The Same Old Traps

[OB1]

You really think we would give him a 4 year contract and sack him so soon? Thankfully the decision makers are a wise bunch who employed him in the first place.

Who are you suggesting we get and what if he wins neither the Prem or the CL? Sack him too? What is acceptable to you? How long has he got?

The CL is very important but it takes time. The players and manager will get there and then the anti Mancini posters will disappear just as they did when we won the Prem after most said we never would. Mancini's overall record even accounting for money spent is astonishingly good. The fact this is even up for debate is embarrassing.

Mancini, if he got the sack at the end of the season, would not be the first to have been given a new contract and then been sacked. I think our board/owner do take a longer-term view than most but football club owners have been known to act on a whim. However, since Bobby got that contract, a new CEO has been appointed and, if as rumours suggest, he appoints a new Director of Football in the near future, they may bring a different perspective to things.

I would not agree with you that Bobby has done an astonishingly well in the job. He's done a decent job (say 7/10) and, IMO, a good enough job to deserve more time, even if he wins nothing this year So I'm not proposing Bobby should lose his job but I can envisage scenarios where his tenure could be much shorter than you would like it to be. I'd also add that there are very few managers that I think it would be worth considering replacing Bobby with but my current short-list, in no particular order, would be Klopp, Mourinho and Guardiola.

 

[Anonymous]

You really think we would give him a 4 year contract and sack him so soon? Thankfully the decision makers are a wise bunch who employed him in the first place.

Who are you suggesting we get and what if he wins neither the Prem or the CL? Sack him too? What is acceptable to you? How long has he got?

The CL is very important but it takes time. The players and manager will get there and then the anti Mancini posters will disappear just as they did when we won the Prem after most said we never would. Mancini's overall record even accounting for money spent is astonishingly good. The fact this is even up for debate is embarrassing.

Mancini, if he got the sack at the end of the season, would not be the first to have been given a new contract and then been sacked. I think our board/owner do take a longer-term view than most but football club owners have been known to act on a whim. However, since Bobby got that contract, a new CEO has been appointed and, if as rumours suggest, he appoints a new Director of Football in the near future, they may bring a different perspective to things.

I would not agree with you that Bobby has done an astonishingly well in the job. He's done a decent job (say 7/10) and, IMO, a good enough job to deserve more time, even if he wins nothing this year So I'm not proposing Bobby should lose his job but I can envisage scenarios where his tenure could be much shorter than you would like it to be. I'd also add that there are very few managers that I think it would be worth considering replacing Bobby with but my current short-list, in no particular order, would be Klopp, Mourinho and Guardiola.

OB if you were in front of me I'd hug you for bringing real objectivity to the discussion rather than some of the hackneyed stuff i've read today.

Is hackneyed even a word ?

 

[Cobwebcat]

You really think we would give him a 4 year contract and sack him so soon? Thankfully the decision makers are a wise bunch who employed him in the first place.

Who are you suggesting we get and what if he wins neither the Prem or the CL? Sack him too? What is acceptable to you? How long has he got?

The CL is very important but it takes time. The players and manager will get there and then the anti Mancini posters will disappear just as they did when we won the Prem after most said we never would. Mancini's overall record even accounting for money spent is astonishingly good. The fact this is even up for debate is embarrassing.

Mancini, if he got the sack at the end of the season, would not be the first to have been given a new contract and then been sacked. I think our board/owner do take a longer-term view than most but football club owners have been known to act on a whim. However, since Bobby got that contract, a new CEO has been appointed and, if as rumours suggest, he appoints a new Director of Football in the near future, they may bring a different perspective to things.

I would not agree with you that Bobby has done an astonishingly well in the job. He's done a decent job (say 7/10) and, IMO, a good enough job to deserve more time, even if he wins nothing this year So I'm not proposing Bobby should lose his job but I can envisage scenarios where his tenure could be much shorter than you would like it to be. I'd also add that there are very few managers that I think it would be worth considering replacing Bobby with but my current short-list, in no particular order, would be Klopp, Mourinho and Guardiola.

