mancini's patronising words

[robbieh]

Unbelievable. I'd have some respect for the Mancini apologists if they said "Yes it was a strange decision" or "Perhaps we were a bit unambitious in the last couple of games".

But they come out with idiotic, woeful, deluded crap like this and "Well we did better than Chelsea" and "You lot don't understand football".

Well to my mind it was the right decision - and football is after all a game of opinions - the fact was the game was going away from us Bowyer and Hleb were starting to get on the ball and Mancini spotted that there is no point having two strikers on if we can't get the ball to them.

Clearly the decision worked as for the last ten minutes we started to create chances again. On another day this would have led to a goal.

As for Mancini apologist - nonsense - I defended Hughes at the time and it was claimed he wasn't big enough for us, wouldn't attract the big names and had never won anything.

Now we have Mancini who is all of those things and the club have supposedly 'still' got it wrong. In fact, we've supposedly got it wrong (Bar arguably Howard Kendall who left of his own accord) 25 times since 1974 ! So to make the wrong decision on managers 25 times v getting it right 0 times is some mean feat !

I just refer you back to Fergiescum who took 5 years to bring success. Had they shown the lack of loyalty some of our own fans demonstrate they would never have had the 25 years of unbridled success. If the players know they can get the manager removed everytime they don't like him or his practices that is the tail wagging the dog and just cannot be right or alllowed to happen, otherwise our future manager will never be able to command loyalty. Unfortunately many City fans are too easily manipulated by the media.

Do I agree with all Mancini's decisions ? No. Does that mean we should replace our manager again ? Absolutely Not. We arte going in the right direction and you have to consider the bigger picture.

Who says what succes you should have spending £350 million in such a short period ? (particularly when we have paid over the odds in many instances to make it happen) There is no previous precedent but I would take where we are at this point in the season still unbelievably in with a chance (however remote) of the title.

Totally agree. We were beginning to get overun in midfield. As mentioned before, Tevez looked knackered and needed replacing. If RSC put himself about a bit more then we might have got something. You can actually have too many attacking players on a pitch at the same time. Often they get in each others way and the end result looks like a dog's dinner.

I can see what Mancini is trying to do. Those who don't seem to agree on one point that sacking him now for someone worse will serve no object whatsoever.

So lets see where we are at the end of the season when this team have had more than 13 league games together.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Totally agree. We were beginning to get overun in midfield.

So he was brought on to protect our hard-won point at home against a team in the bottom three? I understand now.

 

[Matty]

Clearly the decision worked as for the last ten minutes we started to create chances again. On another day this would have led to a goal.

Clearly it didn't work, otherwise we'd be sitting here with a win ratehr than a 0-0 draw. Leaving Tevez on and making another sub might/might not have worked, but the Barry substitution simply CAN'T be eeen as a successful one, we were 0-0 when he came on and we were 0-0 when it finished, the aim was to score a goal surely? If it was to ensure we didn't conceed then my opinion on our tactics has hit rock bottom, tightening things up against Birmingham at home when we should be pushing for the winner isn't acceptable.

Also your final statement is based on nothing whatsoever. Why on another day would it have resulted in a goal? I'd argue it was far more likely to result in not getting a goal. Remove the guy who has scored 50% of our league goals this season for a midfielder with 1 goal to his name, and limited attacking options ahead of him because, you know, our top goalscorer and goalthreat has just been removed from the pitch.

 

[Billy Spurdle]

Totally agree. We were beginning to get overun in midfield.

So he was brought on to protect our hard-won point at home against a team in the bottom three? I understand now.

P_B the football genius speaks again!! He was brought to try to CREATE something which is much likely than Jo doing it. Tevez had signalled to come off coz he was struggling. Do us all a favour and keep your negativity & childish rants to yourself.

 

[VOOMER]

Prestwich Blue has a personal agenda against Mancini , nothing you say ( even if its 100% right) will change his opinion of Mancini.So there is no need to waste your time with him.Also i agree with what you posted Blue Mooner.

Why do people keep saying this? I want success for City and if Mancini can bring that he'll be a hero in my eyes. However I don't think his current style of play will do that but I've said on numerous occasions that he should be given a decent amount of time (2 full seasons).

That's an opinion not an agenda.

At least you are using this forum to vent you're spleen, its the dicks that boo that need weeding out.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

So he was brought on to protect our hard-won point at home against a team in the bottom three? I understand now.

P_B the football genius speaks again!! He was brought to try to CREATE something which is much likely than Jo doing it. Tevez had signalled to come off coz he was struggling. Do us all a favour and keep your negativity & childish rants to yourself.

Do me a favour and tell me what Gareth Barry has ever created in a sky blue shirt.

 

[VOOMER]

We can play wide, get the ball into the box, then we can score

Yes, we CAN do that, but not with the lineup we fielded on Saturday.

4-5-1, with Tevez as the 1, means there's virtually no point getting the ball wide and then into the box. Tevez, for all his strengths, isn't going to win the ball from crosses against 6 foot plus centre halves, and our midfield seem to have been instructed not to support him when the ball does get wide (or at least it seemed so on Saturday). With the midfield we had it was obvious to all, including McLeish, that we were going to play through the middle and try and split the defence open that way. That's why McLeish played his midfield very narrow and tucked his fullbacks in, he put 8 men in the middle of the park and made it impossible to pass through them.

