Mancini's selection and tactics

[glen quagmire]

Okay, only just logged onto bluemoon so not read any posts yet. I'm sure it's been said to death, but Mancini cost us the 3 points by taking Dzeko off (our best player today) instead of Aguero (who was clearly dead on his feet). Dzeko was always an outlet and was making some fantastic runs. As soon as Dzeko went off, the ball just kept coming back. It was inevitable they would score.

Was not inevitable they would score. They only had one shot on target in the 2nd half until the corner which led to the goal

But we were asking for trouble by not killing them off. We're too wasteful at the moment with the final shot/final ball. Missed Nasri today as Silva was off his game

Marvin i beg to differ. Everyone around me, like me was not surprised arsenal scored. A lot of our players seem uncertain where they should be, which only leads to confusion.... They were nailed on to score, likewise any team, if you sit on your 18 yard line and invite them to attack you....

 

[LoveCity]

I know it's not our way but sometimes I wish we could just be direct because it's becoming more and more common where teams play narrow making Silva's perfect passes impossible and we pass sideways forever without making much progress. The addition of 1 top winger with Dzeko and Aguero waiting for crosses could make us as dangerous as the rags at "that" style of football I think. It will never be our primary style of play under Mancini but just to have the option would be nice and something completely different. 3-5-2 is Mancini's intended Plan B but I have my doubts about it, our full-backs looked more dangerous in our normal formation this time last year than in the 3-5-2 that is supposed to truly unleash them, but maybe time and practice will make it better than it has been so far.

 

[Ric]

I know it's not our way but sometimes I wish we could just be direct because it's becoming more and more common where teams play narrow making Silva's perfect passes impossible and we pass sideways forever without making much progress. The addition of 1 top winger with Dzeko and Aguero waiting for crosses could make us as dangerous as the rags at "that" style of football I think. It will never be our primary style of play under Mancini but just to have the option would be nice and something completely different. 3-5-2 is Mancini's intended Plan B but I have my doubts about it, our full-backs looked more dangerous in our normal formation this time last year than in the 3-5-2 that is supposed to truly unleash them, but maybe time and practice will make it better than it has been so far.

I agree, we should look at someone like Sinclair from Swansea. Eh? Oh...

 

[LoveCity]

I agree, we should look at someone like Sinclair from Swansea. Eh? Oh...

When I said 1 top winger I meant a top winger, not a decent winger who clearly isn't a top class one but who can do a decent job (like Johnson and Sinclair). Top quality ones could effectively play in our regular system too without looking out of place.

Cazorla for example is brilliant on the left wing even though he is playing in the middle for Arsenal, and would have been a great signing.

 

[MSP]

Wenger got a bargain there.. 12 damn millions for such player

 

[LoveCity]

Wenger got a bargain there.. 12 damn millions for such player

Yeah, anyone who watched Spanish football knew what a player he was. I don't know if it's true but Malaga media said shortly before he joined Arsenal that he would rather join his friend Silva at City, but we showed no interest in him. Players like him are perfect for the style of football we like to play but in Cazorla's case he also offers a direct threat that we are sometimes missing.

 

[John.des]

We really have to make two sides of Mancini: domestic side and his European side.

Domestically he was very good at Inter winning leagues and cups. Their closest rival was As Roma with a lot weaker squad than Inter's. So that adds a little bit to the fact that wasnt so impressive league wins (3 times). (Milan wasnt performing well in the league under Ancelotti but they compensated it with CL success. While Juventus was sent to Serie B).

In Europe he failed with Inter but now we probably would accept that kind of fail he never got to the semis of CL but two or three times he reached the quarter finals.
Which is a fail because Inter had one of the biggest squad in Europe were winning Italian league so they wanted a big European success of course.

Dont think Mancini is any different at City. But there is one big thing. The rivals domestically. If Inter would have as strong rivals as United, Chelsea, Arsenal in that times Mancini wouldnt win the league 3 times in a row. AS Roma was about as strong then as Arsenal now! In England that time they would fight for top four not the league.

In Europe Mancini's track record with City is clearly shit so far.
Dinamo Kijev at first, then the CL group fail then Sporting.
If he adds another CL group stage fail, well that is very rare that a team with such a strong squad cant even make the second stage two times in a row.