OB if you were in front of me I'd hug you for bringing real objectivity to the discussion rather than some of the hackneyed stuff i've read today.

Is hackneyed even a word ?

OK when people have stopped hugging each other I'll apologise.

My trouble is that I'm a stats geek and part-time Footall statitician. I don't trust my own perceptions let alone others.

Forums are for debate and I make a rod for my own back because I should know that people believe what they like even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Certain things can be, and have been, caluclated by academics and mathematicians. Occassionally I read an opinion that I know not to be true like "teams often play better with ten men" it's not true but lots of people still say it. It makes me more mad than it should ;-)

The most annoying thing to me is posters that really put themselves forward as a cut above in the knowledge steaks and yet are consistently wrong. I'm afraid Didsbury Dave is a prime example...full of self importance but proveably incorrect more times than most. It's not the negativity... I would be the same if he were being positive but still wrong. However it is a lot easier to be negative in my opinion..people like complaining more than they do praising (and that's measureable too!)

You mention you would give Mancini 7/10. I would give him a higher mark because I can see figures showing how good he is but people will generally ignore them because it doesn't fit what they believe.

If we just take Mancini, there are only a handfull of managers better, but there are a few admittedly. Since he's taken over this is what I've seen from people that don't believe we should carry on with him:

"Mancini is not the right appointment he will never win us a trophy"

Mancini wins the FA Cup.

"OK so he won a cup but he didn't get us into the Chamions League we finished 5th"

Mancini gets us into the Champions League

"Yeah but we need to win the Premiership with our funds we've got no chance with Mancini in charge"

Mancini wins the Premiership

The same people are back now saying "Mancini will never do well in Europe he never has"

You can perhaps see my frustration. I'm no happy clapper and City have made lots of errors but appointing Mancini wasn't one of them. If we were to fire him at the moment it would be a mistake and I'd criticise City for it. At the moment I don't think we will so I argue with the people who think we should.

I shouldn't bother though I've only ever changed my own incorrect perceptions with stats never another posters. Football is very emotive, it's the modern day religion, and it doesn't matter how many skulls you show someone if they want to believe God created man and earth in 7 days.

I'll look out for Goo's posts in future. Not because he is being positive but because I can see that many of his points are proveably correct in the same way that many of DD's are nonsense (though he is perfectly entitled to believe them)

 

[WyongBlue]

I have been avoiding this board since the Ajax loss, but since returning I am not surprised one bit to see us falling into the same old traps that we always do after a loss. The media cracks the 'blame game' whip and we all march in line. It really is astonishing for a group of fans to be so conscious of the way the media works one day, and the next day to then lead the line of dissent conducted by the tabloid press.

The Mancini outer's have been out en masse since the final whistle in Amsterdam and it felt like the posts were already written in anticipation.

European football isn't something that the bank balance can govern. That just helps you on your way. The time necessary to bring a club from regular entrants to the Champions League, to regular knock out places is vast. I'm sure a few statistical boffins could come up with a few outliers, but the fact remains that throughout history, English clubs have taken a very long time to come to terms with the rigors of European football. We have a manger who has won us the FA Cup and the league title in the last two years. Remind me how long it took Ferguson to win anything at Old Trafford? Well it was 6 years. It also took him a fair chunk of time to be able to show any convincing upward trajectory in Europe. Wenger can also be used for historical reference. One of the best managers in the premier league era and still not one the Champions League. That says far more about the Champions League than Arsene Wenger, that's for sure. Finally, the last yard stick I'll use is Chelsea. The never ending changing of managers, high player turnover, and like us, millions of pounds pumped into winning the competition and they needed all the luck in the world to finally clinch it almost a decade after his project began. 6th in the league, yet champions of Europe.

