have never felt so comfortable...

[Didsbury Dave]

PLease explain how his first six months was a failure? hi did what roy got the liverpool job for.
First of all steady the ship, give city a defence. a game plan balance. The best part is, he is able to change the game plan according to which team we're playing! not many manager do that.

He was given two objectives when he joined.

To finish in the top 4
To win a trophy

The first objective was by far and away the most important.

So he failed. You can be revisionist if you want but they are the cold facts.

 

[flb]

For me Billy McNeil was 'the man', but then he was manager when I first began to follow City. I usually want to believe in every manager, at least when they first arrive, but I never liked Kendal, I didn't like the way his Everton team used to play, so I wasn't that upset when he left. Other than McNeil I've only thought Joe Royle was 'the man'. I haven't decided on Mancini yet, but I'm optomistic, and I'm starting to believe that he could become 'the man' to do the job all his predecessors since Joe Mercer have failed to do.

Mcneil was never given the tools by Swales to do the job.

 

[SWP's back]

There is no manager (and I mean no manager) in world football I would rather have at City.

PMSL

That's because you are fucking ace though.

Please make a new bluemoon game.

I actually agree with fbloke and have no idea what is so funny about it..

 

[Gaylord du Bois]

There is no manager (and I mean no manager) in world football I would rather have at City.

PMSL

Might be your Prostate.

 

[pinkwheeltrim]

I love Mancini and so does the missus,so much so that she is going to start coming to games even though she knows nothing about football! The tide has turned my friends,we are about to arrive in to full on rag territory! Distasteful I know,but sod it,I've waited a long time for the success this man will bring!


On a side note,I really thought Frank Clarke would do the business when he first arrived,that feeling didn't last too long!

 

[Nicholas van Whatsisface]

I'm going to agree in part with DD on this one - and I'm a Mancini fan.

He did fail in hitting the targets set for him in his first 6 months. Those are cold, hard facts about which there can be very little argument.

However I think to say he was a failure is, in my opinion, disingenuous - that implies he failed totally on any level during those 6 months, and that palpably isn't true.

He showed enough promise to suggest that he warranted more time and backing from the Club, and that faith is being paid off by the best season we've had in a long time.

He made us a very difficult team to beat, working with essentially the same group of players who had looked so porous defensively under Hughes, and showed a strength of character which would be so important in dealing with the big name players and egos that would automatically come with our improved status and our ambitions in the game.

I believe that our owners saw enough success both on and off the field to suggest that he was the right man to take us forward, irrespective of his failure to hit the two specific targets set for last season, and they have so far been vindicated in that decision.

I don't believe its as black and white as to decsribe his first six months as 'a failure'.

 

[The Fat el Hombre]

PLease explain how his first six months was a failure? hi did what roy got the liverpool job for.
First of all steady the ship, give city a defence. a game plan balance. The best part is, he is able to change the game plan according to which team we're playing! not many manager do that.

He was given two objectives when he joined.

To finish in the top 4
To win a trophy

The first objective was by far and away the most important.

So he failed. You can be revisionist if you want but they are the cold facts.

A very simplistic view

 

[fbloke]

There is no manager (and I mean no manager) in world football I would rather have at City.

PMSL

An alternative response may have been to ask me why.

But that would simply open a debate and perhaps lead to you agreeing, in principle at least, with my original statement.

Hey ho lets all just piss ourselves laughing eh!

 

[Didsbury Dave]

He was given two objectives when he joined.

To finish in the top 4
To win a trophy

The first objective was by far and away the most important.

So he failed. You can be revisionist if you want but they are the cold facts.

A very simplistic view

Yes, it's simplistic, because the facts are simple.

We were 5th, which was disappointing, but due to external circumstances the board saw enough to give him another go. I know they lifted his targets higher, this year his target is to push the top clubs all the way. And he's doing that, so if our form doesn't drop, then they are vindicated.

 

[The Fat el Hombre]

A very simplistic view

Yes, it's simplistic, because the facts are simple.

We were 5th, which was disappointing, but due to external circumstances the board saw enough to give him another go. I know they lifted his targets higher, this year his target is to push the top clubs all the way. And he's doing that, so if our form doesn't drop, then they are vindicated.

Well there you go, there's a bit more to it than just implying that 'he failed'. There are varying degress of failure and he hardly failed miserably, so I don't think it's fair to just say 'he failed' as there are a lot of perfectly valid (IMO) reasons as to why he didn't succeed in what turned out to be a very tall order, all things considered.