Is Mancini Going Crazy?

[Anonymous]

Plus you are certainly not needy.

PMSL. What was it you said about irony earlier....?

 

[samharris]

It's not advice, it was my opinion. I've defended you before, infact i've gone on another forum before to do just that, as you well know.

It would be nice if you've practised as you preached then. Post your opinion, don't belittle others then run off hand in hand with Billy for a while when we win a couple on the bounce.

I used to join in your threads every week, they were the one place where decent debate about football took place, they've not been as good since Mancini took over though, which is a shame.

I'm on Bluemoon whether we win or lose.

With regards to my threads, maybe, just maybe, I'm frustrated as hell with certain things at the club. And certain attitudes amongst some fans.

Plenty of people still like my threads and I have an inblox full of PMs to prove it.

Truth is, some of you don't like the fact that all's not rosy in my blue garden.

Attitudes ?? you mean opinions surely.

 

[Ragnarok]

I'm on Bluemoon whether we win or lose.

With regards to my threads, maybe, just maybe, I'm frustrated as hell with certain things at the club. And certain attitudes amongst some fans.

Plenty of people still like my threads and I have an inblox full of PMs to prove it.

Truth is, some of you don't like the fact that all's not rosy in my blue garden.

Attitudes ?? you mean opinions surely.

Good one Dave.Classifying opinions you dont like as attitudes.Good one.

 

[SWP's back]

Plus you are certainly not needy.

PMSL. What was it you said about irony earlier....?

Something about salt around the door.

Good to see the cavalry arrived again.

Go see your special Irish friend and let him stroke your hair. Goooooooood lap dog.

 

[Didsbury Dave]

P pp

 

[Anonymous]

PMSL. What was it you said about irony earlier....?

Something about salt around the door.

Good to see the cavalry arrived again.

Go see your special Irish friend and let him stroke your hair. Goooooooood lap dog.

Ahh, mate, you'll have to do much better than that to get a rise out of me. :- )

 

[SWP's back]

Something about salt around the door.

Good to see the cavalry arrived again.

Go see your special Irish friend and let him stroke your hair. Goooooooood lap dog.

Ahh, mate, you'll have to do much better than that to get a rise out of me. :- )

Can I get some of your new valium prescription as you used to bite so much more readily. ;-)

 

[Damocles]

My experience of football, first of all. Played the game for my whole life until my 30s. At school level, then amateur level. Centre half for most of the time. Spend two summers as a paid football coach in America when a student. Watched City home and away since the late 70s. Oh, and with regards to people management, I've managed lots of staff for 15 years and do right now. Not football management, but not wholly dissimilar, especially sales staff.

I'll bat that one back and ask your experience, if you don't mind.

Was in Bolton youth systems up until 14 when I smashed my knee and had to quit playing. Started off as a striker, enjoyed defensive midfielder the most then moved to right back which is where I hurt myself. Still haven't gotten back to anything other than odd amateur games, but I'd already fallen into programming anyway during rehab so the desire wasn't as strong. Not much as far as qualifications go, but got a Level 1 and Level 2 Coaching (though they aren't exactly rocket science) and helped coach a few of the local kids teams. Nephew in the Man United academy who I go and watch train a few times a week so I still get to speak to a few good coaches/ex-players there and still know a nice amount of people in the game from various places.
I'm not the most knowledgeable man in the world on the game, but I know enough to know that I don't know enough, if that makes sense. I am not serious enough about the game to be knowledgeable, I wrote a post of advice on this a few years back. Apart from involvement, I've got a bit of a library going of thesis papers, books and documents written by some good coaches which I plan on getting all uploaded at some point. I think I pointed Billy to some a while back when he was looking at Van Gaal's tactics.
I try to watch the game as much as possible, at all different levels and leagues. I regularly watch the Premiership and Serie A (I try to get to Milan a couple of times a year to watch Milan who I've always had a bit of a thing for), and catch the big game of the week in La Liga. I download the highlight packages from Portugal every week and watch South American football a few times a week (on William Hill Live Streams!), but the quality varies from the Copa Libertadores to some random Division 3 game (if you thought English Division 3 was bad, you should try watching Brazilian Division 3 games).
I certainly haven't managed people as much as you have, but I'm not sure how much sales management and football management link in to each other. I've been part of sales teams and coached football and I see them as different roles entirely, but your experience may differ.