For 4-5-1 to work you either need a target man as the 1, or else you need a couple of midfielders to bomb into the box and support the striker when the ball gets wide, we had neither so tactically the formation was a failure. It took us too long to switch to 4-4-2 with Santa Cruz, and even then we didn't actually get at the fullbacks and try and cross the ball. The removal of Tevez for Barry was inexplicable, Platt/Mancini's explanation for this didn't seem to work for me, I don't see how removing 1 of our 2 strikers in order to get more balls in the box was ever going to work. Even if we manage to achieve the aim of getting more balls in the box, we've just removed our major goal threat so who are these balls aimed at?!

Written proof you know nowt fella.

-- Mon Nov 15, 2010 6:00 pm --

its about time he fucked off, the man is stealing money, he does not care what the fans think, cheeky bastard if you ask me

Read through you're comments and replace "he" with "I"<br /><br />-- Mon Nov 15, 2010 6:19 pm --<br /><br />

I'm wondering where all the people screaming for Johnson to get a start have all gone.

He was fantastic, wasn't he?..

He certainly proved Mancini's point yesterday.

If Boetang had done what he was supposed to Johnson would have been a lot more effective. Yes we aren't Barca, but that is how they play and carve teams up, that is what we are aiming for, either villa, pedro, or messi look to create space for there full backs, who attack for fun. Boetang will improve in that area and as a natural athlete is made for the job.

 

[Jim Tolmie's Underpants]

So he was brought on to protect our hard-won point at home against a team in the bottom three? I understand now.

P_B the football genius speaks again!! He was brought to try to CREATE something which is much likely than Jo doing it. Tevez had signalled to come off coz he was struggling. Do us all a favour and keep your negativity & childish rants to yourself.

So, we take off one of our strikers and bring on a naturally DEFENSIVE midfielder to create something?

And here's me thinking that's Silva's job.

 

[remoh]

Yes, we CAN do that, but not with the lineup we fielded on Saturday.

4-5-1, with Tevez as the 1, means there's virtually no point getting the ball wide and then into the box. Tevez, for all his strengths, isn't going to win the ball from crosses against 6 foot plus centre halves, and our midfield seem to have been instructed not to support him when the ball does get wide (or at least it seemed so on Saturday). With the midfield we had it was obvious to all, including McLeish, that we were going to play through the middle and try and split the defence open that way. That's why McLeish played his midfield very narrow and tucked his fullbacks in, he put 8 men in the middle of the park and made it impossible to pass through them.

For 4-5-1 to work you either need a target man as the 1, or else you need a couple of midfielders to bomb into the box and support the striker when the ball gets wide, we had neither so tactically the formation was a failure. It took us too long to switch to 4-4-2 with Santa Cruz, and even then we didn't actually get at the fullbacks and try and cross the ball. The removal of Tevez for Barry was inexplicable, Platt/Mancini's explanation for this didn't seem to work for me, I don't see how removing 1 of our 2 strikers in order to get more balls in the box was ever going to work. Even if we manage to achieve the aim of getting more balls in the box, we've just removed our major goal threat so who are these balls aimed at?!

Written proof you know nowt fella.

-- Mon Nov 15, 2010 6:00 pm --

its about time he fucked off, the man is stealing money, he does not care what the fans think, cheeky bastard if you ask me

Read through you're comments and replace "he" with "I"

-- Mon Nov 15, 2010 6:19 pm --

He certainly proved Mancini's point yesterday.

If Boetang had done what he was supposed to Johnson would have been a lot more effective. Yes we aren't Barca, but that is how they play and carve teams up, that is what we are aiming for, either villa, pedro, or messi look to create space for there full backs, who attack for fun. Boetang will improve in that area and as a natural athlete is made for the job.

Thanks for your clinical dissection of Matty's post, Voomer!

 

[Matty]

Yes, we CAN do that, but not with the lineup we fielded on Saturday.

4-5-1, with Tevez as the 1, means there's virtually no point getting the ball wide and then into the box. Tevez, for all his strengths, isn't going to win the ball from crosses against 6 foot plus centre halves, and our midfield seem to have been instructed not to support him when the ball does get wide (or at least it seemed so on Saturday). With the midfield we had it was obvious to all, including McLeish, that we were going to play through the middle and try and split the defence open that way. That's why McLeish played his midfield very narrow and tucked his fullbacks in, he put 8 men in the middle of the park and made it impossible to pass through them.

For 4-5-1 to work you either need a target man as the 1, or else you need a couple of midfielders to bomb into the box and support the striker when the ball gets wide, we had neither so tactically the formation was a failure. It took us too long to switch to 4-4-2 with Santa Cruz, and even then we didn't actually get at the fullbacks and try and cross the ball. The removal of Tevez for Barry was inexplicable, Platt/Mancini's explanation for this didn't seem to work for me, I don't see how removing 1 of our 2 strikers in order to get more balls in the box was ever going to work. Even if we manage to achieve the aim of getting more balls in the box, we've just removed our major goal threat so who are these balls aimed at?!

Written proof you know nowt fella.

One of us explained in detail the issue we had on Saturday, one of us typed 6 words in an attempt to make himself look clever/funny and offered "nowt" to use your words in return.

I'd suggest that, if you want to be treated with anything but distain, you counter the comments by explaining just how our fantastic tactics/formation Saturday lead to an exciting goalfest. Either that or leave the discussion to people in possession of the required intellect to do so.