The Roberto Mancini appreciation thread

[welsh_andy]

:')

[bigimg]http://sphotos-d.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/971284_554749241215076_1500580934_n.jpg[/bigimg]

thats nice

 

[Didsbury Dave]

I thought that article was fucking dreadful, actually. Completely missing the point and jumping to lazy yet easy conclusions. Though, it is Holt so is to be expected.

I'm was a Mancini 'inner', yet that article states nothing about the obvious underachievement of the squad. It's just a flippant attack on the club.

Of course it is. No doubt Holt will be one of the NW journos like Neil Custis who Mancini and Platt courted with champagne lunches this season in an attempt to drum up support within the press. They were always going to write "Big Bad ADUG" pieces when the axe fell.

 

[Anonymous]

For those who don't wish to click the link to the shitty fucking mirror:

So it turns out that, behind the suave ­exterior, Roberto Mancini was a nasty piece of work.

He sulked through a meeting once, apparently.

He was nasty to his players.

Nobody liked him.

They say he was insubordinate towards chief executive Ferran Soriano and sporting director Txiki Begiristain.

He was not keen on being told who his transfer targets should be.

He stamped his feet when City missed out on Robin van Persie, who went on to win the title for Manchester United.

The former kit-man has complained he could barely get a ‘hello’ out of him. The Italian didn’t smile much, either, it seems.

I bet Mancini made one of the tea-ladies cry once, too, and in football club mythology there are few things worse than that. Yet the strange thing is, none of these terrible character flaws prevented City awarding him a new five-year contract less than 12 months ago.

None of them stopped him guiding City to their first league title for 44 years last May.

None of them stopped him leading City to the runners-up spot behind Manchester United this season.

Not smiling at the kit-man was never cited before as a reason why he could not continue in his job.

As far as I’m aware, nobody ever laboured under the illusion that Mancini was a laugh-a-minute kind of guy anyway. Stories about him blanking players in corridors have been commonplace since he arrived in Manchester.

In fact, in happier times, his indifference towards whether he was liked by his players or not was put forward as one of his strengths. But when you get the sack, the poison is put down and ­everything flips.

Mancini’s strengths became his weaknesses overnight because it suited the people who sacked him to tell it that way.

Forgive me, but I was unaware that Sir Alex Ferguson was viewed as a man of pure benevolence even in the demi-deification of impending ­retirement.

I must have imagined the fact he became known as the ­Hairdryer because of the ­fearsome abuse he could dish out to his players. I must have misremembered him terrorising players, trying to control the minutiae of their lives.

I must have ­misinterpreted those stories about Brian Clough punching Roy Keane because he underhit a backpass.

I must have been misled when I read stories about Bill Shankly treating injured players as if they did not exist.

The point is, surely, that if we get to the stage where we make judgments about football managers based on their manners, we will be picking from a thin field. Football managers are, by necessity, dictatorial, bombastic, defensive, obsessed and ­ruthless. The great ones probably even more than the rest.

Jose ­Mourinho anyone?

So let’s forget all this ­revisionist spin that Mancini was fired because he didn’t smile at the club receptionist often enough. And let’s remember that he was fired by a club who offered him the job while Mark Hughes was still the manager. And who appear to have offered it to Manuel Pellegrini while Mancini was still the manager.

No one can run for the moral high ground in football because there isn’t any.

The character assassination of Mancini doesn’t wash. There’s no need for it. It smacks of people at the club trying too hard to excuse a decision that is deeply unpopular with the supporters. City made the decision for football reasons and they should not have to disguise that.

They fired Mancini because he didn’t win the league and, for the second season in succession, he failed to get past the group stage of the Champions League.

Their difficulty is that it is hard to defend a decision to sack a manager 12 months to the day after he won the league title. Their difficulty is that it would be unwise to point out that Mancini is the victim of a power struggle between him and Soriano and Begiristain.

That, essentially, is what the “need to develop a holistic approach to all aspects of ­football at the club” meant. It was a gloriously funny euphemism for the fact that they want the manager to be subservient to the chief ­executive and the sporting director.

Mancini railed against that. Just as Ferguson would have done. But Ferguson was hailed as the last of the great patriarchs.

Mancini was damned as the bloke who didn’t say hello to the kit-man.

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

For those who don't wish to click the link to the shitty fucking mirror:

So it turns out that, behind the suave ­exterior, Roberto Mancini was a nasty piece of work.

He sulked through a meeting once, apparently.

He was nasty to his players.

Nobody liked him.

They say he was insubordinate towards chief executive Ferran Soriano and sporting director Txiki Begiristain.

He was not keen on being told who his transfer targets should be.

He stamped his feet when City missed out on Robin van Persie, who went on to win the title for Manchester United.

