Goo said:
So it seems there has been a lot of hysteria on this board the last couple of weeks, so I thought I'd offer up my 2 cents.
First of all, I respect everyones right to have an opinion on a subject.
In my opinion, to call for Mancini's sacking is a disregard for the knowledge of the architecture of modern football. It blow's my mind anyone would want to see Mancini out. We are on our 18th manager since Ferguscum took over (ref: <a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Manchester_City_F.C._managers" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ma ... ._managers</a>). If anyone should know the trouble of inconsistency, it should be us. However you dress it up, it is shown time and time again that sacking your manager half way through the task of building a team is a recipe for disaster. There was a telling interview with AF not too long ago where he was asked if he knew how many managers we'd had since he took over, and he wished it was one more. He wants Mancini gone because he knows what's coming!
I've read the consistency argument over and over again and it always comes back to the same thing for me (within the context of City). Which manager did we sack who went on to achieve anything of any note anywhere else in world football? The answer is none ... our problem has never been sacking wrong guy, it's replacing him with the wrong guy.
There has been a lot of talk about Mourinho here as well, but I'm totally unconvinced this will hold the answers we long for. While I am sure Mourinho is a fantastic manager, I look at the trouble left in his wake at the clubs of his recent history and it's enough to make me steer well clear. Chelsea are still reliant on players he bought in, and during AVB's reign there was even talk of players moaning to Mourinho via text (this could all be tabloid speculation, but it certainly sews the seeds of doubt.) At Inter Milan, Roberto Mancini won 3 titles from his second year in charge. He built a team that obviously had some footballing strength! He was sacked for not cutting the mustard in Europe, and they brought Mourinho in. He took a winning team and made them keep winning. Exactly the same is happening with Real. Since Mourinho left Inter, they haven't been the same club. Nowhere near. They have had a string of managers since and all of them have "flopped" in the short term they've been allowed. (Just a reminder, I'm not trying to slag him off, just correlating data). Think about this; would you rather 2 years of success and then collapse, or ten years of consistent top table (at least top 3) finishing? I know where I stand.
Mourinho was sacked from Chelsea, he didn't choose to leave. You acknowledge yourself that Chelsea are still "reliant" on Mourinho's players - surely that shows that the problem there wasn't the players, but the managers who came in to coach them subsequently. It's no surprise that the two top drawer coaches they appointed (Hiddink and Ancelotti) both won trophies. Ancelotti won the league and FA Cup with Mourinho's players. That shows quite clearly that the problem post Mourinho was not some sort of schism he leaves at clubs.
Inter Milan's demise, again, has little to do with Mourinho leaving. He left primarily because the Real Madrid job was too good to turn down, and, Moratti was not prepared to spend money to rebuild the squad. Ask yourself why, after Mourinho left, did they choose to sell Balotelli to us? After all his biggest problem at Inter was Mou .... If you're still not convinced, this is what Paolo Bandini the Guardian's expert on Italian football wrote recently about Inter/Moratti:
The club's underlying problems run deep: the lack of long- or even medium-term vision at board level, allied to a top-heavy management structure in which directors roles too often overlap, leading to a string of bad decisions since the treble-winning season of 2009-10.
Instead of gradually renovating an ageing squad, the club has sold prime assets such as Samuel Eto'o, Mario Balotelli and Thiago Motta while bringing in replacements who are inadequate (Mauro Zárate), unready (Andrea Ranocchia) or simply not a good fit (Diego Forlán). Ranieri is already the club's fourth manager since José Mourinho and none have had their judgements backed in the transfer market. Financial Fair Play is a factor, yet significant money has still been spent. Both the incumbent and his predecessor Gian Piero Gasperini would happily have traded Zárate and Forlán for Genoa's Rodrigo Palacio.
