Kenney_The_Blue
Well-Known Member
Damocles said:
Exactly, he's got a great record, we need to give him time and get behind him
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Stop moaning and get behind Mancini
- Thread starter Kenney_The_Blue
- Start date
Exactly, he's got a great record, we need to give him time and get behind him
I switched from the phone to the computer, as I really want to answer this properly.
I disagree with the first sentence. A few decades ago, I do believe that was a real difference to technical execution of football in different countries, and adaptation was a real problem. However, the rise of the Champions League, the influx of foreign players and coaches at the top level have drastically shortened this to the point where football, in the top leagues, is pretty universal. I don't doubt that Mancini would have problems in the Championship, or more so, League One, where we do still have a very distinct style of football, but adaptation to the Premiership is unnecessary. I brought my big book of Mourinho quotes with me again, and have just a perfect one to fit :-)
"I became European Champion on 26 May. On 28 May, I arrived in London and I was treated like a nobody, with a bunch of question marks. What do I have to add? Can I adapt to the English game? Do I have enough experience? Have I ever worked with top players? Do I know how hard English football is? English football this, English football that. To the English, they are here and anyone foreign is here...
It's simple. I could not have survived in England unless I was a European Champion. The English feel that it is a special country, with special football and even if you are good, it is not easy to adapt. They believe that their football is more difficult and played in a different system, and that you won't be able to add to it. I don't think that they are anti-foreigner, I just think that they are sceptical because they genuinely believe their football to be different and special."
-- Jose Mourinho, interview with Marcotti, 2006
He then goes on to talk about us been an island and the like of. He's quite an educated man in regards to history, and he tends to relate everything to socio-economic factors. I wish that he would write a non-football related book, it would be fascinating.
I agree that the team is not performing to the sum of its parts currently, but you do need time to get these parts all in working order, and playing together. I don't feel that Mancini has had enough time with this group, and I still don't think Hughes had enough time with his group. If Mourinho comes in and is sacked at the end of his first full season, I don't think he would have had enough time either. We've had problems with injuries recently, and I think with NDJ, Milner and AJ back now, our form will start to pick up again.
Sort of. I mean, you can only beat what is put in front of you. He did take a bankrupt Lazio to the Champions League whilst getting all of his players sold from underneath him as well as winning the Coppa Italia; he won the Coppa Italia at Fiorentina too, whilst putting them in the UEFA Cup. When Juve and Milan were on even points, etc, he then went and beat them both whilst earning the highest ever points total in Serie A.
I agree that Calciopoli has tainted his achievements somewhat, but I certainly don't blame him for this. There are plenty of clubs who weren't effected and he still had to beat them all (it's also worth nothing that even if you give Milano their points deducted back, he still beat them by a clear margin).
I agree that this is a continental problem, but we are using their excuses without having their setup. Torino sacked their manager after 2 weeks yesterday, appointed his predecessor. Although this is laughable, and the club is in a ridiculous state at present (their Chairman, Cairo, is also going at the end of the season), they do have a Sporting Director in Gianluca Petrachi who will keep a continuation of policy.
A more notable example is Barca, who have been through a ridiculous number of managers, yet have always kept the Cruyff philosophy through the ranks thanks to their setup. Real Madrid haven't had this, which is why they aren't hugely successful in the past decade, and why they have to spend hundreds of millions on players every few years. Inter Milan has this in ex-Le Grande Inter wing back, Facchetti, who was their Director of Football up until a few years back. Milano have Galliani as the business cheif, but also have Baresi and (now both) Maldini on the footballing side to ensure a continuation of footballing policy throughout their ranks.
United and Arsenal are successful because they have had a continuation of policy throughout the years. Chelsea are successful because they throw money at things like Madrid (ask them how that's going this year, btw). Spurs are successful, because Redknapp is the luckiest man in the whole of football who couldn't have existed at any other point in football history, yet have still have continued investment over the years to the tune of hundreds of millions.
