Discuss Pellegrini...

[levets]

Re: Discuss Pellegirini...

Edited for you Billy :-)... Actually I find myself agreeing with you. Dave knows me from way back and knows my views on the previous manager, as you do!

I was not enamoured with the appointment of Pelle at first, but I'm a fair minded person and am prepared to be convinced otherwise... always!

Mancini was great for the club at the time, brought success that we'd only ever dreamt of; but having watched City for almost 45yrs live, I can say that the football at times under Pelle is on a different planet. Yes, Pelle is a bumbling fool at times... The goals farce in Munich, The happiness at 'managing a club such as united'... But he has convinced me and I'm 100% behind him.

I used to say that Mourinho replacing Mancini was the only reason getting rid would be acceptable... Now if asked that question about Pelle... I'd say 'no fucking way Jose'

But, lets all be respectful of the achievements of the previous manager, many tried and got nowhere near him in the previous 35yrs...

But let's all be thankful for our current manager... and thankful it isn't Maureen!

Fuerza Pellegrini

now everyone can read it

haha... cheers for that....

Billy... the edit was the addition of the CS...

 

[Didsbury Dave]

Re: Discuss Pellegirini...

Where's the fantastic post you referred to, levets?





All I can see is a bog-standard "they are both great" cop out ;-)

 

[levets]

Re: Discuss Pellegirini...

Where's the fantastic post you referred to, levets?





All I can see is a bog-standard Mancini cop out ;-)

I thought you'd have appreciated it you cabalist wrong un....

 

[Didsbury Dave]

Re: Discuss Pellegirini...

Where's the fantastic post you referred to, levets?





All I can see is a bog-standard Mancini cop out ;-)

I thought you'd have appreciated it you cabalist wrong un....

Only joking mate. Fantastic post and from the heart.

I can vouch for you being an old **** too ;-)

 

[CityFan94]

Re: Discuss Pellegirini...

Nominated for March's Manager of the Month alongside Rodgers, Martinez and Hughes.

I would expect Roberto Martinez to get it though - Everton won 5 games in a row.

 

[penalty spot]

Re: Discuss Pellegirini...

Could somebody edit this thread so we at least spell our managers name correctly,

 

[Bill]

Re: Discuss Pellegirini...

Where's the fantastic post you referred to, levets?





All I can see is a bog-standard Mancini cop out ;-)

I thought you'd have appreciated it you cabalist wrong un....

Only joking mate. Fantastic post and from the heart.

I can vouch for you being an old **** too ;-)

you are but a youngster.

 

[Matty]

Re: Discuss Pellegirini...

Where's the fantastic post you referred to, levets?





All I can see is a bog-standard "they are both great" cop out ;-)

One man's cop out is another mans accurate assessment!

Mancini and Pellegrini clearly have very different managerial styles, and also very different tactical approaches to the game. Both have proven to be successful in their own way.

When we replaced Mark Hughes (a man woefully out of his depth) with Roberto Mancini it was a shrewd appointment by the club. He came with a CV brimming with success (albeit only on a domestic level) and a steely determination to lift Manchester City to heights they hadn't reached for decades. He brought the success we all yearned for, and we actually played some quite entertaining football under him at times. The Mancini managerial style, which was part of his initial success, was also part of his eventual downfall. In the short term Mancini's methodology, and his man management and personal skills are just what is required to bring success to a struggling side, his belief that he was always right, and that you did things his way, or you weren't involved at all, galvanised the group, if not by respect, then by fear and by solidarity.

Unfortunately Mancini's style, which is one where the stick is used with regularity but the carrot very rarely sees the light of day, has a shelf life. Eventually the intense pressure and the relentless nature of it all comes to a head, people stop being motivated by the man and start to resent him. Players, directors and club staff alike, one by one, started to see whatever relationship they had with Mancini sour. Whilst on field success was being delivered people could look past the issues that having a man like Mancini in charge brought with it, however once the on field side of things started to suffer (albeit not to a huge degree, as in his final season we still finished 2nd in the league, and reached a domestic cup final) there was a lack of goodwill present to save the man.

Mancini brought success to this club, and he brought moments we will remember for as long as we live, and we'll all always be grateful to him for those. He was never going to be the long term solution to the Manchester City managerial role though, his personality and single mindedness made it difficult for Manchester City to develop in the way the owner, Begiristain and Soriano envisage. He was never going to be the kind of man who would fit neatly into the system and hierarchy we are trying to introduce, he was inflexible as he felt he was always in the right, he had no interest in things that didn't actively enhance the current teams chances of winning. His footballing style wasn't the most entertaining, he wanted to win and wasn't overly concerned with exactly how that winning was achieved. Simply put he was the perfect man to lift City from a promising side with aspirations of greatness to a successful side with trophies behind them, but he was far from the perfect man to continue Manchester City along that path, certainly when you consider the trajectory and model we are trying to establish.

