Mancini

[OB1]

My thoughts as well. I don't think we're close to having the required personelle to implement a top class Barca 4-3-3. Not only would our current hypothetical first 11 need arguably 3 additions (Equivalents of Busquets, Pedro and Villa - Assuming Silva replaced Iniesta and Yaya replaces Xavi - I'm also making the huge assumption that Aguero can be our Messi), but so many of our backup players aren't suited to the system either. Barry/Garcia/Milner have no place in 4-3-3. Does Rodwell have the intelligence to play the Busquets role? Or the ability to play more attacking? Will he ever be fit long enough for us to find out?

Trying to shoe horn this with our crop of players will I fear end exactly the same was as 3-5-2. They don't know it, they're no good at it, and they'll spend more time asking the manager what to do than playing good football. Of course there are other variants of 4-3-3 we could play with, and will probably have to unless we get everyone required in one window, which would be mightily impressive and expensive. Starting with someone like Gundogan would be a great start in the midfield. Neymar as one of the front 3 ;)

I think that we would have to transition over a season or two but transforming City is a long term project and the vision of where the club is going may have been adjusted due to the arrival of Txiki and FS.

Players like Yaya and Silva know about playing in a 4-3-3.

I think Aguero could play the Messi role but I can see him in a Villa / Pedro role or the role Messi played before Eto'o and Ibra left. I think we have to do everything possible to buy Cavani and then play him primarily up the middle, which would not be a clone of what Barca do.

 

[chesterbells]

No.

I've already stated why we should keep him.

Regardless, that will be the perceived outcome, whether it's true or not.

Once again Fergie triumphs, and start form an elevated position next season.

And then. Cue all the negative stories & spin as to why Mancini was sacked, and why Fergie saw him off.

The press will create the narrative regardless of the reality. If you need to get rid of a manager (not saying we do), you can't keep him because you're worried it will make Baconchops look good.

I'm not worried. Mancini won't be sacked.

However, if he was, the fallout across the board will be enormous. The whole setup would have to start again. A new manager would bring in his own staff and new tactics, etc. If that happened would City mount a serious title challenge next season, compared to a stable United, with a couple of good additions?

If it was, say, Mourinho who came in, then yes I think he could absolutely mount a serious title challenge, regardless of what united or anyone else does

 

[jrb]

No.

I've already stated why we should keep him.

Regardless, that will be the perceived outcome, whether it's true or not.

Once again Fergie triumphs, and start form an elevated position next season.

And then. Cue all the negative stories & spin as to why Mancini was sacked, and why Fergie saw him off.

The press will create the narrative regardless of the reality. If you need to get rid of a manager (not saying we do), you can't keep him because you're worried it will make Baconchops look good.

You've just beaten me to it here, but 'this'.
There's already a big thread on here today about the negative press we get anyway. The man utd manager, who he is, how long he's been there..,so what?
Let the press do their worst.
An unbelievable reason for keeping Mancini to my way of thinking, but each to their own ....

Read what I wrote!

I never stated.........

A reason for keeping Mancini

Put it this way.

If City win the FA Cup Mancini will have won 4 trophies in 4 seasons.(I stand corrected) With the addition of the right players this Summer, there is absolutely no reason why Mancini can't add to that trophy haul next season.

Why would the club start the process of new manager, etc, all over again?

Stability and continuity = success. Look no further than United.

And when Fergie has gone, who will challenge Mancini and City? Jose? Pep? Wenger? Moyes? Rodgers?

-- Sun Apr 07, 2013 11:08 pm --

The press will create the narrative regardless of the reality. If you need to get rid of a manager (not saying we do), you can't keep him because you're worried it will make Baconchops look good.

I'm not worried. Mancini won't be sacked.

However, if he was, the fallout across the board will be enormous. The whole setup would have to start again. A new manager would bring in his own staff and new tactics, etc. If that happened would City mount a serious title challenge next season, compared to a stable United, with a couple of good additions?

If it was, say, Mourinho who came in, then yes I think he could absolutely mount a serious title challenge, regardless of what united or anyone else does

Just like Mancini would.

And how long would Jose stay at City? He'd be off in a few seasons and then what? The whole merry go round starts once again. No thanks.

 

[chesterbells]

Change = success. Look no further than Chelsea.
Stability = lack of success. Look no further than Everton
Stability = diminishing/lack of success. Look no further than Arsenal.

Jrb mate, I apologise if I misinterpreted your post earlier - I read it as implying how it would make ferguson look as being, at the very least, one of, the reasons for keeping Mancini - hands up if that's not what you meant! Let's move on.

