Mancini

[moomba]

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?

Maybe that's what he does.

 

[The Future's Blue]

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?

I think Mancini has his way but then we have Kiddo and Platt for that arm around the shoulder, Kiddo being the main man in that respect.

Bit similar to the old piss-can over the road. His number 2 is always the one to see the players off or have a word.

 

[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?

Maybe that's what he does.

Possibly,which further concerns me.

 

[I'm no cynic but...]

Look I realise Mancini is not to everyones liking personality wise but at least compared with Hughes he has a personality.

Well, compared to Albert Schweitzer, Adolf Hitler had a much bigger personality. Who would you rather have invited to a dinner party?

Of course, a better comparison to Mancini vs. Hughes might be Stalin and Pol Pot.

Very droll. And withe refernce to your previous list
Klopp, Heynckes, Hiddink, Valverde, Pellegrini, Benitez, Mazzarri, Conte, Ancelotti, Bielsa, Scolari, Klinsman, Deschamps, Guardiola, etc.

Benitez, Bielsa, Scolari, Klinsmann and Deschamps have very large egos.

As for Pellegrini maybe he´s a nice arm round the shoulder guy, but as I have stated a few times he has won fuck all in a european career the same length as Mancini´s.

As for myself, I couldn't give a toss about the kind of personality Mancini has. He is no doubt a bit of a bar steward, but any successful manager is, including Fergie and the much-demanded Mourinho. The last named one, the self-acclaimed 'Special one', once publically criticised one of his star defender's, Ricardo Carvalho after that player had let it be known to the Press pack that he couldn't understand why he was being omitted from the Chelsea team, and Mourinho retorted, again to the media, that if Carvalho couldn't understand this, he should take an IQ test. Mourinho then dropped him from the squad for a few games and also fined the player a reported £85k for his outburst. This incident bears little difference from how Mancini treats his underperforming players, but some people on here seem to think that Mancini is the only one of his kind and that the rest are cuddly bunnies.

All I ask is that Mancini continues to win the club trophies, and so far he has succeeded at that.

 

[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.

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.

Where else should the blame lie with a defeat do you mean? I'd say the players, unless I'm missing something?
I've witnessed all the games you have and on plenty of occasions have been disappointed with what I saw - I guess the difference is I didn't equate abject performances to Mancini's failings, or at least not completely - sure there should be some blame apportioned to him, but the whole lot? Nope, sorry it doesn't wash.

 

[BobKowalski]

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?

Yes and no. Over time you attract players who thrive under the approach and weed out those that don't. Dzeko doesn't thrive nor does Nasri. They are not strong enough. Tevez didn't like it but he gave up fighting it and to be honest it has taken the edge of his game. Nasty, Hart, Zabs, Kompany, Silva, Augero and others no probs. Silva, Augero, Yaya also get some slack because Mancini really rates them. He is always fondling David and Sergio. Mancini also rates Rodwell hence his patience. Jack even gets a cuddle when subbed. Well a pat on the face which for Mancini is nigh on full blown sex.

So Mancini does keep it 'flexible' but only to the extent that if he really, really rates you he won't call you a c**t in the press.

As I said I think asking for Mancini to be flexible with his approach or stop upsetting players or whatever is a waste of time. But then I say that because I like Mancini for what he is and don't spend my time wishing he was someone else.

 

[adrianr]

Whatever his methods, it's seen us in two consecutive seasons fall 8 points behind with 6 games to go, and 15 points behind with 8 games to go. We won it in the first scenario in a way that will never be repeated, but teams that win lots of titles do it by challenging closely at the top consistently. We can't rely on falling so far behind that our opponents switch off to let us back in. Especially when Chelsea get their act together and we're fighting on two fronts rather than one.

It's been a bloody odd season, but if he's still here next year and we at any point fall 8 points behind the leaders I'd sack him on the spot. We just cannot afford to do it again.

 

[Limmer]

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

Very well put. I wish I could have posted that.

 

[moomba]

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?

Maybe that's what he does.

Possibly,which further concerns me.

Of course it does.

 

[OB1]

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

Thank you for giving a serious answer. The kind of response that I was hoping to elicit.

I think that you sum up his approach very well and it is also fair to say that it has had some success.

I also agree that it won't sit well with a lot of people. It does not sit particularly well with me - as someone who has plenty of experience managing teams. My management experience is in office based staff sports teams and I accept that there are some differences. Mind you, the one season I player managed a team in a very low level Sunday league, we did go unbeaten in the league; maybe that was just my awesome goalkeeping :-J

I do understand Mancini's approach but I am not convinced that it is a good long term approach or the best way to go when team performance starts to deteriorate.

I do sympathise up to a point with the view about players giving 100% etc. However, as I have mentioned before - and prefer not to go on about - a former City player, who has played at the very highest level in club and international football, is an acquaintance due to his friendship with my brother and that has given me some insight into how players respond to managers.

I am a firm believer that every manager needs to appreciate that everyone is different and that you have to take that into account in how you manage. Clearly, you need most of your players to have mental fortitude if you are going to win things but you can only keep changing players so many times because they don't fit your template as a manager exactly and it is, IMO, a manager's job to get the best out of what he has to work with and I am not sure that Mancini's approach is flexible enough to do that.