mancini on sky sport

[SWP's back]

The second line. A reference to the "well done Bobby" brigade in this thread. The point being not that match going Blues don't support Mancini, far from it. The point being that Mancini isn't above criticism, and that when he is criticised it's generally shouted down on the forum, whereas in real life the overwhelmingly vast majority of Blues, even if they don't agree with all of the criticism, understand where it comes from.

Now that's the second time this week I've had to spoon feed you the meaning of one of my posts. There won't be a third so i suggest in future you engage your brain, and make sure you are taking the entire conversation into context rather than just firing off inane loaded questions like a tabloid hack spoiling for a fight.

Would be almost believable but for the word I highlighted.

And I say again, you can't patronise me Billy, it's water off a ducks back. Lovely talking to you once again though. I'll see you on the next thread where you think you can get some mileage out of anything that goes against the gaffer.

I believe in your language this is what is called a PWNING.

Next time you want to play tennis, at least bring a racket even if you haven't got any balls.

If you think you just pulled off some sort of "Pwning" (I had to look it up) masterclass then well done you.

However, "Bluemoon isn't a barometer for anything when it comes to Mancini." is unadulterated bullshit, so you can stop playing with your balls and polishing your racket's shaft.

 

[blue rebel]

Ultimate fence sitter?

I sometimes think you lot could start a punch-up in a play group. Unless I'm mistaken Taconinja is is France so probably doesn't get to many matches so he is the fence sitter
SWP is local so goes to matches and is not the fence sitter. simple misunderstanding

I'm from the US and I'm not sure fencesitter means someone that doesn't go to games unless there is some colloquial usage I'm missing. City is the only professional-level club I've ever supported or will ever support.

As I said simple misunderstanding's :0))) to me a fence sitter is somebody who does not take an active part ie not go to games. no offence meant, would be time consuming to get here from USA but hope you can get to some matches, pre season perhaps?

 

[Ray78]

The rumours of Mancini taking the Russia job before he signed his deal with City hasn't helped with the current situation. However it is the same amount of pressure from when we were qualifying for the Champions League a couple of seasons back but he has been rewarded with the salary and the length of contract he is on.

 

[taconinja]

Honest answer I think the journalist was quite aware last week's answer was tongue-firmly-in-cheek and wanted to stir the pot because headlines sell. In the sense that it was a completely disingenuous question, yes it's out of line. In the sense that if that's the kind of questioning the club and league will allow, then it's not out of line at all. I realize that may not be as committed an answer as you would prefer from me, but it's not really a yes-or-no kind of topic. At club level, I think it matters but it's something the club and not the manager need to create a strategy to deal with. It's them dropping the ball this time. At league level... well, that's a different story. I'm not sure the Premier League quite understands or even needs to consider brand issues. It's not like football will ever become less popular in England, and they've never had to deal with an upstart that isn't a flash in the pan before the Old Boy's Club made up of the traditional Top 4 reestablishes. I'm not sure the league quite realizes that City remaining in the Top 4 (which is likely) and having multiple championships (which is likely) changes their marketing strategy. It's profitable for the Premier League when negotiating television deals for City to be likable. Allowing one of your clubs to be perceived internationally as a WWE villain is detrimental. I realize that the clubs are distinct entities, but at some point there needs to be a realization that the good of the whole can be affected by how the press portrays one or several clubs.

Interesting take, apologies for missing it whilst swatting that mosquito.

I'm not sure we're being made out as the WWE villain you allude to. We certainly were when Mancini came in but I think things are different now - if anything last week's story makes City look good but Mancini look bad. His answer wasn't tongue in cheek as he clarified today. His ire was raised because in his words he told the truth last week and that should be the end of it. I think he was trying to argue that no matter what the situation, he signed a new contract which means he's happy at City.

Once again, I think my location may color my perception differently as here the manager/head-coach/whatever-we-want-to-call-them IS the organization unless there is a high-level dysfunction, i.e. Al Davis. For us when one looks bad the whole organization looks bad and incompetent to boot.

