Discuss Pellegrini (Pt 2)

[BobKowalski]

They've said they want the juniors to play 4-3-3 because they believe that's the best way for them to acquire the full range of skills necessary to play at the top level.

They also said they didn't want new managers to radically change the style of play, for example, by playing long ball

But did he say that the manager of the first team should play one formation and not change it, which is what seemed to have been suggested by Bob?

Of course he fucking didn't. It's bob's way of covering his arse after getting things badly wrong on Mancini: the insinuation that all the key football decisions are now made above the manager's head. It venerates the fact the he spent six months sneering at the "loons" amd "nutjobs" who wanted Mancini to go. Whilst the premise of a D of F dictating formations is of course, pure fantasy, it furthers the comedy discourse that Mancini was sacked for being too good, too independent, too strong.

I got it wrong on Mancini? How exactly? Unless backing him to win things from early on in his tenure is getting it wrong then I plead guilty.

Anyway moving on from Dave's obsession with Mancini, fun though it is, it is self evident that Ferran and Txiki are here to build a footballing identity at City and that involves developing a style of play that we are identified with and part of Pellegrini's brief is to help establish that style and this doesn't involve constant tactical changes or radical departures from that style. It is also fairly self evident that the squad make up is governed predominantly by Txiki and the make up of the squad will also determine the style of play of the first team. Letting Barry go was down to Txiki because the decision was made prior to Pellers arriving. The talk pre season was that we would play with one striker yet we retained 4 meaning we play with two strikers which is precisely what Pellers is doing irrespective of the opposition so yes for me Pellers is operating within certain parameters and these parameters are dictated by the make up of the squad and the stated commitment from the club and Pellers himself that we would play 'attacking football'.

The alternative is that Pellers decided that the formation and set up against BM would work and sitting on his hands for 70 fucking minutes watching the carnage unfold was the way to go. In which case we are probably fucked.

What I am suggesting as an alternative to the 'Pellers is an idiot' narrative in that he is trying to balance the long term and short term objectives ie establishing a style of play against the need to win matches and trophies and is struggling to find the right balance.

 

[Chi-town blues]

I think those talking about 'once we sort our midfield' and too much work for dinho may be missing the point - this is how he sets his teams up

he's obviously unconcerned, trusts dinho to do the job and the defenders to do theirs - they'll be busier than they ever were under mancini but as a result the shackles are off going forward, apart from stoke in the league the chances and goals are flowing

as i said in post match thread and i know its simplistic but it seems mancini was all about the system and shape, whilst pellegrini seems to trust the players more, with the system nothing more than a loose framework geared for attack

hence you get more consistency under mancini as squad players come in with an immediate understanding of a role in the system - whereas under mp this isn't as clear and will lead to inconsistencies until all the players adapt

nasri is a perfect example of this, struggled with the rigidity of a system but flourishing under a more off the cuff style of play

well that's the best i can come up with for our inconsistencies lol! that and that every mistake seems to be getting punished

Top post...I agree<br /><br />-- Sun Oct 06, 2013 7:24 am --<br /><br />

But did he say that the manager of the first team should play one formation and not change it, which is what seemed to have been suggested by Bob?

Of course he fucking didn't. It's bob's way of covering his arse after getting things badly wrong on Mancini: the insinuation that all the key football decisions are now made above the manager's head. It venerates the fact the he spent six months sneering at the "loons" amd "nutjobs" who wanted Mancini to go. Whilst the premise of a D of F dictating formations is of course, pure fantasy, it furthers the comedy discourse that Mancini was sacked for being too good, too independent, too strong.

I got it wrong on Mancini? How exactly? Unless backing him to win things from early on in his tenure is getting it wrong then I plead guilty.

Anyway moving on from Dave's obsession with Mancini, fun though it is, it is self evident that Ferran and Txiki are here to build a footballing identity at City and that involves developing a style of play that we are identified with and part of Pellegrini's brief is to help establish that style and this doesn't involve constant tactical changes or radical departures from that style. It is also fairly self evident that the squad make up is governed predominantly by Txiki and the make up of the squad will also determine the style of play of the first team. Letting Barry go was down to Txiki because the decision was made prior to Pellers arriving. The talk pre season was that we would play with one striker yet we retained 4 meaning we play with two strikers which is precisely what Pellers is doing irrespective of the opposition so yes for me Pellers is operating within certain parameters and these parameters are dictated by the make up of the squad and the stated commitment from the club and Pellers himself that we would play 'attacking football'.

