Kippaxstreetheadache said:peoffrey said:supercity88 said:A league and FA Cup winning manager who ended our trophy drought and took us into the Champions League for the first time but you want to call him a ****. Idiot.
He blatantly was. A despicably arrogant bad loser with abysmal man management skills. Sheikh Mansour's money won us those pots. Numerous managers could've achieved it and some with more diplomacy would still be in charge now.
What's the point of taking us in to the Champions League when we can't get past the group stages?
Nonsense.
Aren't you the notorious Hughes fanboy?
He couldn't do it could he? In spite of all the money he threw at it.
The denigration of Mancini's character and his achievements at City following his sacking, by some blues, really turns my stomach.
Seems to be fashionable now too, which is even worse.
Mancini was a hard task master, but his impact at City was immediate. He knocked heads together, when he was appointed he transformed us from a shambolic team of individuals who couldn't defend a two goal lead into a solid and cohesive unit almost overnight.
He was an autocrat, but at that period of our development it was effective. He accepted nothing but ultimate commitment to the cause, anyone who undermined him or didn't pull his weight was sent packing. We had countless players on the books who weren't fit for purpose, were here for all the wrong reasons (money) and didn't have the right attitude to be a success at City. Mancini either whipped them into shape or included them in a massive cull of deadwood.
Too many of the playing staff didn't have the attitude of winners, too many accepted defeat and didn't have the required mental fortitude to cut it at the level we aspired to.
Mancini recognised those players and disposed of them like household waste. A good thing as far as I'm concerned, we didn't have the time for sentiment back then.
The players whom Mancini recognised to be made right stuff were drilled and drilled until they knew and fully understood their role in his set-up, no stone was left unturned.
Numerous players were transformed from wildly inconsistent and under performing, to key stalwarts of the side that represents us in the Champions League today.
Kompany was on the bench when Mancini arrived. Usually deployed in defensive midfield, he was being kept out of central defence by the then manager's two big money signings, Lescott and Kolo Toure. Both players couldn't buy a clean sheet and then defence was a shambles. Mancini immediately introduced Kompany into the side, and transformed him into a player who is now considered one of the greatest players in his position, in the whole of Europe.
Richards was erratic and didn't understand the core responsibilities of his position. Mancini transformed him into a reliable fullback while maintaining his attacking threat.
Zabaleta was a hardworking but apparently average player who rarely played, and when he did he was rash in the tackle and average both defensively and going forward. Today Zabaleta is regarded as the league's best right back and was the club's player of the year last season.
Barry was wholly unreliable, uncomfortable in possession, slow in thought and had many people openly doubting his worth to the side. Became the first name on the team sheet under Mancini, established himself as our most reliable performer, shielding the defence and keeping the ball moving quickly in midfield. Proved himself instrumental in our title winning season.
Joe Hart was on loan at Birmingham, and was questioning his future at City. Mancini brought him back from loan, introduced him back into the side dropping Given, to the tune of a man of the match performance at WHL. Quickly established himself as among the best in the league and became England's number one. Has since won 3 golden gloves.
Improved both Lescott and Kolo Toure, the former became a key player in our title winning season.
I'm sure there are more, but you catch the drift.
We went through an enormous transition under Mancini. When he took over we were a mid-table side with ambitions of a top four place. When he left 3 and a half years later we were an established member of the 'elite' and had an FA Cup and league title to our name.
He never did the arm round the shoulder, but his 'win at all costs' mentality and attention to detail earned us a Premier League title. It also saw us play some of the best football the division has seen since Arsene Wenger's invincibles.
It saw us take Chelsea's fortress record in a 2-4 win at Stamford Bridge. It saw us win the FA Cup. It saw us humiliate United 1-6 at Old Trafford. It saw us win the Premier League.
I think there is an argument that Mancini began to grate for many at the club, his autocratic ways and harsh manner souring the mood as results suffered.
Maybe we needed the fresh start, a fresh pair of hands? A more diplomatic manager who is liked by his players, and able to soothe the supposed unrest that developed.
But like Mancini and Hughes before him, he will be measured by results. I just fear that many of our players needed an autocrat, there shall be no such excuses from them in May should we fail to improve on last season.