Success; I mean true, long term, sustainable success, comes from a clear and distinct policy that is carried out over numerous years. We have nobody but the manager in place to formulate ours, so sacking them every two years fucks everything up from the bottom to the top. Marwood isn't the man to formulate our youth policy, he's the man to run shoulders with other administration leaders in football. He's a useful man to have around the club, but not the man who can sit and lead our footballing policy forward for the next ten years.
We cannot use the continental psyche on sacking managers if we don't use the continental setup. One of them has to go; I'd actually prefer it to be our setup, purely because we can put a City man as Director of Football, such as Jim Cassell or such figure, who has free reign over all footballing activities and make our managers the first team coach. Then, the manager gets all the attention of the rapid press/fans reacting to results, but then we still have someone quietly getting on with the business of shaping the football club behind the scenes.
However, as this isn't currently a reality, we should stick with what we have instead of wasting another 2 years of our development. Youth coaches train players to suit the first team, at every club. When you keep changing the manager, you keep changing the requirements from young players, which is how the supply line dries out and we end up selling them to Rotherham or wherever.
People say that Mancini isn't the man. I don't necessarily agree with that, but everybody is entitled to their opinion. What I vehemently disagree with though, is this whole groupthink idea that managers should achieve something spectacular in their first full season. This just isn't enough time to mould together a team into Champions. Mourinho won it in his first full season. Chelsea finished 2nd the previous year under Ranieri, and they could have won it then. When Mancini was offered the job, we were 8th, 6th when he took over and finished 5th. This year, we are currently sitting in 4th.
Wenger believes that managers should be judged on three separate, and distinct components:
1. Results (NOTE: not performances). "This is only a short term thing though, managers are not going to make a difference in their first year. He simply won't have the time to work with the players. Of course, if he does well, he'll get praise and if he does badly, he'll get criticised but both of these are false because in that amount of time the team isn't really his yet."
2. The ability to help players progress individually.
3. The long term impact. The infrastructure, the youth academy, the philosophy. "These are measured not game by game, or week by week, but year by year".
If we take Wenger's (and to be honest, this seems to be the textbook definition in football now) definition, Mancini is doing ok. Not spectacular, but ok. We can't sack a manager for doing "not spectacular" after a season in charge. Here's how I look at it:
1. Well, we're fourth in the league and we're in the semis of the FAC. We went out of the CC early, but had a decent enough EL run. Bit early to judge as the league is in constant flux, but if the season ended tomorrow, I'd be happy enough.
2. Looking at the emergence of Richards, Hart, and Boyata, he seems to be doing well with this aspect. Removing the buys who have been here less than a year (as we can't judge them pre-Mancini), we also have Lescott and Kompany performing much better, Tevez having his best ever season, Kolo looks like a different player, and Jo is starting to build some confidence. SWP looks good when he comes on and more comfortable than he did under Hughes (though to be fair, Hughes played him in the centre at times!), and Zab has become one of the best players at the club. Bellamy looked worse under Mancini, as did Adebayor, and to be honest, I've thought that Barry had his better games under Hughes. All in all though, individually, he's doing pretty well, I'd say.
3. Another that's a bit too hard to judge. So much has changed in such a small amount of time that it would be wrong to credit any manager at this moment in time. The EDS has developed, the Academy is under the eye of Scott Sellars and our philosophy in play is still a massive fudge at lower levels, which I complained about earlier. I will credit Mancini with one thing, City's Performance Analysis department has doubled in size under his reign, and he absolutely insisted on ProZone for the youth players (according to a Marwood interview with one of the broadsheets a while back). This could be my own inate bias kicking in here, but I'm excited about this. Sports Science can only go so far without resorting to things like blood spinning, and I truly believe Performance Analysis to be the next big innovation in football, with as big as an impact as proper diet and fitness regimes had. Overall though, it isn't fair to say.
As per the above, 2 out of 3 of those categories are "too early to judge", and the other, I'm happy enough. At this time next season, I'd be happy to fill in the blanks and let you know how I think that he is doing as our boss, but currently, he hasn't had the time and we don't have the data to show anything apart from short term opinions.