The former kit-man has complained he could barely get a ‘hello’ out of him. The Italian didn’t smile much, either, it seems.

I bet Mancini made one of the tea-ladies cry once, too, and in football club mythology there are few things worse than that. Yet the strange thing is, none of these terrible character flaws prevented City awarding him a new five-year contract less than 12 months ago.

None of them stopped him guiding City to their first league title for 44 years last May.

None of them stopped him leading City to the runners-up spot behind Manchester United this season.

Not smiling at the kit-man was never cited before as a reason why he could not continue in his job.

As far as I’m aware, nobody ever laboured under the illusion that Mancini was a laugh-a-minute kind of guy anyway. Stories about him blanking players in corridors have been commonplace since he arrived in Manchester.

In fact, in happier times, his indifference towards whether he was liked by his players or not was put forward as one of his strengths. But when you get the sack, the poison is put down and ­everything flips.

Mancini’s strengths became his weaknesses overnight because it suited the people who sacked him to tell it that way.

Forgive me, but I was unaware that Sir Alex Ferguson was viewed as a man of pure benevolence even in the demi-deification of impending ­retirement.

I must have imagined the fact he became known as the ­Hairdryer because of the ­fearsome abuse he could dish out to his players. I must have misremembered him terrorising players, trying to control the minutiae of their lives.

I must have ­misinterpreted those stories about Brian Clough punching Roy Keane because he underhit a backpass.

I must have been misled when I read stories about Bill Shankly treating injured players as if they did not exist.

The point is, surely, that if we get to the stage where we make judgments about football managers based on their manners, we will be picking from a thin field. Football managers are, by necessity, dictatorial, bombastic, defensive, obsessed and ­ruthless. The great ones probably even more than the rest.

Jose ­Mourinho anyone?

So let’s forget all this ­revisionist spin that Mancini was fired because he didn’t smile at the club receptionist often enough. And let’s remember that he was fired by a club who offered him the job while Mark Hughes was still the manager. And who appear to have offered it to Manuel Pellegrini while Mancini was still the manager.

No one can run for the moral high ground in football because there isn’t any.

The character assassination of Mancini doesn’t wash. There’s no need for it. It smacks of people at the club trying too hard to excuse a decision that is deeply unpopular with the supporters. City made the decision for football reasons and they should not have to disguise that.

They fired Mancini because he didn’t win the league and, for the second season in succession, he failed to get past the group stage of the Champions League.

Their difficulty is that it is hard to defend a decision to sack a manager 12 months to the day after he won the league title. Their difficulty is that it would be unwise to point out that Mancini is the victim of a power struggle between him and Soriano and Begiristain.

That, essentially, is what the “need to develop a holistic approach to all aspects of ­football at the club” meant. It was a gloriously funny euphemism for the fact that they want the manager to be subservient to the chief ­executive and the sporting director.

Mancini railed against that. Just as Ferguson would have done. But Ferguson was hailed as the last of the great patriarchs.

Mancini was damned as the bloke who didn’t say hello to the kit-man.

Maybe if this burke read the club statement...

 

[adr2.8i]

i would just like to thank Bobby for some of the greatest days of my life supporting the City. I never never envisaged we would WIN an FA Cup AND a Premier League Title when i started supporting the Blues in 1995!

He wasnt perfect but those two achievements should never be forgotten. And lets hope theres plenty more success in the future for us!

 

[gelly]

Words from Gary Cook. Ironic that had Mancini not fallen out with Cook and caused the departure he might still be in the job.

There is not a more competitive man than Roberto Mancini. He is his own biggest critic. That’s a passion you have to admire and you have to love that. But the game is judged on results. It is judged on the ambition of owners. If the owners don’t feel results are what they want then a different conversation will be had. I am a great fan of Roberto - I brought him into the club for the right reasons and he executed on the reasons we brought him in for. Everyone has a lifespan.I wish him all the best because Manchester City’s trophy cupboard is a little more full than it was before he got there.

 

[dave bacuzzi]

Definitely the right man for us at the right time. Will always be remembered affectionately
and I hope he can come back to visit in the future. He changed my life and made sure my brother died happier, even though he passed away before we won anything. He knew we were on the right path. All good things come to an end of course but it felt to me like splitting with a girl you loved. My wife cried her heart out. We shall get over it like most things in life. Thanks Roberto
till we meet again!

 

[Balti]

For those who don't wish to click the link to the shitty fucking mirror:

So it turns out that, behind the suave ­exterior, Roberto Mancini was a nasty piece of work.

He sulked through a meeting once, apparently.

He was nasty to his players.

Nobody liked him.

They say he was insubordinate towards chief executive Ferran Soriano and sporting director Txiki Begiristain.

