Mancini - Out of his depth

[Skashion]

I question whether the Carling Cup was the easiest cup to win simply because it involved the shortest cup run, that's not to say it wasn't a good opportunity with the sides that have gone out (though some unbeknown to Mancini at that point - Chelsea, Liverpool) but I think the Europa League is easier to win insofar as it removes the luck element as far as it can be in a cup competition having a group stage of six games and two qualifying places to get through and then two-legged ties all the way through to the final. With the Carling Cup you only have to be unlucky once until the semis. With the Europa League you have to be 'unlucky' near enough 50% of the time. Attached to that is the added prestige of a European trophy, so that's where I want to see us do the business and will be a better proving ground for me than either of our domestic trophies.

 

[ono]

Well to be fair to him he's only had 4 attempts at the European Cup. It's a difficult competition to win and luck plays it's part in knockout compeititons. The pissed up geriatric at the Swamp has only won it twice in god knows how many attemps with United. Mourinho, despite spending an awful lot of money didn't win it with Chelsea, even though they had a fantastic squad. Benitez has reached the final 4 times, but most on here would shit their pants if he came in as manager.

ONLY four attempts at the Champions League?! If you're expecting someone to be able to name a Manager who has continually won the Trophy with an average number of attempts then you've deliberately set the bar to high for a response. He's had four attempts so far and achieved nothing of note. I'm looking for quarter and semi Finals as something of note. Remember, this is why Inter sacked him and gave the job to someone who could deliver the Champions League. He did.

Our friends from just outside Manchester have only won it twice? Do you really think we're qualified enough to rib them on such a disappointing time in that competition? I'm still smarting over the West Brom debacle.

If you're looking at the quarters or the semi's as something of note, you'll be delighted to know (as it states in the OP) that he has reached the quarter finals twice. I assume this is noteworthy?

He also reached the semi finals of the Uefa cup with Lazio, losing to eventual winners Porto.

I wasn't ribbing United for only winning the Champions League twice. I was simply stating the fact that out of 17 or so attempts, they have won it twice. It's a very difficult competition to win. That's why it's a bit harsh to detract from Mancini, considering he's only had 4 attempts.

Here's what i don't understand though. You're complaining about the fact that he couldn't win the Champions League yet Mourinho did. That's true, but Mourinho added to a great team which was created by Mancini. The team already had the winning mentality, which wasn't there pre-Mancini, considering they'd gone 15 years without a trophy. The team Mourinho inherited already contained Ibrahimovic, Julio Cesar, Maicon, Balotelli and Cambiasso, all of which were signed by Mancini.

Furthermore, i don't understand the complaints about him being out his depth.

We want to be in the Champions League - He's qualified for the Champions League with 2 different teams, with 1 being a bit of an over achievement.

We want to win a trophy - He's won 4 Coppa Italia's, 2 Super Cups and 3 Scudetto's.

We want to create a winning mentality - He lead Inter on a 17 match winning streak in the league. That's over half a year of winning every single week. That's quite insane.

I honestly can't believe how people can look at him and look at his achievements and then claim he is out his depth. For a club that's won sweet fuck all for 34 years, that's clinically insane.

 

[Damocles]

That list of achievements is what Mancini accomplished in the past...in Italy...

I've got a bone to pick with this statement here (not directed personally at you BC).

This is infuriatingly dumb. Football is a global game, and the differences in style between the different leagues are negligible.

The talent of the top managers isn't to beat the bottom teams, football is a far more complex game than that. The job of a manager is to do several things:

1) Create a system of play and teach it to your players.
2) Design training schedules and training drills to teach this, whilst keeping abreast of any successes or failures of players in this system.
3) With your staff, manage the fitness and performance levels of all of the players.
4) Choose the correct players based on the system picked, and the system that the opposition picks.
5) Manage the morale of your players and motivate them for the future games
6) Have a long term strategy for the direction of the club's training methods.
7) Have a long term strategy for peak performance of the players.

