Jose for City? (merged)

[hgblue]

so, is this thread still about Mourinho or what?
my opinion on Mourinho is that he has to be the last resort.
say for instance, Mourinho comes in after we get 4th this season, gets rid of some dead wood, brings in a couple, then he struggles to get 2nd and we finish 4th, then what?
there is nobody with a greater stature or name than Mourinho so if he comes in and fails we will only go backwards, imo.
views?

There are some arguments against Mourinho which I respect. I disagree with them, but I respect them. However, the argument that you don't employ the best because you have nowhere to go if he fails, is by far the silliest imo.

 

[fbloke]

Damocles made a very valid point earlier about the disruption cause when a manager is sacked.

That is something that has to be considered of course by any clubs board when a change is being thought of.

Interestingly for me though was when I asked everyone earlier in this thread to strip those considerations out of this debate and explain to me why Mancini, on his own merits (and not the negative ones of the disruption etc) should stay and I was defended by the silence and accused of being arrogant.

If people are to use the very valid considerations of the disruption of changing a manager for sticking by Mancini, it is surely something that also weakens the case of Mancini not being sacked inf favour of Mourinho?

I may have overcomplicated that thought but hopefully you get the drift.

Judge your backing of the manager on his strengths and not on the fact that its a hassle changing him after 18 months. Because a pound to a pinch of poo the same issues will be there after 24 or 36 months.

 

[Damocles]

I don't think that Mancini is a better manager than Mourinho or that either of them are flavours of the month, I was making a general point about the policy of replacing one manager with seemingly a "better manager".
I think that Mourinho is a better manager, but that Mancini isn't far enough behind that we should sack him after his first full season. I'm sorry, but you can't change a football club inside a year, you just can't; every single pro, coach or manager in the game agrees on this singular issue. It's only seemingly the fans, pundits and journos who believe this myth.

Fair enough Dam, I respect that point of view but disagree. I know it frustrates people no end to hear this, but I believe Mourinho to be the best manager of his generation and head and shoulders above Mancini. If we appoint him, we'll see a step change in our fortunes next season, and we'll certainly compete for the title until the end and probably win it imo.

I find it hard to say those types of things about Mourinho because I think it's too early to call him the best ever.

It's entirely possible, that he might be a big version of Redknapp (i.e. got tremendously lucky that his personal slant on tactics just happened to be the perfect thing to counter the systems that others have adopted rather than been any sort of a revolutionary). Of course, he's probably not and is certainly the leading light of this generation as you pointed out, but how he adopts over the next few years will be what shows us where he stands in the all time list.

The best guys ever, could all adapt their philosophy to numerous generations and 'fashions' in football.

There's also the other thing about failure. The very best have a way of bouncing back from failure that I don't see in Mou yet, simply because he ha always been too good to fail. This isn't a criticism of him, rather an observation.

Ferguson was sacked unceremoniously from St. Mirren, then went on to Aberdeen and won loads. Wenger was sacked from Monaco before his J-League adventure. Lippi was sacked from Inter (as was our own manager) then and went the Scudetto twice at Juve and got to the CL Final. Clough had his time at Leeds, Benitez was sacked in Spain before he went to Valencia and eventual CL success with Liverpool, even Michels and Happel had their failures. In fact, the only man in history who I can think of as heavily successful without failure was Paisley, and that might have something to do with him managing Shankly's Liverpool.

When you have failures that cost you your job, it forces you to reevaluate yourself. ALL managers are arrogant, dictatorial, flashy bastards; it's a requirement of the job. They believe that their style of football is correct and that everything must be done RIGHT NOW because everything is the MOST IMPORTANT THING EVER. This is why they all have heart attacks.

Getting the sack, not because of some crappy excuse like Hughes has given himself, not because they were thrown out early like Mancini is been talked of, but getting the sack after having a couple of years at it and still utterly failing humbles you. Say what you want about his media persona, but Ferguson is known as quite a funny, knowledgeable and well mannered person when speaking about football. He has won everything at United and almost single-handedly made them one of the biggest clubs in the world today. If anyone has cause to be self-assured, it is him.

However, Ferguson is willing to admit defeat in his own systems at a drop of a hat and adopt something else if he recognises that his initial thoughts were wrong. He's done this loads in the past, but the stand out one was when he adopted the Quieroz 4-3-3; a system that he professes that he didn't fully understand beyond the theoretical at the time, because his own thoughts of a 4-5-1 weren't working. Due to this, his team which were floundering and hadn't won the league in 3 years, went off and won it again to start a new period of dominance.

There are similar stories for all of the top managers really. Shankly had his Boot Room, Mercer had Allison, etc.

