Rammy Blue said:
BobKowalski said:
An interesting discussion that has rumbled on for 3 years and one that will - in my opinion - never be resolved because the 'Jose to City' ship sailed long ago and with the new Spanish management in place whatever hypothetically slim chance Jose ever had of pitching up at City vanished overnight.
Whether by chance or design appointing Mancini proved to be the right man at the right time because Mancini has the ability to teach teams how to win and win consistently especially teams that had long forgotten how to do so. Whatever the merits or otherwise of his tactical nous, man management abilities or whatever you can't deny that we now surprised when we don't win. Results like Reading on Saturday or WBA away with a man and a goal down we have the joyous habit of snatching a result at the death.
Mancini is a better team builder than Mourinho and uses a technical approach rather than a psychological approach and seems to based on players doing it for themselves rather than 'for the manager'. Mancini does not create an intense atmosphere with his personality where players raise their game for the manager in an almost cult like state indeed it seems to be the opposite with Mancini being cooler and more detached with little personal warmth.
Mourinho's approach works best with an established winning squad that needs raising a notch or two and there is no denying the results can be spectacular. The downside is that it seems to be a two season cycle. At Chelsea and Madrid we are seeing it hit the buffers in the 3rd season with players proving increasingly resistant to the psychological drama that is a constant state with Jose.
Whatever the merits or otherwise of each man's approach I believe the Mourinho circus is just not something the owners want at City especially if they can achieve their goals of on field success without it which so far they are doing.
Of greater relevance to Mancini is the political landscape going forward and whether the new Spanish management would want a coach they feel more comfortable with ie Spanish or whether Mancini can adapt and embrace the long term philosophy of bringing youngsters through and still maintaining on field success etc., a philosophy that Mourinho would be totally unsuited for in my opinion.
Anyway I'll stop rambling...
You've failed to take into account though the relevance of Champions League performance and how much importance our owner/board may place upon it.
Not really. I'm looking at the situation as a whole rather than applicability to any one competition. Looking at Chelsea's experience they achieved their best CL results under Grant and Di Matteo whereas the managers brought in to achieve CL success didn't get close which in effect tells you sod all in my opinion except that winning the CL is as much about luck as it is about ability.
Personally I think you have to look at the best man or men to take the club forward as a whole not fret over one competition. This is not to say Mancini may not pay the price for failing to achieve CL success and if he does pay the price I'm going to stick a wedge on Platt leading us to European glory.
The whole argument over who is the better manager between Jose or Roberto is better phrased as to who is the best manager for my club in its current stage of development and where I want it to be in the medium to long term.
Roberto I think was a better choice at the time we employed him given where we were. Right now I think Jose would give us a better shot at the CL. Looking long term I may err back towards Mancini or someone else ie Pep.
As I said you have to look at the situation as a whole and where you want to be in terms of business and football model etc. Employing a manager to win one competition once, spending a fortune to do so and then watch it implode thereafter ala Inter, is great for that brief fleeting moment but makes no sense as a sustainable model for the business or football side.
