Rammy said:gregblag said:Great post.
+1
Sums the game up perfectly imo, I just can't translate my thoughts as well as ono.
Dubai Blue said:You're comparing apples with turnips here though GStar. It's human nature (and absolute common sense) to have more long-term faith in a man who has a proven track record of success than in a man who hasn't. Like it or not, being able to point to a bunch of winner's medals earned as a manager tends to ease people's worries a bit when things don't quite go as we'd like.GStar said:Or being huge hypocrites by backing Mancini to the hilt and giving other managers no time of day what so ever.
Rammy said:gregblag said:Great post.
+1
Sums the game up perfectly imo, I just can't translate my thoughts as well as ono.
And you must be high on crack and cider!JULES said:christ you`re a real barrel of laughs
Mancini: I'll need a couple of months to make it work
tottenham 0
man city 0
By Ian Herbert
Monday August 16 2010
Visiting Italian managers can find it difficult to get into the ascendancy at White Hart Lane. Just ask Fabio Capello, who had to loiter for five minutes in reception on Saturday, making small talk to security staff because his companion did not have the right dress code to go up to the VIP area.
In a footballing sense, Roberto Mancini had the same kind of experience. He was the one with £106m of new talent, but it was Harry Redknapp who was on the up -- his same players who bounced City out of the fourth Champions League spot in April have apparently widened the gap between themselves and the big spenders.
Mancini's Serbian left-back Aleksandar Kolarov, sidelined at half-time with a knee injury, looks a seriously good acquisition but none of the others looked ready. That is a temporary situation but the discontent of those players who find themselves on the margins of Mancini's team -- Shay Given foremost among them, after Mancini identified Joe Hart as his No 1 -- looks permanent.
It is unclear whether Hart's impressive display, which included four top-class saves, will further cement his pre-eminence in Mancini's pecking order -- it is Given's command of his box, not his shot-stopping, that the City manager questions, and that part of Hart's repertoire was not put to the test at Tottenham.
But Given is unlikely to see it that way, despite the joke he managed to lean back and share with his sideline companions after Hart's second save.
With a bench valued at £90m on Saturday, Mancini will need a diplomat's powers to maintain harmony. In his defence, he declared that he had spoken to all the players, informing them that their playing time might now be more limited.
"All of them except Craig Bellamy," Mancini added, his grin hinting at a continued determination to see Bellamy out of the club.
"Management is difficult," he continued. "You have 20, 25 good players, and every three days have to choose 11 players. The others are sure not to be happy."
Mancini related the story of his early days as an 19-year-old struggling to make Renzo Ulivieri's first XI at Sampdoria as evidence that he has lived through what some of his players are experiencing.
"I stayed on the bench for many games and I was angry every game," Mancini recalled. "That is normal. Every day you must work to convince the manager to change his decision."
Redknapp believes Mancini is in an impossible position.
"Sometimes I think you can cause your own problems having too many players around," he observed.
"I'd hate to have another striker -- I wouldn't care who it was. I'd have five strikers, what would you do with them? Four is plenty."
Mancini is certainly going to some unexpected lengths to keep his personnel happy. Even Carlos Tevez, one of the few who need never worry about the teamsheet, needs some appeasement, judging by Mancini's curious decision to hand him the captaincy that had been Kolo Toure's.
Vincent Kompany or Nigel de Jong seem far better candidates than Tevez, whose relationship with Mancini was strained last season. Tevez didn't take up the role with great vim on Saturday, although he was suffering with a severe sore throat heading into the game.
Redknapp, who seems disgruntled by his club's failure to pick up free agent William Gallas, suggested that City would struggle to hit the top four, although little can be read into this performance.
Sublime
David Silva, who Mancini said on Friday was not match-ready, was indeed not match-ready. Neither was Yaya Toure, outmuscled by Tom Huddlestone and the wonderfully versatile Luka Modric in the midfield battle. Micah Richards's horrible afternoon against a sublime Gareth Bale made one worry for him.
The gulf between the sides was tactical. City lacked a striker because Tevez felt he had to head back into midfield to forage for the ball and only looked a force once Emmanuel Adebayor arrived for the last eight minutes. Tottenham had a striker in Peter Crouch, whom Aaron Lennon repeatedly found.
World Cup hangover? It was as if South Africa had never happened.
Mancini's estimate of the time it will take his side to be ready has now increased from the "two or three weeks" -- his assessment on Friday -- to "one month, maybe two months to make it work".
But neither City, nor those unsettled players, care for hanging around.
For Mancini, it is to be hoped there is not an unhappy omen in the story of his battles with Ulivieri at Sampdoria.
