He's wanted out after a fantastic last season, he wants to win CL i'd say of course.moomba said:One thing about Mourinho, he's obviously a dead man walking at the club, that's understandable.
But with the Casillas thing, is he now working in the best interests of the club he's paid to manage? Or is he trying to force his way out?
moomba said:One thing about Mourinho, he's obviously a dead man walking at the club, that's understandable.
But with the Casillas thing, is he now working in the best interests of the club he's paid to manage? Or is he trying to force his way out?
The cookie monster said:Bobbys had the last laugh AGAIN this weekend
And thats all that matters.
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...
He'll be given the rest of the season imo, they still have a lot to play the copa del ray, finishing above A.Madrid and the CL. At the end of the season I think he will swap job with Ancelotti.Rammy Blue said:moomba said:One thing about Mourinho, he's obviously a dead man walking at the club, that's understandable.
But with the Casillas thing, is he now working in the best interests of the club he's paid to manage? Or is he trying to force his way out?
It's a strange one as there is a couple of months before the chumps game with the scum, don't think Perez will be overly impressed if Jose continues to piss about with the league.
Getting the sack early would give him a payoff and the freedom to hawk himself about, maybe he's not that arsed about the chumps campaign?
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...
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...
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.