Jose for City? (merged)

[mancunial]

Re: Jose for City?

the requirment is that bobby will have already advised his blueprint for sucsess with the owners? so obviously they must have give their approval? wether we like it or not he will stick to his guns, he is a man who will not turn or be moved, you have to admire him, obviously his own man and a man of principles, the type of mananger we have needed here for 40 years? jose is probably thinking if i had that backing what i could do with that side? if he doesn,t deliver the champions league title then he will be on the move and will step up his motivation for a move, if that lot think he will move to trafford then they are mistaken, would you with uncle alex looking over your shoulder and saying like harry enfield you don,t do it like this you do it like that? he wants the job at city but no way bobby will change is way for anyone? i for one admire the guy even though i find his slow slow quick slow football tooth pulling?

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

Re: Jose for City?

the requirment is that bobby will have already advised his blueprint for sucsess with the owners? so obviously they must have give their approval? wether we like it or not he will stick to his guns, he is a man who will not turn or be moved, you have to admire him, obviously his own man and a man of principles, the type of mananger we have needed here for 40 years? jose is probably thinking if i had that backing what i could do with that side? if he doesn,t deliver the champions league title then he will be on the move and will step up his motivation for a move, if that lot think he will move to trafford then they are mistaken, would you with uncle alex looking over your shoulder and saying like harry enfield you don,t do it like this you do it like that? he wants the job at city but no way bobby will change is way for anyone? i for one admire the guy even though i find his slow slow quick slow football tooth pulling?

Well Mancini's blueprint for success has only 15 more months to run on his contract, so much for long-term plans.

Why only this?

 

[Rammy Blue]

Re: Jose for City?

Well Mancini's blueprint for success has only 15 more months to run on his contract, so much for long-term plans.

Why only this?

Surely wrong mate?

"6 months and 3 years" should take him through to Summer 2013.

 

[jimharri]

Re: Jose for City?

Wasn't having a dig at you at all, or any other blue . I meant the new era team that has the opportunity for success. You might want to be a bit more careful with your sweeping generalisations of sweeping generalisations ;)

Okay. If I'm wrong, I apologise. However, in my defence, I will point out out that when you made your 'new City era'' comment, you did quote my post. Therefore, it was not unreasonable to assume that your comment was directed at me, yes? At the end of the day we all want what is best for the club. I'm just not (yet) convinced that RM is the best to get us to where we want to be. As I said earlier, if he gets us to a top 4 spot, great. If he doesn't, questions will have to be asked, and answered.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

Re: Jose for City?

Well Mancini's blueprint for success has only 15 more months to run on his contract, so much for long-term plans.

Why only this?

Surely wrong mate?

"6 months and 3 years" should take him through to Summer 2013.

Yeah, I'm wrong. It's that six month thingy again...

Not long for a man with a masterplan, especially as some have commented, that Rome wasn't built in a day.

The average manager, anywhere, is 18 months.

 

[Mancio]

Re: Jose for City?

some posts are really naive , to say the least...

how can anyone believe that the top managers may be moved at the end of a season , is well over my understanding.

both clubs and managers are used to do a thing that is called programming.

at this stage in season top clubs and top managers already knows where they'll work the next season.

 

[whitt]

Re: Jose for City?

Wasn't having a dig at you at all, or any other blue . I meant the new era team that has the opportunity for success. You might want to be a bit more careful with your sweeping generalisations of sweeping generalisations ;)

Okay. If I'm wrong, I apologise. However, in my defence, I will point out out that when you made your 'new City era'' comment, you did quote my post. Therefore, it was not unreasonable to assume that your comment was directed at me, yes? At the end of the day we all want what is best for the club. I'm just not (yet) convinced that RM is the best to get us to where we want to be. As I said earlier, if he gets us to a top 4 spot, great. If he doesn't, questions will have to be asked, and answered.

It was directed at the 35 years isn't instant mate. We're only just in a position to challenge for honours (new era City), so to me that is looking for instant success. I'm not trying to argue, like you said, we all want what's best for the club. Us pulling in the same direction might help that, but then we all have different opinions.