The gist of your question is where are City going wrong.

First of all, we are a club who has been mismanaged from the top for decades. Our recent history has been chequered by constant envious glances over the road. Now suddenly we have the key to the door. WE have untold riches. So lets start the story back in 2008 when this happened.

I agree with most of this. What I do sort of dislike is how people forecast great wealth = success. I disagree with this notion, I believe that great wealth gives you an advantage to succeed over clubs in similar positions and you can push on quicker, but just having money doesn't mean anything. This is why £800m debt United are top of the league and financial powerhouse QPR aren't.

I understand that we weren't making this point directly, but it was just something that I wanted to throw out there.

MArk Hughes was not a good enough manager for a club with a pot of gold. He started with a 4-3-3, with Ireland as playmaker, and went to 4-4-2 in his second season to incorporate Carlos Tevez. His signings were overpriced but he got more right than wrong. But he was ridid in his thinking, he didn't make changes on the fly and he was too arrogant. His man to man marking didn't work and he was unable to prevent us leaking goals. He should have been sacked i the close season of 08=09 ut the Sheikh was too loyal. He got it wrong.

I thought that Hughes was pretty poor on the tactical side and that his PR image was more important than his time on the pitch. There's a great story from Strachan which says that he cannot understand the difference between the reputations of people like Howard Wilkinson and Ron Atkinson. Wilkinson was a real revolutionary to the British game and brought in numerous techniques and fitness regimes that were years ahead of their time, culminating with some real successes with Leeds. Ron Atkinson was a guy who barely coached anything, stole others ideas and couldn't change a game if he swapped the ball for a rugby ball. Yet, when he wrote it, Atkinson was getting job offers left, right and centre whereas Wilkinson couldn't scrape a living together (must have been before his stint at the FA). He said that interview skills and coming across to the media well are now more important than tactical know how and relationships with players. Holloway and Redknapp seem to be the modern equivalents; Redknapp has done a good job at Spurs but not the magician that everybody seems to believe he has been, same with Holloway. However, their relationship to the media has put them out there instead of their ability to coach. Phil Brown achieved what Holloway did and never got the same cult status; I remember Sunderland and Ipswich doing it years back too. I don't see people fawning over Dave Basset.

Concerning Hughes, I think that assessment is pretty accurate, though I must be remembering his formations incorrectly at the start of his reign.

Mancini came forward 14 months ago. He was third choice of the board but promised behind the scenes that he would prove himself in 6 months and get us in the CL. He immediately went zonal and shored us up well. But the players didn't like him and didn't like his new tactics. He varied systems but the gist was always two holding midfielders playing deep. He wasn't afraid to change systems mid-game back then and did it regularly. But it took him a while to get to know his players and he made a number of mistakes: some bizarre substitutions (IReland off for Etuhu on 70 mins at 0-0 v Lierpool springs to mind), Bellamy's form dipped as we stopped breaking quick - which is what Bellamy needs. Ade found himself increasingly recieving the ball with his back to goal -s omething which he is not good at.

You can't prove the emboldened statements. If it is any consolation, Mancini and Khaldoon have been friends for several years and they both worked together on the Inter academy in Abu Dhabi.