But I digress. The disparaging terms many on here talk of Mancini is absurd, and I think you should reflect more closely on your critique of him as a manager.
Kippaxstreetheadache said:peoffrey said:supercity88 said:A league and FA Cup winning manager who ended our trophy drought and took us into the Champions League for the first time but you want to call him a ****. Idiot.
He blatantly was. A despicably arrogant bad loser with abysmal man management skills. Sheikh Mansour's money won us those pots. Numerous managers could've achieved it and some with more diplomacy would still be in charge now.
What's the point of taking us in to the Champions League when we can't get past the group stages?
Nonsense.
Aren't you the notorious Hughes fanboy?
He couldn't do it could he? In spite of all the money he threw at it.
The denigration of Mancini's character and his achievements at City following his sacking, by some blues, really turns my stomach.
Seems to be fashionable now too, which is even worse.
Mancini was a hard task master, but his impact at City was immediate. He knocked heads together, when he was appointed he transformed us from a shambolic team of individuals who couldn't defend a two goal lead into a solid and cohesive unit almost overnight.
He was an autocrat, but at that period of our development it was effective. He accepted nothing but ultimate commitment to the cause, anyone who undermined him or didn't pull his weight was sent packing. We had countless players on the books who weren't fit for purpose, were here for all the wrong reasons (money) and didn't have the right attitude to be a success at City. Mancini either whipped them into shape or included them in a massive cull of deadwood.
Too many of the playing staff didn't have the attitude of winners, too many accepted defeat and didn't have the required mental fortitude to cut it at the level we aspired to.
Mancini recognised those players and disposed of them like household waste. A good thing as far as I'm concerned, we didn't have the time for sentiment back then.
The players whom Mancini recognised to be made right stuff were drilled and drilled until they knew and fully understood their role in his set-up, no stone was left unturned.
Numerous players were transformed from wildly inconsistent and under performing, to key stalwarts of the side that represents us in the Champions League today.
Kompany was on the bench when Mancini arrived. Usually deployed in defensive midfield, he was being kept out of central defence by the then manager's two big money signings, Lescott and Kolo Toure. Both players couldn't buy a clean sheet and then defence was a shambles. Mancini immediately introduced Kompany into the side, and transformed him into a player who is now considered one of the greatest players in his position, in the whole of Europe.
Richards was erratic and didn't understand the core responsibilities of his position. Mancini transformed him into a reliable fullback while maintaining his attacking threat.
Zabaleta was a hardworking but apparently average player who rarely played, and when he did he was rash in the tackle and average both defensively and going forward. Today Zabaleta is regarded as the league's best right back and was the club's player of the year last season.
Barry was wholly unreliable, uncomfortable in possession, slow in thought and had many people openly doubting his worth to the side. Became the first name on the team sheet under Mancini, established himself as our most reliable performer, shielding the defence and keeping the ball moving quickly in midfield. Proved himself instrumental in our title winning season.
Joe Hart was on loan at Birmingham, and was questioning his future at City. Mancini brought him back from loan, introduced him back into the side dropping Given, to the tune of a man of the match performance at WHL. Quickly established himself as among the best in the league and became England's number one. Has since won 3 golden gloves.
Improved both Lescott and Kolo Toure, the former became a key player in our title winning season.
I'm sure there are more, but you catch the drift.
We went through an enormous transition under Mancini. When he took over we were a mid-table side with ambitions of a top four place. When he left 3 and a half years later we were an established member of the 'elite' and had an FA Cup and league title to our name.
He never did the arm round the shoulder, but his 'win at all costs' mentality and attention to detail earned us a Premier League title. It also saw us play some of the best football the division has seen since Arsene Wenger's invincibles.
It saw us take Chelsea's fortress record in a 2-4 win at Stamford Bridge. It saw us win the FA Cup. It saw us humiliate United 1-6 at Old Trafford. It saw us win the Premier League.
I think there is an argument that Mancini began to grate for many at the club, his autocratic ways and harsh manner souring the mood as results suffered.
Maybe we needed the fresh start, a fresh pair of hands? A more diplomatic manager who is liked by his players, and able to soothe the supposed unrest that developed.
