Mancini

[BobKowalski]

I can appreciate that you said akin and not exactly the same. Which is true given Mancini has not invaded Poland.

But give it time my friend. Give it time.

*Meanwhile in a secret lair in a hollowed out volcano a floppy haired Italian clicks off this thread and smiles knowingly. The white cat in his lap purrs softly*

Your last comment about Bloefeld is funnier than you could know.

If one wanted to be controversial etc, one could expand on your first analogy in ways best avoided; even if one was trying to provoke serious intellectual debate. However, the territory is clearly too dangerous.

I was asking a serious question but I apologise to anyone who was offended or thought it was flippant, which it may have appeared to be even though I tried to word it carefully.

Fair enough and to address your original point which got lost in the hoo-hah...

Mancini manages in a state of creative tension. No one can relax or is allowed to relax. The bar is set high and remains high with little or no allowances made. Confrontation within the dressing room is the default setting which contrasts with someone like Wenger where the opposite is true. Arguably we perform best when there is tension and conflict. Immediately after the Tevez saga we played some sublime football. When all is quiet and serene we play the same way. We need tempo and aggression to produce our best short, sharp passing game and Mancini provides this tension.

The players play (in my opinion) best as a big 'fuck you' to Mancini. Its a deliberate ploy and Mancini will create a fight or create tension to induce this fire. Deliberate sounds as if its calculated which it partly is but it also stems from his natural character. If it was all manufactured it would not work. It works because the players buy into it.

It is effective even if it is the opposite of 'playing for the manager' which is pretty much our default setting when it comes to judging these things. Its the default setting in the media and partly explains why the media here find it difficult to understand or explain Mancini. We understand the manager as Boss but with players as loyal subjects pledging their fealty. This goes then all is lost.

Mancini has talked about 'players playing for themselves' and not him. He doesn't understand a player not giving 100% every time. Not just because he wants them too but they should be doing it for themselves. Its about not selling yourself and your talent short. Mancini forces them to confront themselves if you like and in this environment only strong characters thrive.

This 'anti-management' approach does not sit well with most fans and may explain the division on here. We are instinctively uncomfortable with Mancini's approach but it is what it is and endless threads bemoaning it are frankly pointless.

Just my 2 cents

 

[vincent]

I can appreciate that you said akin and not exactly the same. Which is true given Mancini has not invaded Poland.

But give it time my friend. Give it time.

*Meanwhile in a secret lair in a hollowed out volcano a floppy haired Italian clicks off this thread and smiles knowingly. The white cat in his lap purrs softly*

Your last comment about Bloefeld is funnier than you could know.

If one wanted to be controversial etc, one could expand on your first analogy in ways best avoided; even if one was trying to provoke serious intellectual debate. However, the territory is clearly too dangerous.

I was asking a serious question but I apologise to anyone who was offended or thought it was flippant, which it may have appeared to be even though I tried to word it carefully.

Fair enough and to address your original point which got lost in the hoo-hah...

Mancini manages in a state of creative tension. No one can relax or is allowed to relax. The bar is set high and remains high with little or no allowances made. Confrontation within the dressing room is the default setting which contrasts with someone like Wenger where the opposite is true. Arguably we perform best when there is tension and conflict. Immediately after the Tevez saga we played some sublime football. When all is quiet and serene we play the same way. We need tempo and aggression to produce our best short, sharp passing game and Mancini provides this tension.

The players play (in my opinion) best as a big 'fuck you' to Mancini. Its a deliberate ploy and Mancini will create a fight or create tension to induce this fire. Deliberate sounds as if its calculated which it partly is but it also stems from his natural character. If it was all manufactured it would not work. It works because the players buy into it.

It is effective even if it is the opposite of 'playing for the manager' which is pretty much our default setting when it comes to judging these things. Its the default setting in the media and partly explains why the media here find it difficult to understand or explain Mancini. We understand the manager as Boss but with players as loyal subjects pledging their fealty. This goes then all is lost.

Mancini has talked about 'players playing for themselves' and not him. He doesn't understand a player not giving 100% every time. Not just because he wants them too but they should be doing it for themselves. Its about not selling yourself and your talent short. Mancini forces them to confront themselves if you like and in this environment only strong characters thrive.

This 'anti-management' approach does not sit well with most fans and may explain the division on here. We are instinctively uncomfortable with Mancini's approach but it is what it is and endless threads bemoaning it are frankly pointless.

