points he got two seasons ago. And your thoughts on winners are very interesting. I thought winning was their main characteristic, something which Pellegrini has managed in only half of his PL games and half of his CL games so far. Nor am I clear what the "first hurdle" you refer to is, seeing as Bayern was the ninth competitive match City have played this season.

Yeah, forgot he'd gone by the Norwich game. Unfortunately I come from an age when the FA Cup was the last game of the season and can never get used to anything else - better throw Kiddy into the blame game!

However what I was trying to put across is that, yes we are not getting as many positive results against 'lower' teams as we should, but this isn't a new phenomenon - it was happening last season too, and to judge a new manager in comparison so early is a little unfair. The blame for any loss should be apportioned to the manager AND the players - I'm sure they're all as perplexed as we are as to how one week we can dismantle the rags and yet succumb to Villa the next game. I trust they are working on it, although it seems some people are dusting off their Forward With Franny placards ready for the next hiccup.

The first hurdle refers to the first biggest obstacle faced (not the number of games), which seems to be last night's result judging by the views of most people. Other's may judge it the second (after Cardiff) or third (after Villa) hurdle - whatever - it's a hurdle! And if the team are going to become champions of anything, they need to know how to get over them.

I don't actually agree that we shouldn't be judging Pellegrini. Quite obviously the club had judged him before they appointed him, and judged him suitable for the job, but he'll be judged on his results even now to assess the quality of that judgement. He will have agreed targets for the season with the club, and they won't be any easier than those expected of Mancini and if Pellers looks unlikely to live up to expectations he's in trouble. It is far too early to to say that he's unlikely to reach the club's minimum demands, but by Christmas I think the club will consider it has firm evidence one way or another.

We must remember that Mark Hughes was expected to get 70 points in the season 2009-10 - enough for fourth - but by Christmas he was gone. When sacked he had got 29 points from 17 matches, which was only 2 points below target! Of his 17 matches he had lost 2. From his first 6 matches he had got 15 points! When things went wrong the club acted quickly - and ruthlessly. Pellegrini isn't in trouble yet, but things had better improve quickly or he will be another victim of the dreaded "trajectory of results". And I bet Pellegrini won't get away with 70 points. Or scraping out of this group in the CL.

Unlike Hughes and Mancini Pellegrini was appointed by the club's current hierarchy so is safe for this season.

 

[Anonymous]

Unlike Hughes and Mancini Pellegrini was appointed by the club's current hierarchy so is safe for this season.

There'd have to be a monumental disaster of finishing outside the top 4 proportions for Pellegrini to not be allowed to get on with his business both this season and next. Just my opinion but those people hoping him gone so early are wasting their energies.

 

[mancity1]

Sorry, who else is to blame? And by the way, what makes you say Mancini was in charge against Norwich? I think if you blame Mancini for last season's defeats you can't blame anyone other than Pellegrini for this season. He hasn't actually got more CL points than Mancini, and certainly not more than the 10 points he got two seasons ago. And your thoughts on winners are very interesting. I thought winning was their main characteristic, something which Pellegrini has managed in only half of his PL games and half of his CL games so far. Nor am I clear what the "first hurdle" you refer to is, seeing as Bayern was the ninth competitive match City have played this season.

Yeah, forgot he'd gone by the Norwich game. Unfortunately I come from an age when the FA Cup was the last game of the season and can never get used to anything else - better throw Kiddy into the blame game!

However what I was trying to put across is that, yes we are not getting as many positive results against 'lower' teams as we should, but this isn't a new phenomenon - it was happening last season too, and to judge a new manager in comparison so early is a little unfair. The blame for any loss should be apportioned to the manager AND the players - I'm sure they're all as perplexed as we are as to how one week we can dismantle the rags and yet succumb to Villa the next game. I trust they are working on it, although it seems some people are dusting off their Forward With Franny placards ready for the next hiccup.