But like Mancini and Hughes before him, he will be measured by results. I just fear that many of our players needed an autocrat, there shall be no such excuses from them in May should we fail to improve on last season.
But I digress. The disparaging terms many on here talk of Mancini is absurd, and I think you should reflect more closely on your critique of him as a manager.
Kippaxstreetheadache said:peoffrey said:supercity88 said:A league and FA Cup winning manager who ended our trophy drought and took us into the Champions League for the first time but you want to call him a ****. Idiot.
He blatantly was. A despicably arrogant bad loser with abysmal man management skills. Sheikh Mansour's money won us those pots. Numerous managers could've achieved it and some with more diplomacy would still be in charge now.
What's the point of taking us in to the Champions League when we can't get past the group stages?
Nonsense.
Aren't you the notorious Hughes fanboy?
He couldn't do it could he? In spite of all the money he threw at it.
The denigration of Mancini's character and his achievements at City following his sacking, by some blues, really turns my stomach.
Seems to be fashionable now too, which is even worse.
Mancini was a hard task master, but his impact at City was immediate. He knocked heads together, when he was appointed he transformed us from a shambolic team of individuals who couldn't defend a two goal lead into a solid and cohesive unit almost overnight.
He was an autocrat, but at that period of our development it was effective. He accepted nothing but ultimate commitment to the cause, anyone who undermined him or didn't pull his weight was sent packing. We had countless players on the books who weren't fit for purpose, were here for all the wrong reasons (money) and didn't have the right attitude to be a success at City. Mancini either whipped them into shape or included them in a massive cull of deadwood.
Too many of the playing staff didn't have the attitude of winners, too many accepted defeat and didn't have the required mental fortitude to cut it at the level we aspired to.
Mancini recognised those players and disposed of them like household waste. A good thing as far as I'm concerned, we didn't have the time for sentiment back then.
The players whom Mancini recognised to be made right stuff were drilled and drilled until they knew and fully understood their role in his set-up, no stone was left unturned.
Numerous players were transformed from wildly inconsistent and under performing, to key stalwarts of the side that represents us in the Champions League today.
Kompany was on the bench when Mancini arrived. Usually deployed in defensive midfield, he was being kept out of central defence by the then manager's two big money signings, Lescott and Kolo Toure. Both players couldn't buy a clean sheet and then defence was a shambles. Mancini immediately introduced Kompany into the side, and transformed him into a player who is now considered one of the greatest players in his position, in the whole of Europe.
Richards was erratic and didn't understand the core responsibilities of his position. Mancini transformed him into a reliable fullback while maintaining his attacking threat.
Zabaleta was a hardworking but apparently average player who rarely played, and when he did he was rash in the tackle and average both defensively and going forward. Today Zabaleta is regarded as the league's best right back and was the club's player of the year last season.
Barry was wholly unreliable, uncomfortable in possession, slow in thought and had many people openly doubting his worth to the side. Became the first name on the team sheet under Mancini, established himself as our most reliable performer, shielding the defence and keeping the ball moving quickly in midfield. Proved himself instrumental in our title winning season.
Joe Hart was on loan at Birmingham, and was questioning his future at City. Mancini brought him back from loan, introduced him back into the side dropping Given, to the tune of a man of the match performance at WHL. Quickly established himself as among the best in the league and became England's number one. Has since won 3 golden gloves.
Improved both Lescott and Kolo Toure, the former became a key player in our title winning season.
I'm sure there are more, but you catch the drift.
We went through an enormous transition under Mancini. When he took over we were a mid-table side with ambitions of a top four place. When he left 3 and a half years later we were an established member of the 'elite' and had an FA Cup and league title to our name.
He never did the arm round the shoulder, but his 'win at all costs' mentality and attention to detail earned us a Premier League title. It also saw us play some of the best football the division has seen since Arsene Wenger's invincibles.
It saw us take Chelsea's fortress record in a 2-4 win at Stamford Bridge. It saw us win the FA Cup. It saw us humiliate United 1-6 at Old Trafford. It saw us win the Premier League.
I think there is an argument that Mancini began to grate for many at the club, his autocratic ways and harsh manner souring the mood as results suffered.