The problem would be that if he doesnt do it domestically so he wouldnt win the league. And with rivals like this it is very possible. You can compensate a worse league performance with a better CL performance maybe a good FA-Cup run.

I dont see how Mancini could compensate anything with a good CL run (semifinals at least). It is the other way around as it always was with him.
At Inter Moratti's (owner) patience was running out with him he was winning the league with no CL success. Or no improvement after previous campaign.
But he got another year because he won the league. And then again. But in the end he had to go.

There are reverse coaches. Rafa Benítez. He never had the squad to win the league with Liverpool.
But that Liverpool with that squad reached two CL finals and once they won it!

(In the end Fergie's mind games worked on Rafa and made him nearly a fool man in depression. But that is another story.)

 

[MSP]

Wenger got a bargain there.. 12 damn millions for such player

Yeah, anyone who watched Spanish football knew what a player he was. I don't know if it's true but Malaga media said shortly before he joined Arsenal that he would rather join his friend Silva at City, but we showed no interest in him. Players like him are perfect for the style of football we like to play but in Cazorla's case he also offers a direct threat that we are sometimes missing.

Well, they're certainly friends, they were all over each other on tunnel cam. If we had a chance but missed it's piss poor decision.

 

[Freestyler]

Got it completely wrong today in my opinion on three accounts did Mancini.

1. Playing Sinclair
2. Taking Dzeko off
3. Leaving Garcia on


1 - Sinclair would have had more joy running at a tired Arsenal side, he was invisible at Stoke and didn't do much more today. Still don't know why we signed him.

2 - We needed someone to hold the ball as Arsenal made their way back into the game, arsenals defenders were giants and Aguero had no joy (and he was dead on his feet), took Dzeko off and invited Arsenal pressure. Arsenal's equaliser was inevitable and was coming for a long time.

3 - Garcia went missing second half, he went hiding and never got a hold on the game. Good player, but can't take the game by the scruff of it's neck. neither can Rodwell yet, Arsenal played with zero width until Walcott come on. Yet the midfield was bullied and bossed, second to everything all day. It needed Gaz Baz in there to calm things down, ideally it needed NDJ, but we sold him like idiots.

 

[kabuverdimcfc]

We really have to make two sides of Mancini: domestic side and his European side.

Domestically he was very good at Inter winning leagues and cups. Their closest rival was As Roma with a lot weaker squad than Inter's. So that adds a little bit to the fact that wasnt so impressive league wins (3 times). (Milan wasnt performing well in the league under Ancelotti but they compensated it with CL success. While Juventus was sent to Serie B).

In Europe he failed with Inter but now we probably would accept that kind of fail he never got to the semis of CL but two or three times he reached the quarter finals.
Which is a fail because Inter had one of the biggest squad in Europe were winning Italian league so they wanted a big European success of course.

Dont think Mancini is any different at City. But there is one big thing. The rivals domestically. If Inter would have as strong rivals as United, Chelsea, Arsenal in that times Mancini wouldnt win the league 3 times in a row. AS Roma was about as strong then as Arsenal now! In England that time they would fight for top four not the league.

In Europe Mancini's track record with City is clearly shit so far.
Dinamo Kijev at first, then the CL group fail then Sporting.
If he adds another CL group stage fail, well that is very rare that a team with such a strong squad cant even make the second stage two times in a row.

The problem would be that if he doesnt do it domestically so he wouldnt win the league. And with rivals like this it is very possible. You can compensate a worse league performance with a better CL performance maybe a good FA-Cup run.

I dont see how Mancini could compensate anything with a good CL run (semifinals at least). It is the other way around as it always was with him.
At Inter Moratti's (owner) patience was running out with him he was winning the league with no CL success. Or no improvement after previous campaign.
But he got another year because he won the league. And then again. But in the end he had to go.

There are reverse coaches. Rafa Benítez. He never had the squad to win the league with Liverpool.
But that Liverpool with that squad reached two CL finals and once they won it!

(In the end Fergie's mind games worked on Rafa and made him nearly a fool man in depression. But that is another story.)

Perfect!!

Mancini is a good coach, but only the very good coach will wins the Champions League. But I feel that Mancini is progressing.