Mancini

[Bluemoon115]

He was already in situ at Barca and our Barca connections knew all about him, having helped bring through Messi, Iniesta, Xavi, etc. It was a simple matter to promote him to work in a familiar set-up and a familiar league and if it hadn't worked out, he would soon have been replaced. Our situation is different. There is no-one in situ at City who is set to make that jump, and I will assume there aren't too many candidates in the outside world who could be trusted. De Boer, maybe, but he would have to be doing it in a different country with a more intense style than he has to cope with right now, and trips to Stoke and Everton would be a crude shock to the system.

Vieira?

Yep I,ve said that before,when Bob steps down in 3/4 years time ,Pat would be a good successor.

3/4 years? I thought he was building a dynasty.

 

[Phil1]

I fear I would be banned for a month of Sundays if I told you what I really thought of your utterly tedious prediliction for taking perfectly valid posts and pointlessly and sarcastically exaggerating them into something they were never intended to be. No, Mancini's management does not "come down" to how players react to him when they leave the field. Only a total prat (QED) would pretend they do. It's just an aspect of Mancini's management that continues to fail to impress and is part of the wider debate regarding his criticising players in public. Is it the end of the world? No. Is it worthy of debate on this forum? Absolutely, yes. Do us all a favour and have a day off FFS!

Ah I can see where you went awry. Its an easy mistake to make. The mistake is confusing the post in question with a 'perfectly valid post'. If its valid I respond in kind. If its dribbling nonsense then you get the whole 'pointlessly and sarcastically exaggerating them into something they were never...yada, yada' bit.

Oh and make it snappier next time. Give it some zing - a bit of punch. You sort of meandered aimlessly. Not good. C+

Zzzzzzzzz. I would have laid money on a patronising "talk down to a small child" kind of reply, if only because you so evidently have nothing substantial to say, and the sneering, blustering blowhard approach serves to divert attention away from that very obvious fact. Or at least it would have done, if only you had had the wit or the gumption to pull it off. Alas........Pathetic

If you're going to go down the route of calling somebody patronising, it's probably best not to use words such as "blustering blowhard", "pathetic" and infer that the poster has a lack of wit and gumption when describing them.
In fairness both sides of the debate are guilty of the name calling but it does get tedious after a while.

 

[Dextersmate]

Vieira?

Yep I,ve said that before,when Bob steps down in 3/4 years time ,Pat would be a good successor.

3/4 years? I thought he was building a dynasty.

He is ,won,t take our Bob long to build one !.

Bob the Builder.

 

[buzzer1]

Vieira?

Yep I,ve said that before,when Bob steps down in 3/4 years time ,Pat would be a good successor.

3/4 years? I thought he was building a dynasty.

Yip, me too.

 

[Exeter Blue I am here]

Ah I can see where you went awry. Its an easy mistake to make. The mistake is confusing the post in question with a 'perfectly valid post'. If its valid I respond in kind. If its dribbling nonsense then you get the whole 'pointlessly and sarcastically exaggerating them into something they were never...yada, yada' bit.

Oh and make it snappier next time. Give it some zing - a bit of punch. You sort of meandered aimlessly. Not good. C+

Zzzzzzzzz. I would have laid money on a patronising "talk down to a small child" kind of reply, if only because you so evidently have nothing substantial to say, and the sneering, blustering blowhard approach serves to divert attention away from that very obvious fact. Or at least it would have done, if only you had had the wit or the gumption to pull it off. Alas........Pathetic

If you're going to go down the route of calling somebody patronising, it's probably best not to use words such as "blustering blowhard", "pathetic" and infer that the poster has a lack of wit and gumption when describing them.
In fairness both sides of the debate are guilty of the name calling but it does get tedious after a while.

What would you have had me label a post that puerile?

 

[Phil1]

Zzzzzzzzz. I would have laid money on a patronising "talk down to a small child" kind of reply, if only because you so evidently have nothing substantial to say, and the sneering, blustering blowhard approach serves to divert attention away from that very obvious fact. Or at least it would have done, if only you had had the wit or the gumption to pull it off. Alas........Pathetic

If you're going to go down the route of calling somebody patronising, it's probably best not to use words such as "blustering blowhard", "pathetic" and infer that the poster has a lack of wit and gumption when describing them.
In fairness both sides of the debate are guilty of the name calling but it does get tedious after a while.

What would you have had me label a post that puerile?

I'd have ignored it mate. If you we're to take the puerile posts away from the thread then it would likely half in number.

 

[OB1]

If you're going to go down the route of calling somebody patronising, it's probably best not to use words such as "blustering blowhard", "pathetic" and infer that the poster has a lack of wit and gumption when describing them.
In fairness both sides of the debate are guilty of the name calling but it does get tedious after a while.

What would you have had me label a post that puerile?

I'd have ignored it mate. If you we're to take the puerile posts away from the thread then it would likely half in number.

Shame then that Bob incited such responses with his misplaced sarcasm. If he thought my post was not valid he could have tried explaining what he thought was invalid. Maybe I didn't dumb things down enough but if I had dumbed it down further, I might not have understood what I was saying.

 

[Benarbia]

The question I always revert back to, is could another manager get more of out this group of players and I firmly believe the answer is yes

 

[LoveCity]

Belgium media (biggest newspaper in the country and NOT a sensationalist publication) claiming Kompany is blaming Mancini for the length of his injury and says Kompany may leave the club over their failing relationship (NOT an April Fools joke, was posted today).

<a class="postlink" href="http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nieuwsblad.be%2Fsportwereld%2Fcnt%2FDMF20130401_00525935" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://translate.google.com/translate?h ... 1_00525935</a>

How many more players can Mancini fall out with? Some of the worst man management skills I've ever seen.

 

[TFC]

Belgium media (biggest newspaper in the country) claiming Kompany is blaming Mancini for the length of his injury and says Kompany may leave the club over their failing relationship (NOT an April Fools joke, was posted today).

<a class="postlink" href="http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nieuwsblad.be%2Fsportwereld%2Fcnt%2FDMF20130401_00525935" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://translate.google.com/translate?h ... 1_00525935</a>

How many more players can Mancini fall out with? Some of the worst man management skills I've ever seen.

City bingo pal, he wont win a prize unless he can check 'em all off....

;)