BillyShears said:He's not got time at City, and you cannot simply transport his Italian trophy haul over to the premiership and use it as proof positive that he's a capable manager in the premiership. I admire your cries for stability, and you know a hell of a lot about the game of football, I don't dispute that.
I disagree with the first sentence. A few decades ago, I do believe that was a real difference to technical execution of football in different countries, and adaptation was a real problem. However, the rise of the Champions League, the influx of foreign players and coaches at the top level have drastically shortened this to the point where football, in the top leagues, is pretty universal. I don't doubt that Mancini would have problems in the Championship, or more so, League One, where we do still have a very distinct style of football, but adaptation to the Premiership is unnecessary. I brought my big book of Mourinho quotes with me again, and have just a perfect one to fit :-)
"I became European Champion on 26 May. On 28 May, I arrived in London and I was treated like a nobody, with a bunch of question marks. What do I have to add? Can I adapt to the English game? Do I have enough experience? Have I ever worked with top players? Do I know how hard English football is? English football this, English football that. To the English, they are here and anyone foreign is here...
It's simple. I could not have survived in England unless I was a European Champion. The English feel that it is a special country, with special football and even if you are good, it is not easy to adapt. They believe that their football is more difficult and played in a different system, and that you won't be able to add to it. I don't think that they are anti-foreigner, I just think that they are sceptical because they genuinely believe their football to be different and special."
-- Jose Mourinho, interview with Marcotti, 2006
He then goes on to talk about us been an island and the like of. He's quite an educated man in regards to history, and he tends to relate everything to socio-economic factors. I wish that he would write a non-football related book, it would be fascinating.
But I will back my own judgment as well, and my eyes are telling me that we've gotten nowhere so far under Mancini. We look no more advanced as a team than we did when the season started. We peaked at Fulham, and performances have been downhill since then. Whether it's because the players are tired, not used to the league, or just underperforming, it's Mancini's responsibility.
As someone said on here last night - great managers make their teams more than the sum of it's parts. Mancini hasn't even made us the sum of our parts in my opinion, and that's why I certainly can't get behind him.
I agree that the team is not performing to the sum of its parts currently, but you do need time to get these parts all in working order, and playing together. I don't feel that Mancini has had enough time with this group, and I still don't think Hughes had enough time with his group. If Mourinho comes in and is sacked at the end of his first full season, I don't think he would have had enough time either. We've had problems with injuries recently, and I think with NDJ, Milner and AJ back now, our form will start to pick up again.
tolmie's hairdoo said:I agree with the final part of your statement.
But what can't be disputed, is that Mancini's most notable of achievements also coincide with perhaps the lowest point in Italian top-flight history?
Sort of. I mean, you can only beat what is put in front of you. He did take a bankrupt Lazio to the Champions League whilst getting all of his players sold from underneath him as well as winning the Coppa Italia; he won the Coppa Italia at Fiorentina too, whilst putting them in the UEFA Cup. When Juve and Milan were on even points, etc, he then went and beat them both whilst earning the highest ever points total in Serie A.
I agree that Calciopoli has tainted his achievements somewhat, but I certainly don't blame him for this. There are plenty of clubs who weren't effected and he still had to beat them all (it's also worth nothing that even if you give Milano their points deducted back, he still beat them by a clear margin).
I admire your resoluetness and total conviction in Mancini, Damo, to eventually get it right.
But we all know, outside of United, Arsenal and Crewe, time is not something a manager can rely upon.
The top Italian and Spanish clubs set the benchmark for dispensing with managers in short periods of time.
It hasn't stopped them from being successful.
I agree that this is a continental problem, but we are using their excuses without having their setup. Torino sacked their manager after 2 weeks yesterday, appointed his predecessor. Although this is laughable, and the club is in a ridiculous state at present (their Chairman, Cairo, is also going at the end of the season), they do have a Sporting Director in Gianluca Petrachi who will keep a continuation of policy.