The Italian was asked about the outcome of his frustrations there. "They changed the manager!" he replied. (© Independent News Service)
- Ian Herbert
Irish Independent
macmanson said:Time to trot out the excuses now. Less than a week ago you were bragging about winning the league, now you need a month or two to get the team playing right? Am I reading a Hughes interview here?
And for fuck's sake, shut up about Bellamy already, we get it, you don't like him. Continuing to talk about him after "you've put your foot down" smacks of a little bitches attitude and not authority. If you are done with the guy, then be done with it.
pigshitfathellensbellend said:regardless of the influx of new players, bonding etc, i cannot help but feel mancini again yesterday served up more of his anti football and without the brilliance of joe hart his negativity would once again have been exposed.
to my mind thats 7 games out of 8 against top sides under mancini tenure where we have barely mustered a shot. everton home and away last season, liverpool at home, arsenal away, utd at home. and now spurs at home and away. (the exception chelsea away)
in a sport that is results driven, it's just such a turn off, you work all week, spend a small fortune on tickets and travel and the manager cannot even be arsed to commit any players forward.
i suppose in the context of the league a 0-0 at spurs is a bloody good result, but the method and the style just doesn't appeal to me one bit.
i expect to get shot down in flames, but it's a forum and it's my view, and i want to see city trying to win games, not stifle the life out of them, and that has become a regular trend under mancini against the top sides.
I'm pretty sure he was referring to Mancini mentioning Bellamy in his post-match interview.GStar said:macmanson said:Time to trot out the excuses now. Less than a week ago you were bragging about winning the league, now you need a month or two to get the team playing right? Am I reading a Hughes interview here?
And for fuck's sake, shut up about Bellamy already, we get it, you don't like him. Continuing to talk about him after "you've put your foot down" smacks of a little bitches attitude and not authority. If you are done with the guy, then be done with it.
You might have a point wit the Mancini/Hughes interview, but who aer you to tell us to shut up about Bellamy?
Who do you support, its not City, so what are you doing on here... we're talking about Bellamy in house; on this forum. If you don't want to read about it, don't click the links.
DD said:Anyone who thinks we ground out a draw because of great tactical nouse (and there are some) is deluded. We got a draw in spite of the tactics, not because of them.
If we continue to play good teams with three midfielders protecting the back four, we are going to end up losing the vast majority.
The midfield three did not protect the back four as shots rained in left, right and centre, so there's that myth debunked.
The fact of the matter is, if you set your stall out to defend, then you invite the opposition on to you and you build up their confidence. At the end of the day, they will have sustained pressure because of those tactics and the chances are that pressure will result in them scoring.
These tactics will cost us dearly. The best way to defend is to do it from the halfway line, and keep the ball in their half, not to camp out near our own box and hope that the number of bodies will keep them out and that the ricochets will all go our way.
If we are a team worthy of the top four, then we should not be going anywhere afraid of playing to our strengths. Too often, we are tailoring our game to suit the opposition ('suit' being the appropriate word) rather than letting them think about how they are going to tackle us.
Liverpool at home last year was a glorious example of a time when we could have won if we'd have gone for it. On our own soil, we decided to play it tight, and whilst they didn't have a shot, neither did we. Some buffoons on here had it down as a tactical masterclass. In reality, it was tactical fuckwittery of the highest order. Given the attacking players we have now got, if we see that same tactic next Monday, then I will have lost all faith in this manager. The difference between 3 and 1 is double that between 1 and 0, and if we don't start taking a few more risks to get those 3 points, then we are not going to make the top four and that is a fact.
GStar said:macmanson said:Time to trot out the excuses now. Less than a week ago you were bragging about winning the league, now you need a month or two to get the team playing right? Am I reading a Hughes interview here?
And for fuck's sake, shut up about Bellamy already, we get it, you don't like him. Continuing to talk about him after "you've put your foot down" smacks of a little bitches attitude and not authority. If you are done with the guy, then be done with it.
You might have a point wit the Mancini/Hughes interview, but who aer you to tell us to shut up about Bellamy?
Who do you support, its not City, so what are you doing on here... we're talking about Bellamy in house; on this forum. If you don't want to read about it, don't click the links.
Chick Counterfly said:DD said:Anyone who thinks we ground out a draw because of great tactical nouse (and there are some) is deluded. We got a draw in spite of the tactics, not because of them.
If we continue to play good teams with three midfielders protecting the back four, we are going to end up losing the vast majority.
The midfield three did not protect the back four as shots rained in left, right and centre, so there's that myth debunked.
