Mourhino is on his way to City.....

[grim up north]

Threads fail because of shit posts. Simple.

Indeed, please try making some good ones that use logic.

knowledge or wiki. he is one arrogant man

 

[NipHolmes]

Threads fail because of shit posts. Simple.

Indeed, please try making some good ones that use logic.

What other logic do you want to choose?

Jose likes 4-3-3.
He's competent in Europe.
Has a sound head to head record v Fergie.
Speaks multiple languages fluently.
Proven track record of taking good teams and making them great.

 

[MSP]

I could understand that people want Mancini to stay. Each managerial change, specially the one who would be in front of some coming changes in players department is huge and I give it to them that hey could feel it would be all over from the start and so..

But to see people ready to actually challenge Mourinho's managerial supremacy over Mancini is just wow.

That's the comedy of it.

If you took 1000 people from around European football; club owners, managers, international players, respected ex players, senior journalists and football analysts and asked them 'who is the more successful manager?' You would get 1000 people saying 'Mourinho'. Yet you get desperate posters on here trying to argue the opposite.

I've yet to see anyone outside of "Mancini for any cost" Blouemooners who wouldn't laugh a thought of Mancini being better one.

 

[NipHolmes]

Threads fail because of shit posts. Simple.

Indeed, please try making some good ones that use logic.

knowledge or wiki. he is one arrogant man

I done you already. Shut it smurf.

 

[bernabias home shirt]

I could understand that people want Mancini to stay. Each managerial change, specially the one who would be in front of some coming changes in players department is huge and I give it to them that hey could feel it would be all over from the start and so..

But to see people ready to actually challenge Mourinho's managerial supremacy over Mancini is just wow.

That's the comedy of it.

If you took 1000 people from around European football; club owners, managers, international players, respected ex players, senior journalists and football analysts and asked them 'who is the more successful manager?' You would get 1000 people saying 'Mourinho'. Yet you get desperate posters on here trying to argue the opposite.

I've yet to see anyone outside of "Mancini for any cost" Blouemooners who wouldn't laugh a thought of Mancini being better one.

I'm trying to find the posters who have said mancini is better than mourinho?

 

[Skashion]

I'm talking facts to make a point, not bollocks.

Nothing interesting what you posted either. Mancini won the league with high win ratio. How can that be bettered by much? Short of adding more teams its impossible.

I argue trophies and win ratio. That's the point.

I'm a fan of Jose. But don't be so ignorant as to assume I'm some carried away fanboy. I'm trying to educate a few who clearly don't know what the fuck they are on about.

Mancini is dire in Europe, Jose is not. We want to do well in Europe, its not rocket science what the next bit is.

Get angry, get frustrated. Do whatever you want but you cannot twist or rewrite the truth.

I'm talking facts.

No, you argued sheer win ratio as if it meant something unallied to the contexts of the clubs. It was a complete straw man argument from the start. I've called you on it, you haven't rebutted it. Why? Because I deal in facts too. Only difference is that I've allied them to context as well. That context being that Mourinho has only ever managed clubs for longer than one season that have finished higher than Mancini's highest in the season before they took over. The lowest Mourinho took over was Porto (3rd), highest Mancini (4th). So, unless Mancini outperformed Mourinho by a ridiculous amount, his win ratio was always going to be higher. If you want to compare value-added win ratio, let's do it.

I'm fine with that. I like that you at least try to incorporate facts into your argument. It'd be better to contextualise them though.

I want to be a sustained success. Chelsea have won one title in six years. I want a lot more than that when Mancini goes. Inter are in danger of not qualifying for the Champions League. Mourinho brings short-term success, his legacies aren't overly impressive. Why do his teams not continue to do well?

Aw bless you. If someone has a different opinion, it appears to rattle you because you believe yourself to be the sole purveyor of "the truth". Get over yourself, it's a debate. Declaring yourself the winner is pathetic.

 

[grim up north]

Indeed, please try making some good ones that use logic.

knowledge or wiki. he is one arrogant man

I done you already. Shut it smurf.[/quote

ok big man

 

[Ragnarok]

Lets say that neither Mancini nor Mourinho win anything in the next five years, whatever club they might be at. Would Mourinho still be the worlds best?

 

[Skashion]

I'm trying to find the posters who have said mancini is better than mourinho?

So am I.

 

[blueparrot]

Tbh billy even dave agreed last week that the sheikh will probably have the last say.

Then I don't agree with either of you ... I just don't see what the actual point is in having two guys with the experience of business and football at the highest level , and then making a decision on who the next manager should be or whether the current incumbent should be given more time yourself. Totally pointless and counterproductive and absolutely no doubt in my mind that neither man would've taken the job if that was the case.

Here's an interesting tidbit for you ... Roman spent a good portion of 2011 trying to hire Txiki but didn't get close. I suspect because ultimately Roman decides at Chelsea and that isn't going to work for a footballing guy like Bergiristain.

True to a point but if they decided something that the owners were against then they would obviously veto. Whatever, when they make the decision hopefully we'll all accept they know what they're doing and get behind the manager whoever he is.