A more notable example is Barca, who have been through a ridiculous number of managers, yet have always kept the Cruyff philosophy through the ranks thanks to their setup. Real Madrid haven't had this, which is why they aren't hugely successful in the past decade, and why they have to spend hundreds of millions on players every few years. Inter Milan has this in ex-Le Grande Inter wing back, Facchetti, who was their Director of Football up until a few years back. Milano have Galliani as the business cheif, but also have Baresi and (now both) Maldini on the footballing side to ensure a continuation of footballing policy throughout their ranks.
United and Arsenal are successful because they have had a continuation of policy throughout the years. Chelsea are successful because they throw money at things like Madrid (ask them how that's going this year, btw). Spurs are successful, because Redknapp is the luckiest man in the whole of football who couldn't have existed at any other point in football history, yet have still have continued investment over the years to the tune of hundreds of millions.
Success; I mean true, long term, sustainable success, comes from a clear and distinct policy that is carried out over numerous years. We have nobody but the manager in place to formulate ours, so sacking them every two years fucks everything up from the bottom to the top. Marwood isn't the man to formulate our youth policy, he's the man to run shoulders with other administration leaders in football. He's a useful man to have around the club, but not the man who can sit and lead our footballing policy forward for the next ten years.
We cannot use the continental psyche on sacking managers if we don't use the continental setup. One of them has to go; I'd actually prefer it to be our setup, purely because we can put a City man as Director of Football, such as Jim Cassell or such figure, who has free reign over all footballing activities and make our managers the first team coach. Then, the manager gets all the attention of the rapid press/fans reacting to results, but then we still have someone quietly getting on with the business of shaping the football club behind the scenes.
However, as this isn't currently a reality, we should stick with what we have instead of wasting another 2 years of our development. Youth coaches train players to suit the first team, at every club. When you keep changing the manager, you keep changing the requirements from young players, which is how the supply line dries out and we end up selling them to Rotherham or wherever.
People say that Mancini isn't the man. I don't necessarily agree with that, but everybody is entitled to their opinion. What I vehemently disagree with though, is this whole groupthink idea that managers should achieve something spectacular in their first full season. This just isn't enough time to mould together a team into Champions. Mourinho won it in his first full season. Chelsea finished 2nd the previous year under Ranieri, and they could have won it then. When Mancini was offered the job, we were 8th, 6th when he took over and finished 5th. This year, we are currently sitting in 4th.
Wenger believes that managers should be judged on three separate, and distinct components:
1. Results (NOTE: not performances). "This is only a short term thing though, managers are not going to make a difference in their first year. He simply won't have the time to work with the players. Of course, if he does well, he'll get praise and if he does badly, he'll get criticised but both of these are false because in that amount of time the team isn't really his yet."
2. The ability to help players progress individually.
3. The long term impact. The infrastructure, the youth academy, the philosophy. "These are measured not game by game, or week by week, but year by year".
If we take Wenger's (and to be honest, this seems to be the textbook definition in football now) definition, Mancini is doing ok. Not spectacular, but ok. We can't sack a manager for doing "not spectacular" after a season in charge. Here's how I look at it:
1. Well, we're fourth in the league and we're in the semis of the FAC. We went out of the CC early, but had a decent enough EL run. Bit early to judge as the league is in constant flux, but if the season ended tomorrow, I'd be happy enough.
2. Looking at the emergence of Richards, Hart, and Boyata, he seems to be doing well with this aspect. Removing the buys who have been here less than a year (as we can't judge them pre-Mancini), we also have Lescott and Kompany performing much better, Tevez having his best ever season, Kolo looks like a different player, and Jo is starting to build some confidence. SWP looks good when he comes on and more comfortable than he did under Hughes (though to be fair, Hughes played him in the centre at times!), and Zab has become one of the best players at the club. Bellamy looked worse under Mancini, as did Adebayor, and to be honest, I've thought that Barry had his better games under Hughes. All in all though, individually, he's doing pretty well, I'd say.