Maybe we needed the fresh start, a fresh pair of hands? A more diplomatic manager who is liked by his players, and able to soothe the supposed unrest that developed.
But like Mancini and Hughes before him, he will be measured by results. I just fear that many of our players needed an autocrat, there shall be no such excuses from them in May should we fail to improve on last season.
But I digress. The disparaging terms many on here talk of Mancini is absurd, and I think you should reflect more closely on your critique of him as a manager.
BillyShears said:Kippaxstreetheadache said:peoffrey said:He blatantly was. A despicably arrogant bad loser with abysmal man management skills. Sheikh Mansour's money won us those pots. Numerous managers could've achieved it and some with more diplomacy would still be in charge now.
What's the point of taking us in to the Champions League when we can't get past the group stages?
Nonsense.
Aren't you the notorious Hughes fanboy?
He couldn't do it could he? In spite of all the money he threw at it.
The denigration of Mancini's character and his achievements at City following his sacking, by some blues, really turns my stomach.
Seems to be fashionable now too, which is even worse.
Mancini was a hard task master, but his impact at City was immediate. He knocked heads together, when he was appointed he transformed us from a shambolic team of individuals who couldn't defend a two goal lead into a solid and cohesive unit almost overnight.
He was an autocrat, but at that period of our development it was effective. He accepted nothing but ultimate commitment to the cause, anyone who undermined him or didn't pull his weight was sent packing. We had countless players on the books who weren't fit for purpose, were here for all the wrong reasons (money) and didn't have the right attitude to be a success at City. Mancini either whipped them into shape or included them in a massive cull of deadwood.
Too many of the playing staff didn't have the attitude of winners, too many accepted defeat and didn't have the required mental fortitude to cut it at the level we aspired to.
Mancini recognised those players and disposed of them like household waste. A good thing as far as I'm concerned, we didn't have the time for sentiment back then.
The players whom Mancini recognised to be made right stuff were drilled and drilled until they knew and fully understood their role in his set-up, no stone was left unturned.
Numerous players were transformed from wildly inconsistent and under performing, to key stalwarts of the side that represents us in the Champions League today.
Kompany was on the bench when Mancini arrived. Usually deployed in defensive midfield, he was being kept out of central defence by the then manager's two big money signings, Lescott and Kolo Toure. Both players couldn't buy a clean sheet and then defence was a shambles. Mancini immediately introduced Kompany into the side, and transformed him into a player who is now considered one of the greatest players in his position, in the whole of Europe.
Richards was erratic and didn't understand the core responsibilities of his position. Mancini transformed him into a reliable fullback while maintaining his attacking threat.
Zabaleta was a hardworking but apparently average player who rarely played, and when he did he was rash in the tackle and average both defensively and going forward. Today Zabaleta is regarded as the league's best right back and was the club's player of the year last season.
Barry was wholly unreliable, uncomfortable in possession, slow in thought and had many people openly doubting his worth to the side. Became the first name on the team sheet under Mancini, established himself as our most reliable performer, shielding the defence and keeping the ball moving quickly in midfield. Proved himself instrumental in our title winning season.
Joe Hart was on loan at Birmingham, and was questioning his future at City. Mancini brought him back from loan, introduced him back into the side dropping Given, to the tune of a man of the match performance at WHL. Quickly established himself as among the best in the league and became England's number one. Has since won 3 golden gloves.
Improved both Lescott and Kolo Toure, the former became a key player in our title winning season.
I'm sure there are more, but you catch the drift.
We went through an enormous transition under Mancini. When he took over we were a mid-table side with ambitions of a top four place. When he left 3 and a half years later we were an established member of the 'elite' and had an FA Cup and league title to our name.
He never did the arm round the shoulder, but his 'win at all costs' mentality and attention to detail earned us a Premier League title. It also saw us play some of the best football the division has seen since Arsene Wenger's invincibles.
It saw us take Chelsea's fortress record in a 2-4 win at Stamford Bridge. It saw us win the FA Cup. It saw us humiliate United 1-6 at Old Trafford. It saw us win the Premier League.
