As I said originally, my problem with you comes from the righteousness of opinion and the way in which you put it across. Hell, I'm not exactly innocent of this either and it probably doesn't help when we ramp up the sarcasm, but the idea that this is a one sided attack battle is incorrect and dishonest. I also disagree with you on an awful lot of causality but that's less of an annoyance and more of one of those points that are enjoyable to debate with you.
Opinions should be formed on reflection of evidence and you had Mancini down as a bad choice from the word go. Maybe it's my inner scientist, but I find this discouraging and thus any point that you make subsequent to this to be agenda driven, whether it is or isn't.
I do not understand how anybody can look at Mancini's record pre-City, Mancini's evolution of the team and Mancini's current standings and believe that he has done badly or presented any evidence of long term problems, after only 14 months (and in reality, there was a pre-season/World Cup between that, so it wasn't like he spent every day with the players). I know this sounds a bit daft, but you try too hard to be right and often pick out innocuous threads in the cotton and try to draw a greater meaning out of them. If you take a step back and not just focus on the past three games, I think we can both agree that we have kicked on well; tactically, as a club, on the pitch, in our methods, in our 'beatability', in numerous places. I don't think we have really gone backwards in any place really.
Due to this, the only real feeling that people could have against Mancini, is that he isn't progressing QUICK enough, and after 14 months in charge, I'm not sure what progress was expected. This is the same confusing feeling that I had about the league title; I just can't see how people expect us to improve our consistency that quickly.