Why can't that be us? Well it would start if we were seeding in pot 1. In our maiden season in the champions league we were seeded to fail. I know that imbalance of fairness can be broken from time to time, but it's still worth noting it's existence. This season we've been in pot two yet had a group that makes us look like pot 3 once again. Dortmund, Read, and Ajax are our current group and we're expected to do just as well as a team handed Cluj, Galatasaray, and Braga. Just because we don't hear Dortmund's name when the biggest clubs in Europe are mentioned (AC, Inter, Barca, Real, Bayern, etc) doesn't mean they're mugs for the taking. Last night when we were all sulking over a defeat, Dortmund were celebrating beating Real Madrid. That's a big deal when you consider Real's players, manager, and Champions League experience. Ajax nearly held the same team to a draw in Amsterdam. We're not playing poor teams by any stretch of the imagination. I firmly believe that you need three things to do well in the Champions League; Top quality players/Top quality manager/Top quality experience of playing together. We have the first two. The third is in the process of being secured.

Mancini is a great manager. Deep down we all know it, but the slow dripping of media-conjured doubt over his job makes everyone shake like a shitting dog with fear that he might not be the man. The only managers who have won the Champions League in such a short time are managers who have inherited the first and final necessities I mentioned above, and have themselves been the second requirement. Mancini is the second, but inherited none of the others. There is an argument he initially had some quality players, but mostly not CL quality. Now we have the players, the manager, and we're just waiting on that elusive experience. We need time to develop as a team, as players, and as a club. With that in mind we should all be saying "Fuck it, I can see the bigger picture here"

I've also noticed that even the new signings are getting it in the neck. Hardly any of them have even featured yet. Again if we look at the history we know it takes some players (if not most players) months to get into the rhythm of their new team, why should this lot be any different? I distinctly remember the resident flappers wishing we'd signed Van Der Vaart instead of Silva during his early days. Looking back that is sheer lunacy, and he's arguable our best player, not to mention one of the best attacking midfielders in the world! Same happened with Yaya when he first signed. Now he's widely regarded as the best midfielder in the league, and rightly so. Why should we expect Garcia to fire on all cylinders after one or two games? Sure that'd be lovely, but it's not realistic. Nastasic looks quality and young, just what we wanted instead of Savic. Sinclair is an as-good-as-version of Johnson, who is younger and seems very willing to learn. Again, exactly what we wanted from a young squad player. Maicon has vast experience, could make our first XI while also provides cover allowing Micah to move to centre back when needed, and hopefully will have a 'Vieira' effect on the younger players. Again, ticking important boxes. Finally Rodwell. A young promising player who with any luck will take over from Barry when he either moves on or hangs his boots. Last summer when he was rumored to join United, people were hailing him as the new Scholes. Be that prediction true or not, it just goes to show that he's rated very highly. Give the guys a chance. These transfers are not "baffling" or hard to understand in the slightest. They fulfill necessary roles in our team.

This club we all love is forever showing evidence that we're heading in the right direction since Mancini took over. Just because we hit a few stumbling blocks (namely in Europe) along the way is no reason to assume he's tactically inept! Short term evaluation is definitely the wrong way to go about assessing ones managerial credentials. That's been proven to us time and time again.

"There is nothing new in the world except the history you do not know." - Harry S. Truman


DISCLAIMER: Before anyone decides to bite my head off, this is all my opinion of course, as always :)

Very good post, Goo................

 

[Didsbury Dave]

Mancini, if he got the sack at the end of the season, would not be the first to have been given a new contract and then been sacked. I think our board/owner do take a longer-term view than most but football club owners have been known to act on a whim. However, since Bobby got that contract, a new CEO has been appointed and, if as rumours suggest, he appoints a new Director of Football in the near future, they may bring a different perspective to things.

I would not agree with you that Bobby has done an astonishingly well in the job. He's done a decent job (say 7/10) and, IMO, a good enough job to deserve more time, even if he wins nothing this year So I'm not proposing Bobby should lose his job but I can envisage scenarios where his tenure could be much shorter than you would like it to be. I'd also add that there are very few managers that I think it would be worth considering replacing Bobby with but my current short-list, in no particular order, would be Klopp, Mourinho and Guardiola.

OB if you were in front of me I'd hug you for bringing real objectivity to the discussion rather than some of the hackneyed stuff i've read today.

Is hackneyed even a word ?

OK when people have stopped hugging each other I'll apologise.

My trouble is that I'm a stats geek and part-time Footall statitician. I don't trust my own perceptions let alone others.