The alternative is that Pellers decided that the formation and set up against BM would work and sitting on his hands for 70 fucking minutes watching the carnage unfold was the way to go. In which case we are probably fucked.

What I am suggesting as an alternative to the 'Pellers is an idiot' narrative in that he is trying to balance the long term and short term objectives ie establishing a style of play against the need to win matches and trophies and is struggling to find the right balance.

Well said...there you have it for those seeking a balanced opinion .
Excellent post

 

[cookster]

Just watched Mourinho change formation and makes substitutions to win a match. How refreshing.

 

[taconinja]

Just watched Mourinho change formation and makes substitutions to win a match. How refreshing.

Three at the back too. Controversial.

 

[Didsbury Dave]

But did he say that the manager of the first team should play one formation and not change it, which is what seemed to have been suggested by Bob?

Of course he fucking didn't. It's bob's way of covering his arse after getting things badly wrong on Mancini: the insinuation that all the key football decisions are now made above the manager's head. It venerates the fact the he spent six months sneering at the "loons" amd "nutjobs" who wanted Mancini to go. Whilst the premise of a D of F dictating formations is of course, pure fantasy, it furthers the comedy discourse that Mancini was sacked for being too good, too independent, too strong.

I got it wrong on Mancini? How exactly? Unless backing him to win things from early on in his tenure is getting it wrong then I plead guilty.

Anyway moving on from Dave's obsession with Mancini, fun though it is, it is self evident that Ferran and Txiki are here to build a footballing identity at City and that involves developing a style of play that we are identified with and part of Pellegrini's brief is to help establish that style and this doesn't involve constant tactical changes or radical departures from that

I'm not talking about whatever you said early in Mancini's reign, mainly because I only started noticing you on the forum when your mainstay became posts laughing and sneering at the 'nut job' notion that Mancini might be sacked in the summer. You became a bit of a poster boy for the Mancini fan club, because whilst you have next-to-zero football knowledge, you are quite articulate. So the posters who we all know the names of who couldn't get much beyond 'Forza Mancini' saw you as their mouthpiece and believed you that we were all fruit-loop loonies for even entertaining the idea that Mancini wasn't the man. I think Billy once nailed it as 'playing to the cheap seats'. So you did get it wrong. Spectacularly and amusingly wrong, and those of us who laughed last laughed longest.

But to cover your backside you've now established this laughable idea that our big bad D of F is pulling all the football strings and we have relegated the manager to the role of running training. You might get a few blurts on here buying it, but, far from being 'self evident', it's just a further example of your lack of understanding of the game and the club.

I noticed you were asked for quotes to support your odd theory earlier, by someone else who is onto you. None were forthcoming. Mainly because the idea that you peddle is nonsense and of course no quotes exist.

The manager picks the team, the manager sets the formation and playing style and makes the substitutions. The fact that, wrongly, he made his tactical changes too late against Munich is on his head and his head alone. The idea of a manager being briefed not to make many tactical changes during a game is the work of a deluded mind I'm afraid.

 

[TGR]

Of course he fucking didn't. It's bob's way of covering his arse after getting things badly wrong on Mancini: the insinuation that all the key football decisions are now made above the manager's head. It venerates the fact the he spent six months sneering at the "loons" amd "nutjobs" who wanted Mancini to go. Whilst the premise of a D of F dictating formations is of course, pure fantasy, it furthers the comedy discourse that Mancini was sacked for being too good, too independent, too strong.

I got it wrong on Mancini? How exactly? Unless backing him to win things from early on in his tenure is getting it wrong then I plead guilty.

Anyway moving on from Dave's obsession with Mancini, fun though it is, it is self evident that Ferran and Txiki are here to build a footballing identity at City and that involves developing a style of play that we are identified with and part of Pellegrini's brief is to help establish that style and this doesn't involve constant tactical changes or radical departures from that

I'm not talking about whatever you said early in Mancini's reign, mainly because I only started noticing you on the forum when your mainstay became posts laughing and sneering at the 'nut job' notion that Mancini might be sacked in the summer. You became a bit of a poster boy for the Mancini fan club, because whilst you have next-to-zero football knowledge, you are quite articulate. So the posters who we all know the names of who couldn't get much beyond 'Forza Mancini' saw you as their mouthpiece and believed you that we were all fruit-loop loonies for even entertaining the idea that Mancini wasn't the man. I think Billy once nailed it as 'playing to the cheap seats'. So you did get it wrong. Spectacularly and amusingly wrong, and those of us who laughed last laughed longest.

