Mancini 'arrogant and vain'

[taconinja]

How about watching loads of good players on a pitch playing increasingly badly and deciding it's because the manager has lost the dressing room because he treats them like shit? Is that confirmation bias?

Nope. :)

That's simply analysis. Seriously, confirmation bias means that you won't alter your conclusions no matter the evidence. You'll just twist all evidence to fit. It's happened here. One good example often involves goals per minute stats and such.

Damn. Just when I thought I had a handle on it. :)

I figure you already do, but this is a far more entertaining discussion than talk of media wars. :)

 

[levets]

Ah you see its stories like that about Ade that make me miss Mancini. Ade needed fucking off. Mancini can fuck off as many Ades as he likes. Khaldoon not backing Mancini at that point would have been a disaster and also would have meant no trophies and no title.

And it has nothing to do with Ferran seeing through Mancini. You just couldn't have both trying to run City. For three years City chose Mancini. Now they have chosen Ferran who I suspect will be just as adept at fucking people off as Mancini was. Its an alpha dog thing.

But that's where you again spectacularly miss the point. The point of the story isn't about Ade. The point of the story is about the way he went and the reaction of the other players. These are the turds RM has been depositing on his own doorstep for years and which have finally drowned him. If a player sees his mate treated like that, he thinks "what happens when I'm out of favour?"

And I don't think even you really believe the ridiculous concept that "This town wasn't big enough for both Txiki and Bob". That's what rejected candidates say when they fail interviews. Have you heard and seen nothing over the last few days? Have you not watched our games this season?

He went because he wasn't good enough. Full stop.

No I don't miss the point. I just have a different point to you. I look at the way Ade and others went. I look at the past three seasons. I look at losing 1 PL game at home in 2 seasons. I see an FA Cup. I see a PL title. I see great football being played and no not all the time no team does. I see us (hopefully) hitting 81 points this season and that considered a failure. I see us cemented in the top 3 teams in the PL. In short I like what I see. I want to see more. If removing Mancini for a new approach with Ferran and Txiki and its just as successful, if not more so, then happy fucking days.

The truth is I don't have to justify the sacking of Mancini because of his treatment of players or kit men or whoever. That Mancini is a total c**t to everyone was pretty self evident. I posted on here in his first few months that he would create a 'hostile working environment' (my exact words) and that only the strongest would survive. I gave it a max of 3 years before everyone got fed up with it. My hope with Mancini was that in the time he would teach us how to win as a squad and as a club. Which he did and then some.

For that I will always express my appreciation for his time here. That he made life miserable for people while he was here well boo fucking hoo what do I care? That it cost him his job in the end well again boo fucking hoo. But its as much about politics at the top then anything else and in our Brave New World we will all speak Spanish and as long as it works that's fine by me.

Salud

Brilliantly put.... I'm now looking forward to August... 'The king is dead'.... and all that

 

[TGR]

I agree to a degree, and agree this could get messy if Mancini's camp have a pop back, particularly at the players.
=======
I guarantee they will have made him sign a non disclosure agreement of some sort

Hope he has signed an agreement - tha'ts why we should keep the leaks to a minimum. No point getting him to sign one and the knives are out at this end

For £7 million or whatever the severance is, there aint no way there is no NDA. Which makes one-sided petty digs seem like exactly that. If Mancini is expected to keep a dignified silence then we should respond in kind. The message is out there. Enough already.

Mancini is a City legend to most of us even if his face did not fit for the new 'holistic' system about to be implemented. Let's accord the guy the dignity that he deserves and in my eyes has always displayed. The respect that he should have been allowed throughout this process......

I hope that one day we (the majority anyway) get the chance to say a proper goodbye and show Bobby our full appreciation for what he did for us.

It is now history. Shame but we move on. I look forward to seeing how this all pans out. It's never boring following City eh lol ?!

Bang on!

 

[shootmeifipost10k]

I've not read anything new over the past few days, the press have been typing the same bullshit following the sacking of hughes. They have reported so much rubbish since Mancini took charge it's hard to read anything and put an ounce of truth to it.

The club don't need to do any leaks either as it appears all the hacks have sources inside the club on speed dial. Saying that as well know when they type sources 99% of the time it's just guess work and more bullshit to fill a few column inches

From what I've read they've used the tweets of an ex kit man and just expanded on it, how much truth is in it doesn't even matter it's newsworthy so gets put into press and the more hardline the better for those extra clicks online.

It now appears the kit man has removed the tweets and its more than likely following a call from City to either him or sunderland asking him to do so.

There's nothing new about Mancini falling out with players or other people who work at city we've heard it all before and the last few pages read more like a spy novel than the sacking of a football manager.

 

[BobKowalski]

Considering the evidence, that would likely be an example of confirmation bias.

Now it might be argued and argued successfully as well that those who are taking every article as a completely concerted effort by the club and ex-manager as a shadow war in the press are exhibiting confirmation bias. Mostly it's just conjecture, but there's a not-too-thin line between the two. For instance, you might have people now looking at every article hinting a player was happy with Mancini or unhappy with Mancini stretching back over some times as confirmation of their pro- or anti- views on Mancini. The lack of solid evidence indicates a strong possibility of confirmation bias.

How about watching loads of good players on a pitch playing increasingly badly and deciding it's because the manager has lost the dressing room because he treats them like shit? Is that confirmation bias?