The point is, Mourinho had never had to look anywhere apart from at his own ideas and the real test of his place alongside Michels, Ferguson and the others are his reactions when he eventually has to.

 

[fbloke]

Fair enough Dam, I respect that point of view but disagree. I know it frustrates people no end to hear this, but I believe Mourinho to be the best manager of his generation and head and shoulders above Mancini. If we appoint him, we'll see a step change in our fortunes next season, and we'll certainly compete for the title until the end and probably win it imo.

I find it hard to say those types of things about Mourinho because I think it's too early to call him the best ever.

It's entirely possible, that he might be a big version of Redknapp (i.e. got tremendously lucky that his personal slant on tactics just happened to be the perfect thing to counter the systems that others have adopted rather than been any sort of a revolutionary). Of course, he's probably not and is certainly the leading light of this generation as you pointed out, but how he adopts over the next few years will be what shows us where he stands in the all time list.

The best guys ever, could all adapt their philosophy to numerous generations and 'fashions' in football.

There's also the other thing about failure. The very best have a way of bouncing back from failure that I don't see in Mou yet, simply because he ha always been too good to fail. This isn't a criticism of him, rather an observation.

Ferguson was sacked unceremoniously from St. Mirren, then went on to Aberdeen and won loads. Wenger was sacked from Monaco before his J-League adventure. Lippi was sacked from Inter (as was our own manager) then and went the Scudetto twice at Juve and got to the CL Final. Clough had his time at Leeds, Benitez was sacked in Spain before he went to Valencia and eventual CL success with Liverpool, even Michels and Happel had their failures. In fact, the only man in history who I can think of as heavily successful without failure was Paisley, and that might have something to do with him managing Shankly's Liverpool.

When you have failures that cost you your job, it forces you to reevaluate yourself. ALL managers are arrogant, dictatorial, flashy bastards; it's a requirement of the job. They believe that their style of football is correct and that everything must be done RIGHT NOW because everything is the MOST IMPORTANT THING EVER. This is why they all have heart attacks.

Getting the sack, not because of some crappy excuse like Hughes has given himself, not because they were thrown out early like Mancini is been talked of, but getting the sack after having a couple of years at it and still utterly failing humbles you. Say what you want about his media persona, but Ferguson is known as quite a funny, knowledgeable and well mannered person when speaking about football. He has won everything at United and almost single-handedly made them one of the biggest clubs in the world today. If anyone has cause to be self-assured, it is him.

However, Ferguson is willing to admit defeat in his own systems at a drop of a hat and adopt something else if he recognises that his initial thoughts were wrong. He's done this loads in the past, but the stand out one was when he adopted the Quieroz 4-3-3; a system that he professes that he didn't fully understand beyond the theoretical at the time, because his own thoughts of a 4-5-1 weren't working. Due to this, his team which were floundering and hadn't won the league in 3 years, went off and won it again to start a new period of dominance.

There are similar stories for all of the top managers really. Shankly had his Boot Room, Mercer had Allison, etc.

The point is, Mourinho had never had to look anywhere apart from at his own ideas and the real test of his place alongside Michels, Ferguson and the others are his reactions when he eventually has to.

I made a rather bold statement about a month ago that Mourinho could now be on a downward spiral, it could be he is entering a period of relative failure.

I know people will flame me for it but it could be that the magic something that Mourinho has had to date is on the wane.

Historically speaking he is already unique but most managers have a limit to the number of teams they can spark to success.

 

[Damocles]

Interestingly for me though was when I asked everyone earlier in this thread to strip those considerations out of this debate and explain to me why Mancini, on his own merits (and not the negative ones of the disruption etc) should stay and I was defended by the silence and accused of being arrogant.

Ok.

Mancini is a young manager who has previously proven that he has what it takes to win leagues. He's clever tactically, and knows when to fold and when to raise (despite the fans objections). He has improved nearly every single player at the club on a technical level from the last manager, and as a team we are incredibly difficult to beat. Our defence is good, despite injuries and rotations, and we look solid at the back most of the time. Going forward, we are a tough team to contain and it is only usually achieved by sitting 10 men behind a ball, which we still manage to break thorough which shows why we have won so many by 1 goal this year. We had an okish Europa League run, poor Carling Cup run and an excellent FA Cup run. We're fourth in the league, 3 points clear of our main rivals and challenging our third place rivals heavily. It's not THAT unlikely that if form continues for the other teams, that we can finish second, though that's admittedly a push. For a manager in his first full season, trying to gell half of his team in whilst still trying to be successful on all fronts, that's a good return.

I'm not exactly sure what else that the man could have done. He was asked to get fourth and have a strong cup run at the beginning of the year by the fans. He is in fourth and we have a strong cup run.