3. Another that's a bit too hard to judge. So much has changed in such a small amount of time that it would be wrong to credit any manager at this moment in time. The EDS has developed, the Academy is under the eye of Scott Sellars and our philosophy in play is still a massive fudge at lower levels, which I complained about earlier. I will credit Mancini with one thing, City's Performance Analysis department has doubled in size under his reign, and he absolutely insisted on ProZone for the youth players (according to a Marwood interview with one of the broadsheets a while back). This could be my own inate bias kicking in here, but I'm excited about this. Sports Science can only go so far without resorting to things like blood spinning, and I truly believe Performance Analysis to be the next big innovation in football, with as big as an impact as proper diet and fitness regimes had. Overall though, it isn't fair to say.
As per the above, 2 out of 3 of those categories are "too early to judge", and the other, I'm happy enough. At this time next season, I'd be happy to fill in the blanks and let you know how I think that he is doing as our boss, but currently, he hasn't had the time and we don't have the data to show anything apart from short term opinions.
I understand many blues are unhappy about Mancini and they have good points.
The team for too long is not performing well and the tiredness can't be used as excuse all the times.
He keep insisting in players that are a liability for the squad. Kolarov and Dzeko are really a disgrace. If they need time for improve or understand the english football, better they stay out until they are fit.
However I still want to give him time and credit until the end of the season. I remember we plaied a very good football for few matches. If he is able to bring back the same performance and achieving at least the CL spot I would keep him for next year.
Otherwise better an other coach but please not Mourinho. His teams not playing a good football and he is just an attentions hunter.
The team for too long is not performing well and the tiredness can't be used as excuse all the times.
He keep insisting in players that are a liability for the squad. Kolarov and Dzeko are really a disgrace. If they need time for improve or understand the english football, better they stay out until they are fit.
However I still want to give him time and credit until the end of the season. I remember we plaied a very good football for few matches. If he is able to bring back the same performance and achieving at least the CL spot I would keep him for next year.
Otherwise better an other coach but please not Mourinho. His teams not playing a good football and he is just an attentions hunter.
m27
Well-Known Member
Damo,
I had a bit of a discussion with you last night on Twitter about Mancini and your points then, as with those made above, are valid and intelligent.
However, Mourinho had Robben and Duff in his sides over here. His sides had pace and were not scared to put crosses in the box. He also was willing to gamble on occasions and make changes to sides he'd picked (with subs or tweaks in formations and tactics) no matter how early on in the game he thought things weren't going right.
You are an analyst with a scientific brain, but others go off instinct. I'm somewhere in the middle and it is my feeling now, based on what I have seen at City and also on instinct, that he can't win the league for us in this country.
I had a bit of a discussion with you last night on Twitter about Mancini and your points then, as with those made above, are valid and intelligent.
However, Mourinho had Robben and Duff in his sides over here. His sides had pace and were not scared to put crosses in the box. He also was willing to gamble on occasions and make changes to sides he'd picked (with subs or tweaks in formations and tactics) no matter how early on in the game he thought things weren't going right.
You are an analyst with a scientific brain, but others go off instinct. I'm somewhere in the middle and it is my feeling now, based on what I have seen at City and also on instinct, that he can't win the league for us in this country.
Blue Tooth
Well-Known Member
Current Form:Home PL (Last 6 games)
Utd W W W W W W (18 pts)
City W W W W D W (16 pts)
Arsenal D W W W W D (14 pts)
Liverpool W D W W D W (14 pts)
Chelsea W D W L W W (13 pts)
Spurs D W W D W D (12 pts)
Current Form: Away PL ( Last 6 games)
Chelsea L L W W D W ( 10 pts)
Arsenal L D W W D D (9 pts)
Liverpool L L W W L W (9 pts)
Spurs L D W W L D ( 8 pts)
Utd D W L W L L (7 pts)
City W D L W D L L (5 pts)
Not too shabby really...Plenty of points to play for.
Let's get behind the blues.
