To bluefandk (+ others) :
Anyone can see from my (limited) post history, that I am not one of the more frequent contributors on this forum...even though I read it at least 2 or 3 times every day.
One of the reasons for this is how quickly an exchange of views descends into mud-slinging + name calling if people take exception to the points you are trying to make.
There is a powerful anti-Tevez / "we must back Mancini" bandwagon that has developed onto which even Fergie + FIFA vice-presidents have jumped.
The lynch-mob hysteria is based primarily on RM's post-match comments that Tevez "refused to play"...just about the worst sin a professional sportsman can do.
If the internal investigation establishes categorically that Tevez did indeed "refuse to play" then he (Tevez) deserves all the flak etc that is heading his way.
I wasn't in the dugout on Tuesday night....and it seems that even players who were are struggling to fully confirm RM's version of events if reports in press are true.
Therefore I am left to make sense of the footage I saw, and comments in interviews from other staff.
As I said in the original Tevez thread:
1) David Platt in his post-match interview with SKY explicitly referred to Tevez "refusing to warm up" NOT Tevez "refusing to play".
2) There is a point in the footage where Tevez motions to get up ...but is told (presumably by RM or another member of staff to sit back down...which he sheepishly does)
3) Saying to your manager "I don't need to warm up again...I'm ready" is nothing like as serious as refusing to play. It is disrespectful (depending on how it is communicated) but it is not in the same league as going on strike.
4) All of the above leads me to an uncomfortable nagging feeling that RM may have "lost it" with Tevez when he refused (queried the need) to warm up for a 2nd time...launched into a tirade (F**K off back to Argentina) ...without fully clarifying if Tevez was indeed refusing to play.
5) RM will argue that "refusing to warm up" is tantamount to "refusing to play" and is certainly entitled to be annoyed at this challenge to his authority as manager....but it does not entitle RM to tell the world's media that Tevez had refused to play when the reality was slightly more complicated.
6) Tevez will argue that he is the best judge of the physical / mental preparations that he needs to undertake before entering the field of play...and that it is counter-productive for him to work himself up again to get ready for play if he is not going to be used (the fallout from the De Jong substitution when Tevez clearly thought he was coming on).
7) Tevez apparently said "Why?" when asked to warm up for a 2nd time:
- This is disrespectful + insubordinate but it does not equate to refusing to play.
The subsequent interchange between RM / Coaching staff + Tevez is key to establishing whether there was indeed any genuine "confusion" on the bench or whether RM is completely right + Tevez is simply trying to re-write history now in claiming he was prepared to play.
8) A lot has been made of tevez's post-match comments...but he was answering the question about WHY he didn't come on...not why he "refused" to come on. His reference to mental state may be seen as an attempt to deflect attention away from the verbal bust-up he had with RM.
Tevez's advisors will argue that Tevez was trying to help RM in his comments:
i.e. I didn't come on because I didn't feel right (i.e. I wasn't ready... it is my fault) as opposed to " I didn't come on because I had a blazing row with the manager over the need for me to warm up a 2nd time. He lost the plot, swore at me, told me to F**K off back to argentina ...because he thought I was refusing to play...and it all got so heated because two big egos were clashing"
For the record:
This is not a "hateful anti-Mancini rant"
I am not defending Tevez, but merely speculating that there are issues here which may not be as clearcut as RM's post-match comments would imply.
I like RM as a manager...but this does not mean that he can't improve in the way he handles certain situations.
I would have preferred it if RM had chanelled his energy into firing up Tevez to get on the pitch + then giving him the "mother of all hairdryers" in the privacy of the dressing room for challenging his authority in public (the refusal / query of the 2nd warm up).
This is actually one of those situations where I would like to be wrong in my concerns....I really hope that RM's position is 100% accurate as it will give City maximum leverage in deciding what to do next with tevez ( with it seems the full backing of everyone in football)
My worry is that the real interchange in the dugout was more ambiguous...and that RM may have boxed himself (+ City) into a corner based on an over-emotional response to a challenge to his authority.
