Skashion said:
FantasyIreland said:
Whats hard to understand about Pellegrini needing money to fill the various cracks from Mancini's reign while applying his own stamp on the squad?
The players brought in so far have simply replaced ones that have left,the requirement for further recruits is still there otherwise we go into a demanding season with an understrength and limited squad.
Myself and others had become disillusioned with Mancinis efforts in the market,without doubt he brought in some great players but he also wasted a lot of cash while still not fully building a capable balanced squad.
Lets also not forget he was given a further 50m last summer,no small sum and yet some of you like to pretend he was being hard done by.........
So,other than spending further money,do you know of another method Pellegrini can apply?
What's hard to understand? Quite simply this: Mancini won the title with 89 points and 93 goals with the same squad minus Balotelli and De Jong. Quite a few Outers said that was an underachievement i.e. there was still more to get out of those players. As you were one of Mancini's most vociferous critics you'd most likely be one of them and it probably wouldn't take me long to find posts to that effect. So, theoretically, the squad we had was capable of achieving let's say 95 points shall we and 100 goals? Yes, Balotelli and De Jong have gone now but they've been more than replaced. Garcia, Negredo, Jovetic, Fernandinho and Navas add up to a sum greater than Balotelli and De Jong, quite easily so actually. This is a squad stronger than the one that SHOULD have, according to Mancini's critics, won the title with 95 points. There's no doubt in my mind that this is a better squad than the one that won the title. So this squad should be capable of more than 100 points when a manager is put in charge who can get the best out of his players.
This is the flip side of thinking Mancini was shit. His successor has to do more with the same squad. Right now I'm hearing we shouldn't expect more WITH MORE. Right, well shut the fuck up about Mancini then you numbskulls because there's clearly some panic that Pellegrini might not be able to better Mancini's record, with what is already a better squad.
1. I don't recall people saying that Mancini underachieved in winning the title, rather that we underachieved the season after. The reason for that was that an increasing number of teams cottoned on to our preferred MO and started setting themselves up to thwart us, and we were repeatedly found to have no answers (even to the point of playing the same opponents 3 weeks apart, failing to heed the warnings of the first of those encounters and losing an FA Cup final as a consequence).
2. Despite having the strongest squad in the league, we finished that season 10 points behind the rags. There was little indication that the manager was on an upward learning curve (and particularly in Europe), and from a man management point of view, he was increasingly becoming a deleterious influence on the morale in the squad. The Board (ie the people best placed) saw it the same way.
3. The current squad is better than the title winning one? Is it though? Is Negredo an upgrade on Balotelli? No. Is Fernandinho an upgrade on the Gareth Barry of 2011/2012? No. Is Jovetic an upgrade on Tevez? No. The only clear area of improvement is surely Navas for Adam Johnson, although even AJ made several significant contributions to that title winning side.
4. When illogically reasoning that the current squad should be capable of reaching 100 points, you are failing to take into account the significant improvements in a number of other squads, most notably Chelsea, Spurs and Liverpool, but also sides like Swansea and Southampton have been able to invest significant sums of money and will be far harder to beat than they were 2 years ago. Football doesn't stand still to allow arbitrary comparisons to take place.
5. Pellegrini is a mere 2 games into his reign, and those who rubbished both the notion of Mancini being fired and those advocating that notion, clearly can't get over the fact that Khaldoon & Co (and again, the people best placed to decide) didn't share their views. What was it they accused the 'outers' of at the time? Wanting Mancini to fail so they could be proven right? I see little difference in some of the digs taking place now the roles have been reversed.
6. Bar one or two individuals, no-one said Mancini was shit. I certainly didn't. I thought he was a good manager, but crucially one with limitations which were becoming ever more readily apparent. If Pellegrini fails to deliver this season, and on the very early evidence to date I'd say he well might, particularly if he continues to persist with a high defensive line when his centre halves aren't remotely quick enough to make it work, then so be it. It does not make the decision to appoint him wrong, as based on last season's intransigence, there is little evidence to suggest Mancini wouldn't have fallen short too.
7. Pellegrini is the City manager. Get over it, and get behind him