Utd W W W W W W (18 pts)
City W W W W D W (16 pts)
Arsenal D W W W W D (14 pts)
Liverpool W D W W D W (14 pts)
Chelsea W D W L W W (13 pts)
Spurs D W W D W D (12 pts)
Current Form: Away PL ( Last 6 games)
Chelsea L L W W D W ( 10 pts)
Arsenal L D W W D D (9 pts)
Liverpool L L W W L W (9 pts)
Spurs L D W W L D ( 8 pts)
Utd D W L W L L (7 pts)
City W D L W D L L (5 pts)
Not too shabby really...Plenty of points to play for.
Let's get behind the blues.
m27 said:Damo,
I had a bit of a discussion with you last night on Twitter about Mancini and your points then, as with those made above, are valid and intelligent.
However, Mourinho had Robben and Duff in his sides over here. His sides had pace and were not scared to put crosses in the box. He also was willing to gamble on occasions and make changes to sides he'd picked (with subs or tweaks in formations and tactics) no matter how early on in the game he thought things weren't going right.
You are an analyst with a scientific brain, but others go off instinct. I'm somewhere in the middle and it is my feeling now, based on what I have seen at City and also on instinct, that he can't win the league for us in this country.
Good discussion that mate :)
Mourinho had Robben and Duff, with Makelele when he first came. I made a point a while back about the similarities about both managers and how they setup when they first arrived compared with how their tactics evolve over time.
Mourinho isn't particularly fixated on width and pace. We are forgetting that it was 7 years ago when he arrived; he played that 4-3-3 simply because everybody else at the time was playing 4-4-2.
"Look, if I have a triangle in midfield – Claude Makelele behind and two others just in front – I will always have an advantage against a pure 4-4-2 where the central midfielders are side by side. That’s because I will always have an extra man. It starts with Makelele, who is between the lines. If nobody comes to him he can see the whole pitch and has time. If he gets closed down it means one of the two other central midfielders is open. If they are closed down and the other team’s wingers come inside to help, it means there is space now for us on the flank, either for our own wingers or for our full-backs. There is nothing a pure 4-4-2 can do to stop things"
He also brought the properly attacking fullback to this country, and at a time where Gary Neville has the archetypal fullback, he brought in Ashley Cole/Wayne Bridge/Ferreira whilst still keeping Gallas for those games where he needed a "proper fullback".
Mou also brought the idea of "inverse wingers" to the country, with Robben/Cole/Duff often swapping sides and cutting in, note the similarities that SWP couldn't fit into his team, and rarely fits into ours because of his lack of ability to do this.
His Chelsea team isn't actually that different from what ours is.
Kenney_The_Blue said:He's doing a great job, at the very very least give him until the end of the season, so what if we could get mourinho tomorrow, what's he going to do between now and the end of the season that Mancini can't? If mourinho came in our target would still be the top four. Give Mancini a break, I have faith that he will get us a champions league spot, and an fa cup final is a huge bonus.
Rant over
Absolutely spot on mate.
If only all thefans can get behind Mancini he'll change his tactics, stop making excuses, inspire the players, make better signings, not fall out with his players, become so positive in trying to win games..
Yep, just as soon as we all get behind Mancini that's what's going to happen...
DenisLawBackHeel74
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 20 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 11,185
Kenney_The_Blue said:He's doing a great job, at the very very least give him until the end of the season, so what if we could get mourinho tomorrow, what's he going to do between now and the end of the season that Mancini can't? If mourinho came in our target would still be the top four. Give Mancini a break, I have faith that he will get us a champions league spot, and an fa cup final is a huge bonus.
Rant over
i'm not a mancini outer....but he deserves all the criticisms he's getting at the minute.
m27
Well-Known Member
Damocles said:m27 said:Damo,
I had a bit of a discussion with you last night on Twitter about Mancini and your points then, as with those made above, are valid and intelligent.