 

[BobKowalski]

Re: Jose for City?

Of course entertainment is part of the equation , but if i were a match going fan , it would be to watch and support the team irregardless of whether they had 0 shots on goal or 30 shots on goal.But i guess it depends upon the person.But my personal opinion is that the majority of the fans should try and adopt the type of mentality that i speak of.

Can't agree, football was invented so the working man could fil;l his life with something more than the factory et al.

I would also argue that City lost many fans under Stuart Pearce, precisely because the football was so dire.

And the reason Kevin Keegan was lauded, is because we played the game the right way.

Do you think Brazil fans would accept such a leap away from their usual way of playing.

City have my loyalty and love, they do not have a gun to my head. It's a two-way street.

As for those who say Jose GUARANTEES trophies - he doesn't.

His methods have been shown to prove (most pertinently, in England) he gives a team a GREATER chance of attaining success.

Perservering with Roberto simply requires a leap of faith he will get it right in England, eventually.

And that's where the dilemma presents itself for fans and our owners.

Agree with this and your previous post.

Except about Keegan. Walking out on England because he was out of his depth is Keegan personified - specifically 'out of his depth' and 'walking out'.

I recognise though he did a good job in the Championship and along with the style of football is fondly remembered.

Unfortunately Keegan's style of football is not going to cut it at the top level.

Mancini's style of football is rooted in several basics - ball retention and making us hard to beat. He also wants players with strong mentalities. Grinding this into the players and demanding that they stick with a pattern of play is where we are at the moment and for top European sides and even old 'Top 4' sides it is familiar territory.

For City it might as well come from the planet Zog.

If we want success and all the glory nights that entails you need someone to start building a team/squad that can cope mentally with the pressure in getting these things. Making us hard to beat and instilling a pattern of play that involves not giving the ball away and is based on hard work, copious amounts of talent and the ability to 'concentrate' for the full 90+ minutes every game is where any top coach is going to start.

At times when it works properly it can be glorious. A lot of the time its going to be functional and dour. But in the long term it will stand us in good stead and serve us well no matter who ends up coaching us (assuming that ADUG appoint a top coach to follow Mancini).

The owners will look at this long term and only effect a change in manager if they believe that Mancini cannot achieve the medium to long term goals.

Long meandering threads about Jose (or whoever) every time he mentions he will be 'definitely be back in England' next season are fun but pointless especially as he has said that every fucking season since he left.

Moaning about the football is also fairly pointless since we have to start acting like a top club at some stage so we might as well start learning now. If you want the 'exciting' football of City's past then my only question is 'Where was it?' because looking back over the last 30 odd years I don't remember too much of it or has 30 odd years of mind numbing failure blinded me? Maybe, who knows.

And don't give me Spurs either. PL titles are not won with 3-1 defeats to Blackpool or Cups won by getting spanked 4-0 by Fulham. Plus Harry against Milan discovered the joy of defending deep with two holding midfielders and hitting it long to Crouch with the knockdown to VDV as an outlet and main attacking threat. It was almost Italian in its execution and all credit to him because it worked.

 

[tolmie's hairdoo]

Re: Jose for City?

some posts are really naive , to say the least...

how can anyone believe that the top managers may be moved at the end of a season , is well over my understanding.

both clubs and managers are used to do a thing that is called programming.

at this stage in season top clubs and top managers already knows where they'll work the next season.

I agree to a certain extent, things go on all the time.

But as the dismissal of Hughes showed, sometimes clubs are forced to react to immediate situations.

 

[samharris]

Re: Jose for City?

some posts are really naive , to say the least...

how can anyone believe that the top managers may be moved at the end of a season , is well over my understanding.

both clubs and managers are used to do a thing that is called programming.

at this stage in season top clubs and top managers already knows where they'll work the next season.

I agree to a certain extent, things go on all the time.

But as the dismissal of Hughes showed, sometimes clubs are forced to react to immediate situations.

Maybe Hughes would have been given more time if he'd been brought in by the owners...who knows, but an important factor to add to the equasion.