Manuel Pellegrini fits far better into the model City are trying to develop and follow. His natural tactical nature is one where attractive football is the key, he clearly has better man management skills and inter personal skills than Mancini possessed, and he's more willing to "fit" into the structure ans hierarchy that we are introducing. He also brings with him the same innate managerial ability to be successful that Mancini possessed. Pellegrini shouldn't be seen as a compromise, or as a step down from Mancini. Yes, when you look at the trophy haul, it's clear to see that Mancini has been more successful, but Pellegrini has rarely been provided with one of the elite squads in any domestic league. In Spain he was always (aside from one season in Madrid) some distance behind the likes of Barcelona and Real, and potentially Valencia and Atletico at times. Pellegrini is one of Europe's top managers, in the same way that Roberto Mancini is.

I don't believe Pellegrini is the long term answer, I'd be very surprised if he was our manager in 5 years time, and I'd be astounded if he was still here in 10 years. What he is, however, is perfect for the here and now. If I were to guess at where our footballing directors, and our owner, would like Manchester City to be, in terms of managerial appointments in the future then I's say they would very much like to create a conveyor belt of managers within the club. When your manager leaves, or is fired, then someone from within our (hopefully) hugely successful academy structure could step forward. Someone like Vieira, or an as yet unknown name. It's the way Barcelona tried to do it, with the inexperienced Guardiola coming from inside the club, and the unfortunate Tito Vilanova. It may not always work, and we may need to bring in external support, but the aim I believe will be to try and develop our own staff.

 

[levets]

Re: Discuss Pellegirini...

Where's the fantastic post you referred to, levets?





All I can see is a bog-standard "they are both great" cop out ;-)

One man's cop out is another mans accurate assessment!

Mancini and Pellegrini clearly have very different managerial styles, and also very different tactical approaches to the game. Both have proven to be successful in their own way.

When we replaced Mark Hughes (a man woefully out of his depth) with Roberto Mancini it was a shrewd appointment by the club. He came with a CV brimming with success (albeit only on a domestic level) and a steely determination to lift Manchester City to heights they hadn't reached for decades. He brought the success we all yearned for, and we actually played some quite entertaining football under him at times. The Mancini managerial style, which was part of his initial success, was also part of his eventual downfall. In the short term Mancini's methodology, and his man management and personal skills are just what is required to bring success to a struggling side, his belief that he was always right, and that you did things his way, or you weren't involved at all, galvanised the group, if not by respect, then by fear and by solidarity.

Unfortunately Mancini's style, which is one where the stick is used with regularity but the carrot very rarely sees the light of day, has a shelf life. Eventually the intense pressure and the relentless nature of it all comes to a head, people stop being motivated by the man and start to resent him. Players, directors and club staff alike, one by one, started to see whatever relationship they had with Mancini sour. Whilst on field success was being delivered people could look past the issues that having a man like Mancini in charge brought with it, however once the on field side of things started to suffer (albeit not to a huge degree, as in his final season we still finished 2nd in the league, and reached a domestic cup final) there was a lack of goodwill present to save the man.

Mancini brought success to this club, and he brought moments we will remember for as long as we live, and we'll all always be grateful to him for those. He was never going to be the long term solution to the Manchester City managerial role though, his personality and single mindedness made it difficult for Manchester City to develop in the way the owner, Begiristain and Soriano envisage. He was never going to be the kind of man who would fit neatly into the system and hierarchy we are trying to introduce, he was inflexible as he felt he was always in the right, he had no interest in things that didn't actively enhance the current teams chances of winning. His footballing style wasn't the most entertaining, he wanted to win and wasn't overly concerned with exactly how that winning was achieved. Simply put he was the perfect man to lift City from a promising side with aspirations of greatness to a successful side with trophies behind them, but he was far from the perfect man to continue Manchester City along that path, certainly when you consider the trajectory and model we are trying to establish.

Manuel Pellegrini fits far better into the model City are trying to develop and follow. His natural tactical nature is one where attractive football is the key, he clearly has better man management skills and inter personal skills than Mancini possessed, and he's more willing to "fit" into the structure ans hierarchy that we are introducing. He also brings with him the same innate managerial ability to be successful that Mancini possessed. Pellegrini shouldn't be seen as a compromise, or as a step down from Mancini. Yes, when you look at the trophy haul, it's clear to see that Mancini has been more successful, but Pellegrini has rarely been provided with one of the elite squads in any domestic league. In Spain he was always (aside from one season in Madrid) some distance behind the likes of Barcelona and Real, and potentially Valencia and Atletico at times. Pellegrini is one of Europe's top managers, in the same way that Roberto Mancini is.