Forums are for debate and I make a rod for my own back because I should know that people believe what they like even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Certain things can be, and have been, caluclated by academics and mathematicians. Occassionally I read an opinion that I know not to be true like "teams often play better with ten men" it's not true but lots of people still say it. It makes me more mad than it should ;-)

The most annoying thing to me is posters that really put themselves forward as a cut above in the knowledge steaks and yet are consistently wrong. I'm afraid Didsbury Dave is a prime example...full of self importance but proveably incorrect more times than most. It's not the negativity... I would be the same if he were being positive but still wrong. However it is a lot easier to be negative in my opinion..people like complaining more than they do praising (and that's measureable too!)

You mention you would give Mancini 7/10. I would give him a higher mark because I can see figures showing how good he is but people will generally ignore them because it doesn't fit what they believe.

If we just take Mancini, there are only a handfull of managers better, but there are a few admittedly. Since he's taken over this is what I've seen from people that don't believe we should carry on with him:

"Mancini is not the right appointment he will never win us a trophy"

Mancini wins the FA Cup.

"OK so he won a cup but he didn't get us into the Chamions League we finished 5th"

Mancini gets us into the Champions League

"Yeah but we need to win the Premiership with our funds we've got no chance with Mancini in charge"

Mancini wins the Premiership

The same people are back now saying "Mancini will never do well in Europe he never has"

You can perhaps see my frustration. I'm no happy clapper and City have made lots of errors but appointing Mancini wasn't one of them. If we were to fire him at the moment it would be a mistake and I'd criticise City for it. At the moment I don't think we will so I argue with the people who think we should.

I shouldn't bother though I've only ever changed my own incorrect perceptions with stats never another posters. Football is very emotive, it's the modern day religion, and it doesn't matter how many skulls you show someone if they want to believe God created man and earth in 7 days.

congratulations for your first post on the thread where you haven't been calling people idiots and twonks and other bizarre insults for not agreeing with you.

Definitely progress.

Anyway, I've a game to watch.

 

[Cobwebcat]

OB if you were in front of me I'd hug you for bringing real objectivity to the discussion rather than some of the hackneyed stuff i've read today.

Is hackneyed even a word ?

OK when people have stopped hugging each other I'll apologise.

My trouble is that I'm a stats geek and part-time Footall statitician. I don't trust my own perceptions let alone others.

Forums are for debate and I make a rod for my own back because I should know that people believe what they like even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Certain things can be, and have been, caluclated by academics and mathematicians. Occassionally I read an opinion that I know not to be true like "teams often play better with ten men" it's not true but lots of people still say it. It makes me more mad than it should ;-)

The most annoying thing to me is posters that really put themselves forward as a cut above in the knowledge steaks and yet are consistently wrong. I'm afraid Didsbury Dave is a prime example...full of self importance but proveably incorrect more times than most. It's not the negativity... I would be the same if he were being positive but still wrong. However it is a lot easier to be negative in my opinion..people like complaining more than they do praising (and that's measureable too!)

You mention you would give Mancini 7/10. I would give him a higher mark because I can see figures showing how good he is but people will generally ignore them because it doesn't fit what they believe.

If we just take Mancini, there are only a handfull of managers better, but there are a few admittedly. Since he's taken over this is what I've seen from people that don't believe we should carry on with him:

"Mancini is not the right appointment he will never win us a trophy"

Mancini wins the FA Cup.

"OK so he won a cup but he didn't get us into the Chamions League we finished 5th"

Mancini gets us into the Champions League

"Yeah but we need to win the Premiership with our funds we've got no chance with Mancini in charge"

Mancini wins the Premiership

The same people are back now saying "Mancini will never do well in Europe he never has"

You can perhaps see my frustration. I'm no happy clapper and City have made lots of errors but appointing Mancini wasn't one of them. If we were to fire him at the moment it would be a mistake and I'd criticise City for it. At the moment I don't think we will so I argue with the people who think we should.

I shouldn't bother though I've only ever changed my own incorrect perceptions with stats never another posters. Football is very emotive, it's the modern day religion, and it doesn't matter how many skulls you show someone if they want to believe God created man and earth in 7 days.

congratulations for your first post on the thread where you haven't been calling people idiots and twonks and other bizarre insults for not agreeing with you.