We no longer live in the days where all Italians play defensive, slow football and the English play rough, energetic football. We have players from all over the world playing in both countries; the days where managers aren't able to cross between them disappeared 25 years ago.

I don't know what it is about the English and why we are so far behind the actual realities of football in our thought process, but we've always been the same. I mean, for the past 200 years, the 'common sense' in this country is 20 years behind the game.

In that England game where Jamie Redknapp had a right face on him and was being a twat, he said that "4-4-2, 4-5-1, it doesn't matter, we need to stop thinking about tactics and just get the best players on the pitch". Another infuriatingly stupid comment. That hasn't worked since about 1960, and is generally recognised to be a bad idea. Various managers have tried to bring this back, including Schuster and Quieroz at Madrid, and all had failed. The only successes that Madrid ever had in that era was when Del Bosque was there and refused to play them all at the same time, or Capello was there and broke them up.

Then there's this utter fascination with the 4-4-2, which suddenly has to be the 'default system' in the mind of most. The most adventurous we usually get is maybe putting 5 in midfield which is also seen as 'defensive'. No wonder McClaren failed at England, he quite rightly for the opposition, tried to play 3 at the back and the players were absolutely lost. Notice that he still went to Holland and Germany, and was a huge success, not unlike one Bobby Robson, another person who tried to introduce new tactics to English players and paid the penalty, then later was proven correct. Even Mourinho commented that he didn't see many young English players to buy because although they were good footballers they weren't 'good players' (i.e. they didn't know their arse from their elbow on the pitch that doesn't immediately involve them).

We could never play anything close to Total Football, or even the tika taca, simply because it relies on an understanding of positional play that you don't play. Does anyone think Micah Richards or Joleen Lescott has absolutely any understanding of where the left midfielder should be at any point of the game? I doubt it, going by their general play that I've seen over the years. These are two guys who get beat by 1-2 passes, the absolute basics of defending.

People think of Spain and think of the Barca way of playing (a variation on the tika-taca), and somehow this comes to represent a whole country. Villareal don't play like this. Neither to Hercules, Albacete, Valencia, Athletico, etc, etc. People think of Italy and think of the Herrera based Inter style. Nobody ever thinks of Milan under Saachi or Capello, which outclassed most and thumped Barca 4-0 in the CL finals.
Even Inter now don't play defensive football, they play a traditionally English style of football. Under Mancini, they played a typically Dutch style of football.

My general point, is that football doesn't work in cliches, and we've got to stop relying on them as part of our narrative when discussing the game. It's the same thing that has happened for years, and is one of the major reasons why we are so far behind other countries despite playing for longer. We ignore innovation elsewhere, and rely on these stereotypes to guide us in our opinion on the game, despite the massess of evidence to the contrary. (I'm thinking specifically of Charles Hughes here)

How many are dismissing the achievements of Ancelotti and saying that his Italian trophies mean nothing?

Anyway, look at the past World Cup. Notice the amount of goals scored, and the amount of teams who setup defensively? International football is different from club because the defences don't tend to be as well drilled so the organisation isn't always there (ask Matthew Upson) but the trend seems obvious. Look at last years Champions League. A rough and ready Inter team beat a rough and ready Bayern team. Look at the current dominating team in England with Chelsea. They play possession based, rough and ready football. Short passing, heavy pressing. The only difference between most of these teams and us is the speed of play, which will come when the players form an understanding of each other.

You cannot ignore footballing trends. Barca are the exception that proves the rule, perhaps Arsenal too. Barca have probably the most individually talented squad of players since the 1970 Brazil squad, but they still have to work within the system or they get taken apart as evidenced early this season.

Attack, attack, attack is entertaining but gets you absolutely nowhere. Teams like the above will just pick you apart, as we found under Hughes (who people conveniently forget played one up front and long ball football most of his tenure here).