I think there is an argument that Mancini began to grate for many at the club, his autocratic ways and harsh manner souring the mood as results suffered.
Maybe we needed the fresh start, a fresh pair of hands? A more diplomatic manager who is liked by his players, and able to soothe the supposed unrest that developed.
But like Mancini and Hughes before him, he will be measured by results. I just fear that many of our players needed an autocrat, there shall be no such excuses from them in May should we fail to improve on last season.
But I digress. The disparaging terms many on here talk of Mancini is absurd, and I think you should reflect more closely on your critique of him as a manager.
I find it fascinating that Mancini's enormous character flaws, ones which see him still unemployed even with his trophy record, are so often glossed over as being simply too autocratic. No, Mancini was a **** to everyone around him. He was arrogant to the point that he was loathed by nearly everyone who worked at City. His attitude isn't normal. It's over the top and totally unworkable unless your prepared to give him the keys to your club and the keys to your bank. And even then you'll have to buy him a new team every two years to replace the one which he's alienated.
Yes he brought us success, but it was never going to last, and at what price? The second highest wage bill in Europe, an unbalanced squad, infighting galore. He should be respected for the success he brought the club and the changes we underwent with him. But ultimately he was sacked because of him, not because of who the executives were or who the players were. And if it's fair game to call half our squad cunts and half the board of directors cunts, which it clearly is judging by the shit posted on this forum in the last week, then calling Mancini a **** is no problem considering he actually was one and it cost him his job.
BillyShears said:Kippaxstreetheadache said:peoffrey said:He blatantly was. A despicably arrogant bad loser with abysmal man management skills. Sheikh Mansour's money won us those pots. Numerous managers could've achieved it and some with more diplomacy would still be in charge now.
What's the point of taking us in to the Champions League when we can't get past the group stages?
Nonsense.
Aren't you the notorious Hughes fanboy?
He couldn't do it could he? In spite of all the money he threw at it.
The denigration of Mancini's character and his achievements at City following his sacking, by some blues, really turns my stomach.
Seems to be fashionable now too, which is even worse.
Mancini was a hard task master, but his impact at City was immediate. He knocked heads together, when he was appointed he transformed us from a shambolic team of individuals who couldn't defend a two goal lead into a solid and cohesive unit almost overnight.
He was an autocrat, but at that period of our development it was effective. He accepted nothing but ultimate commitment to the cause, anyone who undermined him or didn't pull his weight was sent packing. We had countless players on the books who weren't fit for purpose, were here for all the wrong reasons (money) and didn't have the right attitude to be a success at City. Mancini either whipped them into shape or included them in a massive cull of deadwood.
Too many of the playing staff didn't have the attitude of winners, too many accepted defeat and didn't have the required mental fortitude to cut it at the level we aspired to.
Mancini recognised those players and disposed of them like household waste. A good thing as far as I'm concerned, we didn't have the time for sentiment back then.
The players whom Mancini recognised to be made right stuff were drilled and drilled until they knew and fully understood their role in his set-up, no stone was left unturned.
Numerous players were transformed from wildly inconsistent and under performing, to key stalwarts of the side that represents us in the Champions League today.
Kompany was on the bench when Mancini arrived. Usually deployed in defensive midfield, he was being kept out of central defence by the then manager's two big money signings, Lescott and Kolo Toure. Both players couldn't buy a clean sheet and then defence was a shambles. Mancini immediately introduced Kompany into the side, and transformed him into a player who is now considered one of the greatest players in his position, in the whole of Europe.
Richards was erratic and didn't understand the core responsibilities of his position. Mancini transformed him into a reliable fullback while maintaining his attacking threat.
Zabaleta was a hardworking but apparently average player who rarely played, and when he did he was rash in the tackle and average both defensively and going forward. Today Zabaleta is regarded as the league's best right back and was the club's player of the year last season.
Barry was wholly unreliable, uncomfortable in possession, slow in thought and had many people openly doubting his worth to the side. Became the first name on the team sheet under Mancini, established himself as our most reliable performer, shielding the defence and keeping the ball moving quickly in midfield. Proved himself instrumental in our title winning season.