But to cover your backside you've now established this laughable idea that our big bad D of F is pulling all the football strings and we have relegated the manager to the role of running training. You might get a few blurts on here buying it, but, far from being 'self evident', it's just a further example of your lack of understanding of the game and the club.

I noticed you were asked for quotes to support your odd theory earlier, by someone else who is onto you. None were forthcoming. Mainly because the idea that you peddle is nonsense and of course no quotes exist.

The manager picks the team, the manager sets the formation and playing style and makes the substitutions. The fact that, wrongly, he made his tactical changes too late against Munich is on his head and his head alone. The idea of a manager being briefed not too many tactical changes is the work of a deluded mind I'm afraid.

Disdbury Dave:
Bluemoon's answer to Stan Collymore.

 

[Skashion]

Disdbury Dave:
Bluemoon's answer to Stan Collymore.

How pertinent. I believe Stan also likes things beginning with D.

 

[The-Dogs-Pollocks]

Of course he fucking didn't. It's bob's way of covering his arse after getting things badly wrong on Mancini: the insinuation that all the key football decisions are now made above the manager's head. It venerates the fact the he spent six months sneering at the "loons" amd "nutjobs" who wanted Mancini to go. Whilst the premise of a D of F dictating formations is of course, pure fantasy, it furthers the comedy discourse that Mancini was sacked for being too good, too independent, too strong.

I got it wrong on Mancini? How exactly? Unless backing him to win things from early on in his tenure is getting it wrong then I plead guilty.

Anyway moving on from Dave's obsession with Mancini, fun though it is, it is self evident that Ferran and Txiki are here to build a footballing identity at City and that involves developing a style of play that we are identified with and part of Pellegrini's brief is to help establish that style and this doesn't involve constant tactical changes or radical departures from that

I'm not talking about whatever you said early in Mancini's reign, mainly because I only started noticing you on the forum when your mainstay became posts laughing and sneering at the 'nut job' notion that Mancini might be sacked in the summer. You became a bit of a poster boy for the Mancini fan club, because whilst you have next-to-zero football knowledge, you are quite articulate. So the posters who we all know the names of who couldn't get much beyond 'Forza Mancini' saw you as their mouthpiece and believed you that we were all fruit-loop loonies for even entertaining the idea that Mancini wasn't the man. I think Billy once nailed it as 'playing to the cheap seats'. So you did get it wrong. Spectacularly and amusingly wrong, and those of us who laughed last laughed longest.

But to cover your backside you've now established this laughable idea that our big bad D of F is pulling all the football strings and we have relegated the manager to the role of running training. You might get a few blurts on here buying it, but, far from being 'self evident', it's just a further example of your lack of understanding of the game and the club.

I noticed you were asked for quotes to support your odd theory earlier, by someone else who is onto you. None were forthcoming. Mainly because the idea that you peddle is nonsense and of course no quotes exist.

The manager picks the team, the manager sets the formation and playing style and makes the substitutions. The fact that, wrongly, he made his tactical changes too late against Munich is on his head and his head alone. The idea of a manager being briefed not to make many tactical changes during a game is the work of a deluded mind I'm afraid.

Why turn every thread you are involved in into a Mancini vs Pellegrini war?

Obviously everyone is free to type what they want and no doubt you will just say don't read it if you if you don't like it.

Just seems that any half decent thread gets hijacked by all this Mancini inner vs outers nonsense which is just getting tedious.

 

[Ducado]

When all is said and done we are only 3 points off the top spot, yes it could have been better we have dropped points we should not have, still not bad all things considered

 

[Skashion]

When all is said and done we are only 3 points off the top spot, yes it could have been better we have dropped points we should not have, still not bad all things considered

True enough. The start to the season has actually given me more confidence we can win the title. Nobody else is setting the league alight, although Chelsea - who I thought would win it at the start of the season, might be starting to come good now unfortunately, but we've played the best football in the league so far. If we pick up some away form via the virtue of not conceding so much, we should win it.