I think that my overall point is that Mancini's system will work in time. This isn't to say that he's the bestest manager in the world ever, because I don't think he is. But he does know football, and can see the trends of it. He is fitting us up to play a successful way. Whether or not he can survive the rough of the storm to allow for the players to gain that understanding needed for quick passing is in the air, but to completely shit on all of his previous achievements because "they happened in a different country", thus casting him as a clueless no nothing is stupid.

 

[ono]

That list of achievements is what Mancini accomplished in the past...in Italy...

I've got a bone to pick with this statement here (not directed personally at you BC).

This is infuriatingly dumb. Football is a global game, and the differences in style between the different leagues are negligible.

The talent of the top managers isn't to beat the bottom teams, football is a far more complex game than that. The job of a manager is to do several things:

1) Create a system of play and teach it to your players.
2) Design training schedules and training drills to teach this, whilst keeping abreast of any successes or failures of players in this system.
3) With your staff, manage the fitness and performance levels of all of the players.
4) Choose the correct players based on the system picked, and the system that the opposition picks.
5) Manage the morale of your players and motivate them for the future games
6) Have a long term strategy for the direction of the club's training methods.
7) Have a long term strategy for peak performance of the players.

We no longer live in the days where all Italians play defensive, slow football and the English play rough, energetic football. We have players from all over the world playing in both countries; the days where managers aren't able to cross between them disappeared 25 years ago.

I don't know what it is about the English and why we are so far behind the actual realities of football in our thought process, but we've always been the same. I mean, for the past 200 years, the 'common sense' in this country is 20 years behind the game.

In that England game where Jamie Redknapp had a right face on him and was being a twat, he said that "4-4-2, 4-5-1, it doesn't matter, we need to stop thinking about tactics and just get the best players on the pitch". Another infuriatingly stupid comment. That hasn't worked since about 1960, and is generally recognised to be a bad idea. Various managers have tried to bring this back, including Schuster and Quieroz at Madrid, and all had failed. The only successes that Madrid ever had in that era was when Del Bosque was there and refused to play them all at the same time, or Capello was there and broke them up.

Then there's this utter fascination with the 4-4-2, which suddenly has to be the 'default system' in the mind of most. The most adventurous we usually get is maybe putting 5 in midfield which is also seen as 'defensive'. No wonder McClaren failed at England, he quite rightly for the opposition, tried to play 3 at the back and the players were absolutely lost. Notice that he still went to Holland and Germany, and was a huge success, not unlike one Bobby Robson, another person who tried to introduce new tactics to English players and paid the penalty, then later was proven correct. Even Mourinho commented that he didn't see many young English players to buy because although they were good footballers they weren't 'good players' (i.e. they didn't know their arse from their elbow on the pitch that doesn't immediately involve them).

We could never play anything close to Total Football, or even the tika taca, simply because it relies on an understanding of positional play that you don't play. Does anyone think Micah Richards or Joleen Lescott has absolutely any understanding of where the left midfielder should be at any point of the game? I doubt it, going by their general play that I've seen over the years. These are two guys who get beat by 1-2 passes, the absolute basics of defending.

People think of Spain and think of the Barca way of playing (a variation on the tika-taca), and somehow this comes to represent a whole country. Villareal don't play like this. Neither to Hercules, Albacete, Valencia, Athletico, etc, etc. People think of Italy and think of the Herrera based Inter style. Nobody ever thinks of Milan under Saachi or Capello, which outclassed most and thumped Barca 4-0 in the CL finals.
Even Inter now don't play defensive football, they play a traditionally English style of football. Under Mancini, they played a typically Dutch style of football.

My general point, is that football doesn't work in cliches, and we've got to stop relying on them as part of our narrative when discussing the game. It's the same thing that has happened for years, and is one of the major reasons why we are so far behind other countries despite playing for longer. We ignore innovation elsewhere, and rely on these stereotypes to guide us in our opinion on the game, despite the massess of evidence to the contrary. (I'm thinking specifically of Charles Hughes here)

How many are dismissing the achievements of Ancelotti and saying that his Italian trophies mean nothing?

