What no-one on here can argue with is the facts. Mancini's record ar Inter is hardly bad and he's brought home the bacon here. Mourinho did well at Chelsea from a much better starting position, but at Inter his record in his first 11 CL matches was won one... Hiddink is a good manager, but neither i nor anyone else knpws what he would have done at City. Mancini came and did it. Apparently Mourinho is on his way out at Madrid, having won one title, but "losing" it again and not yey having delivered the CL. He didn't win the CL at Chelsea.
Those who go on about Ferguson and Wenger really want their bumps examining. Ferguson has been in situ at the swamp since October 1986 and Wenger arrived at Highbury in 1997. So, exactly when do you want to judge them? Let's start with slur. Between 1986 and 1993 he spent twice as much as Arsenal, Liverpool, Everton and Spurs (the next four biggest spenders) put together on players. And he won one FA cup. He won the CL at his sixth attempt. He has won it once more in the 14 years since. Mancini has a fair way to go before we compare him adversely to Ferguson.
Wenger inherited a strong team which had won the FA and League cups in 1993 and the Cup Winners cup in 1994 when it had finished fourth in the league but George graham was then sacked and disgraced and the club performed poorly under Rioch finishing twelfth. This was despite massive investment inthe playing squad made possible by shareholder investment. This investment continued after Wenger's arrival and enabled him to bring in "big names" from the continent. Wenger has never had to take a team from City's lowly position to trophies. His record is impressive but he has not built a trophy winning team since 2005, and his indebtedness to hiss predecessor for the trophies he did win (in particular his back four) must be borne in mind.
Mancini is well on course with City and it will be interesting to see what he can achieve with the length of tenure and support given to Ferguson and Wenger.