I don't believe Pellegrini is the long term answer, I'd be very surprised if he was our manager in 5 years time, and I'd be astounded if he was still here in 10 years. What he is, however, is perfect for the here and now. If I were to guess at where our footballing directors, and our owner, would like Manchester City to be, in terms of managerial appointments in the future then I's say they would very much like to create a conveyor belt of managers within the club. When your manager leaves, or is fired, then someone from within our (hopefully) hugely successful academy structure could step forward. Someone like Vieira, or an as yet unknown name. It's the way Barcelona tried to do it, with the inexperienced Guardiola coming from inside the club, and the unfortunate Tito Vilanova. It may not always work, and we may need to bring in external support, but the aim I believe will be to try and develop our own staff.

Now... that is most definitely a 'fantastic post'....<br /><br />-- Thu Apr 10, 2014 2:19 pm --<br /><br />

Could somebody edit this thread so we at least spell our managers name correctly,

Good spot... 'MOD'S..?

 

[blueparrot]

Re: Discuss Pellegirini...

Where's the fantastic post you referred to, levets?





All I can see is a bog-standard "they are both great" cop out ;-)

One man's cop out is another mans accurate assessment!

Mancini and Pellegrini clearly have very different managerial styles, and also very different tactical approaches to the game. Both have proven to be successful in their own way.

When we replaced Mark Hughes (a man woefully out of his depth) with Roberto Mancini it was a shrewd appointment by the club. He came with a CV brimming with success (albeit only on a domestic level) and a steely determination to lift Manchester City to heights they hadn't reached for decades. He brought the success we all yearned for, and we actually played some quite entertaining football under him at times. The Mancini managerial style, which was part of his initial success, was also part of his eventual downfall. In the short term Mancini's methodology, and his man management and personal skills are just what is required to bring success to a struggling side, his belief that he was always right, and that you did things his way, or you weren't involved at all, galvanised the group, if not by respect, then by fear and by solidarity.

Unfortunately Mancini's style, which is one where the stick is used with regularity but the carrot very rarely sees the light of day, has a shelf life. Eventually the intense pressure and the relentless nature of it all comes to a head, people stop being motivated by the man and start to resent him. Players, directors and club staff alike, one by one, started to see whatever relationship they had with Mancini sour. Whilst on field success was being delivered people could look past the issues that having a man like Mancini in charge brought with it, however once the on field side of things started to suffer (albeit not to a huge degree, as in his final season we still finished 2nd in the league, and reached a domestic cup final) there was a lack of goodwill present to save the man.

Mancini brought success to this club, and he brought moments we will remember for as long as we live, and we'll all always be grateful to him for those. He was never going to be the long term solution to the Manchester City managerial role though, his personality and single mindedness made it difficult for Manchester City to develop in the way the owner, Begiristain and Soriano envisage. He was never going to be the kind of man who would fit neatly into the system and hierarchy we are trying to introduce, he was inflexible as he felt he was always in the right, he had no interest in things that didn't actively enhance the current teams chances of winning. His footballing style wasn't the most entertaining, he wanted to win and wasn't overly concerned with exactly how that winning was achieved. Simply put he was the perfect man to lift City from a promising side with aspirations of greatness to a successful side with trophies behind them, but he was far from the perfect man to continue Manchester City along that path, certainly when you consider the trajectory and model we are trying to establish.

Manuel Pellegrini fits far better into the model City are trying to develop and follow. His natural tactical nature is one where attractive football is the key, he clearly has better man management skills and inter personal skills than Mancini possessed, and he's more willing to "fit" into the structure ans hierarchy that we are introducing. He also brings with him the same innate managerial ability to be successful that Mancini possessed. Pellegrini shouldn't be seen as a compromise, or as a step down from Mancini. Yes, when you look at the trophy haul, it's clear to see that Mancini has been more successful, but Pellegrini has rarely been provided with one of the elite squads in any domestic league. In Spain he was always (aside from one season in Madrid) some distance behind the likes of Barcelona and Real, and potentially Valencia and Atletico at times. Pellegrini is one of Europe's top managers, in the same way that Roberto Mancini is.

I don't believe Pellegrini is the long term answer, I'd be very surprised if he was our manager in 5 years time, and I'd be astounded if he was still here in 10 years. What he is, however, is perfect for the here and now. If I were to guess at where our footballing directors, and our owner, would like Manchester City to be, in terms of managerial appointments in the future then I's say they would very much like to create a conveyor belt of managers within the club. When your manager leaves, or is fired, then someone from within our (hopefully) hugely successful academy structure could step forward. Someone like Vieira, or an as yet unknown name. It's the way Barcelona tried to do it, with the inexperienced Guardiola coming from inside the club, and the unfortunate Tito Vilanova. It may not always work, and we may need to bring in external support, but the aim I believe will be to try and develop our own staff.

Just about a perfect assesment for me. The added advantage we have to the conveyor belt system is the extra step that NYCFC gives us. It's probably no coincidence that Barcelonas decline seems to have started whith Vilanovas ilness which forced them to look outside the club.