jerseyblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 26 Feb 2008
- Messages
- 245
I don't see why we should stop hiring a new manager every 6-12 months. Makes the board more exciting.
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 or mourinho? or mancini vrs mourinho
- Thread starter mcfcdave
- Start date
The twats on Talk Shite are about to talk about tonight's game and Mourinho's future. Should the Chelski fans sign a petition asking him to be brought back to Chelski instead of going to City next season, they're asking. What a bizarre thing to say, on so many levels.
Gelsons Dad
Well-Known Member
Mancini.
By a country mile.
By a country mile.
foolsgold*
Well-Known Member
why is this even being discussed?
Mancini for me please
Mancini for me please
Prestwich_Blue
Well-Known Member
Mourinho every time. Just read Patrick Barclay's biography of him and while it's not a terribly good book, there's enough in it to know that Mourinho will be successful wherever he goes.
It talks about a manager needing three hats:
1) Selection - buying the right players and picking the right team
2) Coaching
3) Man management.
Looking at Mancini
1) Doubts about team selection
2) Seems to be pretty sound on this so far
3) Seems OK but couldn't deal with Robinho
Mourinho ticks all three boxes comfortably.
It talks about a manager needing three hats:
1) Selection - buying the right players and picking the right team
2) Coaching
3) Man management.
Looking at Mancini
1) Doubts about team selection
2) Seems to be pretty sound on this so far
3) Seems OK but couldn't deal with Robinho
Mourinho ticks all three boxes comfortably.
While Mourinho is undoubtedly a very good manager. Roberto for me.
Reasons. Well I am not totally sure that Mourinho is that much better than Mancini. There is nothing to suggest that Roberto wouldn't have won two league titles with Chelsea given the amount of good players they had at their peaks at that time.
Apart from that if we got Mourinho City would get even more unwanted publicity. While undoubtedly good value and humerous he tends to attract too much attention. And while his antics are very funny from afar I am not sure that his arrogance would sit well with us the City fans.I actually prefer the dignified way Mancini handles himself.
Thirdly and perhaps more importantly I can actually see Mancini building something at City. Mourinho has got en ego that needs filling with a La Liga title. So I'm not sure he would stay that long with us. It is after all, all about him. I can see Mancini doing a Wenger at City. ie staying for a decade.
Reasons. Well I am not totally sure that Mourinho is that much better than Mancini. There is nothing to suggest that Roberto wouldn't have won two league titles with Chelsea given the amount of good players they had at their peaks at that time.
Apart from that if we got Mourinho City would get even more unwanted publicity. While undoubtedly good value and humerous he tends to attract too much attention. And while his antics are very funny from afar I am not sure that his arrogance would sit well with us the City fans.I actually prefer the dignified way Mancini handles himself.
Thirdly and perhaps more importantly I can actually see Mancini building something at City. Mourinho has got en ego that needs filling with a La Liga title. So I'm not sure he would stay that long with us. It is after all, all about him. I can see Mancini doing a Wenger at City. ie staying for a decade.
Breadsnapper
Well-Known Member
What's with all this nonesense. Mancini has not bought his own players as he hasn't had a real transfer window to work in so he is in effect working with Hughes' players. Prestwich Blue yo say he couldn't handle Robinho, total bollox. He been playing shite so he's been pissed off to Brazil and they're paying his wages. How's that not handling him.
And we've not been great under him, were FIFTH with a game in hand FFS. As more the special one you same guys that want him now were moaning how boring Chelsea were under him.
The guy's our manager get behind him and stop fucking moaning all the time. Typical City fans.
And we've not been great under him, were FIFTH with a game in hand FFS. As more the special one you same guys that want him now were moaning how boring Chelsea were under him.
The guy's our manager get behind him and stop fucking moaning all the time. Typical City fans.
Breadsnapper said:What's with all this nonesense. Mancini has not bought his own players as he hasn't had a real transfer window to work in so he is in effect working with Hughes' players. Prestwich Blue yo say he couldn't handle Robinho, total bollox. He been playing shite so he's been pissed off to Brazil and they're paying his wages. How's that not handling him.
And we've not been great under him, were FIFTH with a game in hand FFS. As more the special one you same guys that want him now were moaning how boring Chelsea were under him.
The guy's our manager get behind him and stop fucking moaning all the time. Typical City fans.
whos moaning ? its just a discussion
Prestwich_Blue said:Mourinho every time. Just read Patrick Barclay's biography of him and while it's not a terribly good book, there's enough in it to know that Mourinho will be successful wherever he goes.
It talks about a manager needing three hats:
1) Selection - buying the right players and picking the right team
2) Coaching
3) Man management.
Looking at Mancini
1) Doubts about team selection
2) Seems to be pretty sound on this so far
3) Seems OK but couldn't deal with Robinho
Mourinho ticks all three boxes comfortably.
Had problems with Shevchenko and Robben as I recall. All managers do.
Many of the best players at Chelsea were bought by Ranieri. Bought Quaresma and Mancini at Inter and has ditched both already.
I have no problems with Mancini's selections. Dropped Toure, made VK and Lescott first choice CBs. The only bone of contention for some of you is Ireland. But for me he is lightweight and needs too much time on the ball.