The odd part to me is how reversed the media situation is between us. Here the most vitriolic critics are always from local support. The more dyed-in-the-wool a supporter/columnist is the more they often are critical... sometimes to a very unrealistic degree. National or state press tends to be much less attacking as they prefer access, which the leagues will crush on an individual reporter level and they have done so without reservation in the past and will in the future. Having journalists who openly favor their old club (if they were a player) to the degree that your press has is nearly incomprehensible.

 

[cibaman]

Mancini is seemingly on a death wish, rubbing people inside and outside the club the wrong way.
He knows he is in strong position because of his new contract and doesn't give a fuck.
Mancini has dealt on a daily basis with the Italian media for 25 years, the British pack pales in comparison.
He is a very clever guy and having observed similar scenarios play out, elsewhere, the manager is trying to reassert his authority for a reason, which can be dangerous.

and the reason for this very clever, very experienced, very secure, very assured, very successful manager's death wish is?

Its not a death wish. He's just determined that the club doesn't rest on its laurels. The tinkering with formations, complaints about late signings, complaints about this, that and everything. General grumpiness.

Fast forward to the end of the season when we've retained the title and it will be his refusal to accept an "if it aint broke dont fix it" mentality that will have made the difference.

 

[taconinja]

Ultimate fence sitter?

I sometimes think you lot could start a punch-up in a play group. Unless I'm mistaken Taconinja is is France so probably doesn't get to many matches so he is the fence sitter
SWP is local so goes to matches and is not the fence sitter. simple misunderstanding

I'm from the US and I'm not sure fencesitter means someone that doesn't go to games unless there is some colloquial usage I'm missing. City is the only professional-level club I've ever supported or will ever support.

As I said simple misunderstanding's :0))) to me a fence sitter is somebody who does not take an active part ie not go to games. no offence meant, would be time consuming to get here from USA but hope you can get to some matches, pre season perhaps?

No problems. :)

I do try to go to preseason tours when they come to the US. It's expensive but very exciting! :)

 

[Anonymous]

Honest answer I think the journalist was quite aware last week's answer was tongue-firmly-in-cheek and wanted to stir the pot because headlines sell. In the sense that it was a completely disingenuous question, yes it's out of line. In the sense that if that's the kind of questioning the club and league will allow, then it's not out of line at all. I realize that may not be as committed an answer as you would prefer from me, but it's not really a yes-or-no kind of topic. At club level, I think it matters but it's something the club and not the manager need to create a strategy to deal with. It's them dropping the ball this time. At league level... well, that's a different story. I'm not sure the Premier League quite understands or even needs to consider brand issues. It's not like football will ever become less popular in England, and they've never had to deal with an upstart that isn't a flash in the pan before the Old Boy's Club made up of the traditional Top 4 reestablishes. I'm not sure the league quite realizes that City remaining in the Top 4 (which is likely) and having multiple championships (which is likely) changes their marketing strategy. It's profitable for the Premier League when negotiating television deals for City to be likable. Allowing one of your clubs to be perceived internationally as a WWE villain is detrimental. I realize that the clubs are distinct entities, but at some point there needs to be a realization that the good of the whole can be affected by how the press portrays one or several clubs.

Interesting take, apologies for missing it whilst swatting that mosquito.

I'm not sure we're being made out as the WWE villain you allude to. We certainly were when Mancini came in but I think things are different now - if anything last week's story makes City look good but Mancini look bad. His answer wasn't tongue in cheek as he clarified today. His ire was raised because in his words he told the truth last week and that should be the end of it. I think he was trying to argue that no matter what the situation, he signed a new contract which means he's happy at City.

Once again, I think my location may color my perception differently as here the manager/head-coach/whatever-we-want-to-call-them IS the organization unless there is a high-level dysfunction, i.e. Al Davis. For us when one looks bad the whole organization looks bad and incompetent to boot.

The odd part to me is how reversed the media situation is between us. Here the most vitriolic critics are always from local support. The more dyed-in-the-wool a supporter/columnist is the more they often are critical... sometimes to a very unrealistic degree. National or state press tends to be much less attacking as they prefer access, which the leagues will crush on an individual reporter level and they have done so without reservation in the past and will in the future. Having journalists who openly favor their old club (if they were a player) to the degree that your press has is nearly incomprehensible.