Nope. :)

That's simply analysis. Seriously, confirmation bias means that you won't alter your conclusions no matter the evidence. You'll just twist all evidence to fit. It's happened here. One good example often involves goals per minute stats and such.

Interesting. I would say it was in that confirmation bias is as much about favouring information (in this case watching a match) and interpreting what you see in way that favours a previously held view ie the match was lost because the manager has lost the dressing room because he treats the players like shit although this does assume that the belief was held before the match which is not an unreasonable assumption because losing 1 match is not enough data on which to make an definitive assumption as to the reasons why we lost the match other than that we played shite...

...reading this back it would be easier to just change my answer to 'No'

 

[taconinja]

How about watching loads of good players on a pitch playing increasingly badly and deciding it's because the manager has lost the dressing room because he treats them like shit? Is that confirmation bias?

Nope. :)

That's simply analysis. Seriously, confirmation bias means that you won't alter your conclusions no matter the evidence. You'll just twist all evidence to fit. It's happened here. One good example often involves goals per minute stats and such.

Interesting. I would say it was in that confirmation bias is as much about favouring information (in this case watching a match) and interpreting what you see in way that favours a previously held view ie the match was lost because the manager has lost the dressing room because he treats the players like shit although this does assume that the belief was held before the match which is not an unreasonable assumption because losing 1 match is not enough data on which to make an definitive assumption as to the reasons why we lost the match other than that we played shite...

...reading this back it would be easier to just change my answer to 'No'

Heh. Understandable. Confirmation bias would even include cases like Balotelli running over to hug Mancini after scoring as evidence of Mancini having lost the dressing room probably rationalizing it as orders from above to create a false view of stability. That's the difference between having a thesis which you're attempting to support and confirmation bias.

 

[TGR]

Nope. :)

That's simply analysis. Seriously, confirmation bias means that you won't alter your conclusions no matter the evidence. You'll just twist all evidence to fit. It's happened here. One good example often involves goals per minute stats and such.

Interesting. I would say it was in that confirmation bias is as much about favouring information (in this case watching a match) and interpreting what you see in way that favours a previously held view ie the match was lost because the manager has lost the dressing room because he treats the players like shit although this does assume that the belief was held before the match which is not an unreasonable assumption because losing 1 match is not enough data on which to make an definitive assumption as to the reasons why we lost the match other than that we played shite...

...reading this back it would be easier to just change my answer to 'No'

Heh. Understandable. Confirmation bias would even include cases like Balotelli running over to hug Mancini after scoring as evidence of Mancini having lost the dressing room probably rationalizing it as orders from above to create a false view of stability. That's the difference between having a thesis which you're attempting to support and confirmation bias.

Fucking hell guys I only went to Littlemoss - give me a chance! ;-)

 

[primemutton]

so are a lot of people doesnt mean you cant work with them

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Mentioned it in another thread, but very disappointed if the club are leaking anti-Mancini stuff through the press. I understand why some think it's the right thing to do, but to me I thought we had a bit more class than that.

I can see why you'd think that but there's a wider issue at stake here. Although we're a pretty small part of Abu Dhabi's business empire in financial terms, we are huge in terms of recognition and media attention. You can bet your life that one of the first items of conversation between the Queen and the Abu Dhabi royal delegation recently was May 13th last year, this year's FA Cup final or something else City related. The good publicity is worth its weight in gold but any bad publicity is similarly magnified for the wrong reasons.

The point of PR is to present yourself (or your client) in the most positive light and it's interesting that one of the key advisors to the Abu Dhabi royal family is Simon Pearce, whose expertise is PR. They don't like bad publicity and the Mancini affair has definitely been bad publicity. The objective now is to repair the reputation of the owners and the way to do that is by showing the world that Mancini was a disruptive presence, who we'd been more than patient with, and that he had architected his own downfall by his approach to his management of his relationships with players and staff.

This isn't about City showing class, it's about Sheikh Mansour and his team trying to put the cork back in the bottle and restoring their reputation without being overly disrespectful to Mancini.

 

[Pam]

Mentioned it in another thread, but very disappointed if the club are leaking anti-Mancini stuff through the press. I understand why some think it's the right thing to do, but to me I thought we had a bit more class than that.

I can see why you'd think that but there's a wider issue at stake here. Although we're a pretty small part of Abu Dhabi's business empire in financial terms, we are huge in terms of recognition and media attention. You can bet your life that one of the first items of conversation between the Queen and the Abu Dhabi royal delegation recently was May 13th last year, this year's FA Cup final or something else City related. The good publicity is worth its weight in gold but any bad publicity is similarly magnified for the wrong reasons.

The point of PR is to present yourself (or your client) in the most positive light and it's interesting that one of the key advisors to the Abu Dhabi royal family is Simon Pearce, whose expertise is PR. They don't like bad publicity and the Mancini affair has definitely been bad publicity. The objective now is to repair the reputation of the owners and the way to do that is by showing the world that Mancini was a disruptive presence, who we'd been more than patient with, and that he had architected his own downfall by his approach to his management of his relationships with players and staff.

This isn't about City showing class, it's about Sheikh Mansour and his team trying to put the cork back in the bottle and restoring their reputation without being overly disrespectful to Mancini.

This is why it was insane to ever believe Mou would be a Mansour target. No way Jose, as they say. Absolutely never would they think that this would be a good idea. Its pure fantasy to think any different.