Mancini's done what is asked of him, the fans have seemingly changed the rules.

 

[leewill31]

Interestingly for me though was when I asked everyone earlier in this thread to strip those considerations out of this debate and explain to me why Mancini, on his own merits (and not the negative ones of the disruption etc) should stay and I was defended by the silence and accused of being arrogant.

Ok.

Mancini is a young manager who has previously proven that he has what it takes to win leagues. He's clever tactically, and knows when to fold and when to raise (despite the fans objections). He has improved nearly every single player at the club on a technical level from the last manager, and as a team we are incredibly difficult to beat. Our defence is good, despite injuries and rotations, and we look solid at the back most of the time. Going forward, we are a tough team to contain and it is only usually achieved by sitting 10 men behind a ball, which we still manage to break thorough which shows why we have won so many by 1 goal this year. We had an okish Europa League run, poor Carling Cup run and an excellent FA Cup run. We're fourth in the league, 3 points clear of our main rivals and challenging our third place rivals heavily. It's not THAT unlikely that if form continues for the other teams, that we can finish second, though that's admittedly a push. For a manager in his first full season, trying to gell half of his team in whilst still trying to be successful on all fronts, that's a good return.

I'm not exactly sure what else that the man could have done. He was asked to get fourth and have a strong cup run at the beginning of the year by the fans. He is in fourth and we have a strong cup run.

Mancini's done what is asked of him, the fans have seemingly changed the rules.

i wouldn't say changing the rules more to the fact we have such a quality team but Mancini wants to hold them back that's how i feel anyway!

to see such quality on the pitch but then to only see one man in the box most times and then not doing nothing staggers me at times.

 

[Mancio]

If mourinho was city manager...

City would go to top teams and attack
The squad would have a winning mentality
The players would want to play for the manager
He would find a system to suit the players available
Bacon face would continue to piss his pants
City would win the champs league every year
The Beatles would do a gig at coms
Colonel gadaffi would surrender
There would be life on mars
All the City fans will see an extra inch add to their cock

the last the best

 

[fbloke]

Interestingly for me though was when I asked everyone earlier in this thread to strip those considerations out of this debate and explain to me why Mancini, on his own merits (and not the negative ones of the disruption etc) should stay and I was defended by the silence and accused of being arrogant.

Ok.

Mancini is a young manager who has previously proven that he has what it takes to win leagues. He's clever tactically, and knows when to fold and when to raise (despite the fans objections). He has improved nearly every single player at the club on a technical level from the last manager, and as a team we are incredibly difficult to beat. Our defence is good, despite injuries and rotations, and we look solid at the back most of the time. Going forward, we are a tough team to contain and it is only usually achieved by sitting 10 men behind a ball, which we still manage to break thorough which shows why we have won so many by 1 goal this year. We had an okish Europa League run, poor Carling Cup run and an excellent FA Cup run. We're fourth in the league, 3 points clear of our main rivals and challenging our third place rivals heavily. It's not THAT unlikely that if form continues for the other teams, that we can finish second, though that's admittedly a push. For a manager in his first full season, trying to gell half of his team in whilst still trying to be successful on all fronts, that's a good return.

I'm not exactly sure what else that the man could have done. He was asked to get fourth and have a strong cup run at the beginning of the year by the fans. He is in fourth and we have a strong cup run.

Mancini's done what is asked of him, the fans have seemingly changed the rules.

Its funny that I can agree with all of that (irrespective of my like/dislike of Mancini) and can see many reasons where your evidence based POV has merit.

However when others on here were asked the same question they had no answer other than you HAVE to stick by him.

That sort of pointless response frustrates me and others.

We then move onto the more subjective argument 'how' and with which 'style' we achieve the targets City's managers are set which is far less likely to gain a consensus ;-)

 

[hgblue]

If mourinho was city manager...

City would go to top teams and attack
The squad would have a winning mentality
The players would want to play for the manager
He would find a system to suit the players available
Bacon face would continue to piss his pants
City would win the champs league every year
The Beatles would do a gig at coms
Colonel gadaffi would surrender
There would be life on mars
All the City fans will see an extra inch add to their cock

the last the best

That's the best argument against Mourinho I've ever seen, because I could do with losing an inch or two off mine :-).

 

[taconinja]

At what point, if any, does how City win games enter peoples calculations?

Yes we grind out results to get into the CL but does next season mean we do the same or do we want better, more attractive, flowing football?

Ah, now we wish to tread the path of Real Madrid whilst skipping all the titles. I keep bringing them up because they're out of their minds. I don't want that for us. They're the height of arrogance and despite all the going on and on about us being arrogant from the press and other fans, I dismiss that talk as silly until I run into posts like this.