I think as much as we lambast our press in Britain, the English clubs, players, and managers don't know how easy they have it. Football press on the continent are far more "aggressive", and are afforded access which in England would be considered unprecedented. Two immediate examples are that in France players are interviewed (for TV) at half time as well as at full time. Substituted players are often interviewed (for TV) from the bench while the match is ongoing. Players and clubs are forced to give much more access than they do in England.

In Spain press conferences are often almost gladitorial affairs. No manager is exempt from having his every decision heavily questioned when things don't go according to plan. I believe that Real Madrid and Barcelona's post match press conferences go out live on national radio and that managers are often asked to justify every single substitution and tactical decision which, with personalities like Mourinho in situ, can lead to some pretty spicy question and answer sessions.

I don't think there's a catch all answer to how to work with the media. The important thing for me is to have plenty of foresight and shut down potential problem topics quickly and quietly by making sure the manager has the right answers to hand. I realise that Mancini is his own man and will always answer from the heart, but I think it's important for the club to let the people employed to handle media strategy, to give that strategy to Roberto and make sure he understands why he needs to say whatever it is they want him to say.

 

[taconinja]

Interesting take, apologies for missing it whilst swatting that mosquito.

I'm not sure we're being made out as the WWE villain you allude to. We certainly were when Mancini came in but I think things are different now - if anything last week's story makes City look good but Mancini look bad. His answer wasn't tongue in cheek as he clarified today. His ire was raised because in his words he told the truth last week and that should be the end of it. I think he was trying to argue that no matter what the situation, he signed a new contract which means he's happy at City.

Once again, I think my location may color my perception differently as here the manager/head-coach/whatever-we-want-to-call-them IS the organization unless there is a high-level dysfunction, i.e. Al Davis. For us when one looks bad the whole organization looks bad and incompetent to boot.

The odd part to me is how reversed the media situation is between us. Here the most vitriolic critics are always from local support. The more dyed-in-the-wool a supporter/columnist is the more they often are critical... sometimes to a very unrealistic degree. National or state press tends to be much less attacking as they prefer access, which the leagues will crush on an individual reporter level and they have done so without reservation in the past and will in the future. Having journalists who openly favor their old club (if they were a player) to the degree that your press has is nearly incomprehensible.

I think as much as we lambast our press in Britain, the English clubs, players, and managers don't know how easy they have it. Football press on the continent are far more "aggressive", and are afforded access which in England would be considered unprecedented. Two immediate examples are that in France players are interviewed (for TV) at half time as well as at full time. Substituted players are often interviewed (for TV) from the bench while the match is ongoing. Players and clubs are forced to give much more access than they do in England.

In Spain press conferences are often almost gladitorial affairs. No manager is exempt from having his every decision heavily questioned when things don't go according to plan. I believe that Real Madrid and Barcelona's post match press conferences go out live on national radio and that managers are often asked to justify every single substitution and tactical decision which, with personalities like Mourinho in situ, can lead to some pretty spicy question and answer sessions.

I don't think there's a catch all answer to how to work with the media. The important thing for me is to have plenty of foresight and shut down potential problem topics quickly and quietly by making sure the manager has the right answers to hand. I realise that Mancini is his own man and will always answer from the heart, but I think it's important for the club to let the people employed to handle media strategy, to give that strategy to Roberto and make sure he understands why he needs to say whatever it is they want him to say.

I find myself in agreement with your last paragraph and bewildered by the others. It just goes to show how different things are in different locations.

 

[Anonymous]

I find myself in agreement with your last paragraph and bewildered by the others. It just goes to show how different things are in different locations.

Absolutely, here's another one for you. Can you imagine the uproar if a transcript of a conversation between Mancini and a senior player, during training, turned up in the British media ? Exactly what happened at Madrid last season. In Marca no less, the Real Madrid mouthpiece. Now that's sinister.

What's rattled me about the last four or five days isn't the story itself (it's a non story really) - but the manner in which we've allowed it to grow because unless I'm way off base, Mancini's loss of temper today will garner even more headlines about pressure.

 

[reedy]

we should do our talking on the field. That will shut the wan** up