"Mentality"

G G

GStar

Well-Known Member
Joined
19 Apr 2007
Messages
15,645
Location
\o/ EASY /o\ EASY \o/ EASY /o\ '09 Ashes Champion
Seems to be a word Mancini likes to use. A word he seems to regard as important and want to work on with the squad.

We want to be winner's and we need a "Winner's Mentality".

You'd think having his kind of CV, being the manager and this being so important to him, he'd lead by example. So this is how to be a winner:

"We won't win the league this year" (said in October and November)

"I'm satisfied with a point" (at home, against a weakened team in a derby match)

Am i being naive or does Mancini not practise what he preaches?
 
Just said similar on another thread i totally agree with this - if hes playing mind games hes sh*t at them.

If I was the Sheik and watched us go out to not lose a game rather than try and win it after spending fortunes i would be really hacked off.

Other than ballo we are now virtually at full strength.
 
First one; taking the pressure off. That kind of mind games is all to do with mentality.

Second one; We were a weakened team too and Tevez was definitely not fit. It was a point in a match that would have been disastrous to lose. Fans don't like the truth but in the modern game and when title's are being chased a derby match is much more important to them than the manager. For a manager the game is worth 3, 1 or 0 points and that is where it ends. A point against top 4 opposition at this stage of the season is always a good result regardless of if the other team is from Stretford or Plymouth.
 
I made a point recently on another thread about him contradicting himself; he said after Wolves away we were poor and then said after Poznan we'd been unlucky to lose the last three.

I don't want to slate him or the team but it's frustrating having seen City maul United in the past with far less talent at the disposal. It just looked like an extension of the derby in April but with a better ending.

Not saying a point at home is the worst result, obviously not after the experiences of last season but would have liked to have seen us taken the game more to them. I'd be interested to see whether Balotelli would've played and he'd gone 4-4-2 if not suspended, particularly as Adebayor was not used.

It's hard to say whether Mancini set the stall out for a point without being privy to the dressing room beforehand we can only go on tactics and the nature of the performance. If that was the case I would hope not because we can't take for granted 3 points against Birmingham.
 
cant for the life of me work out how there team was weakended. im no expert on united but wasnt it only giggs n rooney the ywere missing? and to be fair the latter isnt much a loss atm.
 
Citizen52 said:
I made a point recently on another thread about him contradicting himself; he said after Wolves away we were poor and then said after Poznan we'd been unlucky to lose the last three.

I don't want to slate him or the team but it's frustrating having seen City maul United in the past with far less talent at the disposal. It just looked like an extension of the derby in April but with a better ending.

Not saying a point at home is the worst result, obviously not after the experiences of last season but would have liked to have seen us taken the game more to them. I'd be interested to see whether Balotelli would've played and he'd gone 4-4-2 if not suspended, particularly as Adebayor was not used.

It's hard to say whether Mancini set the stall out for a point without being privy to the dressing room beforehand we can only go on tactics and the nature of the performance. If that was the case I would hope not because we can't take for granted 3 points against Birmingham.
Click to expand...


i've mentioned on countless threads.......mancini is too defensive...not got nowt against the guy,but 1 up top at home(constantly)is not good enough,considering the attacking options we have........tonight,we were shit.
 
GStar said:
citygal1 said:
cant for the life of me work out how there team was weakended. im no expert on united but wasnt it only giggs n rooney the ywere missing? and to be fair the latter isnt much a loss atm.
Click to expand...

You just answered your own question. Add Valencia to that too.
Click to expand...

And they were still the better team.
 
Giggs hasn't been a first team player for United for a while. Really it was Rooney and Vaencia who were missing. Likewise Balotelli and Kolarov for us. So please can we stop with the weakened argument.
 
You know the rags when they were the all conquering and all entertaining side in the country from 92-2002? they only reached the champions league final once. The reason for this from the knowledgeable rag mates are that Fergie didn't know how to play in europe, he went gung ho and all out attack and always failed. After they rebuilt their side from 03-06. They've reached 2 champions league finals since then as Fergie now knows how to adapt in europe.