 

[Marvin]

Small point, but Chelsea would have been even more successful if they had made the right appointment and stuck with it

 

[jrb]

Change = success. Look no further than Chelsea.
Stability = lack of success. Look no further than Everton
Stability = diminishing/lack of success. Look no further than Arsenal.

Jrb mate, I apologise if I misinterpreted your post earlier - I read it as implying how it would make ferguson look as being, at the very least, one of, the reasons for keeping Mancini - hands up if that's not what you meant! Let's move on.

No probs matey.

Change = success. Look no further than Chelsea.(would you really want City to be run like Chelsea, regardless of their success?)
Stability = lack of success. Look no further than Everton(Everton will never win trophies as the owner and board lack ambition and money)
Stability = diminishing/lack of success. Look no further than Arsenal.(See Everton/ambition)

I can't lie that man. Regardless, I would give Mancini at least another season, if not longer. If he get's the players he wants and needs this Summer, City will mount another *serious* title challenge next season. Obviously that's just my opinion. Only time will tell.

 

[LoveCity]

Who would these "City sources" be?

via The Guardian:

Roberto Mancini's reign as Manchester City manager will be reviewed at the end of the season, with sources at Eastlands unable to confirm he will still be in place next season. The Italian enters a defining week on Monday night with the derby at Manchester United followed by Sunday's FA Cup semi-final with Chelsea.

Mancini was given a five-year contract last summer to indicate the faith Sheikh Mansour has in him and City favour stability, so there is no sense that the owner will be panicked into a decision.

However, with City 15 points behind United in a disappointing championship defence and the failure to reach the Champions League knockout stages for a second successive year – the team finished bottom of their group – there remains doubt over Mancini's position.

The Italian will face an end-of-season review in Abu Dhabi, which is to be led by Khaldoon al-Mubarak, the chairman, and include Ferran Soriano, the chief executive, and the director of football, Txiki Begiristain. If United beat City on Monday evening , and Mancini's side are then knocked out of the Cup, the Italian's situation would be weakened.

There will be investment in players this summer, as the club strive to avert the mistakes of last year when none of their first-choice targets was landed. Mancini is sure that if those players had been bought – they include Robin van Persie, who instead moved to United – City would have enjoyed more success. Of the prospect of strengthening this summer, Mancini said: "I am sure we can do well this year, that we can do a good job in the market."

That suggests Mancini is confident he will remain in place. Yet with Begiristain and Soriano forming a new power base, there is a desire to ensure their first summer in charge of transfer policy involves the right manager, especially as Mancini hinted at the end of last week there could be a sizeable outlay.

"I don't know how much money we can spend," Mancini said. "I don't know this. But United in the past did spend a lot to buy important players. Now they don't need to spend every year, £100m. United are a top team, they just need to buy one top player every year because they are strong. For us it is different, we need to do it this way and may be in three or four years we need only buy one player in the summer because we have a strong team."

 

[Marvin]

More like sources unwilling to discuss such matters with the papers

 

[andyhinch]

Small point, but Chelsea would have been even more successful if they had made the right appointment and stuck with it

And they've won 1 fucking cup, Millwall could get one this year, FFS grow up or piss off, with your right to talk any old bollocks you feel like as a respected poster.

 

[Blueroses]

You don't know we're not tbf. Personally I think there's little doubt the conversation will have been had. May not come to anything but I don't see how you canvass for new managers and not talk to the best. Especially when it's apparent he's available. Or going to be. You would rightly have to keep it a water tight secret considering Mancini lost his last job to Mou too.

Yep. It's interesting as well that Beasley chucks our name into his article today in The Sun, first time we've been mentioned for a while.

It's merely for the purpose of giving Chelsea a shove.

Beasley has written it as a favour because as it stands, Jose's preferred choices are not open to him at this stage.

Another good piece from Mullock in the Mirror today. Having Mancini in Abu Dhabi for three days last week.

City have said it was a holiday! Just a few days after Mancini came back from ten days in Italy?

The most interesting thing to emerge are the quotes from Javi Garcia today (also Mirror).

Garcia: "I knew in June that Roberto Mancini wanted me, but the move couldn't go through because Benfica were pushing for a deal that was in their best interests financially.

"I was worried that I would miss out, so I went to speak with the Benfica president with my agent and told him the deal was good for everyone concerned.

"That was the reason my transfer went through so late."

So Marwood is still to blame for our transfer policy last summer and Garcia was forced upon Mancini?

I thought we left it late? June can not be considered late.

Thats not new really javi mention he got told by his agent city wanted to sign before the euros began in his first interview on the city website-