Anyway, look at the past World Cup. Notice the amount of goals scored, and the amount of teams who setup defensively? International football is different from club because the defences don't tend to be as well drilled so the organisation isn't always there (ask Matthew Upson) but the trend seems obvious. Look at last years Champions League. A rough and ready Inter team beat a rough and ready Bayern team. Look at the current dominating team in England with Chelsea. They play possession based, rough and ready football. Short passing, heavy pressing. The only difference between most of these teams and us is the speed of play, which will come when the players form an understanding of each other.

You cannot ignore footballing trends. Barca are the exception that proves the rule, perhaps Arsenal too. Barca have probably the most individually talented squad of players since the 1970 Brazil squad, but they still have to work within the system or they get taken apart as evidenced early this season.

Attack, attack, attack is entertaining but gets you absolutely nowhere. Teams like the above will just pick you apart, as we found under Hughes (who people conveniently forget played one up front and long ball football most of his tenure here).

I think that my overall point is that Mancini's system will work in time. This isn't to say that he's the bestest manager in the world ever, because I don't think he is. But he does know football, and can see the trends of it. He is fitting us up to play a successful way. Whether or not he can survive the rough of the storm to allow for the players to gain that understanding needed for quick passing is in the air, but to completely shit on all of his previous achievements because "they happened in a different country", thus casting him as a clueless no nothing is stupid.

Excellent post. The ignorance on here is astounding so don't expect anything other than....

"Italian football is shit"

"He's a serial loser"

"He's too negative"

 

[fast eddie]

Sorry, he's not a shit manager & the opening post proves this, however IMO he's not the right person to manage at City or even in England.

Comparing achievements in different countries is like comparing apples & pears. Rangers are the most successful club in the world, but are they fuck better tham Barca, Real, United, Chelsea etc etc

I like him as a person. He's super confident. He was a fine Player and has a good record as a Manager - but, sadly, I share your concerns that he simply isn't the right Manager for us. Perhaps it's years of disappointment or something. They handled the sacking of Hughes and hiring of Mancini badly. The timing was poor.

 

[grim up north]

That list of achievements is what Mancini accomplished in the past...in Italy...

I've got a bone to pick with this statement here (not directed personally at you BC).

This is infuriatingly dumb. Football is a global game, and the differences in style between the different leagues are negligible.

The talent of the top managers isn't to beat the bottom teams, football is a far more complex game than that. The job of a manager is to do several things:

1) Create a system of play and teach it to your players.
2) Design training schedules and training drills to teach this, whilst keeping abreast of any successes or failures of players in this system.
3) With your staff, manage the fitness and performance levels of all of the players.
4) Choose the correct players based on the system picked, and the system that the opposition picks.
5) Manage the morale of your players and motivate them for the future games
6) Have a long term strategy for the direction of the club's training methods.
7) Have a long term strategy for peak performance of the players.

We no longer live in the days where all Italians play defensive, slow football and the English play rough, energetic football. We have players from all over the world playing in both countries; the days where managers aren't able to cross between them disappeared 25 years ago.

I don't know what it is about the English and why we are so far behind the actual realities of football in our thought process, but we've always been the same. I mean, for the past 200 years, the 'common sense' in this country is 20 years behind the game.

In that England game where Jamie Redknapp had a right face on him and was being a twat, he said that "4-4-2, 4-5-1, it doesn't matter, we need to stop thinking about tactics and just get the best players on the pitch". Another infuriatingly stupid comment. That hasn't worked since about 1960, and is generally recognised to be a bad idea. Various managers have tried to bring this back, including Schuster and Quieroz at Madrid, and all had failed. The only successes that Madrid ever had in that era was when Del Bosque was there and refused to play them all at the same time, or Capello was there and broke them up.