Basically what i am saying is Mancini doesn't see these top games as must win, rather musn't lose, meaning he adapts to not lose which is why he has set up like he has against Chelsea and tonight. It worked against Chelsea but didn't tonight.

I got told tonight of a rag mate "typical united european performance" which just tells you everything. The top games nowadays are shite and frustrating as they are musn't lose games.

So tonight even though it looked like we didnt want to win, doesnt mean we didnt want to win, we just wanted to do it a different way.
 
WNRH said:
You know the rags when they were the all conquering and all entertaining side in the country from 92-2002? they only reached the champions league final once. The reason for this from the knowledgeable rag mates are that Fergie didn't know how to play in europe, he went gung ho and all out attack and always failed. After they rebuilt their side from 03-06. They've reached 2 champions league finals since then as Fergie now knows how to adapt in europe.

Basically what i am saying is Mancini doesn't see these top games as must win, rather musn't lose, meaning he adapts to not lose which is why he has set up like he has against Chelsea and tonight. It worked against Chelsea but didn't tonight.

I got told tonight of a rag mate "typical united european performance" which just tells you everything. The top games nowadays are shite and frustrating as they are musn't lose games.

So tonight even though it looked like we didnt want to win, doesnt mean we didnt want to win, we just wanted to do it a different way.
Click to expand...

Interesting post, thanks.

I think there's a balance to find personally, and against Chelsea we got it spot on. We attacked with pace and purpose but we kept our shape really well and defended as a unit. Its the only real time i've seen us play that way.
 
onceabluealways said:
Just said similar on another thread i totally agree with this - if hes playing mind games hes sh*t at them.

If I was the Sheik and watched us go out to not lose a game rather than try and win it after spending fortunes i would be really hacked off.

Other than ballo we are now virtually at full strength.
Click to expand...

Wiv got all the players back but I think Mancini is a long way off working out which his strongest team is, coupled with the fact that he addresses each game separately. Gone are the days when yer 'ad eleven top wallahs and they were first on the list until suspension or injury made yer change yer mind. We have a good squad but I would have some measure of difficulty in choosing a starting eleven that would beat most teams. I could convince myself that they should beat them but then it's only a game of football. How do you legislate in yer team selection for a cretin like Crappenberg?
 
WNRH said:
You know the rags when they were the all conquering and all entertaining side in the country from 92-2002? they only reached the champions league final once. The reason for this from the knowledgeable rag mates are that Fergie didn't know how to play in europe, he went gung ho and all out attack and always failed. After they rebuilt their side from 03-06. They've reached 2 champions league finals since then as Fergie now knows how to adapt in europe.

Basically what i am saying is Mancini doesn't see these top games as must win, rather musn't lose, meaning he adapts to not lose which is why he has set up like he has against Chelsea and tonight. It worked against Chelsea but didn't tonight.

I got told tonight of a rag mate "typical united european performance" which just tells you everything. The top games nowadays are shite and frustrating as they are musn't lose games.

So tonight even though it looked like we didnt want to win, doesnt mean we didnt want to win, we just wanted to do it a different way.
Click to expand...

Top class post is that. United and Chelsea have dominated Premier league and the European cup for a few years now and they both play with quite a defensive mentality. Liverpool have also played that way with some success (top 4 year in year out and generally do pretty well in Europe) whilst Arsenal, the footballing side, haven't won a trophy in 5 years. These are all teams that have had years of building and they have evolved into the teams they are. Whilst Liverpool have fallen away slightly, thanks mainly to bad player investment, United and Chelsea have had lots of success.

Given time Mancini will get it right. We're more defensive at the moment because we haven't evolved as a team yet and that was shown in a couple of recent defeats where we opened up far too soon. Kolorov and an attacking RB are imperative to the way the team plays
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top