He was not keen on being told who his transfer targets should be.

He stamped his feet when City missed out on Robin van Persie, who went on to win the title for Manchester United.

The former kit-man has complained he could barely get a ‘hello’ out of him. The Italian didn’t smile much, either, it seems.

I bet Mancini made one of the tea-ladies cry once, too, and in football club mythology there are few things worse than that. Yet the strange thing is, none of these terrible character flaws prevented City awarding him a new five-year contract less than 12 months ago.

None of them stopped him guiding City to their first league title for 44 years last May.

None of them stopped him leading City to the runners-up spot behind Manchester United this season.

Not smiling at the kit-man was never cited before as a reason why he could not continue in his job.

As far as I’m aware, nobody ever laboured under the illusion that Mancini was a laugh-a-minute kind of guy anyway. Stories about him blanking players in corridors have been commonplace since he arrived in Manchester.

In fact, in happier times, his indifference towards whether he was liked by his players or not was put forward as one of his strengths. But when you get the sack, the poison is put down and ­everything flips.

Mancini’s strengths became his weaknesses overnight because it suited the people who sacked him to tell it that way.

Forgive me, but I was unaware that Sir Alex Ferguson was viewed as a man of pure benevolence even in the demi-deification of impending ­retirement.

I must have imagined the fact he became known as the ­Hairdryer because of the ­fearsome abuse he could dish out to his players. I must have misremembered him terrorising players, trying to control the minutiae of their lives.

I must have ­misinterpreted those stories about Brian Clough punching Roy Keane because he underhit a backpass.

I must have been misled when I read stories about Bill Shankly treating injured players as if they did not exist.

The point is, surely, that if we get to the stage where we make judgments about football managers based on their manners, we will be picking from a thin field. Football managers are, by necessity, dictatorial, bombastic, defensive, obsessed and ­ruthless. The great ones probably even more than the rest.

Jose ­Mourinho anyone?

So let’s forget all this ­revisionist spin that Mancini was fired because he didn’t smile at the club receptionist often enough. And let’s remember that he was fired by a club who offered him the job while Mark Hughes was still the manager. And who appear to have offered it to Manuel Pellegrini while Mancini was still the manager.

No one can run for the moral high ground in football because there isn’t any.

The character assassination of Mancini doesn’t wash. There’s no need for it. It smacks of people at the club trying too hard to excuse a decision that is deeply unpopular with the supporters. City made the decision for football reasons and they should not have to disguise that.

They fired Mancini because he didn’t win the league and, for the second season in succession, he failed to get past the group stage of the Champions League.

Their difficulty is that it is hard to defend a decision to sack a manager 12 months to the day after he won the league title. Their difficulty is that it would be unwise to point out that Mancini is the victim of a power struggle between him and Soriano and Begiristain.

That, essentially, is what the “need to develop a holistic approach to all aspects of ­football at the club” meant. It was a gloriously funny euphemism for the fact that they want the manager to be subservient to the chief ­executive and the sporting director.

Mancini railed against that. Just as Ferguson would have done. But Ferguson was hailed as the last of the great patriarchs.

Mancini was damned as the bloke who didn’t say hello to the kit-man.

Great analysis imo

 

[terry_phealens_mum]

1st trophy after supporting City for 25+ years
beating United 6 - 1
Winnining First Title in my Lifetime

For this I will remember his tenure with fondness

Best of Luck Bobby

 

[Berkovic_blue]

:')

[bigimg]http://sphotos-d.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/971284_554749241215076_1500580934_n.jpg[/bigimg]

That's class tbf.

I've reported Jacques posts, plenty of other threads for that. let's keep this one for Blues who aren't ungrateful and want to show some appreciation for what Mancini did for our club<br /><br />-- Wed May 15, 2013 4:27 pm --<br /><br />

Glad to hear the Mancini song loud and clear last night. If anyone had said on the day Roberto was appointed that he'd only stay for 3 full seasons, but that in that time he would lead us to win the FA cup and play in another final, win the PL and finish second and third and reach a league cup semi final, I wouldn't have believed them. But what he also did was give the club and fans an even greater pride in City than ever. He donned the City scarf with pride and his elegant attire and stylish hair gave City a class absent for years. He was a defiant presence which proclaimed "we're Manchester City, we know who we are." The 6-1 was pricless and the spat on the touch line with Fergie was a wonderful symbol of the fact that City took second place to no-one. Hopefully the Sheikh's vision for the club will come closer to realisation in the next few years, but Roberto has played an enormous role in the rebirth of the club, and I for one will never forget what he did for us. Thank you Roberto.

Not forgetting his promise to tear THAT banner down, which he duly delivered.