Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
I doubt it Gary. Raymond was, as you say, an old-school cut-glass accent, BBC man. Barry is an Irish wanker of the Alan Green "I'm the story" school.Gary James said:
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Mancini is a 'disgrace' - The Guardian
- Thread starter blue_soundwave
- Start date
TheMightyQuinn
Well-Known Member
Prestwich_Blue said:I doubt it Gary. Raymond was, as you say, an old-school cut-glass accent, BBC man. Barry is an Irish wanker of the Alan Green "I'm the story" school.Gary James said:Not read all of this so apologies if this has been mentioned...
Is he any relation to the 40s-60s commentator/journalist Raymond Glendenning? If he is his predecessor would be far from happy with his approach. Raymond Glendenning was a renowned and well-respected journalist/broadcaster (although very typical of the BBC English era of broadcasting).
Not sure why you insist on using the phrase 'Irish Wanker' time and time again. What has anyone's nationality got to do with anything?
onceabluealways
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 2,079
Sorry but the guy has a point and if Mancini keeps playing against top 4 teams away from home like that then we certainly wont win many and be lucky to keep getting draws.
Its easy to say now yes it was a good point earned (and it was) but how many of you were watching the game like myself just waiting for the Arse to score.
Mancini has not looked at the matches were teams have got results against Arsenal - you get in their face and try to win. You can keep irt tight without putting 10 men behind the ball.
I expect the same people on here who are saying it was justified will be moaning like sh*t when a team comes to the COMS and parks the bus and gets a 0-0 result.
Personally I was embarassed that was the best he could do with the squad we have assembled.
Its easy to say now yes it was a good point earned (and it was) but how many of you were watching the game like myself just waiting for the Arse to score.
Mancini has not looked at the matches were teams have got results against Arsenal - you get in their face and try to win. You can keep irt tight without putting 10 men behind the ball.
I expect the same people on here who are saying it was justified will be moaning like sh*t when a team comes to the COMS and parks the bus and gets a 0-0 result.
Personally I was embarassed that was the best he could do with the squad we have assembled.
blueju
Well-Known Member
But RM has already stated our tactics would have been different had the three injured players been available. If i remember rightly, we were still waiting for the team as it has been for the last three games before Arsenal to evolve when we played the rags. We attacked Arse at home with only ten men, how do you know we are planning to defend in every other top game?
BrianW
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 6 Mar 2006
- Messages
- 5,868
- Team supported
- There's Only One City
Anyone would think Arsenal had never played defensively.
I remember back to the 60s and then they were one of the most defensive teams I have ever seen - albeit they were very good at snatching goals on the break.
Bottom line, Mancini's tactics were right, given the players he had available. One point is better than none.
I remember back to the 60s and then they were one of the most defensive teams I have ever seen - albeit they were very good at snatching goals on the break.
Bottom line, Mancini's tactics were right, given the players he had available. One point is better than none.
onceabluealways
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 2,079
BrianW said:Anyone would think Arsenal had never played defensively.
I remember back to the 60s and then they were one of the most defensive teams I have ever seen - albeit they were very good at snatching goals on the break.
Bottom line, Mancini's tactics were right, given the players he had available. One point is better than none.
Sorry i beg to differ - it wasn't Mancinis tactics that got us the point it was LUCK and really good defending.
A
A
Anonymous
Guest
Re the guardian; walked to my newsagents this morning and cancelled my regular order . . voted my feet as they say.
Re my view of Mancini's tactics (as a 51 yo life long City fan)? I think that he did what he needed to do to get the best result for the club under the particular circumstances on the day. As would any 'sane' professional manager at a top club.
As is, we have a squad brim full of new unbedded talent and yet we're actually doing much better than anyone could have seriously predicted to date. I'm delighted to be a City fan (as ever) but especially at this auspicious time in our great history where we're sat in a better position at this point in the season that we have been in recent decades (since the 60's?).
What the guardian doesn't recognise is that City fans are loyal to the cause, are delighted with progress, are signed up to Mancini and are not going to be put off by some poorly aimed sniping from a tw@ with a blunt pencil and a dull mind.
Over in salford however; the very prospect of our ultimately over-taking the rags has had such devastating affect on rag morale that they can't even sell their season tickets anymore . . . anyone want a rag season ticket - plenty going cheap and that says more about fan satisfaction than anything else possibly could. We're happy, we're moving forward and if the guardian want to spout about what pisses fans off then they should get their noses out of bacon faces arse and take a look around . . at the dull football resulting in the empty seats in the swamp.
Re my view of Mancini's tactics (as a 51 yo life long City fan)? I think that he did what he needed to do to get the best result for the club under the particular circumstances on the day. As would any 'sane' professional manager at a top club.
As is, we have a squad brim full of new unbedded talent and yet we're actually doing much better than anyone could have seriously predicted to date. I'm delighted to be a City fan (as ever) but especially at this auspicious time in our great history where we're sat in a better position at this point in the season that we have been in recent decades (since the 60's?).
What the guardian doesn't recognise is that City fans are loyal to the cause, are delighted with progress, are signed up to Mancini and are not going to be put off by some poorly aimed sniping from a tw@ with a blunt pencil and a dull mind.
Over in salford however; the very prospect of our ultimately over-taking the rags has had such devastating affect on rag morale that they can't even sell their season tickets anymore . . . anyone want a rag season ticket - plenty going cheap and that says more about fan satisfaction than anything else possibly could. We're happy, we're moving forward and if the guardian want to spout about what pisses fans off then they should get their noses out of bacon faces arse and take a look around . . at the dull football resulting in the empty seats in the swamp.
harry the plumber
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 5 Aug 2008
- Messages
- 933
Before the game most City fans would have been happy with a draw.We got a draw.onceabluealways said:Sorry but the guy has a point and if Mancini keeps playing against top 4 teams away from home like that then we certainly wont win many and be lucky to keep getting draws.
Its easy to say now yes it was a good point earned (and it was) but how many of you were watching the game like myself just waiting for the Arse to score.
Mancini has not looked at the matches were teams have got results against Arsenal - you get in their face and try to win. You can keep irt tight without putting 10 men behind the ball.
I expect the same people on here who are saying it was justified will be moaning like sh*t when a team comes to the COMS and parks the bus and gets a 0-0 result.
Personally I was embarassed that was the best he could do with the squad we have assembled.
Mancini decided that with the team we were able to put out he had to stifle the threat from Arsenal .
If Silva and Balo would have been available he would have had the option to have a go at them.
And to pretend that this is how City play against the top 4 under Mancini is not true.
Chelsea 2- City 4
BrianW
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 6 Mar 2006
- Messages
- 5,868
- Team supported
- There's Only One City
onceabluealways said:BrianW said:Anyone would think Arsenal had never played defensively.
I remember back to the 60s and then they were one of the most defensive teams I have ever seen - albeit they were very good at snatching goals on the break.
Bottom line, Mancini's tactics were right, given the players he had available. One point is better than none.
Sorry i beg to differ - it wasn't Mancinis tactics that got us the point it was LUCK and really good defending.
Fair enough - we're due some luck. The last time we had any was when Billy Meredith scored in the 1904 Cup Final. More or less.
In my time City have not been blessed with very much luck at all. Some people say you make your own luck, mind.
Anyone think we should sack Mancini and get Keegan back? Keegan would have attacked, and it would probably have ended 5-3 or something. No, I think we're better sticking with the Boss we've got. He's a lucky bugger, after all.