Then there's this utter fascination with the 4-4-2, which suddenly has to be the 'default system' in the mind of most. The most adventurous we usually get is maybe putting 5 in midfield which is also seen as 'defensive'. No wonder McClaren failed at England, he quite rightly for the opposition, tried to play 3 at the back and the players were absolutely lost. Notice that he still went to Holland and Germany, and was a huge success, not unlike one Bobby Robson, another person who tried to introduce new tactics to English players and paid the penalty, then later was proven correct. Even Mourinho commented that he didn't see many young English players to buy because although they were good footballers they weren't 'good players' (i.e. they didn't know their arse from their elbow on the pitch that doesn't immediately involve them).

We could never play anything close to Total Football, or even the tika taca, simply because it relies on an understanding of positional play that you don't play. Does anyone think Micah Richards or Joleen Lescott has absolutely any understanding of where the left midfielder should be at any point of the game? I doubt it, going by their general play that I've seen over the years. These are two guys who get beat by 1-2 passes, the absolute basics of defending.

People think of Spain and think of the Barca way of playing (a variation on the tika-taca), and somehow this comes to represent a whole country. Villareal don't play like this. Neither to Hercules, Albacete, Valencia, Athletico, etc, etc. People think of Italy and think of the Herrera based Inter style. Nobody ever thinks of Milan under Saachi or Capello, which outclassed most and thumped Barca 4-0 in the CL finals.
Even Inter now don't play defensive football, they play a traditionally English style of football. Under Mancini, they played a typically Dutch style of football.

My general point, is that football doesn't work in cliches, and we've got to stop relying on them as part of our narrative when discussing the game. It's the same thing that has happened for years, and is one of the major reasons why we are so far behind other countries despite playing for longer. We ignore innovation elsewhere, and rely on these stereotypes to guide us in our opinion on the game, despite the massess of evidence to the contrary. (I'm thinking specifically of Charles Hughes here)

How many are dismissing the achievements of Ancelotti and saying that his Italian trophies mean nothing?

Anyway, look at the past World Cup. Notice the amount of goals scored, and the amount of teams who setup defensively? International football is different from club because the defences don't tend to be as well drilled so the organisation isn't always there (ask Matthew Upson) but the trend seems obvious. Look at last years Champions League. A rough and ready Inter team beat a rough and ready Bayern team. Look at the current dominating team in England with Chelsea. They play possession based, rough and ready football. Short passing, heavy pressing. The only difference between most of these teams and us is the speed of play, which will come when the players form an understanding of each other.

You cannot ignore footballing trends. Barca are the exception that proves the rule, perhaps Arsenal too. Barca have probably the most individually talented squad of players since the 1970 Brazil squad, but they still have to work within the system or they get taken apart as evidenced early this season.

Attack, attack, attack is entertaining but gets you absolutely nowhere. Teams like the above will just pick you apart, as we found under Hughes (who people conveniently forget played one up front and long ball football most of his tenure here).

I think that my overall point is that Mancini's system will work in time. This isn't to say that he's the bestest manager in the world ever, because I don't think he is. But he does know football, and can see the trends of it. He is fitting us up to play a successful way. Whether or not he can survive the rough of the storm to allow for the players to gain that understanding needed for quick passing is in the air, but to completely shit on all of his previous achievements because "they happened in a different country", thus casting him as a clueless no nothing is stupid.

Best post i have ever read on here, my sentiments exactly. although i could never get views across like this

 

[Glasgow Man City]

That list of achievements is what Mancini accomplished in the past...in Italy...

I've got a bone to pick with this statement here (not directed personally at you BC).

This is infuriatingly dumb. Football is a global game, and the differences in style between the different leagues are negligible.

The talent of the top managers isn't to beat the bottom teams, football is a far more complex game than that. The job of a manager is to do several things:

1) Create a system of play and teach it to your players.
2) Design training schedules and training drills to teach this, whilst keeping abreast of any successes or failures of players in this system.
3) With your staff, manage the fitness and performance levels of all of the players.
4) Choose the correct players based on the system picked, and the system that the opposition picks.
5) Manage the morale of your players and motivate them for the future games
6) Have a long term strategy for the direction of the club's training methods.
7) Have a long term strategy for peak performance of the players.