Definitely progress.

Anyway, I've a game to watch.

Well I apologised for that.. though you're not exactly blameless on that score.

Enjoy the game and you are a twonk.

 

[Kazzydeyna]

Fantastic post OP. brilliant

Sadly many of the "bluemoon massive" will be only too keen to disagree.

Some clowns were advocating Benitez in the Mancini tenure thread.

Mods - more posters like the OP please!

 

[ecmurphy]

That is a great point. We have won a lot and improved so much since we've had Mancini we shouldn't expect Champion's league success quite yet.

 

[OB1]

OB if you were in front of me I'd hug you for bringing real objectivity to the discussion rather than some of the hackneyed stuff i've read today.

Is hackneyed even a word ?

Cheers. And, yes, that is a word.

 

[Blue Mooner]

Mancini, if he got the sack at the end of the season, would not be the first to have been given a new contract and then been sacked. I think our board/owner do take a longer-term view than most but football club owners have been known to act on a whim. However, since Bobby got that contract, a new CEO has been appointed and, if as rumours suggest, he appoints a new Director of Football in the near future, they may bring a different perspective to things.

I would not agree with you that Bobby has done an astonishingly well in the job. He's done a decent job (say 7/10) and, IMO, a good enough job to deserve more time, even if he wins nothing this year So I'm not proposing Bobby should lose his job but I can envisage scenarios where his tenure could be much shorter than you would like it to be. I'd also add that there are very few managers that I think it would be worth considering replacing Bobby with but my current short-list, in no particular order, would be Klopp, Mourinho and Guardiola.

OB if you were in front of me I'd hug you for bringing real objectivity to the discussion rather than some of the hackneyed stuff i've read today.

Is hackneyed even a word ?

OK when people have stopped hugging each other I'll apologise.

My trouble is that I'm a stats geek and part-time Footall statitician. I don't trust my own perceptions let alone others.

Forums are for debate and I make a rod for my own back because I should know that people believe what they like even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Certain things can be, and have been, caluclated by academics and mathematicians. Occassionally I read an opinion that I know not to be true like "teams often play better with ten men" it's not true but lots of people still say it. It makes me more mad than it should ;-)

The most annoying thing to me is posters that really put themselves forward as a cut above in the knowledge steaks and yet are consistently wrong. I'm afraid Didsbury Dave is a prime example...full of self importance but proveably incorrect more times than most. It's not the negativity... I would be the same if he were being positive but still wrong. However it is a lot easier to be negative in my opinion..people like complaining more than they do praising (and that's measureable too!)

You mention you would give Mancini 7/10. I would give him a higher mark because I can see figures showing how good he is but people will generally ignore them because it doesn't fit what they believe.

If we just take Mancini, there are only a handfull of managers better, but there are a few admittedly. Since he's taken over this is what I've seen from people that don't believe we should carry on with him:

"Mancini is not the right appointment he will never win us a trophy"

Mancini wins the FA Cup.

"OK so he won a cup but he didn't get us into the Chamions League we finished 5th"

Mancini gets us into the Champions League

"Yeah but we need to win the Premiership with our funds we've got no chance with Mancini in charge"

Mancini wins the Premiership

The same people are back now saying "Mancini will never do well in Europe he never has"

You can perhaps see my frustration. I'm no happy clapper and City have made lots of errors but appointing Mancini wasn't one of them. If we were to fire him at the moment it would be a mistake and I'd criticise City for it. At the moment I don't think we will so I argue with the people who think we should.

I shouldn't bother though I've only ever changed my own incorrect perceptions with stats never another posters. Football is very emotive, it's the modern day religion, and it doesn't matter how many skulls you show someone if they want to believe God created man and earth in 7 days.

I'll look out for Goo's posts in future. Not because he is being positive but because I can see that many of his points are proveably correct in the same way that many of DD's are nonsense (though he is perfectly entitled to believe them)

Fantastic post cobweb, agree wholeheartedly!