There's an argument here about whether we should try to get a system that suits our players or try to get players that suit our system. Nearly every modern manager believes in the second one (simply because of the short lifespan of them now) which is why everybody is always looking for that "one more player". Bellamy and Ade either didn't fit our system or Mancini felt that he didn't want to personally work with them. I have no problem with either, many quality players are often cast aside for these reasons (Ibra at Barca anyone?), it doesn't make him particularly poor at man management; in fact, considering the form that Tevez has shown despite his arguments with Mancini, I think this is an area where he has always been historically strong. Same happened at Inter with Ibra and even Mourinho couldn't handle Balo whereas Mancini works well with him. Man management is one of the strongest things about Mancini......as long as he actually thinks you are important. If you aren't, he doesn't really make too much of an effort, and why should he?

5th was a disappointment as were the cup exits. We were too "Italian" in the biggest games of the season and it cost us dear. Utd stretched us and got behind us. When we attacked them they rocked but we didn't do it enough.

What does too Italian actually mean? In a tactical sense, what is being Italian and what is the opposite of this that we should have been?

This season there were reasons for optimism. After experimenting pres-season we went with 4-2-3-1 which we've stuck with all season. With this formation we can hold teams or go at them, depending on the midfield. We looked solid at the back from the off but we all felt we would be stronger when Kolorv and Boateng were fit. This proved not to be the case and we still don't know our best back 4. Kompany is a dead cert, but his aprtner sould be either LEscott if we are facing an aeriel battle or Kolo if facing it on the ground. Kolorov is looking like a poor signing and Boaateng looks a centre half which give us a big formation problem:

To play without width, in the 4-2-3-1, or the diamond midfield formation, both of which are the best ones for Silva and Tevez, as "hole players", you need attacking fullbacks. We havent' got them.

I think the opposite about Kolarov; I think that he's a good signing based on what we are trying to achieve. We both seem to agree that our fullbacks need to provide us with width, and Kolarov's crossing ability, as well as his willingness to give us another option in a shot from range, is something that we otherwise lacked. Positionally, he isn't perfect but there isn't a wingback alive who is; even Barca fans moan at Alves about his position. Think Kolarov is pretty strong in the tackle and that he has a nice understanding with Silva/Barry as pointed out on the commentary yesterday (When Silva cuts in, Kolarov takes his spot and Barry drifts towards left back to cover). I believe that we are a much more complete, organised and dangerous team with Kolarov in it.
Still haven't seen enough of Boateng to judge for me. He has looked nervous and hesitant at CB at times, but also looked solid in certain games. I'll tell you at the end of the season. At RB, he has been okay, but not a revelation and with Micah's form going from strength to strength, I see no reason to play him there. If Micah could learn to cross well, he could be such a fantastic player for those games when we need a bit of drive from those areas.

Which brings me to the bigger problem. Our matchwinners are AJ who is injured, Silva and Tevez. The need the same space to play in. But Yaya is oocupying that space as the attacking midfielder. He's a square peg ina round hole there.

AJ isn't a matchwinner, he's a super direct player. He's another Ireland; he's matchwinner in very special circumstances and at other times looks out of his depth. We know from the training reports and their comments that Mancini has worked with Johnson on improving his all round game, and he needed this. Defensively, he was hugely naive when he first came, and I think that he was looking for the spectacular rather than the most efficient a lot. He is becoming better as time goes on, but he's still young and still has that immaturity in his play. Directness isn't wrong, it's just wrong if you don't combine this with something more. There was a great description of him that I've seen somewhere which basically said that he was just a shit version of Robben. Don't agree with the shit bit, but the similarities of play are there and he will face the same problems as Robben did; they need systems built around their strengths to be truly effective.

I agree with your overall point about that space been overcrowded though and this is why I talked about moving Silva into the centre of midfield. Tevez played best as the false nine. Silva cuts into the centre and often takes up the second striker role. Yaya is often pottering around the same place. Richards and Kolarov are trying to take up positions on the edge of the box. I get that we try to overload teams in the final third just as much as we do at the back (Aris was the perfect example of this, but we play the same all the time), but this overloading has resulted in our players never fucking shooting. If there's a pass on or a shot, unless the shot is more likely to result in success, they will take on the pass. It infuriates me how often we pass around on the edge of their box; people call this patient, possessionally dominant play but I disagree, we've gone past this now into the realms of playing pinball. It's just the natural pressure of everything getting to the players and it will sort itself out in time.