We no longer live in the days where all Italians play defensive, slow football and the English play rough, energetic football. We have players from all over the world playing in both countries; the days where managers aren't able to cross between them disappeared 25 years ago.

I don't know what it is about the English and why we are so far behind the actual realities of football in our thought process, but we've always been the same. I mean, for the past 200 years, the 'common sense' in this country is 20 years behind the game.

In that England game where Jamie Redknapp had a right face on him and was being a twat, he said that "4-4-2, 4-5-1, it doesn't matter, we need to stop thinking about tactics and just get the best players on the pitch". Another infuriatingly stupid comment. That hasn't worked since about 1960, and is generally recognised to be a bad idea. Various managers have tried to bring this back, including Schuster and Quieroz at Madrid, and all had failed. The only successes that Madrid ever had in that era was when Del Bosque was there and refused to play them all at the same time, or Capello was there and broke them up.

Then there's this utter fascination with the 4-4-2, which suddenly has to be the 'default system' in the mind of most. The most adventurous we usually get is maybe putting 5 in midfield which is also seen as 'defensive'. No wonder McClaren failed at England, he quite rightly for the opposition, tried to play 3 at the back and the players were absolutely lost. Notice that he still went to Holland and Germany, and was a huge success, not unlike one Bobby Robson, another person who tried to introduce new tactics to English players and paid the penalty, then later was proven correct. Even Mourinho commented that he didn't see many young English players to buy because although they were good footballers they weren't 'good players' (i.e. they didn't know their arse from their elbow on the pitch that doesn't immediately involve them).

We could never play anything close to Total Football, or even the tika taca, simply because it relies on an understanding of positional play that you don't play. Does anyone think Micah Richards or Joleen Lescott has absolutely any understanding of where the left midfielder should be at any point of the game? I doubt it, going by their general play that I've seen over the years. These are two guys who get beat by 1-2 passes, the absolute basics of defending.

People think of Spain and think of the Barca way of playing (a variation on the tika-taca), and somehow this comes to represent a whole country. Villareal don't play like this. Neither to Hercules, Albacete, Valencia, Athletico, etc, etc. People think of Italy and think of the Herrera based Inter style. Nobody ever thinks of Milan under Saachi or Capello, which outclassed most and thumped Barca 4-0 in the CL finals.
Even Inter now don't play defensive football, they play a traditionally English style of football. Under Mancini, they played a typically Dutch style of football.

My general point, is that football doesn't work in cliches, and we've got to stop relying on them as part of our narrative when discussing the game. It's the same thing that has happened for years, and is one of the major reasons why we are so far behind other countries despite playing for longer. We ignore innovation elsewhere, and rely on these stereotypes to guide us in our opinion on the game, despite the massess of evidence to the contrary. (I'm thinking specifically of Charles Hughes here)

How many are dismissing the achievements of Ancelotti and saying that his Italian trophies mean nothing?

Anyway, look at the past World Cup. Notice the amount of goals scored, and the amount of teams who setup defensively? International football is different from club because the defences don't tend to be as well drilled so the organisation isn't always there (ask Matthew Upson) but the trend seems obvious. Look at last years Champions League. A rough and ready Inter team beat a rough and ready Bayern team. Look at the current dominating team in England with Chelsea. They play possession based, rough and ready football. Short passing, heavy pressing. The only difference between most of these teams and us is the speed of play, which will come when the players form an understanding of each other.

You cannot ignore footballing trends. Barca are the exception that proves the rule, perhaps Arsenal too. Barca have probably the most individually talented squad of players since the 1970 Brazil squad, but they still have to work within the system or they get taken apart as evidenced early this season.

Attack, attack, attack is entertaining but gets you absolutely nowhere. Teams like the above will just pick you apart, as we found under Hughes (who people conveniently forget played one up front and long ball football most of his tenure here).