Joe Hart was on loan at Birmingham, and was questioning his future at City. Mancini brought him back from loan, introduced him back into the side dropping Given, to the tune of a man of the match performance at WHL. Quickly established himself as among the best in the league and became England's number one. Has since won 3 golden gloves.
Improved both Lescott and Kolo Toure, the former became a key player in our title winning season.
I'm sure there are more, but you catch the drift.
We went through an enormous transition under Mancini. When he took over we were a mid-table side with ambitions of a top four place. When he left 3 and a half years later we were an established member of the 'elite' and had an FA Cup and league title to our name.
He never did the arm round the shoulder, but his 'win at all costs' mentality and attention to detail earned us a Premier League title. It also saw us play some of the best football the division has seen since Arsene Wenger's invincibles.
It saw us take Chelsea's fortress record in a 2-4 win at Stamford Bridge. It saw us win the FA Cup. It saw us humiliate United 1-6 at Old Trafford. It saw us win the Premier League.
I think there is an argument that Mancini began to grate for many at the club, his autocratic ways and harsh manner souring the mood as results suffered.
Maybe we needed the fresh start, a fresh pair of hands? A more diplomatic manager who is liked by his players, and able to soothe the supposed unrest that developed.
But like Mancini and Hughes before him, he will be measured by results. I just fear that many of our players needed an autocrat, there shall be no such excuses from them in May should we fail to improve on last season.
But I digress. The disparaging terms many on here talk of Mancini is absurd, and I think you should reflect more closely on your critique of him as a manager.
I find it fascinating that Mancini's enormous character flaws, ones which see him still unemployed even with his trophy record, are so often glossed over as being simply too autocratic. No, Mancini was a **** to everyone around him. He was arrogant to the point that he was loathed by nearly everyone who worked at City. His attitude isn't normal. It's over the top and totally unworkable unless your prepared to give him the keys to your club and the keys to your bank. And even then you'll have to buy him a new team every two years to replace the one which he's alienated.
Yes he brought us success, but it was never going to last, and at what price? The second highest wage bill in Europe, an unbalanced squad, infighting galore. He should be respected for the success he brought the club and the changes we underwent with him. But ultimately he was sacked because of him, not because of who the executives were or who the players were. And if it's fair game to call half our squad cunts and half the board of directors cunts, which it clearly is judging by the shit posted on this forum in the last week, then calling Mancini a **** is no problem considering he actually was one and it cost him his job.
IFeedGoats said:Oh come on, he shared his fruit pastilles with Kiddo he can't have been that bad :)
BillyShears said:IFeedGoats said:Oh come on, he shared his fruit pastilles with Kiddo he can't have been that bad :)
Oh nevermind that, the London press pack loved him. He gave them headlines, Christmas lunches, shared wine with them, bitched about his bosses to them both publicly and privately, he was a one man ratings machine! :)
BillyShears said:Kippaxstreetheadache said:peoffrey said:He blatantly was. A despicably arrogant bad loser with abysmal man management skills. Sheikh Mansour's money won us those pots. Numerous managers could've achieved it and some with more diplomacy would still be in charge now.
What's the point of taking us in to the Champions League when we can't get past the group stages?
Nonsense.
Aren't you the notorious Hughes fanboy?
He couldn't do it could he? In spite of all the money he threw at it.
The denigration of Mancini's character and his achievements at City following his sacking, by some blues, really turns my stomach.
Seems to be fashionable now too, which is even worse.
Mancini was a hard task master, but his impact at City was immediate. He knocked heads together, when he was appointed he transformed us from a shambolic team of individuals who couldn't defend a two goal lead into a solid and cohesive unit almost overnight.
He was an autocrat, but at that period of our development it was effective. He accepted nothing but ultimate commitment to the cause, anyone who undermined him or didn't pull his weight was sent packing. We had countless players on the books who weren't fit for purpose, were here for all the wrong reasons (money) and didn't have the right attitude to be a success at City. Mancini either whipped them into shape or included them in a massive cull of deadwood.
Too many of the playing staff didn't have the attitude of winners, too many accepted defeat and didn't have the required mental fortitude to cut it at the level we aspired to.
Mancini recognised those players and disposed of them like household waste. A good thing as far as I'm concerned, we didn't have the time for sentiment back then.