Now, successful clubs, certainly in England, often share two common denominators. CONSISTENCY and MONEY. The scum have been winning for 20 odd years, and Fergie has been around for 25. Those of you who went to the Maine Road Massacre will probably remember the away lot calling for Fergie's head during that game (22 years ago). I'm sure they'd be very embarrassed if you brought that up now. It took him 6 years to create a significant team and start winning, and that's barely declined since. People often talk of Mancini "losing the dressing room" because he has one falling out with one player. Fergie has fallen out with tonnes of players in the past, and that never stopped the club from moving on. Fergie's job is so safe now, the players know they wont win, no matter how good they are, or no matter how important they are to the team. Once our club/players know this about Mancini, his influence on the players will become all the stronger. Sacking Mancini now would just be giving in to the media/deadwood players/trouble makers, etc. People say that having Tevez back is a lack of strength as a manager, but Mancini won that battle. He asked for an apology, and waited it out until he got one. Whether Tevez stays and has a role at this club or not, is Mancini's decision. Kia/Tevez are coming to terms with that with their tails between their legs.
So we're back to 'consistency' and 'Fergie'. The strongest attribute Ferguson possesses is his ability to 'manage' his top players. He's an absolute master motivator. For years on end United have dominated British football with teams who are always greater than the sum of their parts. It took him six years to start winning leagues, but since then football has evolved rapidly, as has Ferguson to keep up with those demands. You have to remember that he discarded Roy Keane why? Not because he didn't need him anymore, but because Keane (and Van Nistelrooy) didn't like Ronaldo's attitude. Ferguson put his arm around Ronaldo and fucked the other two off out the door. That's modern day man management. Something which sadly, Mancini seems to be lacking in.
Similarly, to say that once the players know Mancini is the boss, they'll acquiesce to his demands and we'll get better, completely ignores (within the context of the rags) that Ferguson's players not only fear him, but adore him and respect him. It's a well worn cliche that he knows the name of every single youth player at the club and speaks to them all regularly. Ronaldo
still calls him a father figure and someone who he owes his career to.
As for the media/deadwood/troublemakers line. This squad is Mancini's. He has signed 14 players i believe since he came in. That's almost unprecedented.
Wenger is another example of consistency. They've won plenty of silverware in the past, and have also come runners up a lot. The one thing that stifles Arsenal's potential dominance in the league is Wenger's tight fist. If he was more willing to bring in known top quality to fill in the gaps, they'd have won far more than they already have.
Arsenal have won nothing for 7 years. So consistency isn't
everything and clearly Arsenal have suffered for not having someone come in and change things for them. That also comes down to what are the expectations of the board/supporters. Arsenal supporters, have had to come to accept that CL qualification should be the zenith of their aspirations whilst Chelsea ( and now City ) have become such good footballing teams with big investment.
Just looking at the last ten years of Chelsea's history alone should be enough to warn you off sacking the manager. We need to back him 100%, and we need to back his team 100%. Every year he's been in charge we've improved immensely. First 6 months, we very nearly clinched a CL spot. The second year, we got the CL spot by a fair margin. The defensive improvement in that season really was a huge building block, winning us golden glove, yet the press said "he's Italian and too defensive". This is also kind of ironic as we won the golden boot as well. This season, the gloves came off, and we have been scoring goals all over the place. When we are playing well we can score at will, which has been the next building block. Currently we're in a slump, but everyone has slumps. Arsenal had there's at the start of the season and everyone was writing them off. In another thread now, I've read that people think they might even beat us to second! YCMIU. Next years building block, I am sure, will be the C word... Consistency. No more "we underestimated them" etc.
My point being is that, if you look at the season by season improvement under Bobby against historical information about other clubs regarding consistency and money, then extrapolate, the sky is the absolute limit for City. I accept everyone is getting emotional right now, not just because we looked nailed on to win, but because now we look set to lose to the scum. REMEMBER, It's not over yet. And pointing fingers at the manager isn't helping anyone. If indeed we come second, we need to dust ourselves down and we WILL come back so much stronger next year! It's written on the wall, and we all know it... Even the red contingency!
To be honest, I've much respect for the notion that Mancini should get another season. He deserves it on the first half of this season's performances alone. However your argument that
consistency will lead to success, and that Chelsea are proof that without consistency you don't succeed, both for me fall at the first hurdle.