I think that my overall point is that Mancini's system will work in time. This isn't to say that he's the bestest manager in the world ever, because I don't think he is. But he does know football, and can see the trends of it. He is fitting us up to play a successful way. Whether or not he can survive the rough of the storm to allow for the players to gain that understanding needed for quick passing is in the air, but to completely shit on all of his previous achievements because "they happened in a different country", thus casting him as a clueless no nothing is stupid.

Fair points, but you've said it yourself McLaren didn't cut it here, but was a success abroad. That's all I've said about Mancini - again, he's not a shit manager he's just not suited to the English game.

Yes that might be because we're 20 years behind the times, but it doesn't change the fact that's how it is & if he tries to change the philosophy of English football while at City, then we're going to get ripped apart at times ie at the Hawthorns on Wednesday.

 

[fast eddie]

Here's what i don't understand though. You're complaining about the fact that he couldn't win the Champions League yet Mourinho did. That's true, but Mourinho added to a great team which was created by Mancini. The team already had the winning mentality, which wasn't there pre-Mancini, considering they'd gone 15 years without a trophy. The team Mourinho inherited already contained Ibrahimovic, Julio Cesar, Maicon, Balotelli and Cambiasso, all of which were signed by Mancini.

Mourinho still took Inter Milan to the Champions League Final and they won it. Something Mancini failed to do on numerous occasions. How long does it take a carefully crafted team to go on to win the trophy after playing together for so long? Benitez delivered the Champions League in his first season!

 

[Bellamy's Caddy]

That list of achievements is what Mancini accomplished in the past...in Italy...

I've got a bone to pick with this statement here (not directed personally at you BC).

This is infuriatingly dumb. Football is a global game, and the differences in style between the different leagues are negligible.

The talent of the top managers isn't to beat the bottom teams, football is a far more complex game than that. The job of a manager is to do several things:

1) Create a system of play and teach it to your players.
2) Design training schedules and training drills to teach this, whilst keeping abreast of any successes or failures of players in this system.
3) With your staff, manage the fitness and performance levels of all of the players.
4) Choose the correct players based on the system picked, and the system that the opposition picks.
5) Manage the morale of your players and motivate them for the future games
6) Have a long term strategy for the direction of the club's training methods.
7) Have a long term strategy for peak performance of the players.

We no longer live in the days where all Italians play defensive, slow football and the English play rough, energetic football. We have players from all over the world playing in both countries; the days where managers aren't able to cross between them disappeared 25 years ago.

I don't know what it is about the English and why we are so far behind the actual realities of football in our thought process, but we've always been the same. I mean, for the past 200 years, the 'common sense' in this country is 20 years behind the game.

In that England game where Jamie Redknapp had a right face on him and was being a twat, he said that "4-4-2, 4-5-1, it doesn't matter, we need to stop thinking about tactics and just get the best players on the pitch". Another infuriatingly stupid comment. That hasn't worked since about 1960, and is generally recognised to be a bad idea. Various managers have tried to bring this back, including Schuster and Quieroz at Madrid, and all had failed. The only successes that Madrid ever had in that era was when Del Bosque was there and refused to play them all at the same time, or Capello was there and broke them up.

Then there's this utter fascination with the 4-4-2, which suddenly has to be the 'default system' in the mind of most. The most adventurous we usually get is maybe putting 5 in midfield which is also seen as 'defensive'. No wonder McClaren failed at England, he quite rightly for the opposition, tried to play 3 at the back and the players were absolutely lost. Notice that he still went to Holland and Germany, and was a huge success, not unlike one Bobby Robson, another person who tried to introduce new tactics to English players and paid the penalty, then later was proven correct. Even Mourinho commented that he didn't see many young English players to buy because although they were good footballers they weren't 'good players' (i.e. they didn't know their arse from their elbow on the pitch that doesn't immediately involve them).

We could never play anything close to Total Football, or even the tika taca, simply because it relies on an understanding of positional play that you don't play. Does anyone think Micah Richards or Joleen Lescott has absolutely any understanding of where the left midfielder should be at any point of the game? I doubt it, going by their general play that I've seen over the years. These are two guys who get beat by 1-2 passes, the absolute basics of defending.

