Mourinho or Mancini

[The Future's Blue]

The league was over ages ago, CL and copa del ray are there priority now so even with the split in the squad I still think he will finish the season with Madrid. I don't want Mourinho here but hes getting a lot of unfair stick just because of a few bad results last year he beat the greatest club side ever imo to the title.

What do you do when the players just seem to be on holiday?

Mourinho is the psych of all psych's but it does seem that the ego's at Real have really screwed him over. He probably brings it on himself but those players should be beating the likes of Espanyol et al.

They've used Mourinhos ego against him and are now taking a break from their responsibilities.

You could say the same thing about us we should be beating the likes of West ham and Everton. We've looked pretty poor for most of this season.

Nah mate, those 2 are totally different entities than the one I mentioned.

No team is guaranteed a win away from home but the ones you mention could be rough for any team, especially Everton. I could understand if Espanyol had sat back and played for the 0-0 but they scored 2 goals and showed Real, and Mourinho that they aren't infallible.

The quality of player at Reals disposal is unbelievable and to be where they are says a lot about what's going on there.

I don't blame the manager, I blame the players.

 

[Mancio]

maybe , also if he's been succesfull there , there is a reason if two entire nations like italy and spain believe mourinho is a clown. maybe its becouse he's a clown.

 

[andyhinch]

maybe , also if he's been succesfull there , there is a reason if two entire nations like italy and spain believe mourinho is a clown. maybe its becouse he's a clown.

Insight, won't work on here

 

[hgblue]

maybe , also if he's been succesfull there , there is a reason if two entire nations like italy and spain believe mourinho is a clown. maybe its becouse he's a clown.

A clown? How many managers at Mourinho's age had won the title in 4 different countries and the European Cup twice?

 

[Mancio]

maybe , also if he's been succesfull there , there is a reason if two entire nations like italy and spain believe mourinho is a clown. maybe its becouse he's a clown.

A clown? How many managers at Mourinho's age had won the title in 4 different countries and the European Cup twice?

a man can be perceived as a clown also if he's won 392347r28727197+ titles if he's a clown

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

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...

Very well considered post.

 

[hgblue]

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...

Very well considered post.

I believe Mourinho has nothing left to prove, except that the above assessment of him is wrong.

 

[Rolee]

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...

Very well considered post.

I believe Mourinho has nothing left to prove, except that the above assessment of him is wrong.

Well he could prove that he can win things without resorting to the scummy tactics that he does, you know the kind which are in direct contrast to the 'spirit of the game'.

But hey, results are all that matter, aren't they?

 

[Mancio]

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...

Very well considered post.

I believe Mourinho has nothing left to prove, except that the above assessment of him is wrong.

there are a lot of thing he still has to prove. as much as any other manager , their job is a never ending must prove

 

[nijinsky's fetlocks]

maybe , also if he's been succesfull there , there is a reason if two entire nations like italy and spain believe mourinho is a clown. maybe its becouse he's a clown.

A clown? How many managers at Mourinho's age had won the title in 4 different countries and the European Cup twice?

a man can be perceived as a clown also if he's won 392347r28727197+ titles if he's a clown

...or even if he has 6357 posts,none of which have ever made sense.