Why what, exactly? City *is* doing better under Mancini. It's clear he is an improvement. I think some people expected some sort of miracle, and that with Mancini, suddenly we were never going to lose a match ever again, and winning both cups and the league. And that didn't happen, so suddenly Mancini is crap and "not working".The Fixer said:All i ask is why? we all saw how many signed up to this forum to see that what they thought of him.
Now surely he doesn't turn into a shit manager overnight? just a thought but perhaps he's looked at the players we have and decided safety is the best policy with this group of players? perhaps he has no faith in playing attacking footy with this squad. Maybe he feels this is how we need to play to get where we want to be?
Don't get me wrong i don't like it, but maybe there's method in his madness? if he gets a few of his own players in he may change his style of play?
Imo it's too easy to look at things on the surface and criticise his formations/tactics but very rarely do we look beyond this and ask why.
Thoughts
For a statto you have a shite memory or selective.Immaculate Pasta said:bluemanc said:He's not managing a team in Italy though, so i can't see how it's relevant,i'm sure the Brazilians love Scolari but i bet the cockneys don't.
A lot was made while Hughes was in charge infact it became an obsession that he had never had "big" success with an English team & how that really should be the type of manager we are hiring,short memories eh!
Show me where people had an obsession with Hughes not having success with an "english" team and i won't call you a liar who is on a mission to get rid of Mancini. It was any success not english.
You're a scouser then?maresa said:No, non correct: AU CONTRAIRE, he played beutiful but insuccesseful football, largely due at our dreadful goalkeaper not very goog defensers.
He played whit a taking midbield only, o nihil..... scoring lot of goals and incassando 8?) lot of goals
But for to win he changed his play: 1-2 holding midfild and veloci, continui contrattacchi
pardon but my english is very dire.....
maresa said:No, non correct: AU CONTRAIRE, he played beutiful but insuccesseful football, largely due at our dreadful goalkeaper not very goog defensers.
He played whit a taking midbield only, o nihil..... scoring lot of goals and incassando 8?) lot of goals
But for to win he changed his play: 1-2 holding midfild and veloci, continui contrattacchi
pardon but my english is very dire.....
buzzer1 said:I honestly thought i would have got a bite on my above post guys, just thought i would try and lighten the mood seein' as everyones a bit down and annoyed atm. Ah well, c'mmmmonnn blues.