The fact of the matter is, if you set your stall out to defend, then you invite the opposition on to you and you build up their confidence. At the end of the day, they will have sustained pressure because of those tactics and the chances are that pressure will result in them scoring.
These tactics will cost us dearly. The best way to defend is to do it from the halfway line, and keep the ball in their half, not to camp out near our own box and hope that the number of bodies will keep them out and that the ricochets will all go our way.
If we are a team worthy of the top four, then we should not be going anywhere afraid of playing to our strengths. Too often, we are tailoring our game to suit the opposition ('suit' being the appropriate word) rather than letting them think about how they are going to tackle us.
Liverpool at home last year was a glorious example of a time when we could have won if we'd have gone for it. On our own soil, we decided to play it tight, and whilst they didn't have a shot, neither did we. Some buffoons on here had it down as a tactical masterclass. In reality, it was tactical fuckwittery of the highest order. Given the attacking players we have now got, if we see that same tactic next Monday, then I will have lost all faith in this manager. The difference between 3 and 1 is double that between 1 and 0, and if we don't start taking a few more risks to get those 3 points, then we are not going to make the top four and that is a fact.
rubbish, I don't even know where to begin with a post like that. that's someone's personal view, but it's just not backed up by what happened, or the bigger picture. tottenham's confidence waned badly as the game went on, so, err.... that's half the post ruined.
when we play this way we concede very few goals, so that old chestnut 'the best form of defense is attack' chestnut doesn't apply either.
yes, keeping them at a distance is better, you'll notice that after an initial flurry their biggest threat were the shots from distance..
but really it's just more kneejerkery after one game. we haven't reached our destination, yet. 3 deep midfielders provides a platform for attack, a way of exploiting the phsyical and technical superiority of your players. but it requires everyone to in very good shape and it requires a lot of co-ordination. we're not there yet.
on the plus side, Mancini clearly got the Hart call 100% correct. And his change in the second half, swapping tevez in the hole, using swp and silva as dummy strikers making runs on the inside of their fullback, worked instantly, within a couple of minutes their offside trap had been broken and SWP should have scored. we ran the midfield in the second half but as it went on it became clear we needed a target, on went Ade (and missed two good chances). it was a game that showed we lacked match practice and sharpness, but not tactical guidance.
I really wonder about the level of tactical sophistication on this board. I know that some people much prefer the English model but it leads to people jumping all over our tactics whenever we don't get the result we want....in this case I think we did get a good result but it makes no difference, people will have a go and trot out the same old stuff, opinion presented as self-evident fact. Better get used to it, we will use Zonal defence, a deep line, with as many as three players closing off the angles in front.
I bet you that this year we score more and concede less than we've managed in fourty years (in the top flight at least). (just like we did in the second half of last year). are you taking that bet? doesn't that tell it's own story?
p.s. your game theory is wrong as well.
because the other team is a rival, who could finish within 6 points of us
0 points is really -3.
that's why you have to avoid losing to them. if we'd have done it last year......
Chick Counterfly said:DD said:Anyone who thinks we ground out a draw because of great tactical nouse (and there are some) is deluded. We got a draw in spite of the tactics, not because of them.
If we continue to play good teams with three midfielders protecting the back four, we are going to end up losing the vast majority.
The midfield three did not protect the back four as shots rained in left, right and centre, so there's that myth debunked.
The fact of the matter is, if you set your stall out to defend, then you invite the opposition on to you and you build up their confidence. At the end of the day, they will have sustained pressure because of those tactics and the chances are that pressure will result in them scoring.
These tactics will cost us dearly. The best way to defend is to do it from the halfway line, and keep the ball in their half, not to camp out near our own box and hope that the number of bodies will keep them out and that the ricochets will all go our way.
If we are a team worthy of the top four, then we should not be going anywhere afraid of playing to our strengths. Too often, we are tailoring our game to suit the opposition ('suit' being the appropriate word) rather than letting them think about how they are going to tackle us.
