I hate to say it

[Damocles]

I'm not being aggressive or judgemental.

I believe that anybody who is questioning the managerial talent of a manager who has 3 league titles and 7 national cups to their name are idiots. This is because the evidence is blindly pointing at them and they are ignoring it. I believe that that fits the textbook definition of what an idiot is

"I believe" isn't the textbook definition of anything. It's your opinion.

Ok, that does fit the textbook definition of what an idiot is. Objective evidence is there. People who ignore objective evidence can be classified as idiots.

That make you feel better?

 

[Didsbury Dave]

Yes. As I say, his record speaks for itself.

And as I said. Good to know...

Also nice to see you not being overly aggressive and overly judgmental or getting yourself involved in petty sniping. That stuff is best left to those idiots to whom you refer...

I'm not being aggressive or judgemental.

I believe that anybody who is questioning the managerial talent of a manager who has 3 league titles and 7 national cups to their name are idiots. This is because the evidence is blindly pointing at them and they are ignoring it. I believe that that fits the textbook definition of what an idiot is

-- Wed Feb 01, 2012 5:33 pm --

Yes. As I say, his record speaks for itself.

I've questioned some of his decisions since he arrived.

Am I an idiot?

Of course not, there's a major difference between question his decisions and questioning his talent.

Surely the two are absolutely linked?

 

[Damocles]

Surely the two are absolutely linked?

No?

I can recognise that Aguero is a great footballer but this doesn't mean that every footballing decision he makes is great. I can think of numerous occasions where he probably should have passed the ball instead of trying his luck. This doesn't mean I think he's shit, just that I disagree with his decisions.
Simultaneously, if he scores a goal, he also isn't the best thing that ever lived.

Talent doesn't mean that everything you do is correct, it means that you have proven over a long period of time that the majority of things that you do are correct.

Everybody fucks up and should be taken to task. I just think that people should use a bit of perspective.

 

[Didsbury Dave]

A manager's "talent" is primarily about his decision making, whereas for a player it's only a part of it.

All managers make bad ones, but success or failure in the job depends on getting the majority right.

 

[dancity19]

Surely the two are absolutely linked?

No?

I can recognise that Aguero is a great footballer but this doesn't mean that every footballing decision he makes is great. I can think of numerous occasions where he probably should have passed the ball instead of trying his luck. This doesn't mean I think he's shit, just that I disagree with his decisions.
Simultaneously, if he scores a goal, he also isn't the best thing that ever lived.

Talent doesn't mean that everything you do is correct, it means that you have proven over a long period of time that the majority of things that you do are correct.

Everybody fucks up and should be taken to task. I just think that people should use a bit of perspective.

Understand your point. However, you would probably argue the decisions and talent of a manager are more inherently linked, than those of a player.
A Player reacts in the split second; a manager has time to think about his decisions, and time to plan. I am not questioning his talent, but I do think the two are slightly different.

 

[Anonymous]

Surely the two are absolutely linked?

No?

I can recognise that Aguero is a great footballer but this doesn't mean that every footballing decision he makes is great. I can think of numerous occasions where he probably should have passed the ball instead of trying his luck. This doesn't mean I think he's shit, just that I disagree with his decisions.
Simultaneously, if he scores a goal, he also isn't the best thing that ever lived.

Talent doesn't mean that everything you do is correct, it means that you have proven over a long period of time that the majority of things that you do are correct.

Everybody fucks up and should be taken to task. I just think that people should use a bit of perspective.

Don't you think you're showing a bit of a lack of perspective by calling people out as idiots regardless of how right you think your opinion of something may well be. I mean lets face it, opinions on managers/players relative abilities are always wildly subjective. I personally don't think Mancini's record in Italy is objective proof of anything other than his ability to manage in the Italian league. That's not to say he can't manage in England or win the title here. Just that the two aren't intrinsically linked and certainly aren't as definitively linked as you suggest they are. There are plenty of successful managers who have come to England and failed...

 

[2sheikhs]

DD, you stated that I was totally deluded in thinking ADUG would wait 2-3 years for dominance in the league and challenging to win the CL. Mancini has stated he wants to manage City for many years and ADUG have said they don't expect us to win everything immediately, it's a 10 year plan. Once again, it's fact v opinion and guesses.

 

[Any1aBlue]

I hope if we don't win the league, the management looks at the progress we have made and sticks with Mancini.

Win or not, we are on the right track.