Just my 2 cents

Great post.

 

[FantasyIreland]

Not everyone responds to such method so,would it not be better to take a more flexible approach and,subsequently, 'manage' each individual accordingly,in a manner thats produces their best?

Or is this something he isn't capable of?

 

[andyhinch]

Not everyone responds to such method so,would it not be better to take a more flexible approach and,subsequently, 'manage' each individual accordingly,in a manner thats produces their best?

Or is this something he isn't capable of?

Your not really getting the idea with that comment.

 

[FantasyIreland]

Not everyone responds to such method so,would it not be better to take a more flexible approach and,subsequently, 'manage' each individual accordingly,in a manner thats produces their best?

Or is this something he isn't capable of?

Your not really getting the idea with that comment.

I read it as creating a certain atmosphere to keep all players at their best? Have i got him wrong?

 

[Phil1]

Not everyone responds to such method so,would it not be better to take a more flexible approach and,subsequently, 'manage' each individual accordingly,in a manner thats produces their best?

Or is this something he isn't capable of?

But if you take away his disappointments in Europe his record shows that he does, in the main get the best out of his players. Which goes some way at least to show that he's capable of some flexibility. Unless of course your stance is to credit others for victories whilst at the same time laying the blame for a loss solely on Mancini's toes.

 

[hgblue]

Not everyone responds to such method so,would it not be better to take a more flexible approach and,subsequently, 'manage' each individual accordingly,in a manner thats produces their best?

Or is this something he isn't capable of?

Your not really getting the idea with that comment.

I read it as creating a certain atmosphere to keep all players at their best? Have i got him wrong?

Have all the players produced their best form consistantly this season? Maybe this approach gets results in the short term, but wears a bit thin eventually?

 

[OB1]

CV's get you jobs; they don't keep you in them.

Which is true - the whole premise of this debate though is based around one set of fans believing he's done enough to continue whilst others don't.
I guess the point I'm making is it isn't cut and dry on either side, both have reasonable cases to make and both will consider their side of the argument the strongest, it's human nature at the end of the day isn't it.
I personally think he has done enough to warrant being here next season, but I'm not so entrenched in my view that if changes are made I'd be pissed off - unless the new man isn't Mourinho, then I would. :-)

I agree that it is not cut and dried; I decide to go binary on the matter (i.e. in or out) and decide to that my vote is currently: out. At some point, I may decide to change my vote and I will be happy to do so; even if I would be happier to see Mourinho appointed (but I don't think that wish is going to come true).

I also accept that there is a decent case for Mancini to be given another year and that it would probably give much greater clarity to this debate. However, whilst I currently think that a change is on balance the best way forward, that is what I am going to argue for.

 

[FantasyIreland]

Not everyone responds to such method so,would it not be better to take a more flexible approach and,subsequently, 'manage' each individual accordingly,in a manner thats produces their best?

Or is this something he isn't capable of?

But if you take away his disappointments in Europe his record shows that he does, in the main get the best out of his players. Which goes some way at least to show that he's capable of some flexibility. Unless of course your stance is to credit others for victories whilst at the same time laying the blame for a loss solely on Mancini's toes.

Where else should the blame lie?

Besides,i cant accept what youre saying having witnessed certain performances this season,i have no problem losing but not when the effort/desire,from certain individuals,appears to be missing.

 

[Phil1]

CV's get you jobs; they don't keep you in them.

Which is true - the whole premise of this debate though is based around one set of fans believing he's done enough to continue whilst others don't.
I guess the point I'm making is it isn't cut and dry on either side, both have reasonable cases to make and both will consider their side of the argument the strongest, it's human nature at the end of the day isn't it.
I personally think he has done enough to warrant being here next season, but I'm not so entrenched in my view that if changes are made I'd be pissed off - unless the new man isn't Mourinho, then I would. :-)

I agree that it is not cut and dried; I decide to go binary on the matter (i.e. in or out) and decide to that my vote is currently: out. At some point, I may decide to change my vote and I will be happy to do so; even if I would be happier to see Mourinho appointed (but I don't think that wish is going to come true).

I also accept that there is a decent case for Mancini to be given another year and that it would probably give much greater clarity to this debate. However, whilst I currently think that a change is on balance the best way forward, that is what I am going to argue for.

That's all fair - I guess we can go again in another 30/40 pages though.. Haha!