The players whom Mancini recognised to be made right stuff were drilled and drilled until they knew and fully understood their role in his set-up, no stone was left unturned.
Numerous players were transformed from wildly inconsistent and under performing, to key stalwarts of the side that represents us in the Champions League today.
Kompany was on the bench when Mancini arrived. Usually deployed in defensive midfield, he was being kept out of central defence by the then manager's two big money signings, Lescott and Kolo Toure. Both players couldn't buy a clean sheet and then defence was a shambles. Mancini immediately introduced Kompany into the side, and transformed him into a player who is now considered one of the greatest players in his position, in the whole of Europe.
Richards was erratic and didn't understand the core responsibilities of his position. Mancini transformed him into a reliable fullback while maintaining his attacking threat.
Zabaleta was a hardworking but apparently average player who rarely played, and when he did he was rash in the tackle and average both defensively and going forward. Today Zabaleta is regarded as the league's best right back and was the club's player of the year last season.
Barry was wholly unreliable, uncomfortable in possession, slow in thought and had many people openly doubting his worth to the side. Became the first name on the team sheet under Mancini, established himself as our most reliable performer, shielding the defence and keeping the ball moving quickly in midfield. Proved himself instrumental in our title winning season.
Joe Hart was on loan at Birmingham, and was questioning his future at City. Mancini brought him back from loan, introduced him back into the side dropping Given, to the tune of a man of the match performance at WHL. Quickly established himself as among the best in the league and became England's number one. Has since won 3 golden gloves.
Improved both Lescott and Kolo Toure, the former became a key player in our title winning season.
I'm sure there are more, but you catch the drift.
We went through an enormous transition under Mancini. When he took over we were a mid-table side with ambitions of a top four place. When he left 3 and a half years later we were an established member of the 'elite' and had an FA Cup and league title to our name.
He never did the arm round the shoulder, but his 'win at all costs' mentality and attention to detail earned us a Premier League title. It also saw us play some of the best football the division has seen since Arsene Wenger's invincibles.
It saw us take Chelsea's fortress record in a 2-4 win at Stamford Bridge. It saw us win the FA Cup. It saw us humiliate United 1-6 at Old Trafford. It saw us win the Premier League.
I think there is an argument that Mancini began to grate for many at the club, his autocratic ways and harsh manner souring the mood as results suffered.
Maybe we needed the fresh start, a fresh pair of hands? A more diplomatic manager who is liked by his players, and able to soothe the supposed unrest that developed.
But like Mancini and Hughes before him, he will be measured by results. I just fear that many of our players needed an autocrat, there shall be no such excuses from them in May should we fail to improve on last season.
But I digress. The disparaging terms many on here talk of Mancini is absurd, and I think you should reflect more closely on your critique of him as a manager.
I find it fascinating that Mancini's enormous character flaws, ones which see him still unemployed even with his trophy record, are so often glossed over as being simply too autocratic. No, Mancini was a **** to everyone around him. He was arrogant to the point that he was loathed by nearly everyone who worked at City. His attitude isn't normal. It's over the top and totally unworkable unless your prepared to give him the keys to your club and the keys to your bank. And even then you'll have to buy him a new team every two years to replace the one which he's alienated.
Yes he brought us success, but it was never going to last, and at what price? The second highest wage bill in Europe, an unbalanced squad, infighting galore. He should be respected for the success he brought the club and the changes we underwent with him. But ultimately he was sacked because of him, not because of who the executives were or who the players were. And if it's fair game to call half our squad ***** and half the board of directors *****, which it clearly is judging by the shit posted on this forum in the last week, then calling Mancini a **** is no problem considering he actually was one and it cost him his job.
Pablo1 said:BillyShears said:IFeedGoats said:Oh come on, he shared his fruit pastilles with Kiddo he can't have been that bad :)
Oh nevermind that, the London press pack loved him. He gave them headlines, Christmas lunches, shared wine with them, bitched about his bosses to them both publicly and privately, he was a one man ratings machine! :)
...and he brought us a couple of nice big shiny trophies - I reckon everyone did ok out of him in the end! Haha!