I don't see us as having a system that's particularly broken long term, and I see great progression under Mancini. He came in, and immediately sorted out the defence. We aren't as strong as we were in our top form, but even when we play badly, it's rare to see errors involving positioning, lots of our goals are just individual errors now.
He moved on to sort out our lack of goals which he did and we were scoring freely at one point; we've struggled a bit again recently because we've changed our system a little due to the Dzeko signing and we're at the bottom of the mountain as far as learning the new system goes. Dzeko playing on his own up top is completely different from Tevez. Tevez played the false nine, Dzeko plays the targetman. When you have a targetman who is having problems with his touch, it tends to stifle everybody, and once you include the problem you identified with the space behind him, it compounds this.

I see management as the plate spinning act. You concentrate on one area and the others slow a bit, then you go back to them, etc, until everything is at a very high standard so small dips are not a particular problem. My annoyance is that changing managers smashes the plates and we need to start again, with the same problems that we had before (previously top players no longer fitting system/management style, etc)

Of course we could go 4-4-2. But the reason it is out of fashion, in favour of the 4-2-3-1, is that teams, and City, want to dominate the midfield. So we're stuck between a rock and a hard place. We want to dominate the midfield, and that means we dominate posession, but our lack of overlapping fullbacks and width means all our play is concerntrated through the middle. The slow, passing, Italian approach allows teams to defend deep and frustrate us. It is easier to break fdown these teams by getting behind them rather than through them, There is an imbalance in our squad, especially with AJ injured, which means this is hard for us.

Disagree on the slow passing Italian approach being the key to frustrating. Teams will frustrate us if you play 4-2-4 or 4-4-2 or 4-6-0. It isn't about approach, it's about the way that THEY setup to get results. Getting behind them is impossible when they defend on their goalline, and even teams do this again United and Chelsea. The difference between us and them is our relatively shocking performance in the air up front and our unwillingness to shoot from outside the area. Think how many shots we could have had from outside the box yesterday. 20? 30? The chances are that one of them would have gone in, or spilled to the keeper which would have forced Aris to move outwards. I do understand that we break with far less speed than we should do and AJ would help this, but I disagree that this slowing passing is the overriding systemic problem, rather than a problem in a particular circumstance.

I could go on all day but on balance we have a great squad of players who are not being played to the best of their ability in a system and style they don't really believe in. I think the pace of change at City means we need a leader of men to inspire these players, to make them believe the vision and to instil the "winning mentality".

Mancini is a leader of men. In fact, he has been described as this his whole career, even as a player. He was practically running the whole club of Sampdoria as a player. He took over Fiorentina and won trophies. He took over Lazio and won trophies. He took over Inter and won trophies. You need to understand the circumstances of each of these clubs when he took over them to appreciate how big of a deal this was.

At Lazio, he had all of their best players sold from under him (Nesta, Crespo, Mendieta) and managed to be top of the league despite his players getting a massive paycut, his chairman resigning and having sold goal machine Hernan Crespo and only getting Bernardo Corradi in return. He had a dodgy second half, because he had pretty key injuries but he finished fourth despite all of this shit. The next season, all of the players who got them to the CL were sold again and the bank was controlling the signings (and signing shit players). Mancini still put them sixth, with a good CL run.

He got offered the Inter job, when he was in a good position at Lazio and decided to leave. Once he left, Lazio became relegation candidates.