Rubbish. The team have made no progress and he admits not preparing for a match. As for sticking with Mancini if we don't win the title - are you crazy, or his wife?
350m and no trophy is completely unnacceptable.

And you're stupid enough to believe him?....Reading your other posts you most probably are.

Yes I am probably stupid. But, childishness apart - are we not supposed to believe him? Who chooses when we believe him or not - you? I bet you were one of those calling me 'rag' for suggesting we bin Tevez a year ago?(BECAUSE HE SAID HE WANTED TO GO AND NOT BECAUSE OF HIS ABILITY)
Unlike some here, I'm no sheep. I'll say what I think. However, there are some fans here too worried to say what they really feel (contacting me by PM's) as they are worried about being called 'stupid' etc by arrogant dickheads who aren't prepared to listen and discuss in an adult fashion...........................

I don't want Mancini to be our manager and I never did; I don't like his tactics,his substitutions are baffling, I think his man management is suspect and his continual whingeing about; refs decisions/injuries/ACON/lack of funds etc etc is embarrassing and pitiful.

He had a full season and summer to get a squad together capable of dealing with the whole season. The one he has is failing considering what it cost. Last night was the final straw for me. Summed up by Gareth Barry turning his back on the shot, and Mancini sat there squirming like some scolded schoolboy, and in true Pythonesque fashion telling the world he'd not prepared - bazarre and inadequate.

And one final thing - if we still had Bellamy and Tevez playing and bought the centre half i went on about ALL last summer, then I am convinced this title would be wrapped up by now and we'd still be in all the cups. Whose fault is it that we haven't?

 

[JoeMercer'sWay]

A manager's "talent" is primarily about his decision making, whereas for a player it's only a part of it.

All managers make bad ones, but success or failure in the job depends on getting the majority right.

disagree.

decision making is absolutely key and fundamental to a footballer, which is why the best are the best.

it's no less important than for a manager, imho.

 

[Damocles]

Surely the two are absolutely linked?

No?

I can recognise that Aguero is a great footballer but this doesn't mean that every footballing decision he makes is great. I can think of numerous occasions where he probably should have passed the ball instead of trying his luck. This doesn't mean I think he's shit, just that I disagree with his decisions.
Simultaneously, if he scores a goal, he also isn't the best thing that ever lived.

Talent doesn't mean that everything you do is correct, it means that you have proven over a long period of time that the majority of things that you do are correct.

Everybody fucks up and should be taken to task. I just think that people should use a bit of perspective.

Don't you think you're showing a bit of a lack of perspective by calling people out as idiots regardless of how right you think your opinion of something may well be. I mean lets face it, opinions on managers/players relative abilities are always wildly subjective. I personally don't think Mancini's record in Italy is objective proof of anything other than his ability to manage in the Italian league. That's not to say he can't manage in England or win the title here. Just that the two aren't intrinsically linked and certainly aren't as definitively linked as you suggest they are. There are plenty of successful managers who have come to England and failed...

I think we've crossed wires here.

How exactly do we judge managers? What makes a good manager good?

As you rightly pointed out, decision making is such a subjective thing. Who's to say he made bad decisions last night? The scoreline is. Because the scoreline is objective proof that his approach to the game was wrong. I don't buy, and I have never bought the idea that referees or players injured cost you matches. If a game has come down to one of these things, then you simply did not create enough distance between you and the opposition. I've also never bought the idea that constantly buying better or more players is the be all to management. Top managers have a consistent record of having players in their squad become worse players once they leave.

Example; Alex Ferguson won the European Cup with David May and Ronny Johnson in his defence. Without being disrespectful to both of them, I don't think I'm reaching in saying that Ferguson made them perform far beyond their rightful abilities.

Tangents aside, we look at what makes managers great. And the answer is trophies. If Mourinho had absolutely every quality that he currently possesses, but never won a trophy in his career would you guys be pushing for him? I doubt it. I don't think anyone would care about Mourinho if he hadn't won trophies, at least no more than they care about Phil Brown. If Stuart Pearce won ten trophies at City, we'd put him above the Mourinho bracket.

Mancini's experience in winning leagues is the objective proof that he can win leagues.

The simple fact is, the ONLY way that we can judge the talent of a manager is by trophies in the same way that the ONLY way that we can judge the performance of one is by results. Everything else is so subjective, it's the only benchmark that we have.

You get good seasons and bad seasons. Good results and bad results. Good run of form and bad run of form. Happens to everyone. As long as you do your job and win your trophies, you're untouchable. Because trophies determine talent.