People think of Spain and think of the Barca way of playing (a variation on the tika-taca), and somehow this comes to represent a whole country. Villareal don't play like this. Neither to Hercules, Albacete, Valencia, Athletico, etc, etc. People think of Italy and think of the Herrera based Inter style. Nobody ever thinks of Milan under Saachi or Capello, which outclassed most and thumped Barca 4-0 in the CL finals.
Even Inter now don't play defensive football, they play a traditionally English style of football. Under Mancini, they played a typically Dutch style of football.

My general point, is that football doesn't work in cliches, and we've got to stop relying on them as part of our narrative when discussing the game. It's the same thing that has happened for years, and is one of the major reasons why we are so far behind other countries despite playing for longer. We ignore innovation elsewhere, and rely on these stereotypes to guide us in our opinion on the game, despite the massess of evidence to the contrary. (I'm thinking specifically of Charles Hughes here)

How many are dismissing the achievements of Ancelotti and saying that his Italian trophies mean nothing?

Thats a pretty antagonistic way to begin a post that ''isn't directed personally at me''....

If you go on to read the rest of my post you'll see quite clearly the point I was making. Yes Mancini accomplished a lot in Italy, however, up to now he hasn't shown on a regular basis that he is anything special in England (Note, I'm not saying he's a bad manager, just that he hasn't necessarily demonstrated that he's going to be a roaring success). He will be judged at the end of the season by which time hopefully he can add some more achievements to those he gained in Italy.

You say the differences are ''negligible'' - I disagree, different countries bring a different culture on and off the pitch, lifestyles on and off the pitch, techniques, tactics, game tempo. Many players fail to cut it in the Premier League, not through lack of ability, but because they can't adapt. Similarly many good managers have fallen by the way side in the Premier League for these reasons.

Mancini made his career in Italy, he is Italian, he knows the culture on and off the pitch, he knows everything about the game inside out and as manager became successful. I'm not saying every manager needs vast experience of a league before they join it, there are clear examples of managers who are successful without any prior knowledge of a league. But that was what he was used to in Italy, he's now in a very different environment and it is going to be interesting for everyone to see how he does. His English is improving but still isn't on a level of Ancelotti, language was never a barrier for him in Italy for example.

I'm not dismissing Mancini/Ancelotti or anyone else's achievements before they joined the English league, but at the same time, it doesn't mean they are going to adapt to be successful in our league (just as it is with players)

This will be Mancini's first full season in charge of us (with players he brought in, once they get fit) and we'll all know a lot more when the season is over. Like I said before, when he leads us to fantastic victories he will be lauded and when we drop points cheaply people will also have their opinions. I hope he does achieve here (I hope anyone achieves here!) but just because he was successful in Italy is no guarantee and this is the season we will find out.

 

[Damocles]

That's part of my point though, there's no such thing really as 'the English game'. It does have small differences between the rest of the world, but not enough to make it a completely fresh style of football.

McClaren failed here and succeeded abroad, simply because he could only pick English players for the England team, who were too used to 'their way of doing things'. He did okay with Boro where he could drill new techniques into players who he was working with. I'm not saying that all English players are stupid, but I do think that as a footballing culture we aren't thinking enough, thus it leaks down into our academies. English players do absolutely fine in alternative systems at club level, when they have worked on it for a while.

It's not the philosophy of the English game that he needs to change, because the English game is more continental in its approach than ever. I think that WE need to change our philosophies to reflect the current state of the game rather than the old philosophies. We, as in the fans and the pundits. The people who get paid to win games have no such bias to rely on.

I'll use Ferguson as a classic example. For years, and years and years, people (fans, media, pundits) have talked about his 4-4-2 system and how it is a success. For years and years and years, Ferguson has been trying to tell people that he has never played a 4-4-2 system in his life, he plays split strikers. However, this doesn't fit the mould in the head of people, so they disregard it.