Liverpool at home last year was a glorious example of a time when we could have won if we'd have gone for it. On our own soil, we decided to play it tight, and whilst they didn't have a shot, neither did we. Some buffoons on here had it down as a tactical masterclass. In reality, it was tactical fuckwittery of the highest order. Given the attacking players we have now got, if we see that same tactic next Monday, then I will have lost all faith in this manager. The difference between 3 and 1 is double that between 1 and 0, and if we don't start taking a few more risks to get those 3 points, then we are not going to make the top four and that is a fact.
rubbish, I don't even know where to begin with a post like that. that's someone's personal view, but it's just not backed up by what happened, or the bigger picture. tottenham's confidence waned badly as the game went on, so, err.... that's half the post ruined.
when we play this way we concede very few goals, so that old chestnut 'the best form of defense is attack' chestnut doesn't apply either.
yes, keeping them at a distance is better, you'll notice that after an initial flurry their biggest threat were the shots from distance..
but really it's just more kneejerkery after one game. we haven't reached our destination, yet. 3 deep midfielders provides a platform for attack, a way of exploiting the phsyical and technical superiority of your players. but it requires everyone to in very good shape and it requires a lot of co-ordination. we're not there yet.
on the plus side, Mancini clearly got the Hart call 100% correct. And his change in the second half, swapping tevez in the hole, using swp and silva as dummy strikers making runs on the inside of their fullback, worked instantly, within a couple of minutes their offside trap had been broken and SWP should have scored. we ran the midfield in the second half but as it went on it became clear we needed a target, on went Ade (and missed two good chances). it was a game that showed we lacked match practice and sharpness, but not tactical guidance.
I really wonder about the level of tactical sophistication on this board. I know that some people much prefer the English model but it leads to people jumping all over our tactics whenever we don't get the result we want....in this case I think we did get a good result but it makes no difference, people will have a go and trot out the same old stuff, opinion presented as self-evident fact. Better get used to it, we will use Zonal defence, a deep line, with as many as three players closing off the angles in front.
I bet you that this year we score more and concede less than we've managed in fourty years (in the top flight at least). (just like we did in the second half of last year). are you taking that bet? doesn't that tell it's own story?
p.s. your game theory is wrong as well.
because the other team is a rival, who could finish within 6 points of us
0 points is really -3.
that's why you have to avoid losing to them. if we'd have done it last year......
macmanson said:I'm not talking about fans, I'm talking about Mancini continuing to talk about Bellamy in interviews, even when not asked about him.
BillyShears said:Chick Counterfly said:rubbish, I don't even know where to begin with a post like that. that's someone's personal view, but it's just not backed up by what happened, or the bigger picture. tottenham's confidence waned badly as the game went on, so, err.... that's half the post ruined.
when we play this way we concede very few goals, so that old chestnut 'the best form of defense is attack' chestnut doesn't apply either.
yes, keeping them at a distance is better, you'll notice that after an initial flurry their biggest threat were the shots from distance..
but really it's just more kneejerkery after one game. we haven't reached our destination, yet. 3 deep midfielders provides a platform for attack, a way of exploiting the phsyical and technical superiority of your players. but it requires everyone to in very good shape and it requires a lot of co-ordination. we're not there yet.
on the plus side, Mancini clearly got the Hart call 100% correct. And his change in the second half, swapping tevez in the hole, using swp and silva as dummy strikers making runs on the inside of their fullback, worked instantly, within a couple of minutes their offside trap had been broken and SWP should have scored. we ran the midfield in the second half but as it went on it became clear we needed a target, on went Ade (and missed two good chances). it was a game that showed we lacked match practice and sharpness, but not tactical guidance.
I really wonder about the level of tactical sophistication on this board. I know that some people much prefer the English model but it leads to people jumping all over our tactics whenever we don't get the result we want....in this case I think we did get a good result but it makes no difference, people will have a go and trot out the same old stuff, opinion presented as self-evident fact. Better get used to it, we will use Zonal defence, a deep line, with as many as three players closing off the angles in front.
I bet you that this year we score more and concede less than we've managed in fourty years (in the top flight at least). (just like we did in the second half of last year). are you taking that bet? doesn't that tell it's own story?
p.s. your game theory is wrong as well.
because the other team is a rival, who could finish within 6 points of us
0 points is really -3.
that's why you have to avoid losing to them. if we'd have done it last year......
350 million plus pounds spent on players - I should fucking hope we score more and concede less than we've ever done.
Your tactical sophistication aside - I'm sure the people who are complaining simply don't like the brand of football Mancini served up last season, and against Spurs on Saturday, regardless of how "effective" it can be perceived to have been...
fathellensbellend said:i will cut to the chase, what kind of tactical genius sends out a team that is the envy of most, and yet barely musters a shot against the top sides.
Jonnos left peg said:You could argue the tactic was to defend quite deep let spurs throw everything at us (while burning energy) then make the changes required i.e. moving tevez, bringing on SWP + Ade to go for the counter punch.
It almost worked, if SWP had slotted that home, or Ade had his shooting boots on we'd be saying great away tactic, great timing of the subs.
It's all irrelevant, 2 key things that went to plan, we didn't concede, we didn't lose.