At Inter, a club that hadn't won a jot for about 10 years and hadn't won the title for 20, he immediately won them the Italian Cup. It's funny that this whole season, Inter fans didn't like him because he was "too negative". They weren't complaining when he was lifting trophies. Despite having Moratti who is the worst owner in football for interfering, having Facchetti (a club legend on the scale of Dalglish at Liverpool) joining the board, he still went on to win this and later the Super Cup. After this, the Calciopoli scandal broke and they were given the Scudetto. This is something that gets to me, they finished about 15 points off the title and people think that "ha, doesn't count, he was given the title!". They finished 15 points off of the title, because Juve and Milan literally bought referees to make sure that their games would be won. Inter didn't. You could look at it that they ONLY finished 15 points off of a team that bought referees to ensure success.
The season after this, everybody was concerned about matchfixing so that all stopped. Juve got relegated and they didn't have to contend with them, but even so, they won the league and gained a record 97 points. They still beat Roma, Lazio, Milan, etc to the title including doing Milan 4-3 away and 2-1 at home.
The season after, he won it for them again, beating Juve, Milan, Roma, Lazio and Fiorentina to the title.

The idea that Roberto Mancini isn't a leader of men is just massively incorrect. This is the EXACT THING that he is known for within football. He was sacked because he fell out with the owner for "only" getting into the Quarters of the CL, and to be honest, they were doing pretty well on that front too. It was more down to the fact that they had a big row over because Mourinho was given Mancini's job whilst he was top of the league and still in the CL. This is why I challenge your knowledge on non-English football, it's like saying that Ferguson isn't aggressive enough with his players, or that Mourinho isn't emotional enough on the touchline.

There are some positives and some progression, but it's stalling and I believe there will be great concerns at board level at the way this season is moving. To not qualify for CL would be a disaster. I think the target for Mancini is higher than this.

Again, you have no proof of this. Every thing said by Khaldoon has always stated CL as the goal. We are more than on track for CL.

I tell you what, I'll go one step further. I don't hink he'll be at City next season. I don't think he's got to grips with English football, I don't think he inspires the dressing room and I think he's a detirmined tactician with a questionable back room staff and not enough "X FActor" to take this team to glory.

I'll put my cards on the table then. I think he's got to grips perfectly with English football due to his insistence on dominating possession and securing the defence, I think that the dressing room inspiration stuff is mainly hyperbole and all dressing rooms are inspired by results (which come from training and tactics), that neither you nor I have the credentials or knowledge available to us to judge his backroom staff and trying to do so is arrogance in the extreme and without any intellectual merit, and that X Factor is more hyperbole that doesn't actually mean anything.

Thing is, I'm convinced of the talents of Mancini as a manager having watched his team for several years. I don't think he has yet clicked at City and I don't think that halfway through his first full season is the time to be trying to make judgements on his methods.

 

[JoeMercer'sWay]

holy hell Damo...

 

[johnny crossan]

The king takes his first real shot...
I'll take it Billy, if you don't mind.
Forgive me if I miss anything, Madders, because your was a long post.

My experience of football, first of all. Played the game for my whole life until my 30s. At school level, university level then amateur level. Centre half for most of the time. Spend two summers as a paid football coach abroad when a student. Watched City home and away since the late 70s. Oh, and with regards to people management, I've managed lots of staff for 15 years and do right now as I own a business. Not football management, but not wholly dissimilar, especially sales staff.

This is absolutely shameful. Not one of Dismal Dave's countless disciples ( well at least 5 that I know of) has responded to his PMs and come up with a life history for him that makes him sound credible. It's just so undignified that he has to do it all himself.

Now for those of you who wonder what two years at Camp America has to do with being taken seriously on this board I can offer no light. Dismal's life is animated by a simple truth - he hates Mancini. He hates Mancini because once, long ago, he opined that Mancini would let him down, and Dismal is never wrong.

Mancini will inevitably let him down just like all the other City managers and players and chairmen have let him down over the years. Starting supporting City in the 70's means that you have suffered the agonies without any ecstasies. For most on here that's just the way it is. But Dismal is such an important person that he takes it personally. He'll read any old fanzine, any old player biography anything that he thinks will make him sound like someone who knows about football. He doesn't realize that what counts is what you post, not what people think you are or what you think people who disagree with you are. It's all terribly sad really.