Given Questions Mancini's Man-Management

[Lancet Fluke]

Why is it that a comment about a facet of a manager's style is deemed as a hangable offence. It is possible to be a good manager and still have weaknesses isn't it.It is possible to recognise a weakness and still be very supportive of a manager isn't it?

Given has always been very well supported by Cty fans and suddenly after routine comments,which everyone knows are largely true, he gets lambasted. No wonder papers report as they do.It fits the way so many fans think and react.

It's a shame that Mancini didn't talk about Given at the press conference this morning. He's too short, doesn't come for crosses etc etc.

??? Thats a pathetic response and of course avoiding the point altogether.

OK simple question and a one word answer will suffice. Could Mancini's man management be better?

Pathetic? Thanks. I'll answer in as many words as I like thank you very much. I didn't really think that Mancini should have criticised Given and I am not avoiding the point at all. The basic answer is yes and I have already said so on this thread a number of times. You think it is wrong that people are pissed off at Given for criticising Mancini but if Mancini had gone public with justifiable criticisms of Given this week, people would have quite rightly thought that Mancini was being unneccessarily bitter and unprofessional. And maybe that is why people are pissed off with Given because what he has said wasn't necessary. Just because a criticism might be true doesn't neccessarily mean it has to be said to journalists.

 

[Nelly's Left Foot]

It's a shame that Mancini didn't talk about Given at the press conference this morning. He's too short, doesn't come for crosses etc etc.

??? Thats a pathetic response and of course avoiding the point altogether.

OK simple question and a one word answer will suffice. Could Mancini's man management be better?

Pathetic? Thanks. I'll answer in as many words as I like thank you very much. I didn't really think that Mancini should have criticised Given and I am not avoiding the point at all. The basic answer is yes and I have already said so on this thread a number of times. You think it is wrong that people are pissed off at Given for criticising Mancini but if Mancini had gone public with justifiable criticisms of Given this week, people would have quite rightly thought that Mancini was being unneccessarily bitter and unprofessional. And maybe that is why people are pissed off with Given because what he has said wasn't necessary. Just because a criticism might be true doesn't neccessarily mean it has to be said to journalists.

Thank you for the sensible yes.
I 100% agree Given did not need to answer the questions put to him to get the comments the reporters wanted. It's just the sad world we live in that it negative stuff the press want to hear and they are like a dog with a bone till they get them.

It's why City put out the "no Tevez questions" at the press conference because we all know that's all they would ask until they got what they wanted.And they would have got what they wanted as evidenced by the words spoken in the immediate aftermath of the Munich game.It strangley doesnt seem to be easy for football players to say no comment.

 

[Lancet Fluke]

??? Thats a pathetic response and of course avoiding the point altogether.

OK simple question and a one word answer will suffice. Could Mancini's man management be better?

Pathetic? Thanks. I'll answer in as many words as I like thank you very much. I didn't really think that Mancini should have criticised Given and I am not avoiding the point at all. The basic answer is yes and I have already said so on this thread a number of times. You think it is wrong that people are pissed off at Given for criticising Mancini but if Mancini had gone public with justifiable criticisms of Given this week, people would have quite rightly thought that Mancini was being unneccessarily bitter and unprofessional. And maybe that is why people are pissed off with Given because what he has said wasn't necessary. Just because a criticism might be true doesn't neccessarily mean it has to be said to journalists.

Thank you for the sensible yes.
I 100% agree Given did not need to answer the questions put to him to get the comments the reporters wanted. It's just the sad world we live in that it negative stuff the press want to hear and they are like a dog with a bone till they get them.

It's why City put out the "no Tevez questions" at the press conference because we all know that's all they would ask until they got what they wanted.And they would have got what they wanted as evidenced by the words spoken in the immediate aftermath of the Munich game.It strangley doesnt seem to be easy for football players to say no comment.

If you read through the thread, I have very clearly stated that I think man management is Mancini's weak spot. I don't blame any City fans for turning on Given though and that is the bit of your post I was responding to. He earned a shit load of money at City and frankly, no matter how bitter he is or even whether his points are true, he can shove any criticisms of City (and that includes our manager) up his arse.
The media in this country are harsh enough on Mancini as it is without that kind of ammunition and with the whole Tevez thing going on, I don't think negative headlines will do Mancini (and therefore City) any favours at all.

 

[Didsbury Dave]

I don't think Given has "turned on" Mancini, Lancet. If you look at what he's said it's clearly fairly innocous answers to probing questions. Probably right in the middle of a whole load more banal questions which haven't been used. That's how journalists get an angle. Look at what he's said, and imagine a journalist asking things like "Do you think he was like that at other clubs?" and similar questions.

I honestly don't think Given is guilty of anything here.

 

[Lancet Fluke]

I don't think Given has "turned on" Mancini, Lancet. If you look at what he's said it's clearly fairly innocous answers to probing questions. Probably right in the middle of a whole load more banal questions which haven't been used. That's how journalists get an angle. Look at what he's said, and imagine a journalist asking things like "Do you think he was like that at other clubs?" and similar questions.

I honestly don't think Given is guilty of anything here.

I said fans have turned on Given not Given on Mancini. But I take your point, people have said worse once they have left clubs. He should have just kept his gob shut though I reckon. Unless he is as thick as pig shit, I would have thought it would be fairly easy to say, "I'd rather not talk about it." Personally, I think he wanted to say it, knowing exactly what the journos' angle would be because ultimately Mancini dropped him and fucked him off and he made it sound innocuous because he isn't actually thick at all.

