Kiev post match reaction thread - PLEASE keep it in here.

[uncletom]

All this talk about tactics is bullshit. Its about the players not being good enough.

 

[blueinsa]

All this talk about tactics is bullshit. Its about the players not being good enough.

Unbelievable....

 

[Failsworth_Blue]

So the players are badly underperforming (that's the gist of what i'm reading from a few posters) - why is that not Mancini's fault. One player or two you blame the player. When the team consistently underperforms surely the manager carries the can...

I've held my hands up and said when we went a goal down we weren't good enough and that Mancini's tactics didn't work but you also have to look at some of the players. I don't mind players underperforming if they are doing the basics right, but last night Yaya, Silva, Balo and Dzeko were all guilty of giving the ball away without being under any sort of pressure, is that down to the tactics, is that down to the manager or maybe it was just the players had an off day because it happens believe it or not

 

[Bluemoon115]

All this talk about tactics is bullshit. Its about the players not being good enough.

Mancini his moved on all those he has deemed not good enough, so if that's your argument, it's still the fault of the same man...

 

[GerBlueBear]

I don't wanna hear the excuse from Mancini that our players are tired anymore, true or not it just doesn't help to keep blaming their fitness. Take the defeat on the chin and get them rested for the next game.

If he wants a decent excuse he can blame injuries and that I think his tactics were slightly off last night. We got dominated in the middle of the park the 3 midfielders of Zabaleta, Barry and Yaya wasn't enough and we needed another central midfielder in there. Injuries that would have made a difference being De Jong and Milner. Milner would have offered us more going forward and De Jong would have given Yaya the licence to roam forward too. Then again a fully fit Vieira was on the bench so he could certainly have played he's been diong well of late. Dzeko/Balotelli/Tevez one of those upfront alone with Silva off him would have done, for me Dzeko.

It's strange, one of the few times I expect Mancini to play a formation where we sit back he actually went for a win. The formation we played last night should have been used in a home leg. I think if we haven't scored 2 goals by half time at home then we'll see Balotelli, Dzeko and Tevez unless he opts to start with it.

Dissapointing result but could have been worse, can't allow ourselves to be bossed in midfield and also I thought Tevez' impact was immense!

 

[Anonymous]

So the players are badly underperforming (that's the gist of what i'm reading from a few posters) - why is that not Mancini's fault. One player or two you blame the player. When the team consistently underperforms surely the manager carries the can...

Nope.

Thought not.

We can always buy another new team this summer. I'm sure the Sheikh won't mind. I'm sure eventually Mancini will have purchased a team which lives up to his exactingly high standards...

 

[Failsworth_Blue]

Nope.

Thought not.

We can always buy another new team this summer. I'm sure the Sheikh won't mind. I'm sure eventually Mancini will have purchased a team which lives up to his exactingly high standards...

You just going to ignore what i said then Billy and respond to someone who has a one word answer instead of wanting a debate? Fair enough

 

[Bluemoon115]

Nope.

Thought not.

We can always buy another new team this summer. I'm sure the Sheikh won't mind. I'm sure eventually Mancini will have purchased a team which lives up to his exactingly high standards...

Of course.

Just sit back and enjoy the bride, Rome wasn't built in a Dave.

 

[Soulboy]

You have a very simplistic view of management. It's quaint.

You don't believe a manager has any influence in terms of motivation or spirit, that an angry manager is less effective than a rational one?

Well, you fly in the face of hundreds of years of management philosophy... but at least it's an original viewpoint!

;-))

Uck, keep it civil mate.

My point is that I don't buy into these 'divisions' - we had Carlos handing in a transfer request (two weeks after Rooney, presumably in a bid to get a similarly-improved deal).
On the pitch last night, they were motivated - you only have to look at the effort put in in the last quarter of the match. In recent games where there's been 'aggro', the players have waded in for each other (see Villa - Toure, Balotelli, Hart, Kolarov) - this shows unity. Training reports point to good morale.

I just want to discuss actual facts, and not vague assertions relating to 'body language', and other such stuff.

Add to the fact that a fair few successful managers (Capello, Ferguson for example) aren't one bit interested in being the players' mate, and can you see why I think the issue's being given a little too much weight in these discussions?

Ferguson isn't the "players' mate"?

Seriously?

He's gone out on a limb numerous times to defend his players. Everyone who has worked for him have nothing but great things to say about his man-management skills. The way he treats youth players, makes them feel important and valued, the respect he gets from his team.

Do you honestly think Mancini gets anywher near that level of engagement with his playing staff?

I know you don't think it's important... whereas I think it totally defines the quality of a manager. So we're never going to agree on this. To me management is ALL about motivation and direction. Tactics are simply a by-product of that philosophy.

He buys the wrong players, he plays the wrong formations, he cannot change a game.

Is that tactical enough for you?

 

[Eastlands90]

Uck, keep it civil mate.

My point is that I don't buy into these 'divisions' - we had Carlos handing in a transfer request (two weeks after Rooney, presumably in a bid to get a similarly-improved deal).
On the pitch last night, they were motivated - you only have to look at the effort put in in the last quarter of the match. In recent games where there's been 'aggro', the players have waded in for each other (see Villa - Toure, Balotelli, Hart, Kolarov) - this shows unity. Training reports point to good morale.

I just want to discuss actual facts, and not vague assertions relating to 'body language', and other such stuff.

Add to the fact that a fair few successful managers (Capello, Ferguson for example) aren't one bit interested in being the players' mate, and can you see why I think the issue's being given a little too much weight in these discussions?

Ferguson isn't the "players' mate"?

Seriously?

He's gone out on a limb numerous times to defend his players. Everyone who has worked for him have nothing but great things to say about his man-management skills. The way he treats youth players, makes them feel important and valued, the respect he gets from his team.

Do you honestly think Mancini gets anywher near that level of engagement with his playing staff?

I know you don't think it's important... whereas I think it totally defines the quality of a manager. So we're never going to agree on this. To me management is ALL about motivation and direction. Tactics are simply a by-product of that philosophy.

He buys the wrong players, he plays the wrong formations, he cannot change a game.

Is that tactical enough for you?

Tactical enough to welcome a new manager.