The first hurdle refers to the first biggest obstacle faced (not the number of games), which seems to be last night's result judging by the views of most people. Other's may judge it the second (after Cardiff) or third (after Villa) hurdle - whatever - it's a hurdle! And if the team are going to become champions of anything, they need to know how to get over them.

I don't actually agree that we shouldn't be judging Pellegrini. Quite obviously the club had judged him before they appointed him, and judged him suitable for the job, but he'll be judged on his results even now to assess the quality of that judgement. He will have agreed targets for the season with the club, and they won't be any easier than those expected of Mancini and if Pellers looks unlikely to live up to expectations he's in trouble. It is far too early to to say that he's unlikely to reach the club's minimum demands, but by Christmas I think the club will consider it has firm evidence one way or another.

We must remember that Mark Hughes was expected to get 70 points in the season 2009-10 - enough for fourth - but by Christmas he was gone. When sacked he had got 29 points from 17 matches, which was only 2 points below target! Of his 17 matches he had lost 2. From his first 6 matches he had got 15 points! When things went wrong the club acted quickly - and ruthlessly. Pellegrini isn't in trouble yet, but things had better improve quickly or he will be another victim of the dreaded "trajectory of results". And I bet Pellegrini won't get away with 70 points. Or scraping out of this group in the CL.

Fair point and sure as night follows day the world audience were somewhat perplexed at the ease at which we were dispensed at our own patch to end a 5 year unbeaten home run in Euro comps albeit to a team on song and one the best but nevertheless the same team that relied on penalties to beat a 10 man Chelsea outfit.

More importantly in the short term our owner who always watches our games albeit most times from a distance and our two henchmen who were on duty were watching it as well.

10 points from 6 games if my maths is right using the Leslie rule of thumb equates to 63 points linearly which would mean certain dismissal for MP no matter how chummy he is with Ferran and Co

The sides we have lost to are dropped points to away will finish in the bottom half of the table no doubt.

There is every possibility that we will drop our first points at home this Saturday.

A complete revamp of mindset from the last two games is required and Lakuku , Barclay , Baines and Co under some decent managerial nous in Martinez offer a lot more to their travelling support than Villa and Cardiff and Stoke do with respect to those teams.

14 points from the next 6 games should be what we are aiming for in the next 6 games as a minimum I would suggest but drop 2 or worse still 3 on Saturday and that means wins against Chelsea and Spurs become crucial in the scheme of things and thats not as far as the title goes that's as far as keeping us in the hunt for a top four spot goes.

Interesting times ahead.

MP seems like a decent guy that maybe in time the players will have the intelligence to buy into what he is after but our guys are not that smart in these matters and combined with the school boy errors at the back that have happened way too often already and show no signs of abating I would say that MP's odds of getting the chop this season have taken somewhat of a nose dive since the start of the season.

Europe should buy him some degree of lattitude but make no mistake 4 th or better is a no brainer even if Liverpool have Suarez on the field for the rest of the season , Spurs make progress with their new signings , Arsene bring the Ars back to the promised land from his 8 year slumber etc and Moyes isn't the complete bozo many have written him off as and yes who could forget Jose the unhappy one.

 

[Deleted member 52846]

Unlike Hughes and Mancini Pellegrini was appointed by the club's current hierarchy so is safe for this season.

There'd have to be a monumental disaster of finishing outside the top 4 proportions for Pellegrini to not be allowed to get on with his business both this season and next. Just my opinion but those people hoping him gone so early are wasting their energies.

Any top three finish this season, for me; a good cup run, maybe even wining one; plus getting out of the group and, depending on the draw, progressing to the quarter finals of the CL. I'd consider that a season worthy of giving him a good kitty again next Summer and going for ultimate goals of silverware next season.

But if he puts in any more tactical gameplans like last night none of the above will happen and he'll be out.

 

[Anonymous]

But if he puts in any more tactical gameplans like last night none of the above will happening and he'll be out.

Thankfully I don't think we'll be playing the European Champions every week ... :)

Agree pretty much with the rest of your post ...