Mangala joins Valencia on a Permanent deal

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

Yep. I’m baffled, too. He did have his faults - well documented - but in certain games against a certain type of opponent, I’d have thought he could have done a good job for us.

The one thing he never seemed to have was being calm and collected on the ball. But then Joleoninho was never one of those players!

 

[The Preacher]

The defence was a bit of a mess when he joined, we had our longstanding left back issue which didnt help the lad being the left CB and there just seemed to be too many forwards who Mangala just couldn't get a grip of. He was fine with a defender back up against him e.g. Costa but anyone looking to run it down the channel or turn him and he was caught on his feet. He showed some great examples of recovery pace a few times but can't keep relying on that.

At Porto he stood out and I don't think it was a bad decision to buy him, just didn't work out. Under Mancini I think he would have been fine with how our team setup and a fit Kompany alongside him every game.

On more than one occasion we would see Otamendi or Demichelis flying up the pitch, Kolarov/Clichy nowhere to be found and Mangala stood by himself. Didn't happen under Mancini very often and Mangala would have just been seen as an upgrade on Lescott, a big physical presence but can still win the ball and pass it into midfield. He is no Laporte on the ball but he is certainly not as bad as Lescott was.

A very sound and fair analysis.

 

[Dribble]

Is it fact that no top six club came in for Dunne while he was at City? Aston Villa finished 6th the year they signed him from us. And to be fair, Everton finished 16th the year they sold Richard Dunne to us. Dunne was also 21 at the time, behind Weir & Unsworth in the pecking order, and being forced to fill in at right-back.

Why did City sell Dunne?

 

[7evens]

Why did City sell Dunne?

Because at that point he was entering his thirties and we'd just bought Kolo Toure and Joleon Lescott. He was clearly still good enough for a top six side by then, as evidence by Villa finishing 6th, but we were after the top four that season even if we didn't make it.

 

[Dribble]

Because at that point he was entering his thirties and we'd just bought Kolo Toure and Joleon Lescott. He was clearly still good enough for a top six side by then, as evidence by Villa finishing 6th, but we were after the top four that season even if we didn't make it.

So cutting to the chase, City needed an upgrade to start challenging on all fronts & Dunne was a casualty?

So back to Mangler.... Would he have fared any better or worse than Dunne back then?

Would Dunne at his prime been good enough defensively for Guardiola?

 

[7evens]

So cutting to the chase, City needed an upgrade to start challenging on all fronts & Dunne was a casualty?

So back to Mangler.... Would he have fared any better or worse than Dunne back then?

Would Dunne at his prime been good enough defensively for Guardiola?

If we're splitting hairs, probably not. I think he'd have been 4th choice for a while before being moved on. But I think he was generally a better CB than Mangala because while his ceiling/potential wasn't as high, he was far more consistent and rarely ever delivered a horror show. Mangala's form was erratic and swung wildly between giving 8/10 and 3/10 performances without much reason, whereas Dunne consistently delivered 7/10 performances with the occasional 10/10 if we pulled off a backs-to-the-wall job. Even in his moments of calamity it was always an isolated incident in an otherwise solid display.

 

[Ballymagash Blue]

Do you think Valencia are at that level ? He'll be playing in the CL (assuming he gets in the team), could even be our opponent in a few weeks.

No, Valencia are not that level. But let's face it, no EPL team would want him. Even for free.

I hope he does well in Spain, but.....

 

[Dribble]

If we're splitting hairs, probably not. I think he'd have been 4th choice for a while before being moved on. But I think he was generally a better CB than Mangala because while his ceiling/potential wasn't as high, he was far more consistent and rarely ever delivered a horror show. Mangala's form was erratic and swung wildly between giving 8/10 and 3/10 performances without much reason, whereas Dunne consistently delivered 7/10 performances with the occasional 10/10 if we pulled off a backs-to-the-wall job. Even in his moments of calamity it was always an isolated incident in an otherwise solid display.

In case you've forgotten, Dunne played for a perennially relegation threatened City, whilst Mangler played for a club chasing titles. Our whole setup under pearce was not to concede, so as a consequence one season we only scored 28 PL goals.

Was Dunne required to bring the ball out of defence?

Was Dunne required to play a high line?

Did it matter whether our full backs had pace?

Did Dunne have any other job but to stop the ball going into our net?

In fact I'd say there was a world of difference between the job description & expectations of both players. Dunne was nearly the best we could hope for back then & his determination, leadership & gumption saved us from certain relegation season after season.

However City's defenders required a better skillset today than they did in the mid 2000s. Mangler unfortunately fell short of that. Having said that, I'm quite sure he had the physical assets to thrive in a Stuart Pearce team where the only job defenders had was to defend, with 6 players ahead of that defence essentially doing the same.

Have you erased the Stuart Pearce & Pellegrini eras out if your mind already?

 

[Phil1]

Beautiful city, decent league, multi millionaire.
The boys done good

 

[Dribble]

Also don't forget who stepped in between Fernandinho & bully boy Costa. As soon as Costa saw Mangler in the frame, his arse went. It was worth him being here just to see that. :-)