Manuel Pellegrini (cont)

[Shaelumstash]

I'll tell you something which is significant. The Chelsea sides which City faced under Mancini, especially in his last two season in charge, were a long way away from the current Chelsea side in terms of quality. Plus there was the revolving managerial door and the uncertainty which came with AVB, Rafa, Di Matteo, etc.

Seems kinda weird the Bobby fanboys getting out their "Mancini would've won that game" posters because lets face it, his record against Mourinho is no better than Pellegrini's.

Thats what I don't get - trying to compare using differing timescales and conditions - very odd from the so called fanboys - maybe its trying to justify their beliefs in some way - interesting

I think with each passing month it's become more and more difficult to construct any form of relevant or rational argument for Mancini being a better manager than Pellegrini for City. I know that the right thing to do is to say "well Mancini did an excellent job, and now Pellegrini's doing an excellent job". To a greater or lesser extent I actually agree with that. But it's difficult to not point out the raft of flaws in Mancini's managerial skill set when you are faced with idiotic posts trying to compare completely differing circumstances to try and somehow downgrade Pellegrini's obvious abilities as a manager and coach.

The funny thing is there'll no doubt be a Bobby fanboy along anytime now to say "FFS why don't you just move on" completely ignoring the fact that the Mancini comparisons (once again) are started by one of their own.

Well done. Pellegrini didn't do anything wrong yesterday, he did the best he could with what we had available.

 

[BobKowalski]

You never fail to disappoint Bob. Thanks for reminding me of a few of things which I guess would be pertinent to your over sensitivity at anyone "ragging on Mancini" (perish the thought). You began ragging on Pellegrini from long before his appointment and continued to rag on him long after his appointment and well into his first season in charge. You consistently characterised him as a loser. IIRC you suggested that whilst Mancini had the skill set to manage "Tesco" Pellegrini would be more suited running a "corner shop". You also said on numerous occasions that City were replacing a top tier manager with one "clearly" from a level below. As last season began you were bemoaning that "Mark fucking Hughes" had managed to stamp his authority on a his new Stoke City side whilst Pellegrini was still "farting around". You were seemingly at a loss to understand what it was that Pellegrini was doing or why he was doing it.

So you'll forgive me if I continue to heehaw at pretty much all your posts. :)

Yes. Last season. I was very sceptical of Pellers and largely unimpressed as we bumbled around in the first few months of last season. Then things improved. Our form improved and my opinion shifted. Not entirely as there were aspects I didn't rate like his in game management (still don't) and the imbalance between attack and defence which still concerns me but not only did our form greatly improve it was a successful season and (gasp) I changed my mind on Pellers.

Now someone changing their mind based on the evidence in front of them may shock you given your well documented propensity to stick with an entrenched position no matter what evidence is staring you in the face but personally I think it makes for a more rounded person and I recommend you give it a try. You never know it may just make you a person whose opinion is worth listening too.

Good of you to finally acknowledge you spent 9 months spouting uninformed bollocks about Pellegrini before disappearing from the forum all together for a good few months in the hope everyone would forget your heehawing at what a downgrade Pellers was. :)

Oh and really, if my opinion wasn't worth listening to you wouldn't be heehawing every time I passed one on the Italian. A little heads up Bob, the best way to show a poster they don't have an opinion worth listening to is to simply ignore them. Not start heehawing that nobody likes them!

Skipping lightly over the irony of you tasking anyone over 'spouting uninformed bollocks' given your trademark style of doing precisely that since 2008, and with the volume stuck on 11 to boot, I think its great you finally noticed that I changed my mind on Pellers. Admittedly your time frame is way out and attribution of motives for perceived absences is, to be honest, a bit stalkerish and even possible grounds for a restraining order but lets not quibble over details.

As for ignoring you - what and miss all the fun? Ragging you is one of the perks of Bluemoon. Not sure where the 'nobody likes them' bit came from though. Do you want to be liked? Are you worried you are not liked? Is that where your whole Foghorn Leghorn internet persona springs from? Talk to me. I'm listening.

 

[BillyShears]

Skipping lightly over the irony of you tasking anyone over 'spouting uninformed bollocks' given your trademark style of doing precisely that since 2008, and with the volume stuck on 11 to boot, I think its great you finally noticed that I changed my mind on Pellers. Admittedly your time frame is way out and attribution of motives for perceived absences is, to be honest, a bit stalkerish and even possible grounds for a restraining order but lets not quibble over details.

