Discuss Pellegrini...

[kaz7]

If we win on sunday i will take back everything i have ever said about him

 

[80s Shorts]

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.

Seriously ? Saved me reading the rest of it I suppose.

 

[taconinja]

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.

Seriously ? Saved me reading the rest of it I suppose.

Why?

 

[Bill]

If we win on sunday i will take back everything i have ever said about him

I wont. more to do than win at klanfield, it'll help mind. if he puts our very possible 11 out we will win, now he has seen to it we are out of everything else he should do.

 

[kaz7]

If we win on sunday i will take back everything i have ever said about him

I wont. more to do than win at klanfield, it'll help mind. if he puts our very possible 11 out we will win, now he has seen to it we are out of everything else he should do.

We don't play till sunday so i can f and blind about not being in the FA cup when i watch wigan and the arses on saturday :)

 

[Bill]

If we win on sunday i will take back everything i have ever said about him

I wont. more to do than win at klanfield, it'll help mind. if he puts our very possible 11 out we will win, now he has seen to it we are out of everything else he should do.

We don't play till sunday so i can f and blind about not being in the FA cup when i watch wigan and the arses on saturday :)

I want an arse win, need wigan to focus on promotion. mind you if that then helps the rags fuck em :)

 

[GaudinoMotors]

Some of our play has been sublime this year - a definite improvement in terms of entertainment and expression. However Anfield is an incredible test of Pelle and his tactical and motivational skills. This is a game we usually lose - a crunch hostile away game against similar quality opposition when it really matters, not a nice cup distraction game but a game that could decide the title. Win this and it really would be impressive. Unfortunately I just can't see anything but a Liverpool win and an ensuing media and Scouse jiz fest of epic proportions.

 

[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.

Seriously ? Saved me reading the rest of it I suppose.

Yeah, I personally found the 5-1 win over Spurs, and the 6-1 win over United tedious as fuck, our football was just so dull, I wasn't entertained by the way we played at all......

Moron.

 

[Eccles Blue]

In Mr Pellegrini I trust. We will win on Sunday. The Boys in Blue never give in, they fight to the end.

This is our time. Cheer, sing, shout, scream. Stand if you can, sit if you can't, but give them 1,000% IMHO *big grin* GO FOR IT, PLAYERS & FANS alike.

 

[Bill]

Some of our play has been sublime this year - a definite improvement in terms of entertainment and expression. However Anfield is an incredible test of Pelle and his tactical and motivational skills. This is a game we usually lose - a crunch hostile away game against similar quality opposition when it really matters, not a nice cup distraction game but a game that could decide the title. Win this and it really would be impressive. Unfortunately I just can't see anything but a Liverpool win and an ensuing media and Scouse jiz fest of epic proportions.

I can only we a city win, OK they may snatch a draw ( pen) but we are a much better side then them.