 

[Didsbury Dave]

I don't think Given has "turned on" Mancini, Lancet. If you look at what he's said it's clearly fairly innocous answers to probing questions. Probably right in the middle of a whole load more banal questions which haven't been used. That's how journalists get an angle. Look at what he's said, and imagine a journalist asking things like "Do you think he was like that at other clubs?" and similar questions.

I honestly don't think Given is guilty of anything here.

I said fans have turned on Given not Given on Mancini. But I take your point, people have said worse once they have left clubs. He should have just kept his gob shut though I reckon. Unless he is as thick as pig shit, I would have thought it would be fairly easy to say, "I'd rather not talk about it." Personally, I think he wanted to say it, knowing exactly what the journos' angle would be because ultimately Mancini dropped him and fucked him off and he made it sound innocuous because he isn't actually thick at all.

Sorry, I misread. Maybe he's got a little dig in but when you read the text of what he's actually said "Maybe it's just his style" and the likes, I really think it's mild.

 

[tommyhair]

this

Some of you need to wake up and smell the fucking coffee.

No, you need to wake up and look at the league table!

 

[Lancet Fluke]

I don't think Given has "turned on" Mancini, Lancet. If you look at what he's said it's clearly fairly innocous answers to probing questions. Probably right in the middle of a whole load more banal questions which haven't been used. That's how journalists get an angle. Look at what he's said, and imagine a journalist asking things like "Do you think he was like that at other clubs?" and similar questions.

I honestly don't think Given is guilty of anything here.

I said fans have turned on Given not Given on Mancini. But I take your point, people have said worse once they have left clubs. He should have just kept his gob shut though I reckon. Unless he is as thick as pig shit, I would have thought it would be fairly easy to say, "I'd rather not talk about it." Personally, I think he wanted to say it, knowing exactly what the journos' angle would be because ultimately Mancini dropped him and fucked him off and he made it sound innocuous because he isn't actually thick at all.

Sorry, I misread. Maybe he's got a little dig in but when you read the text of what he's actually said "Maybe it's just his style" and the likes, I really think it's mild.

Well you would because compared to what you think about Mancini, it is! No, I know it isn't terrible but I do think it was unnecessary and has disappointed me. I thought he was bigger than that.Mind you, if he was bigger, he might have claimed a couple of crosses and he'd still be first choice at City. Boom boom tish.

 

[baldmosher]

I'd like him to manage our staff better.

You mean micromanage our staff better. That's not his job. It would be if he was manager of a little team, like Villa or Stoke.

It's his job to manage a bloody big team, which includes the coaching staff; it's their job to improve the players they coach, and to explain what they're doing wrong, but not why they're not getting picked. The last bit is for the player to figure out for himself. It takes mental resolve as well as talent to be successful. All the players Mancini has unceremoniously offloaded have been disruptive self-important shithouses. All the ones he's kept to one side but allowed to leave on their terms are just not good enough, mentally or physically, or both.

It's definitely not Mancini's job to "put his arm around" Shay and tell him that "Joe is quite obviously a better keeper than you, but chin up lad, you're still young, you'll get your chance" when it's abundantly clear from this piece that Shay is mardy and thick and it's abundantly clear that Hart is a better keeper and younger and doesn't let in as many goals.

Much better that Mancini manages the team by getting shot of mardy, thick players who aren't good enough for us and replacing them with mardy, thick ones who are, and putting his arm around them when they are mardy, and telling them that they are quite obviously better than the other guys, which is why they'll be back in the team if they can just stop being mardy. And then picking them as promised. As long as he's doing that I'm happy.

Practically every player who has left the club has made the same comments.

Practically every player who has left the club wasn't strong enough mentally or physically.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

I've been made redundant twice. The first time it was done quite professionally, I understood the reasons for it and they were happy to meet some of my requests. The second time was the complete opposite, being done very unprofessionally and it wasn't clear why I had been chosen. Which company do you suppose I feel better disposed to?

Not downplaying it, and in an ideal world everyone who leaves the club will leave happily. But do you think your disposition toward either company has any effect on their success?

I also think football is a bit different from your normal 9-5 job. Do you think Given really needed to be told he was second choice to Hart, I would have thought it was fairly obvious and he himself has said in the past that he knew exactly where he stood under Mancini.

Your first point is an interesting one. The first company was a professional services company where people put in incredible efforts to get the job done and keep customers happy and such efforts were recognised. The second was a company where people worked 9-5 and very few people gave more than the absolute minimum. As a professional, which do think was the more rewarding to work for?

As for the second point I don't agree. Football isn't a 9-5 job but players are still employees and they have egos and feelings. I still maintain that if the manager had taken Given aside and explained to him what his plan was for the first-choice keeper and the reason for that, then Given may still not have been happy but he'd have had a different opinion of Mancini. More importantly, the other players would have been aware of that as opposed to Given possibly moaning in the dressing room that he didn't feel he'd been treated right.

I'd recommend you read a book called "Only A Game?" by Eamonn Dunphy which is a day-by-day chronicle of Dunphy's final season at Millwall. At training, the first team got one colour bib while the reserves got another. One day Dunphy was given a reserve bib, which was the manager's way of tellling him he'd been dropped. While it wasn't unexpected, Dunphy was furious as he felt he'd been humiliated in front of all the other players. He wasn't complaining so much about being dropped but about the way it had been done. It also affected the other players, including the lad who'd taken his place.