However, Mourinho had Robben and Duff in his sides over here. His sides had pace and were not scared to put crosses in the box. He also was willing to gamble on occasions and make changes to sides he'd picked (with subs or tweaks in formations and tactics) no matter how early on in the game he thought things weren't going right.
You are an analyst with a scientific brain, but others go off instinct. I'm somewhere in the middle and it is my feeling now, based on what I have seen at City and also on instinct, that he can't win the league for us in this country.
Good discussion that mate :)
Mourinho had Robben and Duff, with Makelele when he first came. I made a point a while back about the similarities about both managers and how they setup when they first arrived compared with how their tactics evolve over time.
Mourinho isn't particularly fixated on width and pace. We are forgetting that it was 7 years ago when he arrived; he played that 4-3-3 simply because everybody else at the time was playing 4-4-2.
"Look, if I have a triangle in midfield – Claude Makelele behind and two others just in front – I will always have an advantage against a pure 4-4-2 where the central midfielders are side by side. That’s because I will always have an extra man. It starts with Makelele, who is between the lines. If nobody comes to him he can see the whole pitch and has time. If he gets closed down it means one of the two other central midfielders is open. If they are closed down and the other team’s wingers come inside to help, it means there is space now for us on the flank, either for our own wingers or for our full-backs. There is nothing a pure 4-4-2 can do to stop things"
He also brought the properly attacking fullback to this country, and at a time where Gary Neville has the archetypal fullback, he brought in Ashley Cole/Wayne Bridge/Ferreira whilst still keeping Gallas for those games where he needed a "proper fullback".
Mou also brought the idea of "inverse wingers" to the country, with Robben/Cole/Duff often swapping sides and cutting in, note the similarities that SWP couldn't fit into his team, and rarely fits into ours because of his lack of ability to do this.
His Chelsea team isn't actually that different from what ours is.
Big difference there though is we have the potential to use De Jong as our Makelele but instead Mancini tends to have Barry alongside him with Ya Ya in front of him. It's a triangle but it's more defensive, and while Mourinho may not have been fixated width pace and width, his Chelsea team DID have it.
That quote from Jose is a good one but you notice he speaks about 'wingers' so he sees their benefit, I'm not sure Mancini does so much. Of course, if Kolarov wasn't so slow, with the resurgence of Micah, this could have been our outlet down the flanks. However, AK is slower than rust so that's that fooked.
Breadsnapper
Well-Known Member
My view is simply that he needs time. This team is part of a journey and not the finished article by any stretch. Some of his buys so far have not played to their potential nor our anticipation. I genuinely believe that next season will really be the season which defines both the manager and the club and hopefully when the team finally sorts itself out. Mancini has possibly found the PL a bit more of a challenge than he thought as have some of our players. These same players do not become bad players overnight, loss of form yes, but not rubbish. I can't think of any of the signings I didn't get excited over and most of the fans felt the same way obviously with some exceptions. We have to be patient more than ever and support the team, club and manager more than ever.
If you consider what the owners are doing at the club then it all smacks to me as long term, ie development of the ground, the training facilities and the work being done with the academy. If everything they are doing is for the long haul then it makes no sense at all that the manager is viewed by them as being a short term solution, he is afterall their man. Maybe I am more patient than most but all I am really interested in is a Champions League spot, sure a cup would be nice but my priority is champions League.
We as fans also need to stop living in the past and thinking that we have to play wonderfully expansive football and score 5 goals every game. We are not in a position to do that and we need to win at all costs, sometimes that means winning ugly.
If you consider what the owners are doing at the club then it all smacks to me as long term, ie development of the ground, the training facilities and the work being done with the academy. If everything they are doing is for the long haul then it makes no sense at all that the manager is viewed by them as being a short term solution, he is afterall their man. Maybe I am more patient than most but all I am really interested in is a Champions League spot, sure a cup would be nice but my priority is champions League.
We as fans also need to stop living in the past and thinking that we have to play wonderfully expansive football and score 5 goals every game. We are not in a position to do that and we need to win at all costs, sometimes that means winning ugly.