As for ignoring you - what and miss all the fun? Ragging you is one of the perks of Bluemoon. Not sure where the 'nobody likes them' bit came from though. Do you want to be liked? Are you worried you are not liked? Is that where your whole Foghorn Leghorn internet persona springs from? Talk to me. I'm listening.

Haha. Bob mate, you've been hanging around my posts like a bad smell for nearly three years now. You wrote quite a lengthy diatribe once about little ol' me. I believe you signed off with some references to party bunting which ended up seeming rather ironic but hey that's another story. Your more, lets use the term outspoken posts have stuck in my mind though, obviously this unsettles you and I apologise although if you do ever decide to go for a restraining order you should probably bare in mind that one of your fellow Mancini fantasists has already posted quite a bit of my personal information including my name, place of work etc on various internet forums including this one. Something like that is I'm sure you'll agree just a little more unhinged than remembering the details of a post of yours from 12/18 months ago.

Anyway the point i was politely trying to make to you is I generally could care less what you think about City/Pellegrini/or in fact me. Hence I go out of my way to ignore most of the things you've posted in the last 18 months. I made an exception today as I was exceptionally bored and also exceptionally tickled that you'd been heehawing in the Mancini thread on the General Football Forum about people being left alone to love Bobster, and then here you were today heehawing about - well the same thing. Maybe a YouTube video entitled "Leave Our Bobster Alone" is in order.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Give it a rest you two. It's getting boring.

 

[BobKowalski]

Give it a rest you two. It's getting boring.

Spoilsport.

Consider it rested.

 

[without a dream]

Can we not just get the forum set up to automatically ban anyone who posts either;

Mancini is better than Pellegrini at

Pellegrini is better than Mancini at

Or just anyone who mentions both of them in the same post. Then there's an off chance that an interesting discussion might just break out.

 

[BillyShears]

Can we not just get the forum set up to automatically ban anyone who posts either;

Mancini is better than Pellegrini at

Pellegrini is better than Mancini at

Or just anyone who mentions both of them in the same post. Then there's an off chance that an interesting discussion might just break out.

Your suggestion has been taken onboard and your ban has been issued. :)

 

[without a dream]

Can we not just get the forum set up to automatically ban anyone who posts either;

Mancini is better than Pellegrini at

Pellegrini is better than Mancini at

Or just anyone who mentions both of them in the same post. Then there's an off chance that an interesting discussion might just break out.

Your suggestion has been taken onboard and your ban has been issued. :)

I did realise the flaw in my argument as I posted it but I'm hoping to be shown leniency.

 

[PragueBlue]

Erm, that was 1 game. What about the other 3? As I said, a reasonable record, but no more than that

4 games 4 points, so a point a game.

Pellegrini is 2 games and 1 point, so half a point a game. In your eyes somewhat less than reasonable I assume.

The time to make the comparison is when they've both had the same number of cracks at the task, but in honesty what Pellegrini has or hasn't done at Stamford Bridge is utterly irrelevant as regards to De Niro's original statement, which was that Mancini wouldn't have failed to win Saturday's game. I simply highlighted that that statement was one built on sand, because Mancini had in fact failed to win there on 3 of his 4 visits

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you. Even after having the same number of cracks the comparison is rather pointless as they don't take into account the relative strengths of the teams at the time. All these comparisons are irrelevant anyway.

I was merely pointing out that it is rather churlish to try to use it as a stick to beat Manicni with when the current incumbent doesn't boast a better record in that fixture himself.

 

[BillyShears]

Can we not just get the forum set up to automatically ban anyone who posts either;

Mancini is better than Pellegrini at

Pellegrini is better than Mancini at

Or just anyone who mentions both of them in the same post. Then there's an off chance that an interesting discussion might just break out.

Your suggestion has been taken onboard and your ban has been issued. :)

I did realise the flaw in my argument as I posted it but I'm hoping to be shown leniency.

Sadly I don't make the rules (it seems you do!).

Seriously though, I sort of agree with you. I find it immensely tedious that whenever we don't win a game of football posts like this pop up

hard for some i'm sure but despite pellers being an able manager both jose and sir bob bury him.

mancini 100% would have won that.

Don't get me wrong I love Bill and I know he's a solid WUM, but the problem is posts like that then inevitably lead to posters wanting to stick up for Pellegrini, which in turn leads the discussion down the Mancini v Pellegrini route.

Not sure what the solution is as Bill's never gonna change and quite honestly I daresay there's one or two others (myself included) who read his posts and think "fuck it he's a mod, if he can get away with that I'll post what I like".